forensic-review

forensic-review is a skill for Claude Code from Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills. It costs 48 tokens per session (1,920 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An independent review workflow that checks completed implementation work against its acceptance criteria. It uses a different agent from the one that wrote the code.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after implementation to fact-check results and return either a completion verdict or specific remediation work.
Why use it?
It reduces the risk of accepting work based only on the original agent's own assessment.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: user-invocable in frontmatter.

Part of the dh plugin — 53 skills, 28 agents shipped together

Good fit Use it after implementation to fact-check results and return either a completion verdict or specific remediation work.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/forensic-review
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 Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills --skill forensic-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install dh, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 53 skills, 28 agents.

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 forensic-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/forensic-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/forensic-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/forensic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/forensic-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for forensic-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/forensic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/forensic-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 48 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,920 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 $0.00048 $0.01920
Opus 5 $0.00024 $0.00960
Sonnet 5 $0.00010 $0.00384
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00192

Measured 7d ago against content hash d0a9a52ae604, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

forensic-review 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 7d 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.

plugins/development-harness/skills/forensic-review/SKILL.md · 195 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 195 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

SAM Stage 6 — Forensic Review

Role

SAM Stage 6 delegates the concrete review work to @dh:code-reviewer. This skill is the orchestration wrapper: it resolves the task context, dispatches the agent, and maps its structured output back to the SAM pipeline verdict.

Producer and reviewer must always be different agents — never invoke this skill from the same agent that executed the task.

Core Principle

AI cannot reliably self-evaluate. The agent that wrote the code cannot objectively assess its own work. Forensic review uses a separate agent with fresh context to verify claims against observable evidence.

When to Use

  • After Stage 5 Execution produces ARTIFACT:EXECUTION
  • For each completed task before marking it as done
  • When re-reviewing after a NEEDS_WORK remediation cycle

Process

flowchart TD
    Start([ARTIFACT:EXECUTION + ARTIFACT:PLAN]) --> R1[1. Resolve task context]
    R1 --> R2[2. Dispatch @dh:code-reviewer]
    R2 --> R3[3. Consume verdict from STATUS output]
    R3 --> R4[4. Read code-review artifact]
    R4 --> Decide{Verdict?}
    Decide -->|PASS| Complete[Verdict — COMPLETE]
    Decide -->|NEEDS-WORK or FAIL| NeedsWork[Verdict — NEEDS_WORK]
    Complete --> Done([ARTIFACT:REVIEW registered by agent])
    NeedsWork --> Remediate[Create remediation tasks from blocking findings]
    Remediate --> Done

Step 1 — Resolve Task Context

Read the task via MCP:

sam_task(plan="{plan_id}", task="{task_id}", config={"action": "read"})

{plan_id} and {task_id} are the address already supplied to the call above — retain them as-is for the rest of this workflow; sam_task(action="read") returns a TaskAssignment with no top-level plan_id/task_id fields (the plan is plan-number, the task is nested at task.id), so do not attempt to re-extract the address from the response. Never parse plan_id for a plan number or slug — read those from sam_plan(config={"action": "read"}).

From the response, extract:

Read the full file on GitHub · 195 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. 7d ago First seen · 195 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A d0a9a52ae604

Subscribe to this mod's changes

forensic-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills (66 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,920 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

adversarial-reviewer

Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.

emdash-cms/emdash · 71 tokens

adk-go-self-review

Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…

google/adk-go · 87 tokens

go-testing

Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.

Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai · 26 tokens

semgrep-rule-variant-creator

Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.

waybarrios/opencode-power-pack · 50 tokens

brooks-sweep

Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…

hyhmrright/brooks-lint · 178 tokens

include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl

When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.

ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm · 29 tokens