inbox-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited inbox-review (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.
Systematic morning inbox review with email-specific intelligence.
Always iterate ALL configured accounts, not just the default:
# List accounts first
messages(action="list_accounts")
# Then search each account
messages(action="search", query="UNSEEN", account="[email protected]")
messages(action="search", query="UNSEEN", account="[email protected]")Never assume a single account. Users with EMAIL_CREDENTIALS containing multiple accounts expect all to be checked.
Use proper IMAP search criteria -- these are NOT free-text queries:
| Intent | Correct syntax | Wrong (will fail or return wrong results) |
|---|---|---|
| Unread emails | UNSEEN | unread, is:unread |
| Since a date | SINCE 2026-03-20 | after:2026-03-20, date>2026-03-20 |
| From a sender | FROM [email protected] | from:sender, [email protected] |
| Flagged/starred | FLAGGED | starred, is:starred |
| With subject | SUBJECT "meeting notes" | subject:meeting |
| Combine criteria | UNSEEN SINCE 2026-03-20 | UNSEEN AND SINCE 2026-03-20 (no AND keyword) |
| Unread + from | UNSEEN FROM [email protected] | UNSEEN AND FROM [email protected] |
IMAP criteria are space-separated (implicit AND). There is no explicit AND/OR keyword in basic IMAP search.
Group messages by conversation, not individual emails:
Re:, Fwd: prefixes, normalize whitespace)This prevents showing 10 individual replies to the same thread as 10 separate items.
Classify based on recipient role and sender signals:
| Signal | Priority | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
You are in To: field | Action Required | Direct request to you |
You are in CC: field | FYI | Informational, no action expected |
| Mailing list headers present | Low | Bulk/automated |
Reply-To differs from From | Low | Likely automated/newsletter |
Known sender + To: you directly | High | Personal direct message |
noreply@, notifications@ | Low | System notification |
Present results grouped by priority, not by account:
## Action Required (3)
- [work] "Q2 Budget Approval" from CFO (2h ago) -- needs your sign-off
- [work] "Code Review: PR #142" from Alice (5h ago) -- review requested
- [personal] "Lease Renewal" from landlord (1d ago) -- response needed
## FYI (5)
- [work] "Sprint Retro Notes" from PM (3h ago) -- CC'd, meeting summary
...
## Low Priority (12)
- [work] 8 newsletter/notification emails
- [personal] 4 promotional emailsFor Action Required items, suggest one-line draft replies the user can approve or edit.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.