Back to skills
SKILL.md
Code Review Verifier
ASecurityIndependently validate code-review findings with alternate methodology, severity calibration, and blind-spot discovery.
- 2 stars
- 0 votes
- 0 copies
- 1 view
- Added October 17, 2026
Security analysis
100/100npx -y skills add NetVar1337/agent-skill-canon --skill code-review-verifier --agent claude-codeAre you the author of Code Review Verifier?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/netvar1337-code-review-verifier)---
name: code-review-verifier
description: Independently validate code-review findings with alternate methodology, severity calibration, and blind-spot discovery.
---
# Code Review Verifier
## Purpose
Increase finding quality by reducing false positives and identifying missed sibling issues.
## Inputs
- `reported_findings`
- `code_path`
- `original_analysis_notes` (optional)
## Verification Rules
- A disputed verdict requires concrete counter-evidence.
- Inconclusive means blocker exists, not analyst disagreement.
- Severity must reflect actual reachable impact.
## Workflow
### Phase 1: Independent Re-trace
1. Reconstruct each path without reusing original assumptions.
2. Validate source control and sink reachability.
### Phase 2: Mitigation Audit
1. Confirm sanitization is context-correct.
2. Confirm authz checks are in enforceable location.
3. Confirm defensive code is not bypassable by alternate path.
### Phase 3: Severity Recalibration
1. Recalculate exploit preconditions.
2. Recalculate required privilege.
3. Recalculate business impact and blast radius.
### Phase 4: Adjacent Pattern Hunt
1. Search for sibling sinks and parallel routes.
2. Compare validation/auth patterns across files.
3. Add missed findings when evidence is sufficient.
## Verdict Model
- `confirmed`: reproducible and exploitable.
- `disputed`: mitigation or non-reachability proven.
- `inconclusive`: technical blocker or uncertainty remains.
## Output Contract
```json
{
"verification_results": [],
"severity_changes": [],
"new_related_findings": [],
"evidence_notes": [],
"open_questions": []
}
```
## Quality Checklist
- [ ] Every verdict has explicit evidence.
- [ ] Severity changes are justified.
- [ ] Blind-spot scan completed.
## Detailed Operator Notes
### Cross-Layer Trace Requirements
- Include controller, service, data access, and sink layers.
- Include serialization/deserialization boundary handling.
- Include async boundaries (queue/job/event) where data crosses trust zones.
### Access-Control Audit Rules
- Verify policy check location relative to resource fetch.
- Verify policy check occurs on every variant path.
- Verify tenant scoping is enforced at data query layer.
### Sanitization Audit Rules
- Context-match sanitizer to sink type.
- Confirm canonicalization happens before validation.
- Check for alternate branch paths that skip sanitizer.
### Reporting Rules
- Include function-level path with file and symbol names.
- Include bypass narrative for missing or weak control.
- Include a precise fix location and test recommendation.
## Quick Scenarios
### Scenario A: Access Check Placement
- Trace data fetch point.
- Trace policy check point.
- Determine whether check occurs before use.
- Identify alternate path without check.
### Scenario B: Sanitization Mismatch
- Map sink execution context.
- Map sanitizer type and location.
- Validate context compatibility.
- Find branch that bypasses sanitizer.
### Scenario C: Adjacent Pattern Sweep
- Identify sibling handlers/sinks.
- Compare guard and validation parity.
- Flag inconsistent control patterns.
- Prioritize high-impact siblings.
## Conditional Decision Matrix
| Condition | Action | Evidence Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Source passes through helper wrappers | inline helper logic into trace | wrapper-expanded path |
| Policy check exists after data fetch | test prefetch exposure and side-effects | order-of-operations trace |
| Sanitizer exists but context mismatch | craft context-correct exploit hypothesis | sink-context mismatch proof |
| Async boundary carries tainted data | trace serialization and consumer validation | producer-consumer trace |
| Sibling route has weaker guards | run parity scan across sibling handlers | guard parity matrix |
## Advanced Coverage Extensions
1. Compare DTO/schema validation between create and update paths.
2. Scan migration scripts and admin tasks for latent unsafe operations.
3. Validate cache-layer authorization consistency.
4. Validate feature-flagged code paths for missing controls.
5. Validate error handling paths for secret leakage.
Attribution
Comments
Loading comments…
Newsletter
Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.