user-interview-synthesis-bc0ea7 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited user-interview-synthesis-bc0ea7 (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 interview transcripts into a structured synthesis document that surfaces themes, pain points, and actionable insights.
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).
Participants: [n] Date Range: [dates] Research Questions: [list]
#### Theme 1: [Theme Name]
[Repeat for each theme]
#### Low-Confidence Signals (1-2 participants only) [Findings worth tracking but not acting on yet — note what further research would confirm or deny]
#### Recommended Next Steps [Specific, actionable recommendations based on findings]
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence traceability | Themes asserted with no quotes or participant attribution | Most themes carry quotes, but some rest on 1–2 participants or unattributed paraphrase | Every theme carries verbatim quotes from ≥3 distinct participants, with frequency counts ("6 of 9") consistent with the roster |
| Implication actionability | Implications restate the observation ("users find X frustrating") | Implications gesture at direction but name no decision, owner, or change | Every implication enables a specific product decision someone could act on this quarter |
| Contradiction honesty | All findings conveniently support the sponsor's hypothesis; inconvenient data absent | Contradictory evidence present but buried or softened; both-ways quotes trimmed to the helpful half | Findings that contradict the hypothesis are surfaced prominently, and ambiguous quotes are kept whole with the tension flagged |
| Signal separation & question coverage | Single-source anecdotes mixed into main themes; research questions ignored | Low-confidence signals segregated but with no follow-up path, or one research question left unaddressed | Every 1–2-participant signal sits in its own section with the cheap test that would confirm it, and every research question gets an explicit answer — including "inconclusive" |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.