jargon-flagger — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited jargon-flagger (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.
Scans a draft and flags every instance of technical jargon, unexplained acronyms, and insider language that a general-audience reader would not understand — with a plain-language alternative for each.
Required: The draft text to be reviewed.
Optional: The target audience's assumed knowledge level (e.g., "general newspaper reader," "informed but non-specialist," "industry audience who knows the basics"); the subject domain (helps calibrate what counts as jargon vs. common knowledge in that field); any terms you have already decided to keep and do not want flagged.
A numbered list of flagged items, each formatted with the term, its category, its location in the text, and a plain-language alternative. Followed by a brief accessibility verdict. No rewriting of full passages — alternatives are targeted replacements or parenthetical definitions.
**Jargon Report**
*Audience baseline: [stated or assumed audience]*
1. **"[term]"** (Para [N]) — [Jargon / Acronym / Insider language]
→ Plain alternative: "[replacement or definition]"
2. **"[term]"** (Para [N]) — [Jargon / Acronym / Insider language]
→ Plain alternative: "[replacement or definition]"
---
**Accessibility Verdict:** [2-3 sentences on overall jargon density and distribution]Audience: General newspaper reader Domain: Healthcare policy Draft (280 words):
The government's new primary care strategy relies heavily on expanding the role of NPs and PAs in underserved areas. The plan, which was developed after extensive stakeholder engagement, proposes shifting a significant portion of patient encounters from GPs to mid-level providers — a move that the BMA has described as "workforce substitution dressed up as innovation."
Proponents argue that task-shifting is a proven approach in global health systems. The WHO has documented its effectiveness in LMICs, and several high-income countries have expanded scope of practice for non-physician clinicians with positive outcomes for patient throughput and cost-per-encounter metrics.
Critics counter that the evidence base is weaker than proponents suggest. A recent systematic review found that while patient satisfaction scores were comparable, clinical outcomes data was heterogeneous and the studies had significant risk of bias. The review's authors cautioned against extrapolating from controlled pilot programmes to national rollout.
The strategy also includes provisions for integrated care pathways and a new outcomes-based commissioning framework that would tie provider reimbursement to QALYs rather than volume of service. Health economists say this represents a fundamental shift from fee-for-service to value-based care, but implementation will require significant investment in health informatics infrastructure and interoperability standards.
Jargon Report Audience baseline: General newspaper reader
→ Plain alternative: "nurse practitioners and physician associates" (spell out on first use)
→ Plain alternative: "consultation with doctors, nurses, patient groups, and health officials"
→ Plain alternative: "nurses and other non-doctor clinicians" or define briefly on first use
→ Plain alternative: Spell out as "British Medical Association" on first use
→ Plain alternative: "moving certain medical tasks from doctors to other qualified health workers"
→ Plain alternative: "low- and middle-income countries"
→ Plain alternative: "the range of procedures and treatments they are allowed to perform"
→ Plain alternative: "the number of patients seen"
→ Plain alternative: "the cost of each patient visit"
→ Plain alternative: "a study that analysed all available research on the topic"
→ Plain alternative: "varied and inconsistent"
→ Plain alternative: "flaws in how the studies were designed"
→ Plain alternative: "coordinated treatment plans that connect different parts of the health system"
→ Plain alternative: "a funding model that pays providers based on patient health results"
→ Plain alternative: "quality-adjusted life years — a measure of how much a treatment improves a patient's health and lifespan"
→ Plain alternative: "paying doctors per appointment or procedure"
→ Plain alternative: "a model that rewards keeping patients healthy rather than treating them repeatedly"
→ Plain alternative: "digital record-keeping and data-sharing systems"
→ Plain alternative: "rules that allow different computer systems to share patient information"
Accessibility Verdict: This draft is heavily jargon-laden — 19 flagged terms across 280 words, or roughly one inaccessible term every 15 words. The density increases sharply in paragraphs 2 and 4, which read as specialist policy language rather than journalism. For a general newspaper reader, the piece would need substantial de-jargoning; for an informed policy audience, approximately half these terms could be retained with brief definitions on first use.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.