change-verdict
Skill2 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review code, PRs, security, tests, documents, change risk, pending changes, or dependency vulnerabilities. Verdicts are read-only; explicit dependency fixes go to an authorized writer. Not for source repair or architecture-only design. Output: evidence-backed findings and review status.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- 1357942/change-verdicttheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- 1357942/change-verdict★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository39 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- code-simplifySkill
- code-traceSkill
- create-prSkill
- deploy-listSkill
- doc-maintainSkill
- feature-verifySkill
- flow-driveSkill
- flow-guideSkill
- git-smart-commitSkill
- git-worktreeSkill
- harness-setupSkill
- issue-analyzeSkill
- js-static-checksSkill
- laravelSkill
- legacy-characterization-testsSkill
- library-authorSkill
- merge-prepSkill
- module-designSkill
- nextjsSkill
- openspec-artifact-guardSkill
- opsx-apply-resumeSkill
- phpSkill
- phpunitSkill
- precommitSkill
- project-auditSkill
- project-briefSkill
- proposal-analyzeSkill
- pr-summarySkill
- pythonSkill
- reactSkill
- release-creatorSkill
- repo-intakeSkill
- repo-verifySkill
- swiftSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- ui-ux-verifySkill
- vue-2-notesSkill
- yii1Skill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 22
Use the smallest mode or action and scope that answer the request.
- Very specific: line 100
Only explicit --second-opinion=codex-exec may invoke bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/review-cli.sh --backend cli.
- Distinctive: line 135
Only an explicitly requested CLI opinion is reported, with its actual status.
- Distinctive: line 136
Read-only observations leave repository state unchanged.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Change Verdict
Use the smallest mode or action and scope that answer the request. The six
modes, pending, and default deps read evidence and return results without
changing workspace or review state. Explicit dependency-remediation authority
permits only a bounded deps fix delegation to an available authorized writer.
The parent retains its read-only command grants; neither action metadata nor
the user's fix request adds direct shell, Write, or Edit capability.
Modes
| Mode | Question answered | Read when |
code | Is the selected code change sound against applicable standards and specifications? | Reviewing a code diff or branch. |
pr | Is a proposed PR complete and hygienic for its declared merge method? | Reviewing branch changes or PR metadata. |
security | Are security-sensitive paths exposed to OWASP risks or unsafe dependencies? | Auditing auth, input, secrets, dependencies, or security-sensitive changes. |
tests | Do existing tests and acceptance evidence cover the behavior? | Reviewing test adequacy or tracing acceptance criteria to evidence. |
docs | Is a document accurate, complete, and consistent with the code? | Reviewing Markdown, specs, READMEs, or design documents. |
risk | What breaking surface, blast radius, and change-scope signals are present? | Assessing an uncommitted diff or large refactor. |
Choose one mode. If the mode or requested scope is ambiguous or cannot be
resolved, return INCONCLUSIVE and state the minimum evidence or clarification
needed.
Actions
Natural-language pending-review and dependency requests select these actions; selectors are optional when the task is clear. Select one action or mode per observation and load only its local procedure.
| Action | Procedure and authority |
pending [--files "<rel-path,...>"] | Read references/actions/pending.md. Delegate read-only to the available code-reviewer and relay its report. Missing reviewer returns UNAVAILABLE, with no substitute. |
deps [--level <severity>] | Read references/actions/deps.md. Use an available read-only audit capability and obtain a separate independent security verdict. |
deps fix [--level <severity>] or deps --fix | Read the same dependency procedure. Delegate only the explicitly authorized dependency scope to an available writer, followed by an independent read-only security verdict. Missing bounded writer capability returns UNAVAILABLE; reuse existing authority for that scope. |
When NOT to Use
- Implement or fix a source finding: use
flow-drive. Explicit dependency remediation belongs todeps fixwithin its declared bound. - Trace an unfamiliar code path: use
code-trace. - Specialized skill governance scoring or stocktake: the former audit capability is retired. For an existing skill document or change, select this skill's
docsorriskmode within its declared scope.
Procedure
Follow references/shared/review-workflow.md
for scope resolution, fixed-point handling, evidence collection, and aggregation.
It owns the shared read-only sequence.
Load only the selected mode's references:
code: use the branch prompt for a branch scope; otherwise use the fast or full prompt matching the selected depth. The shared code research instructions own Git reads; apply the code-only Standards and Spec status rules inreferences/shared/review-common.md.pr: read PR metadata and usebash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/check-unrelated-changes.shonly as a read-only advisory scan when PR metadata is available.security: usereferences/security/codex-prompt-security.mdand label findings with their OWASP category.tests: read source, tests, acceptance criteria, and available runtime evidence.--ac-tracemaps criteria to evidence;--coverageloadsreferences/tests/codex-prompt-test-review.md. Legacy--scope testsmeans--mode tests.docs: read the full target and enough source or configuration to check it. Loadreferences/docs/review-loop-doc.mdonly when a prior snapshot is supplied.risk: runnode ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/risk-analyze.js --jsonon the current read-only tree and usereferences/risk/to interpret its score.
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} is the directory containing this SKILL.md. Claude substitutes it in these helper commands and in allowed-tools. Hosts that do not substitute it, and references that write $SKILL_DIR, resolve that same directory. The working
directory stays the consumer repository. risk-analyze.js and check-unrelated-changes.sh are the helper paths granted by allowed-tools; the grant is not unrestricted Bash. codex review and review-cli.sh stay explicit opt-in and do not start by themselves.
For every mode, report evidence gaps and use the response shape in
templates/review_output.md. The code-only
Standards and Spec section is omitted from all other modes. Severity and final
verdict meanings are owned by
references/shared/review-rubric.md.
Optional CLI second opinion
Only explicit --second-opinion=codex-exec may invoke
bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/review-cli.sh --backend cli. Pass the selected scope and fixed point,
not the primary conclusion. Keep the CLI result separate, redact it, and
record its status. The primary review is complete without this optional check;
an unavailable CLI is reported as degraded evidence.
Authority boundary
Return review results in the response. The six modes, pending, and default
deps keep tracked/untracked files, index, and lockfiles unchanged. Their
read-only scope excludes fixers, generators, staging, commits, artifact
writers, gate/sentinel emitters, and writer dispatch. deps fix is the sole
bounded writer-delegation exception described above; fix success cannot clear a gate or
replace the independent security verdict. A re-review is a new observation
of a caller-supplied snapshot. Missing required local resources fail closed
before dependent action; obtain no replacement from sibling skills or an
ambient source checkout.
References
references/shared/review-workflow.md— shared sequence and fixed-point handling.references/shared/review-common.md— evidence, source labels, and finding normalization.references/shared/review-rubric.md— severity and final verdict definitions.references/shared/codex-research-instructions.md— research guidance used by code prompts.references/shared/cli-backend.md— explicit CLI transport contract.references/actions/pending.md,references/actions/deps.md— delegated pending review and dependency audit/remediation procedures.references/code/,references/security/,references/tests/,references/docs/,references/risk/— mode-specific instructions.scripts/review-cli.sh,scripts/check-unrelated-changes.sh,scripts/risk-analyze.js— read-only helpers.
Completion check
- One mode or action and a readable, resolved scope are recorded.
- The reported fixed point and evidence anchors match the reviewed snapshot.
- Findings are normalized and ranked; missing evidence remains visible.
- Only an explicitly requested CLI opinion is reported, with its actual status.
- Read-only observations leave repository state unchanged; an explicit dependency fix records the authorized writer, bounded changes, and a separate independent security result. No review artifact, gate, or sentinel was written.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

