Mistral Prod ChecklistSAFE
Model-agnostic agent-skills platform with a harness-free canonical layer, verified adapters, and the ccpi package manager. Explore at tonsofskills.com.
Overview
Model-agnostic agent-skills platform with a harness-free canonical layer, verified adapters, and the ccpi package manager. Explore at tonsofskills.com.
4f83675ca38aOBSERVED · 2026-10-09Host compatibility
What the documentation claims. We have not run a compatibility test.
| Host | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| claude-code | mentioned |
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: mistral-prod-checklist description: >- Issue a fail-closed Mistral go-live decision from auth, reliability, spend, data, security, and rollback evidence. Use when reviewing a production launch. Trigger with "Mistral production checklist", "approve Mistral go-live", or "review Mistral launch readiness". allowed-tools: Read,Glob,Grep,Write,Edit argument-hint: "<service> <environment> <release-sha>" version: 1.14.0 license: MIT author: Jeremy Longshore <[email protected]> tags: [saas, mistral, production] model: inherit effort: high compatibility: "Designed for Claude Code; live or external Mistral actions require network access and explicit approval" --- # Mistral Production Readiness Gate ## Overview Turn readiness into an evidence-backed decision. Missing ownership, unsafe data, unbounded demand, or untested rollback blocks launch. ## Prerequisites - An immutable candidate and environment inventory. - Named service, security, privacy, spend, and incident owners. - Current model/API evidence, load results, data policy, runbook, and rollback proof. ## Current Contract Model access, limits, billing, and preview status can change. Evidence must be timestamped and environment-specific; Public Preview surfaces need an explicit risk decision. ## Authentication Verify secret injection, isolation, rotation ownership, and absence from artifacts without displaying credential values. Confirm the production runtime cannot expose the secret to browser code. ## Instructions 1. Pin release, dependency lock, endpoints, model policy, and provider evidence. 2. Review auth, tenancy, safety, file/data lifecycle, and ZDR applicability. 3. Review deadlines, retries, backpressure, state reconciliation, and degradation. 4. Prove usage attribution, spend caps, alerts, and billing ownership. 5. Run offline gates and approved canary tests including failure and rollback. 6. Record PASS, CONDITIONAL, or BLOCKED with owner and evidence per gap. ## Tool Discipline Use Read, Glob, and Grep to inspect code, locks, configuration, tests, and evidence. Use Write and Edit only for approved repository changes. Invocation alone does not authorize network calls, paid usage, uploads, stateful resources, admin mutations, deployments, or deletion. ## Approval Boundaries This skill cannot deploy, enable preview APIs, increase limits, upload data, mutate keys, or waive a failed gate. ## Error Handling - A successful health call does not prove load safety or rollback. - Undocumented fallback can silently alter cost and behavior. - Rollback leaving queues/files/state unreconciled is incomplete. ## Output Return release/environment, gate matrix, evidence times, blockers, accepted preview risks, decision, approvers, canary, and rollback receipt. ## Examples - Block launch when spend alerts and tenant tests lack evidence. - Approve only a fixed-bound canary with a verified disable switch. ## Validation Re-run every gate at the exact SHA, exercise rollback/provider failure, and verify evidence links and owners. ## Resources - [Current first-party evidence map](references/official-docs.md) — recheck dated sources before relying on mutable endpoints, models, limits, prices, preview status, or retention. - Record live account observations as environment-specific evidence, not universal Mistral guarantees.
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.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | PASS |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | PASS |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (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.
4f83675ca38afull audit observations/trust-audit/skill/jeremylongshore__mistral-prod-checklist.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-09 | 4f83675ca38a | SAFE | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the Mistral Prod Checklist skill do?
Model-agnostic agent-skills platform with a harness-free canonical layer, verified adapters, and the ccpi package manager. Explore at tonsofskills.com.
Is Mistral Prod Checklist 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 Mistral Prod Checklist access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
Which assistants does Mistral Prod Checklist work with?
Its documentation mentions claude-code. That is what the text claims, not a compatibility test we ran.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (4f83675ca38a), read on 2026-10-09. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.