autopilot — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited autopilot (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.
This skill executes the full ABAP development lifecycle autonomously — from a user's idea to tested, ATC-clean, activated code in a transport. It chains the right skills and agents in sequence, handling errors along the way.
self-correcting-loop to iteratively fix → check → fix until clean. Do not manually patch and hope. The loop has discipline you lack.| Agent Will Try To... | Why It Seems Reasonable | Why It Fails | Counter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skip requirements confirmation | "The user was very specific" | Users describe what they want, not what they need. Ambiguity hides in specificity. | Confirm requirements explicitly. Repeat back the understanding. Get a yes. |
| Generate code before designing the data model | "I'll figure out the data model as I code" | Retrofitting a data model produces spaghetti dependencies and incorrect CDS view hierarchies. | Complete Step 2 (Design) fully before Step 3 (Generate). |
| Skip unit tests for "simple" methods | "Getters don't need tests" | Getters fail on null refs, auth failures, and data type mismatches. | Iron Law 2. Every method gets a test. No exceptions. |
| Manually fix errors instead of using self-correcting-loop | "I can see the fix, it's obvious" | Manual fixes introduce new errors. The loop catches what you miss. | Iron Law 4. Use the loop. Always. |
| Activate before ATC completes | "ATC is running, but the code looks clean" | ATC catches what syntax check misses — performance issues, security holes, deprecated APIs. | Wait for ATC. No activation without P1/P2 clean. |
<HARD-GATE> Before starting the autopilot pipeline:
If any condition is not met, complete it before proceeding. </HARD-GATE>
Agent: Main (no delegation) Input: User's idea or request Process:
Gate: User confirmed requirements. No ambiguity remaining.
Agent: sap-architect (dispatched) Input: Confirmed requirements Process:
Gate: Design brief reviewed. All data access uses released APIs. No physical table dependencies.
Skill: code-generation (invoked — Steps 1-3) Input: Design brief Process:
Gate: All structures compile clean. No syntax errors.
Skill: code-generation (invoked — Step 4) Agent: sap-test-designer (dispatched for test case design) Process:
Gate: Test classes compile. Test structure covers all public methods.
Skill: code-generation (invoked — Step 5) Process:
common/ conventionsGate: All unit tests pass. No implementation gaps.
Agents: sap-reviewer + sap-security-auditor (parallel dispatch) Process:
Gate: ATC P1/P2 clean. No critical code review findings. No security findings.
Skill: self-correcting-loop (invoked if any Step 6 gate fails) Process: Iterative fix → check → fix until all gates pass.
Process:
Gate: All objects active. All in transport. Final syntax clean.
AUTOPILOT COMPLETION RECORD
============================
Request: [Original user request]
Platform: [SAP version / ABAP release]
Transport: [Transport number]
Duration: [Pipeline execution time]
OBJECTS CREATED
───────────────
[Type] | [Name] | [Description] | [Status]
TESTS
─────
Total: [N] | Passed: [N] | Failed: [0]
ATC
───
Check variant: [Name]
P1: 0 | P2: 0 | P3: [N]
CODE REVIEW
───────────
Critical: 0 | Major: 0 | Minor: [N]
SECURITY
────────
Findings: 0
PIPELINE RESULT: ✅ SUCCESS / ❌ FAILED AT [step]This skill is complete ONLY when ALL of the following are true:
Evidence required: Completion record with all sections filled.
After completing this skill, invoke: code-review (for peer review of the generated code) If the user wants to deploy: chain to testing-strategy → go-live-readiness
self-correcting-loop — Invoked when any gate failscode-generation — Handles the actual code generation stepscode-review — Post-pipeline peer reviewteam-execution — Use instead of autopilot when multiple developers need parallel work~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.