workflow-b17a56 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited workflow-b17a56 (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.
Orchestrate the development workflow for: $ARGUMENTS
You are the workflow conductor. You sequence 8 stages, enforce gates between them, dispatch to stage skills, and maintain a state file. You do NOT perform stage-specific work yourself — you delegate to the appropriate skill or sub-agent at each stage.
| # | Stage | Skill/Command | Gate (must pass before advancing) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ideation | /workflow-ideation | User confirms proceed (question 3d is not "confident no") |
| 2 | Dev-Time Docs | workflow Stage 2 (spec + claims) | Spec in .specs/ with frontmatter claims per .schemas/spec-v1.json |
| 3 | Planning | /workflows-plan | Plan file exists and user has approved it |
| 4 | Implementation | /workflows-work | All sub-agent summaries persisted to disk, all tests pass |
| 5 | Review | /workflows-review | All claims verified, no blocking findings |
| 6 | Revision | /workflow-revision | Review passes OR max iterations reached + user accepts |
| 7 | Compound | /workflows-compound | Learning captured |
| 8 | Reflection | /workflow-reflection | Spec claims updated, issues closed, branch merged or marked ready |
When invoked, first check for an existing workflow state:
cat .workflow/state.json 2>/dev/nullIf state exists and is not completed: Resume from currentStage. Show the dashboard and ask the user whether to continue or restart.
If no state exists: Initialize a new workflow:
workflow-$(date +%s | tail -c 5)Write to .workflow/state.json:
{
"id": "workflow-<short-id>",
"title": "<feature name from $ARGUMENTS>",
"branch": "<type>/<branch-name>",
"startedAt": "<ISO timestamp>",
"updatedAt": "<ISO timestamp>",
"currentStage": "ideation",
"stages": {
"ideation": { "status": "pending", "completedAt": null, "notes": "" },
"dev-docs": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "spec": null, "specClaims": null } },
"planning": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "plan": null } },
"implementation": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "summaries": [], "issues": [] } },
"review": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "findings": [] } },
"revision": { "status": "pending", "iterations": 0, "maxIterations": 3 },
"compound": { "status": "pending", "artifacts": { "solution": null } },
"reflection": { "status": "pending" }
}
}For each stage:
currentStage and stage status to "in_progress", update updatedAtartifacts in state with file paths"completed" with completedAt, move currentStage to next stageIf a gate condition is not met after the stage skill returns:
Stage 4 → 5 (Implementation → Review): Before dispatching review, run the between-stage check:
git fetch origin && git log origin/main --oneline -5If main has advanced, classify the conflict (no overlap / mechanical / semantic) before proceeding.
Stage 5 → 6 (Review → Revision): Only enter Revision if review found issues. If review is clean, skip directly to Stage 7 (Compound).
Stage 6 → 5 (Revision loop): Revision dispatches back to Review. This loop continues until review passes or maxIterations (3) is reached.
When dispatching implementation sub-agents (Stage 4), each must return its summary in this format. Persist each summary to disk immediately upon receipt:
## Sub-Agent Work Summary
### Task
- Branch: <current branch>
- Spec: .specs/<spec-file>.md (with frontmatter claims)
### Changes
- Files modified: [list with paths]
- Files created: [list with paths]
- Files deleted: [list with paths]
- Lines: +N / -N
### Claims
Specific, testable statements about what the implementation does.
Review sub-agents verify these claims rather than reading all the code.
1. "[Function/module X] handles [case Y] by [doing Z]"
- Verifiable by: [test name or command]
2. "[Component A] now [behaves in way B] when [condition C]"
- Verifiable by: [test name or command]
### Spec/Evidence Alignment
For each spec claim or acceptance criterion this unit touches:
- `SPEC-...:cN` "[claim statement]": [SATISFIED | PARTIAL | NOT YET] -- [brief evidence]
### Tests
- Tests written: N
- Tests passing: N/N
- Commands: `[exact test command to reproduce]`
- Coverage: [files/functions covered by tests]
### Known Gaps
- [anything not completed, deferred, or uncertain]
- [any divergence from spec with justification]
### Spec Conflicts
- [any active spec claim contradicted by this work; cite spec_id:claim_id]
- [leave empty if none found]
### Risks
- [anything that could break other parts of the system]
- [any assumptions made that should be verified]Save summaries to: .workflow/summaries/<branch-slug>-<task>.md
<type>[scope]: <description> format.After each stage transition, render this dashboard:
WORKFLOW: <title>
Branch: <branch>
Started: <startedAt>
Stage Status Artifacts
------- ------ ---------
1. Ideation [status] [notes excerpt]
2. Dev-Time Docs [status] spec: [path], claims: [count]
3. Planning [status] plan: [path]
4. Implementation [status] summaries: N, issues: N
5. Review [status] findings: N
6. Revision [status] iterations: N/3
7. Compound [status] [solution path]
8. Reflection [status]
Current: Stage N - <stage name>
Next action: <what to do next>Status symbols: [ ] pending, [~] in_progress, [x] completed, [-] skipped
When Stage 8 (Reflection) completes:
updatedAtIf you are resuming a workflow after a crash or context loss:
.workflow/state.json to determine where you werels .workflow/summaries/*.mdgit statusThe rationale, failure modes, and detailed process descriptions that inform this workflow are documented in docs/WORKFLOW-MASTER-DESCRIPTION.md. Consult it when you need to understand WHY a rule exists, not just WHAT the rule is.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.