ideation — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ideation (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 /data2story-pro orchestrator routes here in IDEA MODE: the reader handed over a hunch, a question, or a half-formed angle instead of a dataset. Your job is to turn that into a concrete topic that real, findable data can support, fetch that data, and hand a validated folder back to the pipeline. You do this WITH the reader, not for them — two real checkpoints, no railroading.
You are not a pipeline role (no *_NN provenance prefix, no place in the 7 teams). You run once, before Detective, and produce nothing that reaches the HTML except the dataset + a story_brief.
$1 = the reader's raw idea text (may be empty → open by inviting it).$2 = DATA2STORY_ROOT (resolved by the orchestrator; where data/<slug>/ will live).DATA_DIR=<absolute path to the validated dataset folder>. Thestory_brief.json sits at <DATA_DIR>/meta/story_brief.json. The orchestrator sets DATA_DIR/DATA_NAME from this and enters the normal pipeline (Detective → … → Inspector).
IDEATION_ABORTED: <one-line reason> (reader stopped, or no real dataset supportsthe idea after the bounded loop). The orchestrator halts honestly and runs NO pipeline. Never fabricate data to manufacture a success.
Interaction style — let the reader CHOOSE, don't make them compose. Drive the convergence and BOTH checkpoints with AskUserQuestion: frame the angles / scope / data-forks as options the reader clicks, not paragraphs they must write — picking is far lower-friction and each question doubles as a micro-checkpoint. ALWAYS keep the Other / free-text escape open: the menu is your framing, and the reader's own off-menu angle is often the best one, so never let it cage the brainstorm. (This is NOT the cold opening questionnaire sparring-partner warns against — it is choice-driven convergence after you have framed the space: lead the very first turn with substance + an open invite, then switch to options.)
sparring-partner)Run the brainstorming dialogue by following `Skill sparring-partner` with the mission in references/sparring_brief.md: drive the reader from a vague idea to ONE concrete data-story topic. Two non-negotiables on top of sparring-partner's normal process:
granularity? who publishes it? for which years/places? A beautiful idea with no obtainable data is a failure* of this step, not a success. Steer toward a nearby idea the data CAN support.
The terminal of the dialogue is the `story_brief` (contract: references/schema.json) — topic, angle, audience, the questions the data must answer, a structured data_needs spec, any real candidate sources surfaced, and the exact find_data_invocation.query. Reply in the reader's language (sparring-partner's rule).
Show the reader the assembled story_brief (at least topic, angle, data_needs, and find_data_invocation.query). Use AskUserQuestion (approve · edit · abort) or a plain confirm. Loop back into Step 1 on edits. Do not proceed until the reader approves the brief. On abort → return IDEATION_ABORTED: reader stopped at brief.
find-data, web-first)Derive a kebab-case slug from story_brief.topic; set OUT_DIR to the ABSOLUTE path $2/data/<slug> (resolve $2 to an absolute path first). Then follow `Skill find-data` with the brief's query and ALWAYS pass that explicit --out OUT_DIR — never rely on find-data's bare default (its default is DATASETS_ROOT/<name>, a DIFFERENT root: ./datasets/<name>, not data/<slug>). An explicit --out always wins, so the dataset is guaranteed to land at the path ideation chose:
Skill find-data "<story_brief.find_data_invocation.query>" --out OUT_DIR [--mode <single|theme>] [other flags]find-data searches (web-first on an open-source machine with no local corpora), fetches, and runs its 4 completeness gates, writing OUT_DIR/validate.json. Read that file back for the verdict. The dataset files land directly under OUT_DIR, and the DATA_DIR returned to the orchestrator (the success line below) is exactly that absolute OUT_DIR — not find-data's default location.
Bounded acquisition loop (≤ 2 attempts). If find-data returns BLOCKED / no adequate dataset:
at a coarser granularity — adjust the brief), (b) try an alternate real source/query, or (c) abort.
After 2 failed attempts with no path forward → return IDEATION_ABORTED: no real dataset supports this idea (closest gap: <gate>); suggested pivot: <one line>.
Show the reader the fetched files + the gate verdict, and check them against story_brief.acceptance (does it actually have the entities / metric / coverage you agreed on?). AskUserQuestion (use it · send back to Step 2 · abort). Do not proceed until approved.
Only AFTER find-data's audit has run (so it never lands inside the data-file glob), write the approved brief to OUT_DIR/meta/story_brief.json:
mkdir -p "OUT_DIR/meta" && # write story_brief.json there (valid JSON matching references/schema.json)It carries the reader's intent into provenance; the Detective MAY read it for human-intent context (loose coupling — not required). Then emit the success line:
DATA_DIR=OUT_DIRwould break the whole verifiability premise. "Can't find data" is an honest IDEATION_ABORTED, not a reason to invent it.
$2 and the resolved skilldir. Works on a fresh open-source clone with no local data corpora.
OUT_DIR (the dataset folder). You do not build HTML,run the pipeline, or touch any role artifact — that's the orchestrator's job after you return.
references/schema.json — the story_brief contract (annotated example).references/sparring_brief.md — the specialized mission handed tosparring-partner, with the feasibility pressure-test and a worked vague-idea → brief example.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.