torque:next — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited torque:next (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.
Analyze project state and recommend exactly ONE next command. Think of this as a GPS for your development workflow.
Same as /torque:status — read .planning/, docs/plans/, git state. But don't output the full status. Focus on determining the current position.
Work through this tree top-to-bottom. First match wins.
1. Is there an active bug or failing test?
→ `systematic-debugging`
Why: Bugs block everything. Fix first.
2. Does .planning/ exist?
├─ YES (GSD project):
│ a. Is there a HANDOFF.md in the active phase?
│ → `/gsd:resume-work`
│ Why: Paused work should be resumed before starting new work.
│
│ b. Is STATE.md showing a phase in "executing" with incomplete plans?
│ → `/gsd:execute-phase` (continue)
│ Why: Finish what you started.
│
│ c. Is a phase complete but not verified?
│ → `/gsd:verify-work`
│ Why: Verification before review.
│
│ d. Is a phase verified but not code-reviewed?
│ → `requesting-code-review`
│ Why: GSD has no review step — SP fills the gap.
│
│ e. Is a phase reviewed but not shipped?
│ → `/gsd:ship` or `/gsd:pr-branch`
│ Why: Ship cleanly — filters .planning/ commits from PR.
│
│ f. Are all phases in the current milestone complete?
│ → `/gsd:audit-milestone` then `/gsd:complete-milestone`
│ Why: Close out the milestone properly.
│
│ g. Is the next phase planned but not started?
│ → `/gsd:execute-phase`
│ Why: Plans exist, execute them.
│
│ h. Is the next phase discussed and spec'd but not planned?
│ → `/gsd:plan-phase`
│ Why: Context and spec exist, create plans.
│
│ h2. Is the next phase discussed but not spec'd (ambiguous scope)?
│ → `/gsd:spec-phase`
│ Why: Lock falsifiable requirements before planning.
│
│ i. Is there a next phase that hasn't been discussed?
│ → `/gsd:discuss-phase`
│ Why: Gather context before planning.
│
│ i2. Is this an AI/LLM phase that hasn't been designed?
│ → `/gsd:ai-integration-phase`
│ Why: Produce AI-SPEC.md with framework + eval strategy.
│
│ j. No more phases in roadmap?
│ → `/gsd:new-milestone` or project complete
│
└─ NO (no .planning/):
a. Does docs/plans/ exist with incomplete plans?
→ Re-read plans, continue execution
Why: Pick up where you left off.
b. No workflow state at all?
→ Ask: "New project or standalone feature?"
→ New project: `/gsd:new-project`
→ Existing codebase: `/gsd:map-codebase`
→ Quick standalone: `brainstorming`## Next Action
→ `/gsd:plan-phase`
**Why**: Phase 3 ("Payment integration") has CONTEXT.md from discuss-phase
but no PLAN.md files yet. Planning is the next step before execution.
**Current position**: Milestone 1, Phase 3 of 7
**What this does**: Creates executable PLAN.md files with task breakdown,
dependencies, and wave assignments for parallel execution.Keep it to ONE recommendation. If truly ambiguous, show at most two options with a clear default.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.