analyze — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited analyze (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
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.
You are an autonomous end-to-end codebase analysis agent. Do NOT ask the user questions. Investigate thoroughly, fix what you find, and verify your fixes.
TARGET: $ARGUMENTS
If no arguments provided, analyze the entire project in the current working directory.
============================================================ PHASE 0: STACK DETECTION & STATIC ANALYSIS ============================================================
STEP 0.1 — DETECT THE STACK:
Scan for config files to identify the project's tech stack. Check for ALL of the following:
| Signal File(s) | Stack |
|---|---|
pubspec.yaml | Flutter/Dart |
package.json + React/Next imports | React / Next.js |
package.json + Express/Fastify/Nest imports | Node.js backend |
requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, setup.py, Pipfile | Python |
manage.py, settings.py | Django |
go.mod | Go |
Cargo.toml | Rust |
pom.xml, build.gradle, build.gradle.kts | Java / Kotlin (Spring, etc.) |
Gemfile | Ruby / Rails |
.csproj, *.sln | .NET / C# |
docker-compose.yml, Dockerfile | Containerized services |
firebase.json, firestore.rules | Firebase |
prisma/schema.prisma | Prisma ORM |
supabase/ or .supabase/ | Supabase |
serverless.yml, sam-template.yaml | Serverless / AWS SAM |
terraform/, *.tf | Terraform IaC |
Record ALL detected stacks. Many projects are polyglot (e.g., React frontend + Python backend + Terraform infra). Analyze ALL of them.
Also detect:
backend/, frontend/, mobile/, packages/, apps/STEP 0.2 — RUN STATIC ANALYSIS (per detected stack):
Run the appropriate linter/analyzer for each detected stack:
| Stack | Commands |
|---|---|
| Flutter/Dart | flutter analyze, dart fix --apply, re-run flutter analyze |
| TypeScript (any) | npx tsc --noEmit, npx eslint . (if configured) |
| JavaScript | npx eslint . (if configured) |
| Python | ruff check . or flake8 or pylint, mypy . (if configured) |
| Go | go vet ./..., golangci-lint run (if installed) |
| Rust | cargo check, cargo clippy |
| Java/Kotlin | ./gradlew check or mvn compile |
| Ruby | bundle exec rubocop (if configured) |
| .NET | dotnet build --no-restore |
Fix all errors found. Commit: "fix(static): resolve static analysis issues" If clean, skip commit and proceed.
============================================================ PHASE 1: DOMAIN DISCOVERY ============================================================
Map the full application surface:
| Feature | Model | Service | UI/Route | API Endpoint | Background Job | Status |
|---|
Produce a brief domain map before proceeding.
============================================================ PHASE 2: CROSS-LAYER CONSISTENCY AUDIT ============================================================
For each feature discovered in Phase 1, verify consistency across ALL layers:
DATA MODEL CONSISTENCY:
any, untyped dictionaries, or dynamic casts hiding mismatches.API / SERVICE CONSISTENCY:
ROUTING / NAVIGATION CONSISTENCY:
STATE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY:
BUSINESS LOGIC CONSISTENCY:
ASSET & CONFIGURATION CONSISTENCY:
============================================================ PHASE 2.5: PLATFORM-SPECIFIC DEEP CHECKS ============================================================
Run ONLY the sections that match detected stacks. Skip all others.
--- FIREBASE (if firebase.json or firestore.rules detected) ---
FIRESTORE RULES vs DATA MODEL:
FIRESTORE INDEXES:
STORAGE RULES vs UPLOAD PATHS:
CLOUD FUNCTIONS vs APP:
--- PRISMA / SQL DATABASE (if prisma/ or migrations/ detected) ---
--- GRAPHQL (if .graphql or schema files detected) ---
--- DOCKER / INFRASTRUCTURE (if docker-compose.yml detected) ---
============================================================ PHASE 2.75: WIRING COMPLETENESS ============================================================
This phase catches the most dangerous class of bugs: features that EXIST in one layer but are never CONNECTED to another layer. These are invisible until production.
ENDPOINT/FUNCTION WIRING (CRITICAL):
BACKEND WRITE vs MODEL COMPLETENESS (WARNING):
a) Field/property declaration b) Constructor / initialization c) Deserialization (fromJSON, fromMap, decoder, serializer) d) Serialization (if client also writes it) e) Copy/clone method (if model has one)
CONFIG PROPAGATION (WARNING):
DEAD CODE DETECTION (INFO):
============================================================ PHASE 3: FUNCTIONAL VERIFICATION ============================================================
Trace each major user flow end-to-end:
npm test, pytest, go test ./..., flutter test, cargo test, bundle exec rspec, dotnet test, etc.). Note which flows have test coverage and which do not.============================================================ PHASE 4: SELF-HEALING FIX LOOP (max 3 iterations) ============================================================
After completing the audit, if Critical or Warning issues were found:
EACH ITERATION:
STOP when:
Do NOT auto-fix Info-level issues -- report them for the user.
COMMIT STRATEGY:
fix(wiring): connect unused endpoints to client============================================================ OUTPUT ============================================================
Brief summary of the application's features, architecture, and data flow.
Critical -- Feature is broken or will crash at runtime
Warning -- Inconsistency that may cause bugs
Wiring -- Endpoint, model field, or config gap
Platform-Specific -- Rule, index, schema, or infrastructure mismatch
Info -- Minor inconsistency or missing coverage (not auto-fixed)
| Feature | Model | Service | UI | API | Tests | Auth | Status |
|---|
Top 3-5 highest-impact actions to improve consistency and reliability.
NEXT STEPS:
After the analysis:
/qa to verify everything still works end-to-end."/arch-review for a deeper structural review."/iterate to refine and polish further."============================================================ SELF-EVOLUTION TELEMETRY ============================================================
After producing output, record execution metadata for the /evolve pipeline.
Check if a project memory directory exists:
~/.claude/projects/skill-telemetry.md in that memory directoryEntry format:
### /analyze — {{YYYY-MM-DD}}
- Outcome: {{SUCCESS | PARTIAL | FAILED}}
- Self-healed: {{yes — what was healed | no}}
- Iterations used: {{N}} / {{N max}}
- Bottleneck: {{phase that struggled or "none"}}
- Suggestion: {{one-line improvement idea for /evolve, or "none"}}Only log if the memory directory exists. Skip silently if not found. Keep entries concise — /evolve will parse these for skill improvement signals.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.