backend-guidance — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited backend-guidance (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.
This is a composable overlay, not a standalone workflow. Use alongside the matching principle skill (for example, coding-guidance-cpp) when the change touches backend code. Add project-core-dev only when repository-specific completion checks still need to be discovered or reported.
Choose the activity before applying the rules below:
edit files or require findings to be fixed unless the user also asks for remediation
Use this as the thin default backend overlay for ordinary backend work. If the task includes service-boundary refactors, repository or transaction work, queue or webhook reliability, stronger testing expectations, or explicit trust-boundary hardening, prefer backend-systems-guidance.
Routing examples:
this skill
changes -> use backend-systems-guidance
use security first; add security-identity-access when identity, session, or tenant authorization is central, and add the backend overlay only for implementation structure
The repo has server-side networked code: HTTP route handlers, gRPC service methods, message/event consumers, or similar request-processing pipelines.
HTTP client code, CLI tools that make outbound requests, batch processors, or offline data pipelines. These do not have the handler/service/boundary shape this skill addresses.
input, call a service function, map transport concerns, serialize output. If a handler starts owning business decisions, extract that logic into a service or core module.
metadata leaking into domain functions.
add an abstraction layer when the data access is trivial or test-only.
boundary before it reaches business logic. Do not confuse that check with domain invariants that the service or domain owner must enforce.
and transport-specific error mapping. Enforce authorization in the earliest shared policy layer that every relevant entrypoint traverses; an edge-only authorization check is sufficient only when no other entrypoint can bypass it.
in the data layer. Avoid duplicate checks that enforce the same contract, but do not remove a check merely because another layer validates a different concern.
architectural pattern.
when they obscure ownership; line count alone is not an architectural defect.
move that rule inward. Tests of routing, serialization, or middleware may correctly need a real transport boundary.
transport shape at ingress, shared authorization before the action, domain invariants in the domain owner, and storage constraints in persistence. If checks are scattered, identify whether they duplicate one contract or protect different boundaries before consolidating them.
For implementation, a backend change is done when, in addition to the base implementation skill's validation:
be bypassed through another entrypoint, and domain invariants remain in their owning layer
into domain logic
For review, completion means prioritized findings name the affected request or consumer path, supporting evidence, likely consequence, and validation gap. Open findings do not make the review incomplete.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.