public-resource-allocation — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited public-resource-allocation (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 public resource allocation analyst. Do NOT ask the user questions. Read the codebase, analyze allocation algorithms, equity models, and forecasting logic, then produce a comprehensive assessment of the resource allocation system.
TARGET: $ARGUMENTS
If arguments are provided, focus on specific areas (e.g., "budget module", "equity scoring", "demand forecasting"). If no arguments, run the full analysis.
============================================================ PHASE 1: SYSTEM DISCOVERY ============================================================
Step 1.1 -- Read project configuration to identify tech stack: backend framework, database (relational, time-series, data warehouse), data processing pipelines, frontend/dashboarding, GIS/mapping libraries, statistical/ML libraries, reporting tools, and authentication/RBAC system.
Step 1.2 -- Scan for resource types managed: budget/fiscal appropriations, personnel/staffing, physical facilities, fleet/equipment, social services, public safety resources, infrastructure maintenance, grant funding. Record data models, allocation algorithms, distribution logic, and constraint definitions.
Step 1.3 -- Identify data inputs: Census/demographic data, service request/311 data, historical utilization, budget system feeds, GIS boundary data, performance metrics, survey/feedback data, external APIs (federal data, weather, economic).
============================================================ PHASE 2: BUDGET OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS ============================================================
Step 2.1 -- Map budget model: fund structure (general, special revenue, enterprise, capital), departmental hierarchy, program-level budgeting, line-item vs. performance-based approach, multi-year vs. annual cycles, encumbrance tracking.
Step 2.2 -- Review each allocation algorithm: formula/methodology, configurable vs. hardcoded weights, zero-based vs. incremental, minimum/maximum caps, competing priority resolution, scenario modeling (what-if analysis).
Step 2.3 -- Check budget monitoring: actual vs. budgeted tracking, variance threshold alerts, spending rate projections, mid-year reallocation workflow, carry-forward/lapse tracking, grant drawdown compliance.
============================================================ PHASE 3: DEMAND FORECASTING ============================================================
Step 3.1 -- Identify forecasting approaches: time-series (ARIMA, Prophet), regression, ML models, trend extrapolation, or no forecasting (static allocation). For each model, check input features, prediction horizon, training/update process, backtesting, seasonal pattern handling.
Step 3.2 -- Assess data quality: completeness, freshness, standardization, outlier detection, population growth adjustments, event-driven demand spikes.
Step 3.3 -- Check forecast performance: MAPE or equivalent metrics, forecast vs. actual dashboards, retraining triggers, confidence intervals, ensemble or fallback strategies.
============================================================ PHASE 4: EQUITY-BASED DISTRIBUTION ============================================================
Step 4.1 -- Identify equity frameworks: equity indices, demographic weighting, social vulnerability indicators (CDC SVI or custom), environmental justice considerations, historical disinvestment adjustments, disparate impact analysis.
Step 4.2 -- Check equity data: income/poverty by geography, race/ethnicity, health disparities, educational attainment, housing burden, transportation access, digital divide indicators, language access needs.
Step 4.3 -- Assess equity algorithms: score calculation methodology, weight transparency, policymaker adjustability, bias testing on outcomes, minimum floors for underserved areas, public explainability.
Step 4.4 -- Check equity outcome tracking: pre/post impact analysis, geographic distribution visualization, per-capita allocation by demographic, service access metrics by geography, improvement trends over time.
============================================================ PHASE 5: GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE AND STAFFING ============================================================
Step 5.1 -- Evaluate GIS: mapping library, boundary data, geocoding, spatial queries (PostGIS), drive-time isochrones, demand heat mapping.
Step 5.2 -- Check coverage analysis: service area definitions, population coverage, travel time to service, coverage gaps and overlaps, underserved area flagging, facility siting models.
Step 5.3 -- Identify staffing models: workload-based formulas, caseload ratios, shift scheduling, overtime prediction, seasonal adjustments, vacancy impact modeling, capacity utilization tracking, surge planning.
============================================================ PHASE 6: PERFORMANCE TRACKING ============================================================
Step 6.1 -- Identify KPIs: efficiency (cost per service unit), effectiveness (outcome rates), equity (distribution fairness), timeliness (response times), quality (error rates, satisfaction), access (utilization rates).
Step 6.2 -- Assess reporting: real-time dashboards vs. periodic reports, drill-down capability, trend visualization, peer benchmarks, public transparency dashboards, data export.
Step 6.3 -- Check accountability: target tracking, corrective action workflow, audit trails for decisions, public feedback integration, legislative reporting, open data publication.
============================================================ SELF-HEALING VALIDATION (max 2 iterations) ============================================================
After producing output, validate data quality and completeness:
note data gaps and attempt alternative discovery methods.
IF VALIDATION FAILS:
IF STILL INCOMPLETE after 2 iterations:
============================================================ OUTPUT ============================================================
Project: [name] Stack: [detected technologies] Resource Domains: [list of resource types managed] Assessment Date: [date]
| Area | Status | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Budget Optimization | [STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK] | [summary] |
| Demand Forecasting | [STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK] | [summary] |
| Equity Distribution | [STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK] | [summary] |
| Geographic Coverage | [STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK] | [summary] |
| Staffing Models | [STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK] | [summary] |
| Performance Tracking | [STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK] | [summary] |
| Resource Type | Algorithm | Equity-Weighted | Configurable | Documented |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [type] | [method] | [yes/no] | [yes/no] | [yes/no] |
| Model | Domain | Method | Accuracy | Data Freshness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | [type] | [method] | [MAPE %] | [frequency] |
| Factor | Weight | Data Source | Update Freq | Bias Tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [factor] | [weight] | [source] | [frequency] | [yes/no] |
Immediate (0-30 days):
Short-term (30-90 days):
Long-term (90+ days):
============================================================ NEXT STEPS ============================================================
/government-compliance to verify regulatory compliance."/perf to assess performance under peak budget cycle load."/database-review to optimize allocation dataset queries."/security-review to verify access controls on budget data."============================================================ 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:
### /public-resource-allocation — {{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.
============================================================ DO NOT ============================================================
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.