How do I install the Review Verify skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add gtrabanco/review-verify 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 Review Verify safe to use?

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

Which AI agents work with Review Verify?

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 Review Verify free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free. This skill is licensed under MIT.

Who published Review Verify?

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

Review Verify by gtrabanco — Agent Skill

Name: Review Verify
Author: gtrabanco

Review Verify

Internal run-it verification review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Runs the project's gate and the changed behavior for real — commands, exit codes, observed output — instead of assuming; what cannot be executed goes to the manual checklist. Findings only; never edits code.

gtrabanco 187baac 2.9 KB Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

Review Verify (internal)

Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.

Scope

The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.

Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)

✓ The project's verification gate ran in THIS review (type-check, tests, build per the project's declared commands) — paste exit status per command ✓ The change's primary claimed behavior was exercised for real (run the CLI/endpoint/function; paste the actual observed output) ✓ At least one failure-mode from the SPEC's dev scenarios was reproduced (bad input, missing file, error path) and behaved as specified ✓ New/changed tests actually fail when the implementation is reverted or broken (mutate or stash to prove they assert something — restore after) ✓ No test was skipped/disabled to get green (grep for skip/only/todo markers in the diff) ✓ The build artifact/dev server starts cleanly (no new warnings that indicate breakage) ✓ Anything that can only be confirmed by a human (visual, device, locale, load) is listed explicitly under "Manual" — never silently dropped

Materiality bar

Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.

Return exactly

REVIEW VERIFY — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Manual (a human must check): <bullet list, or "none">
Decision: PASS | FAIL

FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

Done when

Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.

---name: review-verifydescription: Internal run-it verification review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Runs the project's gate and the changed behavior for real — commands, exit codes, observed output — instead of assuming; what cannot be executed goes to the manual checklist. Findings only; never edits code.license: MIT---# Review Verify (internal)Composed by `review-change` / `product-audit` within their conversation — on anyagent, follow this file inline as the routed step. **Findings only; never edits,never refactors.**## ScopeThe diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs thedefault branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.## Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)✓ The project's verification gate ran in THIS review (type-check, tests, build per the project's declared commands) — paste exit status per command✓ The change's primary claimed behavior was exercised for real (run the CLI/endpoint/function; paste the actual observed output)✓ At least one failure-mode from the SPEC's dev scenarios was reproduced (bad input, missing file, error path) and behaved as specified✓ New/changed tests actually fail when the implementation is reverted or broken (mutate or stash to prove they assert something — restore after)✓ No test was skipped/disabled to get green (grep for skip/only/todo markers in the diff)✓ The build artifact/dev server starts cleanly (no new warnings that indicate breakage)✓ Anything that can only be confirmed by a human (visual, device, locale, load) is listed explicitly under "Manual" — never silently dropped## Materiality barReport a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the projectexplicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preferencewith no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.An empty table with `Decision: PASS` is the expected result for a well-formedchange — never pad the table.## Return exactly```REVIEW VERIFY — scope: <scope>| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix ||---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)Summary: <1-2 sentences>Manual (a human must check): <bullet list, or "none">Decision: PASS | FAIL```FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findingsnever block — they route to the caller's triage step.## Done when- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.

Frequently asked questions