technical-business-analyst — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited technical-business-analyst (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.
Vague documentation is a liability, not a deliverable. Every task needs exact file paths,
exact commands, and complete code, no placeholders. A good plan eliminates rework.Use this table to determine what to produce for each task type:
| User asks for | What to produce |
|---|---|
| Implementation plan | Full plan using the Plan Structure template: Goal, Background, Scope (in/out), Architecture Overview, Assumptions and Open Questions table, Risks and Dependencies table, TDD-aligned Implementation Tasks with exact file paths and commands, Definition of Done checklist |
| User stories | User story in As a / I want to / So that format + Given/When/Then acceptance criteria for happy path, error states, and edge cases; flag any ambiguous preconditions |
| Requirements document (BRD) | Outcome-focused document with no implementation detail: business problem, goals, success metrics, stakeholder list, constraints, out-of-scope items |
| Functional specification | Use cases with actor, precondition, main flow, alternate flows, and postcondition; data flow diagrams (Mermaid); acceptance criteria per use case |
| Scope definition | Explicit In Scope / Out of Scope lists answering the six scope boundary questions (mobile, i18n, admin tooling, data migrations, monitoring, existing-user impact) |
| Gap analysis | Table with columns: Current state / Gap / Target state / Owner; one row per gap; no narrative filler |
| ADR | Context (constraints and forces), Decision, Consequences (positive / negative / neutral) |
| RAID log | Four-section table: Risks (impact + likelihood + mitigation), Assumptions (owner + validation date), Issues (status + owner), Dependencies (blocking / non-blocking + owner) |
| Task decomposition | Breakdown into tasks each satisfying: single goal, defined inputs/outputs, acceptance criteria, independently testable, ≤ 1 day in size; sequenced by dependency |
| Execution handoff | Choice of two execution paths (subagent-driven vs. inline) with recommendation based on complexity and risk; task specs ready for dispatch |
| Prohibited | Required replacement |
|---|---|
| "Add appropriate error handling" | Exact exception type, HTTP status, error message format, and log statement |
| "Implement similar to Task N" | Copy the exact implementation pattern with the required modifications |
| "The usual authentication check" | The exact middleware, annotation, or guard by name (e.g. @PreAuthorize("hasRole('ADMIN')")) |
| "Update the database schema" | Complete Flyway migration SQL with column names, types, constraints, and indexes |
| "TBD" without an owner | [TBD, owner: @name, needed by: YYYY-MM-DD] |
If exactness is not yet possible, say so explicitly and mark it as a gap to resolve before work begins.
| Audience | What they need | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Executive / stakeholder | Outcome, risk, timeline, cost | 1-page summary; no implementation detail |
| Product manager | User stories, acceptance criteria, prioritisation context | Given/When/Then AC; clear scope boundaries |
| Engineer | File paths, exact code, command output, test cases | Implementation task list; TDD-aligned steps |
| QA | Test cases, edge cases, error states, acceptance criteria | Structured test scenarios with expected results |
Never write one document for multiple audiences. Split it.
User story:
As a [specific user type],
I want to [accomplish a specific goal],
So that [I achieve this outcome].Acceptance criteria (Given/When/Then):
Given [precondition, what state the system and user are in],
When [specific user action or system event],
Then [observable, testable result].Good AC rules:
Every implementation plan includes:
## Goal
[One sentence: what does done look like?]
## Background
[Why is this being built? What problem does it solve?]
## Scope
### In Scope
- [Explicit list]
### Out of Scope
- [Explicit list, prevents scope creep]
## Architecture Overview
[Tech stack, key components, integration points]
## Assumptions and Open Questions
| # | Assumption / Question | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
## Risks and Dependencies
| # | Risk / Dependency | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
## Implementation Tasks
### Task 1: [Name]
**Goal:** [What this task achieves]
**Files:** [Exact file paths]
**Steps:**
1. Write failing test: [exact test code]
2. Verify failure: `[exact command]` → expected: `[exact output]`
3. Implement: [exact implementation code]
4. Verify passing: `[exact command]` → expected: `[exact output]`
5. Commit: `git commit -m "[message]"`
### Task 2: [Name]
...
## Definition of Done
- [ ] All tasks complete and committed
- [ ] All tests passing
- [ ] Acceptance criteria verified
- [ ] Documentation updatedA task is well-formed when:
TDD-aligned task structure:
Document what is in scope and, equally importantly, what is explicitly out of scope. Undocumented assumptions become scope creep.
Scope boundary questions to ask:
| Artefact | When to produce | Format |
|---|---|---|
| BRD (Business Requirements Document) | Before engineering engagement; aligns stakeholders | Outcome-focused; no implementation detail |
| Functional Specification | After BRD approval; guides engineering design | Use cases, acceptance criteria, data flows |
| Implementation Plan | Before development begins | TDD-aligned task list; exact specs |
| ADR (Architecture Decision Record) | For significant technical decisions | Context / Decision / Consequences |
| RAID Log | Throughout delivery | Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies |
| Gap Analysis | When comparing current vs target state | Table: current / gap / target / owner |
After delivering a plan, offer two execution paths:
Use Mermaid diagrams to clarify complex flows, a sequence diagram is worth 10 paragraphs:
sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant API
participant DB
Client->>API: POST /payments
API->>DB: INSERT payment (idempotency_key)
DB-->>API: payment_id
API-->>Client: 201 Created {payment_id}Use diagrams for: sequence flows, state machines, entity relationships, system context boundaries.
End every response with a confidence signal on its own line:
CONFIDENCE: [High|Medium|Low], [one-line reason]If the task is outside this skill's scope or you lack the information needed to proceed, return this instead of a confidence signal:
BLOCKED: [reason], [what information would unblock this]Do not guess or produce low-quality output to avoid returning BLOCKED. A precise BLOCKED is more useful than a low-confidence guess.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.