Advisory GRADED verification for high-stakes answer-quality Forge tasks (RAG/research/scraping/prediction). Use when output quality is subjective and needs per-criterion scoring + actionable feedback — ALONGSIDE (never replacing) forge-verify (structural) and forge-evals (deterministic binary gate). Keywords: graded, rubric, quality, verify, review, answer quality, RAG quality, source grounding.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ForgeyClap/claude-forge --skill forge-graded-verify --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Forge Graded Verify?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/forgeyclap-forge-graded-verify-claude-forge)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: forge-graded-verify
description: "Advisory GRADED verification for high-stakes answer-quality Forge tasks (RAG/research/scraping/prediction). Use when output quality is subjective and needs per-criterion scoring + actionable feedback — ALONGSIDE (never replacing) forge-verify (structural) and forge-evals (deterministic binary gate). Keywords: graded, rubric, quality, verify, review, answer quality, RAG quality, source grounding."
---
# forge-graded-verify — advisory rubric-scored verification (scout #7, 2026-07-13)
Fills the graded-quality axis Forge deliberately lacks: `forge-verify` checks structural bookkeeping ("did the agent close its tickets"); `forge-evals` is intentionally deterministic-binary so it can safely gate git reverts. Neither scores subjective ANSWER QUALITY. This skill adds that — advisory only. Method reimplemented from the DeepVerifier failure-taxonomy pattern (arXiv 2601.15808); no code/dataset from that repo is used.
## When to use
High-stakes answer-quality work where "did it pass an assertion" isn't enough: RAG answers, research syntheses, scraped-data summaries, prediction rationales. NOT for code/build gating (that stays with forge-evals + integration-gate). Reserve for genuinely high-stakes tasks — it costs an LLM review pass; don't duplicate ultra-review.
## How it works (advisory, bounded, never gates irreversible actions)
1. **Pick the rubric** for the domain from `.claude/config/rubrics/<domain>.json`. Each criterion has: `id`, `descriptor` (4-level: 1=poor … 4=excellent, what each level means), and `raise` (what would move the score up).
2. **Dispatch review-boss as a GRADED verifier** (not the binary reviewer): it reads the output + the source/context, and returns per-criterion `{id, score 1-4, evidence, feedback}` via verification-by-decomposition (judge each criterion separately, cite evidence).
3. **Bounded single rework loop:** if any required criterion scores < the threshold (default 3), emit ONE `rework_task_created` → `rework_assigned` to the owning Boss with the NL feedback, re-grade ONCE, respect the usage-guard. No open-ended loops.
4. **Log advisory only:** record the graded result via the existing `gate_evaluated` / `lead_review_completed` events (do NOT invent event types). NEVER let a graded score gate an irreversible action (deploy, git revert, send) — deterministic forge-evals / owner approval stay authoritative there.
## Honesty
LLM-graded scores are judgment, not ground truth (a judge can mislabel). Frame results as advisory quality signals; cite per-criterion evidence; the reviewer model should differ from the builder model (evaluator independence). Rubrics are owner-editable JSON — start from the shipped ones and ADAPT per project, don't drop-in.
## Rubrics
Shipped starters in `.claude/config/rubrics/`: `rag.json` (source-grounding, reasoning soundness, coverage, answer-correctness, completeness). Add per-domain rubrics as needed (research, scraping, prediction) with the same shape.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!