mcpField
R
review-verify

review-verify

github.com/gtrabancoTesting & quality2286 installsUpdated today
Repository

About review-verify

review-verify is an internal review skill that checks a change against verification requirements and reports evidence in a fixed-format table. It is for review workflows that need command results, behavior checks, and explicit handling of manual verification.

Key features

  1. 01Checks declared verification commands
  2. 02Exercises the primary claimed behavior
  3. 03Reproduces a specified failure mode
  4. 04Tests whether changed tests detect regressions
  5. 05Checks skipped tests and startup warnings
  6. 06Lists checks requiring human review

Use cases

  1. 01Verifying a change before review sign-off
  2. 02Checking that new tests catch broken behavior
  3. 03Recording visual or device checks for manual follow-up

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-verify

After installing, type/review-verifyin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

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.

Comments

Markdown supported