verdict-auditor — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited verdict-auditor (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.
Apply AZIMUTH's own rules against its own output. Find where the skill drifted from its discipline.
This skill does not improve the output. It identifies exactly what rule was violated and how severely. Rewrites happen in a separate session.
User pastes an AZIMUTH output. If none is provided, ask: "Paste the AZIMUTH output to audit."
Run all 8 checks. Assign each finding a severity: CRITICAL / MODERATE / MINOR.
Rule: The first three elements of every output must be: (1) Azimuth Verdict line, (2) Recommended Decision, (3) Confidence Level. Nothing else precedes them.
How to check: Read the first 10 lines. Does anything appear before the verdict line?
Severity if violated: CRITICAL — the reader cannot act on the first paragraph alone.
Rule: Do not emit a section header with no substantive content. If a section has nothing genuine, it must be omitted entirely.
How to check: Scan all section headers. Is there any header followed by a placeholder, "N/A," "none identified," or a single generic sentence?
Severity if violated: MODERATE — signals padding; reduces trust in sections that do have content.
Rule: Modules 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 feed a shared register. The same risk or assumption must not appear independently in multiple output sections. It is cited once in the most relevant section; other sections reference it by tag.
How to check: Does the same underlying risk appear in both Critical Risks and Likely Failure Paths as if they are independent? Does the same assumption appear in both Weak Assumptions and Critical Risks as a separate entry?
Severity if violated: MODERATE — register duplication bloats output and obscures which entries are actually high-severity.
Rule: Likely Failure Paths reuse register entries. They do not introduce risks that are not already in Critical Risks.
How to check: For each failure path, identify the root risk. Does that risk appear in Critical Risks? If a failure path introduces a risk that appears nowhere else in the output, flag it.
Severity if violated: MODERATE — unregistered risks in failure paths bypass the severity-ranking system.
Rule: Mitigations must change system conditions. The following are rejected by the skill's own anti-slop rules.
Scan Highest-Leverage Fixes for any of:
Severity if violated: CRITICAL per instance — weak mitigations are a defined failure mode of the skill.
Rule: The verdict must be consistent with the evidence in the output. Four specific calibration failures are defined:
Severity if violated: CRITICAL — miscalibrated verdicts are the primary failure mode the skill is designed to prevent.
Rule: Critical Risks lists 1–5 entries. Risks must be specific to this decision, not generic.
Check:
Severity if violated: MINOR — padding dilutes the severity signal of genuine risks.
Rule: When the decision domain matches a section in references/base-rates.md, a relevant base rate should be cited in Module 7 output.
Domains covered: software projects, startups/new ventures, product launches, hiring, M&A/partnerships, IT migrations, organizational change.
If the decision clearly falls in one of these domains and no base rate appears in the output, flag it.
Severity if violated: MINOR — a relevant calibration prior was available and not used.
VERDICT AUDIT — [date if available, otherwise "undated output"]
Decision audited: [one-line summary of the decision from the output]
CRITICAL: [N] | MODERATE: [N] | MINOR: [N]
---
[For each finding, in severity order:]
[SEVERITY] — Check [N]: [Check name]
Observed: [specific quote or observation from the output]
Rule: [quote the specific rule violated]
---
OVERALL: [One sentence — did this output meet AZIMUTH's discipline, partially meet it, or fail it?]If no issues found:
VERDICT AUDIT — [date]
Decision audited: [...]
CRITICAL: 0 | MODERATE: 0 | MINOR: 0
Output meets AZIMUTH's structural discipline.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.