Atlas / Skills / hoangnguyen0403 / Common Protocol Enforcement

Common Protocol EnforcementSAFE

skills/hoangnguyen0403/common-protocol-enforcement

A collection of Agent Skills Standard and Best Practice for Programming Languages, Frameworks that help our AI Agent follow best practies on frameworks and programming laguages

Verdict
SAFE
Grade
B
Trust score
89 /100
Version
—
Hosts
—
License
MIT
Stars
575
01

Overview

A collection of Agent Skills Standard and Best Practice for Programming Languages, Frameworks that help our AI Agent follow best practies on frameworks and programming laguages

Read from source at commit 6f5be687a268OBSERVED · 2026-10-14
Advertisement
02

What it tells the agent

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: common-protocol-enforcement
description: Enforce Red-Team verification and adversarial protocol audit. Use only when verifying completion, performing self-scans, or checking protocol violations; do not activate for ordinary implementation, configuration, or unit-test requests.
metadata:
  triggers:
    keywords:
    - verify done
    - protocol check
    - self-scan
    - pre-write audit
    - task complete
    - audit violations
    - retrospective
    - scan
    - red-team
---
# Protocol Enforcement (Red-Team Verification)

## **Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)**


## Red-Team Verification Protocol

Before declaring any task "done" or calling `notify_user`:

1. **Adversarial Audit**: Search for Standard Defaults where project rules should exist.
2. **Protocol Check**: Confirm active skills and workflows were loaded before writing.
3. **Evidence Check**: Ask what observable command or artifact proves the completion claim.
4. **Execution Bias Check**: Ask whether speed or convenience skipped a structural rule.

## Risk-Based Post-Write Self-Scan

Trigger a post-write self-scan under specific risk or freshness conditions:
- **Condition**: State freshness is uncertain, external modifications occurred, tool output indicated partial edits or conflicts, or changes touch sensitive paths (auth, security, payments, data integrity).
- **Scan**: Inspect the diff or touched section rather than ritualistic re-reading of entire files.
- **Match**: Check against `Anti-Patterns` in all active skills.
- **Fix**: Re-edit immediately if a violation is detected.

## Red Flags

- **Stop if "done" appears before fresh verification**: Require observable evidence (test output, diff check, diagnostic artifact).
- **Stop if assuming stale file state is intact**: Verify source of truth when freshness is uncertain or tools signal ambiguity.
- **Stop if the shortcut is "small enough to skip protocol"**: Small changes hide drift.

## Rationalization Prevention

- **"The change is tiny"**: Tiny changes still violate guardrails.
- **"The test passed earlier"**: Old evidence does not prove current state.
- **"I know the pattern already"**: Verify active project rules anyway.

## Anti-Patterns

- **No "Done" Bias**: Functional success does not equal protocol success without proof.
- **No Unconditional Reread Loops**: Inspect diffs and files conditionally on risk and freshness, not on every tool call.
- **No Skipping Protocols**: "Small changes" are where most violations happen.
- **No Unobservable Completion**: Completion claims must be backed by executed commands or inspectable artifacts.

## Execution Bias Detection

Look for:

- Local mocks instead of shared fakes.
- Hardcoded styles instead of design tokens.
- Try-catch blocks without standard error handling.
- Missing `Pre-Write Audit Log` in thoughts.
03

Trust audit

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

LayerWhat it checksResult
L0Provenance & inventoryPASS
L1Static analysis of the codeNA
L2Instruction surface (what it tells the agent)PASS
L3Class-specific surfacePASS
L4Behavioural (sandbox)SKIPPED

What the source does

Filesystem
none-observed
Network
none-observed
Shell
none-observed
Dependencies
pinned
Secrets in source
none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.

Audited 2026-10-14 · audit v0.4.1 · source sha 6f5be687a268full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/hoangnguyen0403__common-protocol-enforcement.json · Report an issue / request a re-scan
04

Audit history

Every audit this skill has had.

DateSourceVerdictGradeScoreChange
2026-10-146f5be687a268SAFEB89first audit
05

Questions

What does the Common Protocol Enforcement skill do?

A collection of Agent Skills Standard and Best Practice for Programming Languages, Frameworks that help our AI Agent follow best practies on frameworks and programming laguages

Is Common Protocol Enforcement safe to install?

The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.

What can Common Protocol Enforcement access on my machine?

The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.

How current is this page?

The grade is for one exact copy of the source (6f5be687a268), read on 2026-10-14. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.

Advertisement