Review verify

Skill gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/skills/review-verify

Stack-agnostic agentic-programming workflow skills + documentation scaffold

Install

npx -y skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-verify

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

19 stars19 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.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

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.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.6 KB, 513 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

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

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.