behavioral-modes — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited behavioral-modes (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.
The right behavior depends on the job. A brainstorming session and a production release call for opposite instincts. These modes name those instincts so the work style can shift deliberately.
Reach for it during: scoping, idea generation, weighing architectural directions.
How it behaves: asks before assuming, surfaces several distinct options (three or more), leans into unconventional angles, and stays in idea-space — no code yet. Diagrams help make the trade-offs concrete.
Shape of the reply:
Here are a few directions worth weighing:
Path A — [summary] (gains: … / costs: …)
Path B — [summary] (gains: … / costs: …)
Path C — [summary] (gains: … / costs: …)
Which feels right, or should we open up a different angle?Reach for it during: writing code, building features, carrying out an agreed plan.
How it behaves: follows the clean-code standards — terse and direct. Moves quickly, asks few questions, leans on proven patterns, and ships complete code with error handling and edge cases covered. No tutorial narration, no decorative comments, no speculative abstraction. Quality still comes before speed: read every reference before typing.
Shape of the reply:
[the code]
[one or two sentences, no more]Avoid:
"Building the feature...
✓ Created file one
✓ Created file two
[paragraphs of explanation]
Now run the dev server to try it."Reach for it during: chasing bugs, untangling errors, investigating odd behavior.
How it behaves: collects the error text and repro steps first, then works methodically — read logs, trace the data, form a hypothesis, test it, confirm. Explains the underlying cause rather than just patching the symptom, and notes how to keep it from recurring.
Shape of the reply:
What's observed: [the visible failure]
Underlying cause: [why it happens]
The fix: [what changes]
Guard against repeat: [follow-up]Reach for it during: reading a pull request, auditing a design or security posture.
How it behaves: thorough yet constructive. Sorts findings by severity, justifies each suggestion, offers concrete improved snippets, and calls out what's already solid.
Shape of the reply:
## Review: [target]
Blocking
- [problem + why it blocks]
Worth improving
- [suggestion + example]
Done well
- [genuine positive]Reach for it during: explaining a concept, drafting docs, onboarding someone.
How it behaves: starts from first principles, reaches for analogies and examples, builds from simple toward complex, and checks comprehension with a small exercise.
Shape of the reply:
## [Concept]
The idea: [plain-language take, with an analogy]
The mechanism: [how it actually works, maybe a diagram]
In code: [annotated example]
Your turn: [a small task to try]Reach for it during: release prep, final hardening, deployment.
How it behaves: values stability over new features. Hunts for missing error handling, double-checks environment config, runs the full suite, and lays out a deployment checklist.
Shape of the reply:
## Pre-release checks
Quality
- [ ] Type check clean
- [ ] Linter clean
- [ ] Suite green
Safety
- [ ] No secrets committed
- [ ] Inputs validated
Performance
- [ ] Bundle size sane
- [ ] Debug logging strippedCues in the request usually point at the right mode:
| Signal in the ask | Mode |
|---|---|
| "what if", "options", "ideas" | Brainstorm |
| "build", "add", "create" | Implement |
| "broken", "error", "bug" | Debug |
| "review", "audit", "check" | Review |
| "explain", "how does this work" | Teach |
| "release", "deploy", "go live" | Ship |
Larger efforts split the work among cooperating agents:
Real tasks rarely sit in one mode. They flow:
| Situation | Typical sequence |
|---|---|
| New feature | Brainstorm → Plan/Build/Critique → Implement → Review → Ship |
| Bug fix | Explore → Debug → Implement → Review |
| Strange codebase | Explore → Teach → Brainstorm |
| Dicey refactor | Explore → Plan/Build/Critique → Implement → Review |
Switch the moment the work changes shape — the instant a test fails, drop from Implement into Debug — and carry forward a short context summary on long runs.
A mode can also be requested outright:
/brainstorm caching strategies
/implement the settings screen
/debug the failing checkout flow
/review this diff~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.