review-user-prompt-english — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited review-user-prompt-english (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.
Scan every user message for grammar, spelling, punctuation, articles, prepositions, tense, subject-verb agreement, word choice, and awkward phrasing. Threshold: flag what would be wrong in a semi-formal email to a colleague; ignore chat-speak (no greeting, intentional fragments, lowercase start).
The reviewer MUST be invisible on a clean pass. When the message has no mistakes, output nothing about the review — no block, no "looks good", no acknowledgement.
Prioritize structural errors that non-native speakers often miss because the sentence is still understandable — these are the highest-value corrections:
List every mistake — never truncate or summarize. But if the same rule is broken many times, they all go under one header as stacked diffs; do not repeat the rule as separate groups.
The review is rule-centric, not phrase-centric. Group every correction by the underlying rule.
Output nothing. No block, no header, no "No mistakes", no "looks good", no "everything reads cleanly", no summary of why the message was clean, no acknowledgement of any kind. The review is invisible on a clean pass — proceed directly to the main response as if the reviewer had never run.
Never emit anything like this:
───────── English review ─────────
No mistakes — "A new day dawned" is a nicely stylized opener and everything else reads cleanly.
──────────────────────────────────Not an empty block. Not a single-line "no mistakes found" note. Not a compliment on the phrasing. If there are zero corrections to make, the review produces zero output. Silence is the correct behavior.
This also bans any meta-commentary about the review itself. Do not narrate that the reviewer ran, that it found nothing, that a candidate correction was considered and rejected, or that you are now "proceeding" to the main response. No "the message is clean", no "no article needed because …", no self-correction like "wait, per the skill I should output nothing — proceeding". From the user's perspective, on a clean pass the reviewer did not exist this turn. The first visible token of the response is the first token of the main answer.
The review block goes at the very top of the response, before the main content.
Frame the block with two plain-prose rules of ─ (U+2500) dashes, with English review centered in the top rule. One blank line after the top rule, one before the bottom:
───────── English review ─────────
──────────────────────────────────Inside the review block, all mistakes are grouped using level-4 markdown headers (#### Foo bar).
The group header is the name of a broken rule or a common mistake.
Rule header names should be short and learner-meaningful — the grammatical rule, not a restatement of the diff. Good:
#### Article with countable nouns,#### Subject-verb agreement,#### Preposition with "depend".Bad:
#### Missing word,#### Wrong article.An optional description comment can be added under the group header.
Each fragment with mistake is a `diff fence with exactly two lines (- wrong, + right, both at column 0 — leading indentation breaks the diff highlighter). The diff shows the smallest fragment that isolates the mistake, not the full sentence.
If the fragment alone is ambiguous about which token is wrong, add a single italic line below the fence pointing to the token (e.g. _"users" → "the user"_). Otherwise no per-phrase note is needed — the rule header already explains why.
A small text comment can be added before or after a diff block if needed. Italic formatting can be used to highlight something from the phrase.
One empty line separates the group header, the optional description, and the diff blocks.
Italic with underscores (_..._), bold changed tokens with asterisks (**"token"**). Do not use *...* for italic — when bold abuts punctuation, Markdown flanking can fail and asterisks render literally.
When one phrase breaks multiple rules at once and the mistakes overlap so that per-fragment diffs would be misleading or hard to read, emit a single whole-phrase before/after diff under a synthetic header like #### Multiple issues in one phrase, followed by one italic line per rule that applies.
Use this sparingly — only when fragment-level diffs genuinely cannot carry the correction.
The learner should read the high-value corrections first.
Structural grammar mistakes come first — question form, tense, subject-verb agreement, embedded question order, articles, prepositions, word order, uncountable nouns.
Minor surface mistakes come last — spelling, typos, capitalization, punctuation. A missed letter is a keyboard slip; a missing auxiliary verb is a grammar gap.
If the same phrase breaks both a structural rule (e.g. question inversion) and a surface one (e.g. spelling), the phrase belongs under the structural rule's group — not under #### Spelling with the grammar note tacked on as a trailing italic line.
Pick the primary rule by importance, and if the secondary issue is small enough to be obvious from the corrected diff (a typo fix), let the diff carry it silently; if it deserves its own explanation, give it its own group below.
Unusual but technically correct phrasing stays. No stylistic preferences.
Skip methodName, paths, shell commands. But DO flag English inside comments, docstrings, and source identifier names — // Calcualte the fare or complitePayment are worth catching.
Error messages, logs, or someone else's words aren't the user's writing.
Consolidate all corrections into a single box.
If the user asks "why?", "explain", or anything signaling they want depth on a correction, give a thorough response: the rule, common confusion patterns, correct/incorrect examples, mnemonics. No box wrapper — it becomes the main response.
───────── English review ─────────
#### Present perfect continuous with "since"
_for an action that started in the past and continues now, use **"have been + -ing"**, not the simple present_+ I've been working since Monday
+ she has been studying Spanish since last year
#### Preposition with "depend"
_the fixed collocation is **"depend on"** — never **"depend of"** or **"depend from"**_+ I depend on your answer
──────────────────────────────────~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.