exploratory-test-5d32da — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited exploratory-test-5d32da (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.
Execute multi-level exploratory testing that goes beyond smoke testing to actively find bugs through escalating test scenarios.
At the start, use TaskCreate to create a task for each step:
/user-experience skill (when user-facing)/test-run-rules skillResolve the test plan using these rules in order:
.turbo/test-plans/<slug>.md.turbo/test-plans/<that-slug>.md when that file exists.turbo/test-plans/*.md. If exactly one file exists, use it.turbo/test-plan.md if .turbo/test-plans/ does not exist/create-test-plan skill first, then use the plan it writesIf multiple test plans exist and the most-recent choice is non-obvious, use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick from the candidates.
Read the resolved test plan and state its path.
Unless an explicit path or slug was passed, confirm the resolved plan still describes the work under test:
When a signal fires, output the signal and the scenarios it affects as text. For a superseded Context, name the scenarios that exercise the reversed or removed work. Then use AskUserQuestion to offer:
/create-test-plan skill with the resolved path, and use the plan it writesIf the user specifies a narrower scope, filter the plan to relevant scenarios rather than executing all of them. Reserve filtering for that case: a superseded plan keeps scenarios that each look plausible alone, so trimming it preserves the wrong ones.
Use the approach specified in the test plan. If the plan does not specify one, determine it using the same logic as /create-test-plan Step 2.
/user-experience Skill (When User-Facing)If the app has a user-facing surface (UI, screens, commands, messages, or any behavior a user sees or does), run the /user-experience skill to load the UX lens before executing tests, so usability concerns surface while interacting with the app. When it is unclear whether the surface is user-facing, use AskUserQuestion to ask rather than skipping silently. Skip this step for test targets with no user-facing behavior (internal library or infrastructure).
/test-run-rules SkillRun the /test-run-rules skill to load the rules for launching and driving the app.
Work through each level sequentially. Complete all tests in a level before moving to the next.
Record a scenario the test run rules leave blocked or inconclusive as PARTIAL, naming what is unproven and why.
When the scenario's output is consumed by another system, withhold PASS until that system accepts it. Decoding a token, reading a response body, or confirming a row exists shows only that the artifact was produced. Stand up the consumer under the same isolation and cleanup rules as any other service this run starts, and exercise its own flow. When standing it up is not possible, record PARTIAL and name which half is unproven. PARTIAL counts as not passed everywhere a verdict is tallied or gated.
AskUserQuestion to ask whether to continue. Basic failures may indicate the feature is too broken for deeper testing.If a project-specific testing skill or MCP tool was identified in Step 2, use that. The paths below are fallbacks.
Start or reuse a dev server under the test run rules. If /agent-browser is available, run the /agent-browser skill. Otherwise, use claude-in-chrome MCP to interact with the app.
Launch the app. Use computer-use MCP to interact with the UI.
Run commands directly.
Present results organized by level:
Exploratory Test Results:
## Level 1: Basic Functionality (X/Y passed)
- [PASS] Test name: description — [substitution, when one was driven]
- [FAIL] Test name: description — [what went wrong]
- [PARTIAL] Test name: description — [what is unproven, and why]
## Level 2: Complex Operations (X/Y passed)
- [PASS] Test name: description — [substitution, when one was driven]
- [FAIL] Test name: description — [what went wrong]
- [PARTIAL] Test name: description — [what is unproven, and why]
## Level 3: Adversarial Testing (X/Y passed)
- [PASS] Test name: description — [substitution, when one was driven]
- [FAIL] Test name: description — [what went wrong]
- [PARTIAL] Test name: description — [what is unproven, and why]
## Level 4: Cross-Cutting Scenarios (X/Y passed)
- [PASS] Test name: description — [substitution, when one was driven]
- [FAIL] Test name: description — [what went wrong]
- [PARTIAL] Test name: description — [what is unproven, and why]
Overall: X/Y passed across all levelsReport usability observations from the UX lens below the level results, separately from the defects. A scenario can pass every functional check and still surface a usability concern.
## Usability Observations
- [UX] <observation> — names the UX context it touches (Understanding, Bridging, or Flowing) and the goal mismatch or friction it createsFor each failure, include the relevant screenshot, output, or state observation.
When the change under test spans several repositories, add a per-repo view of the findings below the usability observations, naming a suggested fix site for each.
Update the resolved test plan file by checking off completed tests and annotating results.
Then use the TaskList tool and proceed to any remaining task.
/investigate skill on the test report.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.