Skills gpt-series-reasoning-style
📦

gpt-series-reasoning-style

v1.6.0 Content revision r6 Safe 🌐 Network access📁 Filesystem access⚙️ External commands

Verify AI Deliverables with Evidence

AI work can appear complete before the result is opened, tested, or checked against the request. This skill adds staged planning, real-environment verification, and honest completion levels.

Supports: Claude Codex Code(CC)
💎 90 Featured

Install with my Agent

Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.

Agent request
Review the Skillstore skill "gpt-series-reasoning-style" from https://skillstore.io/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.

Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.

Test it

Using "gpt-series-reasoning-style". Build a small dashboard and tell me when it is finished.

Expected outcome:

The dashboard is implemented. I opened it in the target environment, checked the main interaction, and verified the displayed totals. Mobile layout and external data refresh remain unverified.

Using "gpt-series-reasoning-style". Have two agents research and implement this feature.

Expected outcome:

  • Research agent: documented assumptions and acceptance checks.
  • Implementation agent: completed the feature and supplied the changed files.
  • Review: opened the integrated result and checked the critical path.
  • Status: C1 verified; stakeholder approval is still required for C2.

Using "gpt-series-reasoning-style". Confirm that this report is correct.

Expected outcome:

The report matches the requested structure and its key figures were recalculated. Source freshness and business acceptance were not independently verified.

Security Audit

Safe
v6 • 9/20/2026 Open versioned report

All 91 static findings were adjudicated as false positives because they reference public metadata, documentation, fixed repository paths, or analysis heuristics rather than executed behavior. No prompt-injection text, data-exfiltration intent, or runtime command execution was evidenced in the reviewed files.

24
Files scanned
2,119
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were detected by the latest completed static and semantic audit. This does not prove the skill has no side effects.
Audited by: codex View Audit History →
Share & cite this report

Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.

Open versioned report
Security Assessment

Copy report link

https://skillstore.io/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style/audits/6?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Markdown badge

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

HTML badge

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Embed card

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>
Academic citations (APA · BibTeX · CFF)

APA citation

jadeyingwah. (2026). gpt-series-reasoning-style security audit report (audit version 6) [Author version 1.6.0]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style/audits/6

BibTeX citation

@techreport{jadeyingwah-jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style-2026, author = {jadeyingwah}, title = {gpt-series-reasoning-style security audit report (audit version 6)}, institution = {Skillstore}, year = {2026}, number = {6}, url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style/audits/6}, note = {Author version 1.6.0} }

CITATION.cff

cff-version: 1.2.0 message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report." title: "gpt-series-reasoning-style security audit report (audit version 6)" version: "1.6.0" type: report authors: - name: "jadeyingwah" date-released: "2026-09-20" url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style/audits/6" identifiers: - type: other value: "skillstore:jadeyingwah-gpt-series-reasoning-style:audit:6" description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Skillstore Score

Why this score Evidence Confidence: Medium
95
Architecture
100
Maintainability
87
Content
65
Community
91
Spec Compliance

What You Can Build

Review a Code Change

Ask an engineer or coding agent to implement a change, run focused checks, open the result, and report verified and unverified paths.

Coordinate Multiple Agents

Use staged planning and explicit handoffs when several agents divide research, implementation, testing, or review.

Validate a Client Deliverable

Track whether a document, design, or analysis matches the request and distinguish technical completion from stakeholder approval.

Try These Prompts

Basic Completion Check
Complete this task, then open the actual result and list what you verified, what remains unverified, and whether the request is complete.
Plan Before Implementation
Plan this task in clear stages. Identify the required checks and the real environment where the final result must be opened before you implement it.
Audit a Finished Change
Review this completed change against the original request. Recalculate important numbers, open the output, test the critical path, and mark every unverified claim.
Coordinate an Agent Team
Break this project into independent agent roles. Define handoff evidence, assign a reviewer, verify the integrated result in its real environment, and report the appropriate C1 or C2 status.

Best Practices

  • Define the evidence required for completion before implementation begins.
  • Open and use the delivered result in the environment that matters.
  • State verified facts, unverified paths, and completion level separately.

Avoid

  • Do not declare completion from code inspection alone.
  • Do not treat a green check as proof that the guarded failure case works.
  • Do not label a result C2 without user or external confirmation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill verify?
It verifies delivery evidence, real-environment use, critical checks, and honest reporting of remaining uncertainty.
Does it run tests automatically?
No. It guides the agent to choose and run relevant checks, but available tools and project tests determine execution.
What is C1?
C1 means the technical delivery was checked with available evidence, while some broader acceptance may remain open.
What is C2?
C2 means the product is satisfactory, which requires user or external confirmation rather than model judgment alone.
Can it coordinate multiple agents?
Yes. It supports role separation, explicit handoffs, review evidence, and integrated-result verification.
Which tools support it?
The skill declares support for Claude, Codex, and Claude Code, plus compatible clients that follow the same skill convention.

Developer Details

License

MIT

Author version

v1.6.0

Skillstore revision

r6

Ref

ca840d3e968d0e2f0cfde9943dd7e35a0878a763

Maintenance freshness

9/20/2026

Usage

3 downloads · 17 views

View all