quality — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited quality (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.
Review all changed files for quality issues. Fix any issues found.
Run git diff (or git diff HEAD if there are staged changes) to see what changed. If there are no git changes, review the most recently modified files that the user mentioned or that you edited earlier in this conversation.
Then create a clean results directory for the review agents:
rm -rf quality-results && mkdir quality-resultsUse the Agent tool to launch all agents concurrently in a single message. For each Agent call, set model: "claude-sonnet-4-6" and effort: "medium". Pass each agent the full diff so it has the complete context.
CRITICAL SCOPE RULE: All review agents must ONLY flag issues in code that was added or modified compared to what we branched out from. Never flag, remove, or suggest changes to pre-existing code that was not touched by the current changes. If pre-existing code has issues, it is out of scope.
RESULTS OUTPUT: Each agent MUST write its findings to a file in the quality-results/ directory. Use the Write tool to create the file. If no issues are found, write "No issues found." to the file. The file is the source of truth — the agent's return message is just a brief summary.
File format for each agent's results file:
# [Category] Findings
## Issue 1: [Short description]
**File:** path/to/file
**Line:** 42
**Severity:** HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
**Description:** What is wrong and why
**Suggested fix:** How to fix it
## Issue 2: ...Output file: quality-results/1-code-reuse.md For each change:
Output file: quality-results/2-code-quality.md Review the same changes for hacky patterns:
Output file: quality-results/3-efficiency.md Review the same changes for efficiency:
Output file: quality-results/4-slop-fail-fast.md Review the same changes for AI-generated slop and fail-fast violations:
AI Slop to remove: Scope reminder: Only remove slop that was introduced in the current branch compared to what we branched out from. Do not touch pre-existing comments, docstrings, or patterns.
Fail-Fast Violations (language-agnostic):
Python-specific fail-fast patterns:
hasattr() / getattr() → Use direct attribute access: obj.attrdict.get(key, default) → Use dict[key] to fail on missing keysdict.pop(key, default) → Use dict.pop(key) to fail on missing keysisinstance() checks for expected types → just call the method (legitimate uses for polymorphism/validation are OK)if len(items) > 0: items[0] → Just access items[0]value = x or default → Hides falsy values, use explicit None check if neededtry: ... except: pass → Ultimate silent failure, never do thisOutput file: quality-results/5-structure.md Review the same changes for proper code organization:
Code should be "Top to Bottom" — organized from most important/general to least important/specific:
Rules:
_ prefixWait for all five agents to complete, then aggregate and fix all issues:
quality-results/ directory (1-code-reuse.md through 5-structure.md). If any expected file is missing, note it and proceed with available files.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.