pre-modification-check-1cc7d9 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited pre-modification-check-1cc7d9 (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.
Before modifying files in a Repowise-indexed codebase, assess the impact.
Call get_risk(targets=["path/to/file.py"]). Per file it returns hotspot_score, trend, risk_type, impact_surface (top 3), dependents_count, co_change_partners, primary_owner, bus_factor, test_gap, and security_signals. Read it for:
hotspot_score, trend) — high-churn × complex? Extra care needed.dependents_count, impact_surface) — how wide is the blast radius?Batch all targets into one call: get_risk(targets=["file1.py", "file2.py", "module/"]).
If get_risk shows:
Call get_context(targets=["file.py"]) first to understand the full context: what uses this file, what decisions govern it, and why it's structured this way. This prevents accidentally violating architectural decisions.
For a heavy refactor, also call get_health(targets=["file.py"]) — the biomarker findings (complexity, deep nesting, low cohesion, duplication) tell you what to improve while you're in there, and give you a before/after score.
If get_risk returns a tool error, the MCP server may not be running. Proceed with the modification but note that risk assessment was unavailable.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.