architectural-decisions-7f36b3 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited architectural-decisions-7f36b3 (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.
Repowise captures architectural decisions — the why behind how code is built.
get_why has four modes — pick by what you pass:
get_why(query="why is auth using JWT?") — keyword + semantic decision search.get_why(query="src/auth/service.py") — decisions governing that file, plusits origin story and an alignment score (does the file still follow its own ADRs?).
get_why(query="why was caching added?", targets=["src/auth/cache.py"]) —target-anchored search; decisions touching the targets get boosted.
get_why() — the decision-health dashboard.Decisions are mined from eight sources (ADR files, CHANGELOG, PR/commit bodies, inline markers, git archaeology, README/docs, code comments, and the doc pass) and linked by supersedes / refines / relates_to / conflicts_with edges, so a single answer can return a whole lineage chain. When no decision exists for a path, get_why falls back to git archaeology so the call is never empty.
Call get_why(query="X").
get_why(query="the specific area you're changing") to find existing decisions that govern that area.Call get_why() with no arguments to get the decision-health dashboard:
The same signals surface in the CLI via repowise decision health, and you can review auto-proposed decisions with repowise decision confirm.
If you see # WHY:, # DECISION:, # TRADEOFF:, or # ADR: comments in code, call get_context(targets=["that_file.py"]) to see the full decision record with context and affected modules.
If the user makes an architectural decision during the conversation, suggest: "Want to record this decision? Add a # DECISION: comment in the relevant code, or run repowise decision add to capture it formally."
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.