expand-shell-078efb — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited expand-shell-078efb (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.
Expand a shell into a full implementation plan. The shell's Context, Produces, Consumes, Covers, and high-level Implementation Steps are authoritative. Expansion adds a pattern survey, concrete references, and verification, writes the plan to .turbo/plans/<shell-slug>.md, and deletes the source shell once the plan is in place.
Use update_plan to track each step:
$survey-patterns skill (shell-focused)Determine which shell to expand:
.turbo/shells/*.md and filter to shells whose depends_on are all satisfied (see satisfaction check below). If exactly one match, use itrequest_user_input to let the user choose.turbo/shells/, say so and stopA depends_on entry is satisfied when .turbo/plans/<dep-slug>.md exists with status: done in its frontmatter.
Read the shell file. Parse the YAML frontmatter:
Parse these body fields:
# Plan: heading)Compute the shell slug from the filename (basename without .md). The expanded plan will be written to .turbo/plans/<shell-slug>.md.
Verify Consumes are present in the current codebase. For each Consumes entry:
.turbo/plans/<prior-slug>.md has status: done AND that the artifact is actually present in the current codebase (the prior implementation may have diverged)If any Consumes entry fails verification, escalate via request_user_input:
$pick-next-shell again or resolve the prior work.Do not proceed to Step 2 until all Consumes verify cleanly.
$survey-patterns Skill (Shell-Focused)Run the $survey-patterns skill with a task description built from the shell's structural content:
<shell title>
Context: <shell Context>
Produces: <shell Produces, as a bulleted list>
Implementation steps: <shell Implementation Steps, numbered>This scopes the survey to the shell's concern area instead of a generic sweep. Keep the returned findings in conversation context for use in Step 4.
For each entry in the shell's Open Questions field, present it via request_user_input and collect the answer. Frame each question with enough context from the shell for the user to decide.
Do not escalate other questions. If you identify a new question while reading the codebase, note it as a risk in the drafted plan's Verification or Context Files sections.
If the shell's Open Questions field is empty or contains "None," skip this step entirely and proceed to Step 4.
Expand the shell into a full plan using:
file_path references and named functions or symbols from the pattern surveyCreate .turbo/plans/ if it does not exist. Write the plan to .turbo/plans/<shell-slug>.md using this structure:
---
status: draft
spec: <spec path from original shell frontmatter>
---
# Plan: <Task Title>
## Context
<Shell Context, preserved verbatim or lightly edited.>
## Pattern Survey
<Insert the structured findings from `$survey-patterns`: Analogous Features, Reusable Utilities, Convention Anchors, Proposed Alignment. Use the same format the survey returned.>
## Implementation Steps
1. **<Step 1 title>**
- <Concrete action with `file_path` references and named functions or symbols>
2. **<Step 2 title>**
- ...
3. ...
## Verification
- <Specific test command, manual smoke check, or MCP tool invocation>
- <Expected observable result>
- <Edge cases to spot-check>
## Context Files
- `<path/to/file1>` — <why it matters>
- `<path/to/file2>` — <why it matters>The plan carries spec forward as provenance. depends_on and the structural contract (Produces, Consumes, Covers) are locked in at expansion and do not need to persist on the plan.
State the plan path before proceeding.
file_path references and named functions or symbols. Reference existing functions and utilities from the Pattern Survey instead of reinventing them. Each step describes a discrete unit of work that can be tracked independently during execution.Re-read the shell at .turbo/shells/<shell-slug>.md and the drafted plan at .turbo/plans/<shell-slug>.md. Confirm the plan honors the shell's structural contract by checking each item below:
If every item passes, proceed to Step 6. If any item fails, revise the plan to close the gap and re-verify before proceeding. Do not delete the shell while any check is failing.
Present a brief summary of the expanded plan: the essence of what it builds and the key decisions behind it, short enough to read at a glance so the user does not have to read the full plan file. When the plan delivers user-facing value, also present a short list of user stories capturing what someone gains from it. Skip the stories for changes with no user-facing gain, such as internal refactors or infrastructure work. Fit both to the plan rather than a fixed template.
Then use request_user_input to offer two paths:
Do not delete the shell until the user approves.
Delete the source shell at .turbo/shells/<shell-slug>.md. The plan is now the authoritative artifact for this work.
Then update or check the active plan and proceed to any remaining task.
$review-plan or any review skills here.$finalize invocation in the plan file.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.