run-exp — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited run-exp (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.
This skill requires explicit user approval before execution. Do not start automatically after Phase 2 — present the reproduction plan summary and wait for the user to confirm.
{paper_dir}/reports/check_exp.json — experiment plan from read-exp (priority, feasibility, commands){paper_dir}/reports/check_code.json — code issues from read-code (fix before running)- [ ] Step 1: Create environment
- [ ] Step 2: Run experimentsconda create -n paperdr-{paper_stem} python=<version> -y
conda activate paperdr-{paper_stem}
# follow README for installDownload data/checkpoints as needed. Fix any warning/error items from check_code.json before running.
Run experiments from check_exp.json in priority order (high first). Prefer eval over training.
For each experiment, compare output against the paper's numbers. Update check_exp.json with:
{
"our_result": {"metric": 0.0},
"status": "pass",
"note": "..."
}| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
pass | Matches paper within ~1-2% |
warning | Partial match or needed fixes |
error | Significant difference or could not run |
error — note cause, do not retry endlessly~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.