Forge graded verify
Skill ForgeyClap/claude-forge/.claude/skills/forge-graded-verify
Advisory GRADED verification for high-stakes answer-quality Forge tasks (RAG/research/scraping/prediction). Use when output quality is subjective and needs per-criterion scoring + actionable feedback — ALONGSIDE (never replacing) forge-verify (structural) and forge-evals (deterministic binary gate). Keywords: graded, rubric, quality, verify, review, answer quality, RAG quality, source grounding.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add ForgeyClap/claude-forge --skill forge-graded-verifyAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- 21 days oldThe repository was created 21 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
- 2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
3.0 KB, 596 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
forge-graded-verify — advisory rubric-scored verification (scout #7, 2026-07-13)
Fills the graded-quality axis Forge deliberately lacks: forge-verify checks structural bookkeeping ("did the agent close its tickets"); forge-evals is intentionally deterministic-binary so it can safely gate git reverts. Neither scores subjective ANSWER QUALITY. This skill adds that — advisory only. Method reimplemented from the DeepVerifier failure-taxonomy pattern (arXiv 2601.15808); no code/dataset from that repo is used.
When to use
High-stakes answer-quality work where "did it pass an assertion" isn't enough: RAG answers, research syntheses, scraped-data summaries, prediction rationales. NOT for code/build gating (that stays with forge-evals + integration-gate). Reserve for genuinely high-stakes tasks — it costs an LLM review pass; don't duplicate ultra-review.
How it works (advisory, bounded, never gates irreversible actions)
- Pick the rubric for the domain from
.claude/config/rubrics/<domain>.json. Each criterion has:id,descriptor(4-level: 1=poor … 4=excellent, what each level means), andraise(what would move the score up). - Dispatch review-boss as a GRADED verifier (not the binary reviewer): it reads the output + the source/context, and returns per-criterion
{id, score 1-4, evidence, feedback}via verification-by-decomposition (judge each criterion separately, cite evidence). - Bounded single rework loop: if any required criterion scores < the threshold (default 3), emit ONE
rework_task_created→rework_assignedto the owning Boss with the NL feedback, re-grade ONCE, respect the usage-guard. No open-ended loops. - Log advisory only: record the graded result via the existing
gate_evaluated/lead_review_completedevents (do NOT invent event types). NEVER let a graded score gate an irreversible action (deploy, git revert, send) — deterministic forge-evals / owner approval stay authoritative there.
Honesty
LLM-graded scores are judgment, not ground truth (a judge can mislabel). Frame results as advisory quality signals; cite per-criterion evidence; the reviewer model should differ from the builder model (evaluator independence). Rubrics are owner-editable JSON — start from the shipped ones and ADAPT per project, don't drop-in.
Rubrics
Shipped starters in .claude/config/rubrics/: rag.json (source-grounding, reasoning soundness, coverage, answer-correctness, completeness). Add per-domain rubrics as needed (research, scraping, prediction) with the same shape.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.