second-pass-review

second-pass-review is a skill for Claude Code from prime-radiant-inc/greenfield. It costs 44 tokens per session (5,372 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

An independent review step for checking cleaned-up technical specifications before implementation begins. It uses separate reviewers to look for leaked internal details, unwanted content, and missing behavior.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after specifications have been sanitized and before handing them to implementation. It checks structural leakage, content contamination, and whether the described behavior is complete.
Why use it?
It catches mistakes the person who sanitized a specification may overlook, such as internal names, file references, or incomplete requirements.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the greenfield plugin — 22 skills, 2 commands, 2 agents shipped together

Good fit Use it after specifications have been sanitized and before handing them to implementation. It checks structural leakage, content contamination, and whether the described behavior is complete.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-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 prime-radiant-inc/greenfield --skill second-pass-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install greenfield, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 22 skills, 2 commands, 2 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 second-pass-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-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 second-pass-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 44 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 5,372 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 warn 7 Sept 2026
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium

These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →

  • medium Rogue Agent · line 8
    Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.
    Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 $0.00044 $0.05372
Opus 5 $0.00022 $0.02686
Sonnet 5 $0.00009 $0.01074
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00537

Measured 12d ago against content hash ba1eef11a9fa, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

second-pass-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 12d 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.

skills/second-pass-review/SKILL.md · 473 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 473 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Second-Pass Review (Layer 6)

Sanitization is necessary but insufficient. The author of a sanitized spec can't reliably catch their own leaks — the same assumptions that let implementation details slip in during the rewrite also let them slip past a self-review. A fresh read, with no access to the raw analysis, catches drift the author missed.

Why This Exists

Sanitization alone misses contamination in predictable categories:

  • Structural leakage: Module names in Part headers, cross-module dependency tables, module counts carried into the output
  • Content contamination: Minified identifiers, line number references, IPC channel names, state-store selectors, internal filenames
  • Behavioral completeness: Usually passes, because completeness is the easiest dimension to check

Root causes:

  1. Sanitization agents copy-paste instead of rewriting
  2. Gate 2 flags "zero leakage" but never defines what to look for
  3. Grep patterns can't catch descriptive English identifiers
  4. Without a second-pass review, authors can't catch their own blind spots

Audit Pipeline

digraph audit_pipeline {
    rankdir=TB;
    compound=true;

    "Layer 5 sanitization complete" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Audit PASS — proceed to implementation" [shape=doublecircle];
    "STOP: Audit failed after 3 remediation attempts" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];

    subgraph cluster_specialist {
        label="Parallel Specialist Reviewers (read every file, apply semantic checklists)";
        style=dashed;

        "structural-leakage-reviewer" [shape=box];
        "content-contamination-reviewer" [shape=box];
        "behavioral-completeness-reviewer" [shape=box];
    }

    subgraph cluster_generalist {
        label="Parallel Deep-Read Generalists (4-5 files each, full contextual judgment)";
        style=dashed;

        "deep-read-auditor-1" [shape=box];
        "deep-read-auditor-2" [shape=box];
        "deep-read-auditor-N" [shape=box];
    }

    "Merge all audit reports" [shape=box];
    "Any FAIL?" [shape=diamond];
    "Dispatch targeted fix agents" [shape=box];
    "Re-audit failing files" [shape=box];
    "Attempts < 3?" [shape=diamond];

    "Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "structural-leakage-reviewer";
    "Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "content-contamination-reviewer";
    "Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "behavioral-completeness-reviewer";
    "Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "deep-read-auditor-1";
    "Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "deep-read-auditor-2";
    "Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "deep-read-auditor-N";

    "structural-leakage-reviewer" -> "Merge all audit reports";
    "content-contamination-reviewer" -> "Merge all audit reports";
    "behavioral-completeness-reviewer" -> "Merge all audit reports";
    "deep-read-auditor-1" -> "Merge all audit reports";
    "deep-read-auditor-2" -> "Merge all audit reports";
    "deep-read-auditor-N" -> "Merge all audit reports";

    "Merge all audit reports" -> "Any FAIL?";
    "Any FAIL?" -> "Audit PASS — proceed to implementation" [label="all PASS"];
    "Any FAIL?" -> "Dispatch targeted fix agents" [label="any FAIL"];
    "Dispatch targeted fix agents" -> "Re-audit failing files";
    "Re-audit failing files" -> "Attempts < 3?";
    "Attempts < 3?" -> "structural-leakage-reviewer" [label="yes"];
    "Attempts < 3?" -> "STOP: Audit failed after 3 remediation attempts" [label="no"];
}

Read the full file on GitHub · 473 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. 12d ago First seen · 473 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A ba1eef11a9fa

Subscribe to this mod's changes

second-pass-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository prime-radiant-inc/greenfield (277 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 5,372 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 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

critical-code-reviewer

Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.

posit-dev/skills · 67 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

check-pr

Read-only inspection of a single GitHub PR lifecycle — checks CI, review threads, description sync, and mergeability, and returns PASS or FAIL with per-gate findings. Never invokes the merge button. Use when verifying a PR is ready to merge, polling lifecycle progress, checking mergeability, or babysitting a GitHub PR…

doodledood/manifest-dev · 74 tokens

codex-review

Get an independent code review from OpenAI Codex (GPT-5) on uncommitted changes, a branch diff, a PR, or a specific module — returns findings grouped by severity with file:line references. Use when the user says "review this", "review my changes", "check this PR", "what did I miss", or before they commit or merge…

Sateezg/codex-bridge · 78 tokens

pwn-ai-agent-sast

Drive PWN::AI::Agent::SAST from pwneval.

0dayInc/pwn · 22 tokens

github-pr-creation

Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…

fvadicamo/dev-agent-skills · 75 tokens