wbg-oss-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited wbg-oss-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.
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 helps users audit and prepare a GitHub repository for World Bank Group open source publication. It is designed as a self-service tool — linked from the intranet public repository review request form — so that teams can independently identify and fix compliance gaps before submitting their repo for OSPO review.
You will scan the repo, identify gaps against the official checklist, generate a clear status report, and help create or fix any missing files.
./references/checklist.md — Full detail on each requirement, including required text verbatim and template links./references/templates.md — Starter templates for README sections, CITATION.cff, and the license noticeAsk the user which directory to audit (or confirm if a path is already clear from context). Then scan:
.env*, *.bib)references/checklist.md Requirement 3). Verify the README license notice and IGO rider file match that choice (WB-IGO-RIDER.md with MIT; WB-IGO-RIDER-APACHE.md with Apache)..gitignore or .env.example patternsDo this scanning in parallel where possible to move fast.
Produce a structured checklist report with status icons for each requirement. Use this format:
## WBG Open Source Publication — Audit Report
### ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ [Requirement Name]
**Status**: Pass / Needs Work / Missing
**Finding**: [what you found]
**Action needed**: [what to do, if anything]Work through all 10 requirements (see reference below). Be specific — don't just say "README is missing a section", say which section and what content would satisfy it.
After the report, ask the user: "Would you like me to create or update any of these files?" Then do what they ask, one file at a time. Use the templates in references/templates.md as your starting point, but always personalize with real project details (name, description, contact info, etc.) gathered from the repo or by asking the user.
When creating files, prefer to update existing files rather than overwrite them wholesale — especially README.md.
After all fixes are applied, let the user know:
Read references/checklist.md for the full detail on each requirement. Here's the quick summary:
| # | Requirement | Key Check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | README.md | Project name, description (2-3 sentences), screenshot if applicable, Getting Started, docs link, contact (@worldbank.org), license notice |
| 2 | Repository Details | Description, website/docs link, relevant topics set in GitHub repo settings |
| 3 | License | MIT or Apache-2.0, each with the matching WB IGO Rider file; README must use the matching verbatim notice from Requirement 1g (MIT vs Apache text differs) |
| 5 | Documentation | Web-based docs (GitHub Pages, Jupyter Book, etc.) accessible to non-technical audiences |
| 6 | CITATION.cff | Citation file using CFF format for reproducible research |
| 7 | Code of Conduct | CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md present or linked |
| 8 | Contributing Guide | CONTRIBUTING.md present using WB template |
| 9 | Exclusions | No original data, no secrets/API keys, avoid hard-coded variables |
| 10 | Bibliography (optional) | BibTeX .bib file in docs/ |
Note: item 4 is not in the checklist — items go 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Repos may use either MIT or Apache License, Version 2.0 as the base license, each paired with the correct rider:
| Base license | IGO rider (canonical) |
|---|---|
| MIT License | WB-IGO-RIDER.md |
| Apache License, Version 2.0 | WB-IGO-RIDER-APACHE.md |
Do not mix: an Apache LICENSE must not ship with the MIT-only rider (and vice versa). The README bottom notice must be the verbatim block for that same pair — see references/checklist.md §1g.
When helping the user choose: Apache is common for larger ecosystems (patent grant, NOTICE file patterns); MIT is minimal and widely used. If the repo already has one license on disk, align the rider and README to that unless the user explicitly wants to relicense.
This is the trickiest requirement because violations may be hard to spot.
Secrets/API keys: Search for common patterns:
.env, secrets.yaml, credentials.json, config.py containing keyssk-, AKIA, Bearer , password =, api_key =.gitignore — secrets files should be listed thereHard-coded variables: Look for:
/home/username/..., C:\Users\...)Data files: Look for:
data/, datasets/, raw/.csv, .xlsx, .shp, .geojson, .parquet, .db files committed to the repoReport findings with specific file paths so the user can act on them.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.