behavior-design — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited behavior-design (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.
<skill_contract> <input>Actor, desired outcome, current behavior, context, constraints, baseline evidence, and review horizon.</input> <output>An agency-preserving HAS behavior system with cues, effort levels, SOP, measures, recovery, and review cadence.</output> <done>The target behavior is observable, runnable on a low-motivation day, evidenced, and assigned one review owner.</done> <non_goals>Coercion, unsupported identity claims, vague motivation advice, or optimizing lagging outcomes without behaviors.</non_goals>
Convert an outcome into the smallest observable behavior system that can survive low-motivation days. Preserve agency; optimize the environment before blaming the actor.
Provide: desired outcome, actor, context, current behavior, constraints, review horizon, and available evidence. Optional: failed attempts and environmental cues.
<intake>
</intake>
<unknowns_gate>
Classify unknowns as known, probeable, testable, or blocked. If actor, target behavior, or safety boundary is absent, return NEEDS_INPUT with one minimal question. A reversible assumption is allowed only when labeled and paired with a same-cycle test.
</unknowns_gate>
<execute>
Build the HAS sequence:
trigger -> action -> evidence -> recovery -> stop so a missed run has a next move.Reduce friction before adding motivation. Prefer defaults, visible cues, prepared tools, and short feedback latency. Keep the minimum behavior useful rather than ceremonial.
</execute>
<evaluate>
Check that the behavior is observable, starts in a named context, fits the minimum effort budget, produces evidence, and has a recovery path. Reject plans that depend on constant willpower, hide coercion, or measure only outcomes. If the check fails, revise the highest-friction element once and re-evaluate.
</evaluate>
<state_contract>
Persist {run_id, status, attempt, budget, evidence, unknowns, last_error, next_action} plus baseline, current H1-H5 design, review date, and revision history. Update atomically after each review; never overwrite prior observations.
</state_contract>
NEEDS_INPUT: a target, actor, or boundary is missing; ask one narrow probe.INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: baseline is unknown; run a short observation period before optimizing.VERIFY_FAILED: the behavior is not observable, feasible, or linked to the outcome; revise one variable.BUDGET_STOP: the review horizon or effort budget is exhausted; preserve state and report the next experiment.Return status, result (H1-H5 plan), evidence (baseline and measures), unknowns, and next_action (owner plus review date).
</skill_contract>
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.