recursive-thinking — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited recursive-thinking (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
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.
Challenge an existing candidate hard enough to improve, qualify, or reject it before action.
Use this as an orthogonal workflow skill alongside the relevant domain or repository skills. It can be invoked directly whenever a candidate exists; a prior thinking pass is not required. If no candidate exists, use thinking to frame the decision first.
This workflow produces a concise, evidence-based audit trail. It does not require a step-by-step reasoning transcript.
nIf the user supplies n, treat it as the maximum number of distinct challenge lenses, not recursion depth. Do not ask for n, invent a default, or expand weak branches to satisfy the count. Without n, use only as many lenses as the decision needs.
Keep conclusions, evidence, and assumptions distinguishable. Apply labels only where they clarify a material claim:
For diagnosis and review, cite concrete evidence. For strategy or design, state verification or falsification conditions for the most important assumptions. Do not convert plausibility into observation.
why, how, what evidence, what fails, what trade-off, or what would change the conclusion. Continue only while another probe could produce a decision-relevant delta.Stop when another probe is unlikely to change confidence, the recommendation, the next action, or the evidence needed. A single decisive failure can end a branch; no minimum depth is required.
Lead with the result, not the question tree:
When the user explicitly requests n, include no more than n distinct findings or lenses. Show deeper question-and-answer branches only when the user asks for that presentation.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.