post-design-review 100/100

Is post-design-review safe to install?

SaferSkills independently audited post-design-review (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.

CategoryWeightCategory scoreContribution

Securityprompt, exec, net, exfil, eval

35%

100

35.0 pts

Supply chainhash, typosquat, maintainer, lockfile

20%

100

20.0 pts

Maintenancestaleness, pinning, CI

15%

100

15.0 pts

TransparencySKILL.md, perms, README

15%

100

15.0 pts

Communityinstalls, verify, response

15%

100

15.0 pts

Findings & checks · 0 flagged

Securityscore 100 · 0 findings

✓—All security checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass

Supply chainscore 100 · 0 findings

✓—All supply chain checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass

Maintenancescore 100 · 0 findings

✓—All maintenance checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass

Transparencyscore 100 · 0 findings

✓—All transparency checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass

Communityscore 100 · 0 findings

✓—All community checks passedNo findings in this category for the latest scan.pass

The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.

skills/post-design-review/SKILL.md · 1 file

skills/post-design-review/SKILL.md2.2 KB · Markdown

description: "Review a game design document from an implementer's perspective — check self-consistency, playability, buildability, and codebase gaps. Use after writing a design doc, or when you want to validate an existing design against the current codebase."

Run qq scripts as ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/<name>: they are not on PATH, so a bare qq-execute-checkpoint.py exits 127.

Respond in the user's preferred language (detect from their recent messages, or fall back to the language setting in CLAUDE.md).

Review a game design document from an implementer's perspective.

Workflow: take --workflow <name> from $ARGUMENTS if present, else run qq-config.py field workflow. On prototype-loop, this review is not a step of the workflow: when invoked directly, run one round and stop (shared/prototype-loop.md §Design); on heavy-review (the default), follow this file as written.

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS (path to a design document, or empty to use the most recent design doc in Docs/qq/)

Process

Find the document: if a path is given, read it. Otherwise, find the most recent *_design.md in Docs/qq/.
Spawn a review subagent (Agent tool) that reads design-reviewer-prompt.md and the design document, checks the document's claims against the codebase itself, and returns the review in that prompt's format.
Verify, then present: check each finding yourself against the document and the code; the subagent can misread code or cite stale information. Present only the findings you confirmed, and say which ones you rejected and why.
If verdict is HAS GAPS or NEEDS REWORK: revise the document together with the user. Re-run the subagent review after revisions. Loop until SOLID or the user explicitly accepts the gaps. Items moved to the document's "Needs the user's decision" list count as resolved.
If verdict is SOLID: confirm and recommend /qq:plan. If invoked with `--auto`: run qq-execute-checkpoint.py pipeline-advance --project . --completed-skill "/qq:post-design-review" --next-skill "/qq:plan", then invoke /qq:plan --auto <document-path>.

post-design-review— agent skill

Is post-design-review safe to install?

Process

Audit the pieces. Scan the whole. Decide.