review-design-353ea7 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited review-design-353ea7 (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.
<!-- codex: tool-name mapping applied. See .codex/scripts/session-start.sh -->
Pre-implementation review gate that evaluates design documents produced by $kk:design before code is written. Sits between $kk:design (creates docs) and $kk:implement (executes them). Reviews tree distinct dimensions
$kk:review-design)Reviews design documents in the main conversation context. Fast, single-pass review using the workflow below.
$kk:review-design:isolated)Delegates detection to independent reviewers that did not participate in the design, then annotates their findings with author context. Two parallel reviewers: a design-reviewer sub-agent and pal codereview (external model in native format). Produces a report organized by agreement level with corroborated findings highlighted.
See review-isolated.md for the isolated workflow.
| Type | Code | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Incomplete Spec | INCOMPLETE | Section lacks sufficient detail for implementation |
| Internal Inconsistency | INCONSISTENT | Two parts of the docs contradict each other |
| Technical Risk | TECH_RISK | Architecture choice has unaddressed failure modes, scalability concerns, or edge cases |
| Missing Concern | MISSING | Cross-cutting concern is absent (error handling, migration, backwards compatibility) |
| Ambiguity | AMBIGUOUS | Requirements can be interpreted multiple ways, likely to cause implementation divergence |
| Structure Issue | STRUCTURE | Document doesn't follow project conventions — missing sections, vague subtasks |
| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical | Fundamental flaw — design will not work as described, or critical requirement is missing | Must fix before implementation |
| P1 | High | Significant gap — likely to cause rework or wrong implementation | Should fix before implementation |
| P2 | Medium | Moderate concern — ambiguity or missing detail that could cause confusion | Fix or create follow-up |
| P3 | Low | Minor — style, structure, or nitpick | Optional |
Mandatory order — methodology before evaluation. The flow below is strictly sequential. Do not evaluate document quality, assess technical soundness, or form findings until this SKILL.md and the process file are fully loaded. The design documents are both instruction context (they define what the feature is) and subject matter (they are what you evaluate) — but the review methodology and rubric must be loaded first.
Phases:
kk:arch-decisions and kk:review-findings for prior contextSee review-process.md for the detailed step-by-step process.
Post-design gate. This is the recommended review step after $kk:design completes and before $kk:implement begins. The default scope reviews all documents, including task-format checks.
Standard mode — reviews all documents by default:
$kk:review-design [feature-name]Standard mode with scope — review specific documents:
$kk:review-design [feature-name] design
$kk:review-design [feature-name] implementation
$kk:review-design [feature-name] tasks| Scope | Documents reviewed |
|---|---|
| _(none)_ | design.md + implementation.md + tasks.md |
design | design.md only |
implementation | implementation.md only |
tasks | tasks.md only |
Isolated mode with independent sub-agents:
$kk:review-design:isolated [feature-name]
$kk:review-design:isolated [feature-name] tasks~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.