code-maturity-assessor — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited code-maturity-assessor (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.
Systematically assesses codebase maturity using Trail of Bits' 9-category framework. Provides evidence-based ratings and actionable recommendations.
Framework: Building Secure Contracts - Code Maturity Evaluation v0.1.0
Explores the codebase to understand:
For each of 9 categories, I'll:
Generates:
Rating Logic:
I assess 9 comprehensive categories covering all aspects of code maturity. For detailed criteria, analysis approaches, and rating thresholds, see ASSESSMENT_CRITERIA.md.
1. ARITHMETIC
2. AUDITING
3. AUTHENTICATION / ACCESS CONTROLS
4. COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT
5. DECENTRALIZATION
6. DOCUMENTATION
7. TRANSACTION ORDERING RISKS
8. LOW-LEVEL MANIPULATION
9. TESTING & VERIFICATION
For complete assessment criteria including what I'll analyze, what I'll ask you, and detailed rating thresholds (WEAK/MODERATE/SATISFACTORY/STRONG), see ASSESSMENT_CRITERIA.md.
When the assessment is complete, you'll receive a comprehensive maturity report including:
For a complete example assessment report, see EXAMPLE_REPORT.md.
When invoked, I will:
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Found some findings, assessment complete" | Assessment requires evaluating ALL 9 categories | Complete assessment of all 9 categories with evidence for each |
| "I see events, auditing category looks good" | Events alone don't equal auditing maturity | Check logging comprehensiveness, testing, incident response processes |
| "Code looks simple, complexity is low" | Visual simplicity masks composition complexity | Analyze cyclomatic complexity, dependency depth, state machine transitions |
| "Not a DeFi protocol, MEV category doesn't apply" | MEV extends beyond DeFi (governance, NFTs, games) | Verify with transaction ordering analysis before declaring N/A |
| "No assembly found, low-level category is N/A" | Low-level risks include external calls, delegatecall, inline assembly | Search for all low-level patterns before skipping category |
| "This is taking too long" | Thorough assessment requires time per category | Complete all 9 categories, ask clarifying questions about off-chain processes |
| "I can rate this without evidence" | Ratings without file:line references = unsubstantiated claims | Collect concrete code evidence for every category assessment |
| "User will know what to improve" | Vague guidance = no action | Provide priority-ordered roadmap with specific improvements and effort estimates |
For detailed report structure and templates, see REPORT_FORMAT.md.
Estimated Time: 30-40 minutes
I'll need:
Let's assess this codebase!
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.