Install
$ agentstack add skill-a-ariff-ariff-claude-plugins-output-auditor ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Output Auditor: 4-Angle Response Review
Review every response from 4 independent angles before delivery.
The 4 audit angles
Angle 1: Factual accuracy
Is every claim true?
Check:
- File paths exist
- Function names are correct
- Code quotes match actual files
- Version numbers are current
- Behavior descriptions match actual code
Angle 2: Logical consistency
Does the response contradict itself?
Check:
- Does the diagnosis match the suggested fix?
- Are the steps in the right order?
- Do dependencies match (step 3 doesn't require something from step 5)?
- Are there circular arguments?
- Does the explanation match the code?
Angle 3: Completeness
Is anything missing?
Check:
- Does it answer the actual question?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Are prerequisites mentioned?
- Is there a rollback plan for risky changes?
- Are there obvious alternatives not mentioned?
Angle 4: Safety
Could this cause harm?
Check:
- Could this code change break existing functionality?
- Could this advice create a security vulnerability?
- Could this command cause data loss?
- Are there race conditions or concurrency issues?
- Is error handling adequate?
Audit process
- Write the response
- Run each angle as a mental checkpoint
- For each issue found, fix it before delivering
- If you can't fix it, flag it clearly in the response
Severity levels
CRITICAL: Wrong information that would cause harm (wrong security advice, data-destroying command) -> Must fix before delivering. If you can't fix, do not deliver.
WARNING: Incomplete or potentially misleading information -> Fix if possible. If not, add a clear caveat.
MINOR: Style issues, missing context that isn't essential -> Fix if quick. Otherwise note for follow-up.
Quick audit checklist
Before sending any response with code or technical advice:
[ ] Every file path verified with Glob [ ] Every function/variable verified with Grep or Read [ ] Steps are in correct order [ ] No self-contradictions [ ] The actual question is answered [ ] Dangerous operations have warnings [ ] Rollback path exists for destructive changes
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: a-ariff
- Source: a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://github.com/a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins#quick-start
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.