text-expander — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited text-expander (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.
Identifies where a short article or passage is thin on detail, context, or evidence, and flags specific expansion opportunities with suggested additions — without fabricating information the writer did not provide.
Required: The text to be expanded; the target word count or the approximate number of words to add.
Optional: Additional material to integrate (unused quotes, background research, statistics, anecdotes); specific sections the editor wants developed ("expand the third paragraph with more context"); the publication type (news brief, feature, analysis) — this affects where expansion is most appropriate.
Two parts. First: a gap analysis listing 3-6 expansion opportunities, each with a location, the type of material needed, and whether the user's supplied material covers it. Second: the expanded text with new material marked in bold so the writer can review additions at a glance. Word counts (original and expanded) stated at the top. If the target cannot be reached with the material provided, states how many additional words of reported content are still needed.
**Original:** [X] words → **Expanded:** [Y] words ([Z] words added)
**Target:** [T] words — [Reached / Needs approximately N more words of reported content]
**Gap Analysis**
1. [Location]: [What is missing] — [Covered by supplied material / Needs reporting]
2. [Location]: [What is missing] — [Covered by supplied material / Needs reporting]
---
[Expanded text with **new material in bold**]Target: Expand to approximately 350 words Additional material: Quote from a transport analyst: "The problem is not that cities lack cycling infrastructure — it's that the infrastructure they build is designed for confident cyclists, not for the nervous majority who would ride if they felt safe." Text (180 words):
Cities across the region are investing heavily in cycling infrastructure, but ridership numbers remain stubbornly flat. Despite new bike lanes, expanded docking stations, and public awareness campaigns, the percentage of commuters who cycle to work has barely moved in three years.
Transport officials point to several factors: weather, the perception that cycling is dangerous, and the last-mile problem — most people live too far from their workplace to cycle the entire distance. Some officials also acknowledge that infrastructure alone may not be enough to change behaviour that has been shaped by decades of car-centric urban planning.
Original: 180 words → Expanded: 342 words (162 words added) Target: 350 words — Reached (within 2%)
Gap Analysis
Cities across the region are investing heavily in cycling infrastructure, but ridership numbers remain stubbornly flat. Despite new bike lanes, expanded docking stations, and public awareness campaigns, the percentage of commuters who cycle to work has barely moved in three years. The gap between spending and results has prompted a growing debate among planners about whether the current approach to cycling infrastructure is fundamentally misconceived.
Transport officials point to several factors: weather, the perception that cycling is dangerous, and the last-mile problem — most people live too far from their workplace to cycle the entire distance. But some analysts argue the issue runs deeper than logistics. "The problem is not that cities lack cycling infrastructure — it's that the infrastructure they build is designed for confident cyclists, not for the nervous majority who would ride if they felt safe," said one regional transport analyst. The distinction matters: protected lanes separated from traffic by physical barriers attract a broader range of riders than painted lanes on busy roads, but they cost significantly more and require reallocating road space from cars — a move most city councils have been reluctant to make.
Some officials also acknowledge that infrastructure alone may not be enough to change behaviour that has been shaped by decades of car-centric urban planning. How cities address that deeper challenge — through zoning reform, school-route planning, or employer incentives — may determine whether the current investment translates into ridership or remains an expensive symbol of good intentions.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.