pr-description-writer-b95c90 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited pr-description-writer-b95c90 (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.
Writes structured, reviewer-friendly pull request descriptions from a diff, commit list, or informal notes. Covers the what, why, and how-to-review so reviewers can start immediately.
Not quite this? Use pr-description-live when you want it to read the real diff through the GitHub connector.Ask for these if not provided:
git log --oneline, or describe the changes in plain English)A clear, imperative-mood title under 72 characters: [type]: [concise description of what changed]
Examples:
feat: add rate limiting to the public APIfix: resolve race condition in session expiryrefactor: extract payment logic into PaymentService2–3 sentences covering:
Bullet list of specific changes — one bullet per logical change, not per file:
[If UI change: include before/after screenshots or a screen recording] [If API change: include example request/response] [If no visual change and no API contract change: omit this section entirely — do not leave it as a placeholder]
Step-by-step instructions a reviewer can follow:
Include any specific commands, test data, or environment flags needed.
Flag anything that warrants extra attention:
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Why over what | Description only restates the diff; no motivation given | The what is clear, but the why is thin or generic ("improves the code") | Problem, goal, and approach are explicit; the description adds context the diff cannot convey |
| Title & structure | Single unstructured paragraph; title vague, missing a type prefix, or over 72 characters | Structured with headers, but the title or section usage slips (placeholder sections left in) | Valid type prefix, imperative mood, under 72 characters; sections let a reviewer navigate straight to what they need |
| Testing reproducibility | No testing steps | Steps exist but assume codebase familiarity or skip edge cases | Someone unfamiliar with the code can reproduce verification — commands, test data, flags, and at least one edge case included |
| Risk-calibrated reviewer guidance | High-risk PR with no reviewer notes, or notes that are pure boilerplate | Notes exist but name no specific trade-off, uncertainty, or out-of-scope item | Guidance matches risk: high-risk flags specific concerns and deliberate trade-offs; low-risk keeps notes to one line or omits them |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.