executing-plans — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited executing-plans (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
<!-- Adapted from obra/superpowers executing-plans skill (v5.0.7), MIT-licensed, copyright 2025 Jesse Vincent. Modifications copyright 2026 Joe Amditis. v0.1.0 added a per-task drift check (default-on research). v0.2.0 replaced that with a one-time freshness check at execution start, default-skip with explicit triggers (cross-session plan, external API, main/master branch), fixing the "execution journal undefined" and "master-branch guardrail not in drift check" bugs surfaced by smoke testing. See CREDITS.md. -->
Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
Announce at start: "I'm using the superjawn:executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
Note: Tell your human partner that superjawn works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (such as Claude Code or Codex). If subagents are available, use superjawn:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
The plan was written at a point in time. Default-skip. Run only when one of these triggers fires:
main or master. Heightened drift risk because integration work assumes the branch is in sync, and other people landing commits can invalidate the plan's assumptions silently.If none of the triggers fire, write one line into the execution journal and proceed:
[YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM] Freshness check skipped — none of the triggers fired (current session, no external APIs, on feature branch <name>).Verify, in order, BEFORE running any tasks:
git log <plan-write-sha>..HEAD if you can identify when the plan was written; otherwise git log --since='1 week ago' --oneline. Has anyone landed conflicting work since the plan was drafted?Findings land in a per-plan execution journal at:
.superpowers/exec-journal-<plan-slug>.mdWhere <plan-slug> is the kebab-case basename of the plan file with the .md extension stripped (e.g., the plan file 2026-05-05-superjawn-batch-1.md produces the slug 2026-05-05-superjawn-batch-1, and the journal lands at .superpowers/exec-journal-2026-05-05-superjawn-batch-1.md). The journal is created on first run if it doesn't exist; entries are appended in chronological order. The directory .superpowers/ is git-ignored by upstream convention.
One line per check:
[YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM] Freshness check: <PASS / FAIL> — <one-line summary>If FAIL on any check, stop and escalate to your human partner before implementing — the plan may need revision.
If the trigger fired because you're on main or master, the freshness check ALSO requires explicit user consent before any implementation begins. Per the upstream rule "never start implementation on main/master without explicit user consent," ask first, then proceed. Document the consent in the journal as part of the freshness check entry.
For each task:
After all tasks complete and verified:
STOP executing immediately when:
Ask for clarification rather than guessing.
Return to Review (Step 1) when:
Don't force through blockers - stop and ask.
Required workflow skills:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.