sprint-planning-96cfbc — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited sprint-planning-96cfbc (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.
Transform raw backlog items into a structured, achievable sprint with clear goals, velocity-calibrated scope, and team-ready output.
If a professional-brain (brain/) exists, ground in it instead of re-asking for what you already know:
decisions/ (what the team agreed matters), feature entities/, and open hypotheses/ the sprint might test. Run python3 ../professional-brain/scripts/brain_query.py ./brain "<sprint goal>" and carry each fact's provenance tag through.decisions/ record, provenance-tagged. Show it, get a yes, then write with ../professional-brain/scripts/brain_write.py … --commit (append-only, dry-run by default).Once the sprint is agreed, hand it to action-runner: it previews (dry-run, risk-rated), runs only what you approve via the connected action MCP, and records what was done back to the brain. Typical: create a ticket per committed backlog item and set the sprint milestone (🟡). This skill proposes; action-runner gates and runs — never silently.
Ask for (if not already provided):
Use this structure:
"This sprint we will [deliver X outcome] so that [user/business benefit], measured by [success indicator]."
Never write sprint goals as task lists. Always outcome-first.
| Complexity | Points | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Trivial | 1 | Clearly understood, no unknowns |
| Small | 2 | Straightforward, minor effort |
| Medium | 3 | Some complexity, clear path |
| Large | 5 | Complex, needs design or research |
| Very Large | 8 | High uncertainty, may need splitting |
| Epic | 13+ | Too large — must be split before sprint |
Flag any item estimated at 8+ and recommend splitting.
Available capacity = (Team size × Sprint days × Focus hours/day) × Availability factor
Focus hours/day: 6 (accounting for meetings, Slack, admin)
Availability factor: 0.7–0.85 depending on holidays/events
Story points to commit = Historical velocity × Availability factorThis skill ships with a stdlib-only Python script that computes capacity instead of estimating it by hand. Use it whenever the team's numbers are known — it applies the availability and 80% commit-ratio rules consistently.
# Quick estimate from flags
python3 scripts/capacity_calculator.py --team 5 --days 10 --velocity 30 --availability 0.8 --carryover 5
# Detailed estimate from per-member availability (JSON via stdin or --input file.json)
echo '{"sprint_days":10,"historical_velocity":40,"carryover_points":8,
"members":[{"name":"Ada","available_days":10},{"name":"Linus","available_days":7}]}' \
| python3 scripts/capacity_calculator.py --input -The script returns available focus hours, a velocity figure adjusted for real availability, the recommended commitment (capped at 80% of velocity), and the remaining capacity for new work after carry-overs. Run it first, then build the sprint backlog to fit the recommended number. Add --json to pipe the result into other tooling.
Sprint Goal:
[Goal statement]
Team Capacity: [X] story points available (based on [Y] team members, [Z]% availability)
Sprint Backlog:
| Priority | Story | Points | Owner | Acceptance Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Story title] | [N] | [Team member] | [When X then Y] |
Carry-Overs from Previous Sprint:
Risks & Dependencies:
Sprint Planning Agenda:
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sprint goal quality | Goal is a task list ("do stories 1–8") or missing entirely | Outcome-flavoured but vague — not scoreable pass/fail at sprint end | Single outcome sentence with user/business benefit and a success indicator, unambiguously scoreable at sprint end |
| Capacity honesty | Commitment assumes 100% of theoretical capacity; carry-overs ignored | Availability adjusted, but the 80% commit ratio is skipped or carry-over points not subtracted before pulling new work | Real availability (holidays, meetings, focus hours), carry-overs deducted first, and commitment capped at 80% of adjusted velocity |
| Story readiness | Stories lack acceptance criteria, estimates, or owners | Most stories estimated and owned, but 8+ pointers are unsplit or acceptance criteria are untestable | Every story has one owner, calibrated points, and testable acceptance criteria; every 8+ pointer is flagged for splitting |
| Risk & dependency surfacing | No risks or dependencies listed | Generic risks ("might slip") with no mitigations or owners | Specific blockers and cross-team dependencies, each with a concrete mitigation and a named owner |
For tool-using or computer-use agents that can reach the team's tracker (Jira, Linear, GitHub Projects). Runtimes without tool access ignore this section and deliver the document. See SKILLSPEC.md §5 for the rules this block follows.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.