cloud-native-readiness — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cloud-native-readiness (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.
This skill evaluates a repository's readiness for cloud-native microservice deployment through a 3-phase workflow:
dockerfile-skill to containerizecloud-native-readiness
│
├─ Phase 1: Cloud-Native Assessment
│ ├─ NOT suitable → Report reasons, suggest remediation, END
│ └─ Suitable → Continue
│
├─ Phase 2: Existing Artifacts Detection
│ ├─ Found Dockerfile/docker-compose/image → Report existing setup, END
│ └─ Not found → Continue
│
└─ Phase 3: Route to dockerfile-skill
└─ Invoke /dockerfile to generate Docker configuration/cloud-native-readiness # Assess current directory
/cloud-native-readiness <path> # Assess specific path
/cloud-native-readiness <github-url> # Clone and assessWhen invoked, ALWAYS follow this sequence:
Load and execute: modules/assess.md
Evaluates 6 dimensions (each scored 0-2):
| Dimension | What to check |
|---|---|
| Statelessness | Does the app store state locally (sessions in memory, local file writes)? |
| Config Externalization | Are configs hardcoded or driven by env vars / config files? |
| Horizontal Scalability | Can multiple instances run without conflicts? |
| Startup/Shutdown | Does the app start fast and handle SIGTERM gracefully? |
| Observability | Does it have health checks, structured logging, metrics? |
| Service Boundaries | Is it a focused service or a tightly-coupled monolith? |
Scoring:
Output: Structured readiness report with score, findings, and recommendations.
Load and execute: modules/detect.md
Checks for:
Dockerfile / Dockerfile.* (multi-stage, multi-service)docker-compose.yml / docker-compose.yaml / compose.yml.dockerignoreDOCKER.md or docker-related documentationk8s/, kubernetes/, deploy/, helm/, charts/).github/workflows/, .gitlab-ci.yml)Output: Inventory of existing Docker/K8s artifacts with quality assessment.
Load and execute: modules/route.md
Decision Matrix:
| Readiness Score | Artifacts Exist | Action |
|---|---|---|
| ≥ 7 | Yes, complete | Report existing setup. Done. |
| ≥ 7 | Yes, partial | Report gaps, suggest improvements. Done. |
| ≥ 7 | No | Invoke dockerfile-skill to generate. |
| 4-6 | Any | Report issues + remediation steps. Optionally proceed with dockerfile-skill. |
| 0-3 | Any | Report blockers. Do NOT invoke dockerfile-skill. |
The final output MUST use this format:
# Cloud-Native Readiness Report
## Summary
- **Project**: {name}
- **Score**: {score}/12 ({rating})
- **Verdict**: {Ready | Ready with caveats | Needs work | Not recommended}
## Assessment Details
### ✅ Strengths
- {what's already cloud-native friendly}
### ⚠️ Concerns
- {issues that need attention}
### ❌ Blockers (if any)
- {critical issues preventing containerization}
## Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Statelessness | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Config Externalization | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Horizontal Scalability | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Startup/Shutdown | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Observability | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Service Boundaries | {0-2} | {detail} |
## Existing Docker Artifacts
- {inventory or "None found"}
## Recommendation
- {next steps}When routing to dockerfile-skill, pass the assessment context:
docker-compose.yml servicesDOCKER.md caveatsHandoff: When invoking dockerfile-skill, include a summary of:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.