review-findings-validator

review-findings-validator is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from explyt/spring-plugin. It costs 77 tokens per session (3,234 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A code-review checker that examines one reviewer’s report against the actual source code. It labels each finding as confirmed, mistaken, or needing more information.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to verify high- and medium-priority code-review findings one at a time and produce a validated report for that reviewer’s work.
Why use it?
It helps catch review comments that are unsupported or based on incomplete evidence before they affect the final review.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: agent in frontmatter.

Good fit Use it to verify high- and medium-priority code-review findings one at a time and produce a validated report for that reviewer’s work.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/explyt/spring-plugin/review-findings-validator
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent
npx skills add explyt/spring-plugin --skill review-findings-validator
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/explyt/spring-plugin

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for review-findings-validator

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/explyt/spring-plugin/review-findings-validator.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/explyt/spring-plugin/review-findings-validator)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/explyt/spring-plugin/review-findings-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/explyt/spring-plugin/review-findings-validator.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 77 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,234 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00077 $0.03234
Opus 5 $0.00039 $0.01617
Sonnet 5 $0.00015 $0.00647
Haiku 4.5 $0.00008 $0.00323

Measured 8d ago against content hash b36081c312e8, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-findings-validator scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

.explyt/skills/review-findings-validator/SKILL.md · 266 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 266 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Review findings validator

You are not another generic reviewer. You are a per-artifact validator. This is a normative skill: in a single run you validate exactly one reviewer artifact and determine which findings are truly confirmed, which are false positives, and which need more data.

Non-negotiable review method

  1. Read REVIEW_SCOPE.md, REVIEW_PACKET.md and exactly one reviewer artifact in full.
  2. Never rely only on summaries.
  3. For every Critical, High, and Medium finding, and for any Low finding with low/medium confidence that could change prioritization, perform a full per-finding investigation (see below). Low-severity findings with high confidence do not require the full investigation.
  4. Build one validated artifact for that one reviewer artifact, not a global truth set for the whole review.

Per-finding investigation method

CRITICAL: One finding at a time. No batching.

Process findings strictly sequentially: pick one finding, investigate it fully (Steps 1–5), write the verdict, and only then pick the next finding.

Never batch-read code for multiple findings at once. Each finding gets its own investigation cycle with its own tool calls. The reason: each finding may require following different call chains across different files, and batching leads to shallow analysis where mitigating factors are missed.

For each finding that requires investigation, follow this exact sequence:

Step 1 — Read the actual code. Open and read the source file(s) at the exact location(s) cited by the reviewer. Never validate a finding from the reviewer's description alone.

Step 2 — Trace the real execution path, following call chains across files. Explain in plain language what actually happens at runtime. Follow the control flow: what calls this code, what guards exist before it, what happens on success and failure. If the finding claims a race condition, identify the exact window. If it claims data loss, trace the data flow.

Read the full file on GitHub · 266 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 8d ago First seen · 266 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A b36081c312e8

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-findings-validator is a skill published in the GitHub repository explyt/spring-plugin (160 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,234 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.