speq-mission — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited speq-mission (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.
You are creating a project mission file (specs/mission.md) and the first architecture file (specs/architecture.md) through an interactive interview.
Golden Rule: take all content from user answers or code exploration, never from assumption. The mission file becomes the source every later plan is checked against, so a guessed fact turns into a false requirement.
Invoke before starting:
/speq-ext-library: library docs/speq-cli: spec structure/speq-writing-guardrails: prose style for artifacts and GitHub textDo not invoke /speq-code-tools: brownfield exploration (step 2) only reads manifests, directories, and docs, so plain file reads cover it. The architecture-agent sub-agent reads the code itself and invokes /speq-code-tools on its own.
Check for .speq/mission-hook.md in the repo root.
Determine project type:
Cargo.toml, package.json, go.mod, etc. exists?
├─ Yes → Brownfield (existing code)
└─ No → Greenfield (new project)
specs/ or similar directory exists?
├─ Yes → Has existing specs (read them)
└─ No → No specs yet
specs/architecture.md exists?
├─ Yes → Update mode: skip topics 4.9 to 4.11 (see below)
└─ No → mission.md still has ## Architecture, ## External Dependencies, or technical constraints?
├─ Yes → Migration mode: one-time interview seeded from those sections (see below)
└─ No → Create modeUpdate mode. specs/architecture.md exists. Skip the interview topics for Architecture, technical and performance constraints, and External Dependencies. Tell the user: "Change the architecture through /speq-plan." Interview the remaining topics as usual.
Brownfield and not Update mode: step 2 spawns architecture-agent. Greenfield and Update mode: no spawn.
Migration mode. specs/architecture.md is missing and specs/mission.md still holds the old sections. Run topics 4.9 to 4.11 once, seeded with the architecture-agent draft, which already reconciles the old sections with the code ("The code shows [X]. mission.md said [Y]. Which is current?"). Without a draft (no source files), seed with the old content ("mission.md lists [X] as the architecture. Is this still accurate?"). Place the approved file at specs/architecture.md. Remove the old Architecture and External Dependencies sections and the technical and performance constraint lines from specs/mission.md. Add the line Architecture: see specs/architecture.md. after Out of Scope.
For existing projects, gather context BEFORE interviewing:
Cargo.toml, package.json, go.mod, pyproject.toml/requirements.txt, pom.xml/build.gradle. The list is not exhaustive; a project can use other languages and several technologies at once.package.json scripts, Makefile targets, Cargo.toml aliases, pyproject.toml scripts.src, lib, app).README.md, docs/, and any existing specs/.mktemp -d). Delegate to architecture-agent: Delegate to architecture-agent: Draft specs/architecture.md from the code
## Context
Repo root: <path>
Mission path: specs/mission.md
Template: /speq-plan references/architecture-template.md
Draft path: <draft path>
Project Hook: <content of .speq/mission-hook.md, or none>
## Your Task
Write the draft to the draft path and the evidence to <draft path>.evidence.md. Return only the summary in your output format.Keep the returned summary (draft path, counts, Conflicts, Questions, Not explored) for step 4. Do NOT read the draft or the evidence file. The user reads the draft.
Look up the libraries discovered or mentioned per /speq-ext-library. Use the results to inform interview questions and validate user choices.
Conduct a Socratic interview by asking the user about every section below. Never fill in content without asking. Each question reveals assumptions, surfaces contradictions, or narrows scope. Brownfield: present what step 2 discovered and ask the user to confirm or correct it ("I found [X]. Is this accurate? What would you add or change?") instead of asking cold.
#### 4.1 Identity & Purpose
#### 4.2 Target Users
#### 4.3 Core Capabilities Apply User Story Mapping (Patton): identify activities, then decompose into capabilities.
#### 4.4 Out of Scope
#### 4.5 Domain Glossary
#### 4.6 Tech Stack
#### 4.7 Commands
#### 4.8 Project Structure
#### 4.9 Architecture Answers go to specs/architecture.md.
Conflicts item and replace the cold question with each Questions item. Tell the user what Not explored lists and ask about it. Corrections: the user edits the draft file, or you resume the same agent with the correction. Never rewrite the draft yourself.#### 4.10 Constraints
specs/architecture.md.specs/mission.md.#### 4.11 External Dependencies Answers go to specs/architecture.md. With a draft, topics 4.10 (technical and performance) and 4.11 are covered by the same review and the same Conflicts and Questions items. Ask only what the summary leaves open.
After collecting ALL information:
specs/ directory if neededspecs/mission.md using references/mission-template.md as structurespecs/architecture.md using references/architecture-template.md from /speq-plan as structure, unless it already exists (update mode) or an architecture-agent draft exists (the draft is the file, see step 6)Present the generated mission.md and architecture.md and ask: "Do these accurately capture your project? Anything to add, change, or remove?" Iterate until the user approves.
With an architecture-agent draft, the user approves the draft file. Then move it into place with mv <draft path> specs/architecture.md, so the content never enters your context. The agent already reported structure ✓. If the user edited the draft, check the moved file against the structural rules of /speq-audit check 14 (first line, six ## sections in order, no ###, no table rows) without reading the whole file. Delete the evidence file.
Group questions into MECE partitions (max 3-4 per question round). Each group covers one dimension without overlap:
| Phase | Questions to Group |
|---|---|
| Identity | Name, summary, problem |
| Users | Personas, goals, workflows |
| Capabilities | Core features, out of scope |
| Technical | Stack, commands, structure |
| Constraints | Technical, business, performance (technical and performance go to architecture.md) |
| Project Complexity | Interview Depth |
|---|---|
| Simple CLI tool | Minimal (architecture.md with Overview and Components only, other sections - None) |
| Web application | Standard (all sections) |
| Distributed system | Deep (detailed architecture, failure modes) |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.