skill-adeerkhan-vitruvius-review · by Install
$ agentstack add skill-adeerkhan-vitruvius-review ✓ 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.
Links to your public security report.[](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-adeerkhan-vitruvius-review) 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
Engineering Artifact Review
Run an adversarial review of an engineering artifact. This reuses the engineering-research evidence discipline but the artifact is the subject, not a question to research.
Workflow
Follow the artifact contract: save findings to outputs/-review.md.
- Identify the artifact and its claims — what is it (design, calc set,
spec, brief, report), what does it claim, and what standard/code governs it?
- Verify the load-bearing items — for a design: loads, factors, material
properties, code sections, sign conventions. For a report: every number, figure, and citation. Check each against the primary source.
- Produce a severity-graded review:
- FATAL — unsafe, non-compliant, or unsupported; must fix before use
- MAJOR — likely wrong or a real gap; fix before finalizing
- MINOR — clarity, consistency, polish
Each finding cites the specific section/line/claim it targets.
- Check what was NOT verified — mark
blockedwhere the source could not
be read; never let a missing check read as a pass.
- Write a revision plan — prioritized, concrete steps per finding.
Output
Save exactly one review to outputs/-review.md:
- Summary assessment
- Strengths (tied to specific evidence)
- Findings (FATAL / MAJOR / MINOR, each anchored to a section/claim)
- Verification status (
verified/inferred/blockedper load-bearing item) - Revision plan
Do not praise vaguely. Do not predict "approval" — assess revision risk and evidence quality.
Scope and Boundaries
- This skill produces research — it does NOT produce final designs or construction documents.
- Research-only, not for final engineering sign-off. Licensed engineers must review and approve any design based on this research.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: adeerkhan
- Source: adeerkhan/vitruvius
- License: MIT
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.