rice-impact-matrix-9d574d — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited rice-impact-matrix-9d574d (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.
Produce a prioritisation output that balances quantitative RICE scoring with qualitative strategic fit — because the highest RICE score isn't always the right next bet.
Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
Rate each initiative against your current strategic priorities (provided as input):
Combined Score = RICE Score + (Strategic Alignment × 10)
Validate — Flag any initiative where RICE score and strategic alignment conflict sharply (e.g., high RICE, low alignment). These require an explicit team conversation before sequencing.
| Initiative | RICE Score | Strategic Alignment | Combined Score | Quadrant | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | [score] | [score] | [combined] | [Now/Next/Later/Drop] | [action] |
#### Quadrant Definitions
#### Recommendations [Top 5 initiatives with rationale for sequencing]
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring integrity | Invented or uniform component values; 100% confidence everywhere | All components estimated, but confidence levels unexamined and scales inconsistent across rows | Every component sourced or explicitly flagged; no unvalidated 100%s; 50%-confidence rows marked and scale choices (e.g. reach units) stated |
| Strategic-alignment rigour | Alignment rated on "feels strategic" with no reference to priorities | Ratings given but not tied to named OKRs; nothing scores negative | Every rating maps to a specific OKR by name; initiatives that contradict strategy actually receive −1 |
| Conflict surfacing | Combined score presented as the definitive ranking | Sharp RICE-vs-alignment divergences are visible in the table but never discussed | Every sharp divergence is flagged with an explicit conversation recommendation (owner, forum, and a scoreable alternative where one exists) |
| Quadrant decisiveness | Everything lands in "Now"; no Drops | Quadrants used, but Drop recommendations are vague ("deprioritise") and capacity is ignored | Honest distribution including specific Drop actions with re-entry conditions, and sequencing checked against actual capacity |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.