Meta-skill for /audit-strict and high-stakes audits. Run two independent passes with different starting contexts, then keep only consensus findings. Aggressively cuts false positives.
Scanned 10/4/2026
npx -y skills add iktok90-design/ai-smart-contract-auditor --skill multi-pass-self-critique --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Multi Pass Self Critique?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/iktok90-design-multi-pass-self-critique)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: multi-pass-self-critique
description: Meta-skill for /audit-strict and high-stakes audits. Run two independent passes with different starting contexts, then keep only consensus findings. Aggressively cuts false positives.
---
# Multi-pass self-critique (meta-skill)
This skill governs the protocol for high-precision audits where false positives are unacceptable.
## When to use
- `/audit-strict` invocations
- Pre-launch audits where the user has explicitly opted into slower, higher-precision review
- Re-audits where prior tools have been noisy
## The protocol
### Pass A — Skill-driven, bottom-up
Read the code line-by-line. Apply the vuln-skill library. Emit candidate findings with reasoning traces.
### Pass B — Exploit-driven, top-down
Fresh context. Pretend you have no prior findings. Approach the contract as an attacker: "What would I steal here? What's the cheapest exploit?" Emit findings.
### Compare
For each Pass-A finding, check Pass-B:
- Did Pass B independently identify this issue (under any name)?
- Does Pass B's exploit narrative match this issue's mechanism?
For each Pass-B finding, check Pass-A:
- Did the skill library flag this?
### Categorize
| Pass A | Pass B | Result |
|---|---|---|
| ✓ | ✓ | **Consensus** — Confidence HIGH, keep |
| ✓ | ✗ | Single-source A — Confidence MEDIUM, keep with note |
| ✗ | ✓ | Single-source B — Confidence MEDIUM, keep with note |
| ✗ | ✗ | Not reported |
### Synthesize
Output the consensus findings as primary, single-source findings as secondary. Be explicit about which is which.
## Why this works
- Each pass has different blind spots. Skill-based misses novel patterns; exploit-based misses subtle CWE patterns.
- Their intersection is the *high-precision* set.
- Their union is the *high-recall* set. Sometimes you want union; for `/audit-strict`, you want intersection.
## Anti-patterns
- **Sharing findings between passes.** Pass B must not see Pass A's findings; that defeats independence.
- **Counting "Pass A finds X, Pass A also finds X in a different file" as consensus.** Same pass = same blind spots.
- **Using the same model temperature for both passes.** Vary the approach, not just the seed.
## Output
```
Multi-pass audit:
Pass A (skill-driven) findings: 12
Pass B (exploit-driven) findings: 9
Consensus (both): 7 ← HIGH confidence
Pass-A-only (no exploit found): 5 ← MEDIUM, flagged for review
Pass-B-only (skills missed): 2 ← MEDIUM, possibly novel patterns
Final report:
→ 7 HIGH-confidence findings (action recommended)
→ 7 MEDIUM-confidence findings (requires user judgment)
```
## Related
- [[confidence-scoring]] — output of this skill drives the confidence label
- [[known-good-comparison]] — third axis: also check against reference impls
- /audit-strict (command)
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!