Stakeholder MappingSAFE
Overview
An agent skill published by revfactory.
459e1bb8f76eOBSERVED · 2026-10-12What 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: stakeholder-mapping description: "crisis stakeholder mapping framework. situation-analyst and message-strategist agent crisis when stakeholderby response strategy establishto do when reference. 'stakeholder analysis', 'crisis etc.grade', 'impact assessment' request when usage. However, rate specialistdocument versus scope outside." --- # Stakeholder Mapping — crisis stakeholder mapping situation-analyst / message-strategist agent stakeholder analysis competency . ## crisis etc.grade classification total | etc.grade | standard | response time | decision-makingspecialist | |------|------|----------|----------| | Level 1 (un-) | withindepartment impact, media Low | 24time | departmentfrom | | Level 2 (report) | client impact, degree media | 12time | department/KRW | | Level 3 (each) | versusscale impact, before media | 4time | C-Level | | Level 4 (crisis) | people/planbefore, basis within | 1time | CEO + company | ## stakeholder impact- matrix ``` High Low ┌───────────┬───────────┐ │ coremanagement │ maintenance │ │ (degreewithin) │ (basisreporting) │ ├───────────┼───────────┤ capability│ informationprovide │ monitoring │ │ (peopleitems) │ │ └───────────┴───────────┘ ``` ### crisis when stakeholder classification | stakeholder | company | core message | channel | frequency | |----------|--------|-----------|----------|------| | moat/ | planbefore, report, | company, degreeKRW approx.within | directly versus | i.e.when+degreewithin | | KRW | , planbefore, information | companyactual, role, actiondegree | withindepartment channel | i.e.when | | client | service, | impactscope, responseaction | official channel | 4time within | | media | companyactual, responsibility, response | official, timeline | press release/basisspecialist | rulequality | | basis | levelnumber, action | reporting, company | official reporting | deadline | | investmentspecialist | financial impact, | impact assessment, responseplan | IR when | 24time within | | degreecompany | planbefore, environment | impact, plan | degree media, description | 48time within | ## crisis communication timeline ### Golden Hour ( 1time) ``` 0~15minute: companyactual confirm, crisis etc.grade judgment 15~30minute: crisisresponseteam , initial information collection 30~45minute: core message plan, withindepartment report 45~60minute: external initial naturepeople presentation (minimum "persondegree+researchduring") ``` ### 24time response roadmap | time | | deliverable | |------|------|--------| | 0~1h | initial response | withindepartment reportdocument, initial naturepeople | | 1~4h | companyactual identify | situation report v1 | | 4~8h | official response | press release, Q&A | | 8~12h | stakeholder | client degree, KRW message | | 12~24h | response action presentation | improvement plan, afterwithin press coverage | ## message strategy ### crisis typeby tone | crisis type | responsibility also | tone | core element | |----------|----------|-----|----------| | moat (specialistannualre- etc.) | Low | annual, | degreeKRW, , capability | | company (intent None) | duringbetween | , responsibility | companyactual, action, re- degree | | actual (intent actual) | High | company, responsibility | person, report, improvement | | intentquality (, ) | High | company and | before person, structure items | ## quality checklist | item | standard | |------|------| | crisis etc.grade | 4stage during peopleKorean classification | | stakeholder | 7versus analysis | | message differentiation | stakeholderby message | | timeline | Golden Hour response included | | tone consistency | crisis type tone | | | etc.grade standard specify |
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 | NA |
| 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.
459e1bb8f76efull audit observations/trust-audit/skill/revfactory__stakeholder-mapping.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-12 | 459e1bb8f76e | SAFE | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
Is Stakeholder Mapping 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 Stakeholder Mapping 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 (459e1bb8f76e), read on 2026-10-12. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.