How do I install the Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add jefflyt/mandate-2-4-3-code-evaluation in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: reads secrets. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation?

jefflyt (@jefflyt) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation by jefflyt

Name: Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation
Rating: 4.5 (4 reviews)
Author: jefflyt

Mandate 2 4 3 Code Evaluation

Evaluate compliance for Mandate 2.4.3 (Prevention of Unintended Consequences) using repository code and configuration analysis. Use when producing deterministic pass/fail findings with severity, mapped mitigated vulnerabilities, and file-level evidence.

jefflyt Updated Sep 10, 2026

File contents

Mandate 2.4.3 Code Evaluation Skill

Mandate

ID: 2.4.3
Title: Prevention of Unintended Consequences

Mitigates

LLM06 Excessive Agency
ASI08 Cascading Failures
ASI10 Rogue Agents

Inputs

Agent orchestration loops
KPI/health monitoring hooks
Circuit breaker modules
Fallback/kill-switch handlers

Workflow

Identify autonomous execution loops.
- Locate schedulers, planners, retry loops, multi-step agent runners.
Verify hard-coded boundaries.
- Check max iterations, max tool calls, max runtime, max spend/token budget, max side-effect count.
Verify system KPI guard checks.
- Confirm critical KPI thresholds are evaluated before continuing autonomous execution.
Verify circuit breaker trigger logic.
- Confirm threshold breaches trigger immediate halt or degrade-to-safe mode.
Verify fail-closed behavior.
- On missing metrics/errors/timeouts, execution should stop or require human intervention.
Verify manual override path.
- Confirm emergency kill switch can halt active runs.
Verify post-trigger handling.
- Confirm alerting/logging captures trigger reason and execution context.
Emit findings per loop with missing boundary or breaker controls.

Decision Rules

Pass if all autonomous loops have enforceable hard limits and fail-closed circuit breakers tied to system health/KPIs.
Fail if any autonomous path can run without these controls.

Severity Rules

Critical: no circuit breaker for high-impact autonomous loop.
High: boundaries exist but fail-open behavior.
Medium: controls exist but weak observability.

Output Template

{
  "mandate_id": "2.4.3",
  "status": "fail",
  "severity": "critical",
  "vulnerability_tags": ["LLM06", "ASI08", "ASI10"],
  "evidence": [
    {"file": "src/agent/runner.ts", "line": 102, "detail": "Autonomous loop has no max-iteration boundary"},
    {"file": "src/agent/circuitBreaker.ts", "line": 44, "detail": "Breaker defaults to allow on KPI read failure"}
  ],
  "remediation": "Add hard execution limits and fail-closed breaker logic with mandatory halt on KPI anomalies."
}

Guardrails

Use code and repo configuration evidence only.
Always include file-level evidence for each finding.
If required evidence is missing in code, mark control as not implemented.

---name: mandate-2-4-3-code-evaluationdescription: Evaluate compliance for Mandate 2.4.3 (Prevention of Unintended Consequences) using repository code and configuration analysis. Use when producing deterministic pass/fail findings with severity, mapped mitigated vulnerabilities, and file-level evidence.---# Mandate 2.4.3 Code Evaluation Skill## Mandate- ID: 2.4.3- Title: Prevention of Unintended Consequences## Mitigates- LLM06 Excessive Agency- ASI08 Cascading Failures- ASI10 Rogue Agents## Inputs- Agent orchestration loops- KPI/health monitoring hooks- Circuit breaker modules- Fallback/kill-switch handlers## Workflow1. Identify autonomous execution loops. - Locate schedulers, planners, retry loops, multi-step agent runners.2. Verify hard-coded boundaries. - Check max iterations, max tool calls, max runtime, max spend/token budget, max side-effect count.3. Verify system KPI guard checks. - Confirm critical KPI thresholds are evaluated before continuing autonomous execution.4. Verify circuit breaker trigger logic. - Confirm threshold breaches trigger immediate halt or degrade-to-safe mode.5. Verify fail-closed behavior. - On missing metrics/errors/timeouts, execution should stop or require human intervention.6. Verify manual override path. - Confirm emergency kill switch can halt active runs.7. Verify post-trigger handling. - Confirm alerting/logging captures trigger reason and execution context.8. Emit findings per loop with missing boundary or breaker controls.## Decision Rules- Pass if all autonomous loops have enforceable hard limits and fail-closed circuit breakers tied to system health/KPIs.- Fail if any autonomous path can run without these controls.## Severity Rules- Critical: no circuit breaker for high-impact autonomous loop.- High: boundaries exist but fail-open behavior.- Medium: controls exist but weak observability.## Output Template```json{ "mandate_id": "2.4.3", "status": "fail", "severity": "critical", "vulnerability_tags": ["LLM06", "ASI08", "ASI10"], "evidence": [ {"file": "src/agent/runner.ts", "line": 102, "detail": "Autonomous loop has no max-iteration boundary"}, {"file": "src/agent/circuitBreaker.ts", "line": 44, "detail": "Breaker defaults to allow on KPI read failure"} ], "remediation": "Add hard execution limits and fail-closed breaker logic with mandatory halt on KPI anomalies."}```## Guardrails- Use code and repo configuration evidence only.- Always include file-level evidence for each finding.- If required evidence is missing in code, mark control as not implemented.

Frequently asked questions