strategic-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited strategic-review (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.
Purpose: Analyze a service or project at phase transitions — identify what's working, what's broken, and what to build next. Produces a prioritized feature roadmap grounded in real metrics. When: At phase transitions in plan.md, when metrics degrade, or when the backlog needs re-prioritization. Output: Structured markdown report delivered in chat (no file written).
Read (in order):
CLAUDE.md — QUICK CONTEXT, GOAL, CURRENT STATE, Known Issues, LOGplan.md — active phase, open/closed tasks, gates~/.claude/memory/episodic/best-practices.md — grep for project stack tagsIf project has a running DB (SQLite, Postgres) and CLAUDE.md has a schema reference → offer to run diagnostic queries:
"Запустить диагностические SQL-запросы для актуальных метрик? (да / нет)"If "да" — run queries via Bash (sqlite3 / psql) to get: alert count, precision, PnL, open positions. If "нет" — use values from CLAUDE.md/LOG.
Extract key metrics into a table:
| Metric | Value | Target | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | X% | ≥ 70% | 🔴/🟡/✅ |
| Paper/Live PnL | $X | > 0 | 🔴/🟡/✅ |
| Alert volume (today) | N | — | — |
| Monitor cycle | Xm | < 10m | 🔴/🟡/✅ |
| Notifications | status | working | 🔴/🟡/✅ |
| Open positions | N | ≤ max | — |
Mark each: ✅ on target / 🟡 acceptable / 🔴 below threshold.
For each 🔴 metric — one paragraph:
Keep hypotheses labeled as hypotheses. Don't state unknowns as facts.
Always structure proposals across 5 standard areas. Skip areas with no findings (don't force entries):
A. Signal Quality — precision, recall, detector performance, false positive sources B. Trading Bot — entry logic, exit logic, position sizing, banned categories C. Infrastructure — notifications, monitoring, deploy pipeline, reliability D. Analytics — per-detector stats, per-category PnL, wallet tracking, outcome tagging E. Performance — scan cycle time, API efficiency, DB query speed
For each finding: one-line description + concrete proposal.
Rank all proposals:
| # | Feature | Area | Impact | Effort | ROI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [name] | A/B/C/D/E | 🔴 High / 🟡 Med | 🟢 1h / 🟡 3h / 🔴 1d | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
Rules:
Three buckets:
Quick wins (today, < 4h): Top 3–4 by ROI — can be done in current session Medium term (next 2–3 sessions): Important but need planning Long term (after gate/milestone): Depends on data not yet available (paper trading results, A/B data)
For each item: one line, clear acceptance criterion.
After report:
"С чего начнём? Могу сразу перейти к реализации любого пункта."Before delivering report: verify all 5 areas were checked (even if skipped with reason), priority matrix is sorted by ROI, and roadmap has at least 1 quick win.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.