forgecad-grade-model — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited forgecad-grade-model (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.
Grade the delivered model against the requirement, not against what could be fixed later. Never edit the model unless the user explicitly requests repairs — then record the baseline grade first, change, and re-grade.
Unknown.forgecad run <model>.forge.js (in the ForgeCAD repo use the local build, node dist-cli/forgecad.js run ...). If it fails to execute, stop and apply the caps.iso, front, right, top to a scratch dir; add views (back, bottom, close-up, section) when the model is asymmetric, hollow, mechanical, or likely to hide mistakes.forgecad-inspect-model skill. Findings (unexpected collisions, thin regions, floating bodies, wrong component counts) are evidence, not warnings to wave away..5 increments. Unknowns count against the score.| Dimension | Points | What To Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement fit | 4 | Satisfies the stated must-haves, captures the intended object/function, no drift into a generic substitute. |
| Geometric completeness | 2 | Correct silhouette, proportions, visible details, part boundaries, internal structure when required, no missing major components. |
| Mechanical/manufacturing plausibility | 2 | Believable materials/process, real interfaces, clear load paths, fasteners/seats/clearances where needed, no impossible assembly. |
| Validation health | 1 | Runs cleanly, renders from multiple views, targeted inspections reveal no major unaddressed issues. |
| Code/model quality | 1 | Parametric clarity, readable organization, meaningful names, no debug junk, appropriate ForgeCAD APIs. |
Anchors: 9-10 = evidence-backed match for the brief; 7-8 = recognizable and mostly complete, fixable gaps; 5-6 = main idea only; below 5 = broken or loosely related.
Maximum scores, applied after the rubric:
2.4.5.6.6.6.7.translate() placement, missing connector mates, or parent/child data flow confusion: max 7; max 6 when the violation makes the assembly brittle or mechanically wrong.6; max 5 when the defect invalidates the main function.scene() rig), a generically colorful or material-false palette, or teaching-diagram styling: max 8. Does not apply when the brief asks for a blockout or bare technical study.Unknown, never score above 8.Score: N / 10
Requirement checklist:
| Item | Result | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ... | Pass/Partial/Fail/Unknown | render/inspection/file evidence |
Evidence reviewed: run outcome; views inspected; inspection highlights.
Why this score: decisive strengths and defects.
Caps applied: list, or `None`.
Next fixes: the 2-5 highest-leverage improvements.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.