verify-findings
Verify code-review or security-review findings for false positives using deep codebase tracing, framework-aware analysis, and web research. Produces a .verified.md report alongside the original. Use when a review report has been generated and needs independent verification, or when user runs /verify-findings, mentions "verify review", "check false positives", or "validate findings".
What this skill does
# Verify Review Findings
Independent false-positive verification. Assume every finding is false until proven by evidence.
## Parse Arguments
- `$ARGUMENTS` (required): Path to the review report file to verify
If no argument is provided, ask the user for the report path.
## Step 1 — Read and Parse Report
1. Read the report file at the provided path
2. Detect review type from the header:
- "Pragmatic Code Review Report" → code review
- "Security Review Report" → security review
3. Extract each finding into a structured list:
- Triage level (Blocker, Improvement, Question)
- File path and line number
- Description and confidence/severity scores
- For security: CWE, category, exploit scenario
4. **Skip** Praise and Nit findings — only verify Blocker, Improvement, and Question
## Step 2 — Verify Each Finding
For each extracted finding, perform independent verification. See [WORKFLOW.md](WORKFLOW.md) for detailed procedures.
### Code Review Findings
1. **Read the flagged code** at the specified line with ~50 lines of surrounding context
2. **Grep the codebase** for the same pattern to check if it's an established convention
3. **Verify the cited principle** — does SOLID/DRY/KISS/YAGNI actually apply here?
4. **Check framework handling** — does the framework or library address this concern automatically?
5. **Assess concrete impact** — is the problem demonstrable or theoretical?
### Security Review Findings
1. **Read the flagged code** and trace data flow from source to sink
2. **Grep for sanitizers/validators** in the code path between source and sink
3. **Detect framework protections** — React auto-escaping, Spring Security, Django ORM parameterization, etc.
4. **WebSearch the CWE/CVE** for known false positive patterns and framework-specific mitigations
5. **Verify exploit feasibility** — is the exploit scenario actually possible in this application context?
6. **Check code context** — is this test-only code, behind authentication, or behind a feature flag?
## Step 3 — Render Verdict
For each finding, assign one of:
| Verdict | Criteria | Action |
|---------|----------|--------|
| **CONFIRMED** | Evidence supports the finding | Keep in report, add verification note |
| **DISMISSED** | Finding is a false positive | Move to Dismissed section with explanation |
| **DOWNGRADED** | Valid but lower severity/confidence | Adjust scores, add explanation |
**Decision rules**: See [WORKFLOW.md](WORKFLOW.md) for the complete verdict decision matrix.
**Default to CONFIRMED** if uncertain after thorough investigation (conservative approach).
## Step 4 — Generate Verified Report
1. **Create the verified report** at: `{original-path-without-extension}.verified.md`
- Example: `reviews/code/2026-03-01_14-30-00_code-review.md` → `reviews/code/2026-03-01_14-30-00_code-review.verified.md`
2. **Preserve original structure** — keep the same header, PR assessment, and format
3. **Add verification header**:
```markdown
**Verified by**: Claude Code (false-positive-verifier)
**Verification Date**: {ISO 8601 date}
## Verification Summary
| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| **Findings Reviewed** | {N} |
| **Confirmed** | {N} |
| **Downgraded** | {N} |
| **Dismissed** | {N} |
| **Signal Ratio** | {confirmed / total reviewed}% |
```
4. **Annotate confirmed findings** with verification notes:
```markdown
> **Verification**: CONFIRMED — {evidence summary}
```
5. **Append Dismissed Findings section**:
```markdown
## Dismissed Findings
### Dismissed 1: `{file}:{line}` — {Original description}
- **Original Triage**: {Blocker/Improvement/Question}
- **Original Confidence**: {score}
- **Reason**: {Why this is a false positive}
- **Evidence**: {What was checked — grep results, framework docs, web research}
```
6. **Update Verdict** with revised counts and recommendation
See [WORKFLOW.md](WORKFLOW.md) for the complete report template.
See [EXAMPLES.md](EXAMPLES.md) for sample verified reports.
## Output Instructions
1. Save the verified report alongside the original
2. Display the full verified report to the user
3. Confirm: "Verified report saved to: {path}"
## Resources
- [WORKFLOW.md](WORKFLOW.md) — Detailed verification procedures, verdict decision matrix, web research protocol, report template
- [EXAMPLES.md](EXAMPLES.md) — Sample verified reports for code and security reviews
- [TROUBLESHOOTING.md](TROUBLESHOOTING.md) — Common issues with input parsing, verification quality, and output
Related in Security
mac-ops
IncludedComprehensive macOS workstation operations — diagnose kernel panics, identify failing drives, audit launchd startup items, decode wake reasons, triage TCC permission denials, manage APFS snapshots, recover from no-boot. Use for: Mac is slow, slow bootup, won't boot, kernel panic, kernel_task hot, mds_stores CPU, photoanalysisd, cloudd, login loop, gray screen, sleep wake failure, drive failing, IO errors, APFS snapshots eating space, Time Machine local snapshots, Spotlight indexing, launchd, LaunchAgent, LaunchDaemon, login items, TCC permissions, Full Disk Access, Screen Recording denied, Gatekeeper, quarantine, com.apple.quarantine, app is damaged, helper tool, /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools, pmset, wake reasons, dark wake, sysdiagnose, panic.ips, DiagnosticReports, configuration profile, MDM profile, remote diagnostics over SSH.
a11y-audit
IncludedRun accessibility audits on web projects combining automated scanning (axe-core, Lighthouse) with WCAG 2.1 AA compliance mapping, manual check guidance, and structured reporting. Output is configurable: markdown report only, markdown plus machine-readable JSON, or markdown plus issue tracker integration. Use this skill whenever the user mentions "accessibility audit", "a11y audit", "WCAG audit", "accessibility check", "compliance scan", or asks to check a web project for accessibility issues. Also trigger when the user wants to verify WCAG conformance or map findings to a specific standard (CAN-ASC-6.2, EN 301 549, ADA/AODA).
erpclaw
IncludedAI-native ERP system with self-extending OS. Full accounting, invoicing, inventory, purchasing, tax, billing, HR, payroll, advanced accounting (ASC 606/842, intercompany, consolidation), and financial reporting. 413 actions across 14 domains, 43 expansion modules. Constitutional guardrails, adversarial audit, schema migration. Double-entry GL, immutable audit trail, US GAAP.
assess
IncludedAssesses and rates quality 0-10 across multiple dimensions (correctness, maintainability, security, performance, testability, simplicity) with pros/cons analysis. Compares against project conventions and prior decisions from memory. Produces structured evaluation reports with actionable improvement suggestions. Use when evaluating code, designs, architectures, or comparing alternative approaches.
spring-boot-security-jwt
IncludedProvides JWT authentication and authorization patterns for Spring Boot 3.5.x covering token generation with JJWT, Bearer/cookie authentication, database/OAuth2 integration, and RBAC/permission-based access control using Spring Security 6.x. Use when implementing authentication or authorization in Spring Boot applications.
code-hardcode-audit
IncludedDetect hardcoded values, magic numbers, and leaked secrets. TRIGGERS - hardcode audit, magic numbers, PLR2004, secret scanning.