Source profileQuality 81/100

griffinwork40/agent-afk/src/bundled-plugins/awa-bundled/skills/shadow-verify/SKILL.md

shadow-verify

Dispatch a parallel adversarial verifier wave after any high-stakes sub-agent investigation (code reviews, audits, findings reports, large refactors) — or whenever a sub-agent asserts a claim with high-confidence language (confident, certain, clearly, ≥80%), since confidence is a trigger, not a verdict. Shadow verifiers independently re-derive 2–3 key claims from scratch using tool calls only, returning CONFIRMED/REFUTED/UNVERIFIABLE, and flag disagreements before the user acts. Use when sub-age

Source repository stars
45
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
1
Last source update
2026-07-28
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

When a sub-agent (or wave) returns investigation findings, code-review conclusions, audit claims, refactor plans, or counts that will drive user decisions or file changes, do NOT surface the report. Instead, run a shadow verification wave before merging.

Best for

  • Use when sub-age

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/griffinwork40/agent-afk --skill "src/bundled-plugins/awa-bundled/skills/shadow-verify"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "shadow-verify" from https://github.com/griffinwork40/agent-afk/blob/803066d4f1e0cd57e983658dc670d647fcd893c9/src/bundled-plugins/awa-bundled/skills/shadow-verify/SKILL.md at commit 803066d4f1e0cd57e983658dc670d647fcd893c9. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Appendix: verification methods by domain (non-binding)

    Reference aid for choosing re-derivation methods when dispatching a verifier. Consult when the claim's domain isn't obvious.

    Reference aid for choosing re-derivation methods when dispatching a verifier. Consult when the claim's domain isn't obvious.When domain is unspecified, infer from the claim content.
  2. 02

    Sub-agent contract

    When a sub-agent (or wave) returns investigation findings, code-review conclusions, audit claims, refactor plans, or counts that will drive user decisions or file changes, do NOT surface the report. Instead, run a shadow verification wave before merging.

    Extract 2–3 concrete, re-checkable claims from the returned report (e.g., "X function is unused", "file Y exceeds 300 lines", "PR targets main", "no tests cover Z").Dispatch one shadow sub-agent per claim, in parallel. Each receives ONLY the claim + the user's original goal — never the original agent's reasoning or cited evidence. Default to subagenttype: "research-agent" (mechanic…Each verifier re-derives the verdict independently using tool calls only — never re-reading the original report's reasoning. Returns {claim, verifierverdict, evidencepointer, evidencebase}, where verifierverdict is one…

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

Reads files

low · line 9

The documentation asks the agent to read local files, directories, or repositories.

Each verifier re-derives the verdict independently using tool calls only — never re-reading the original report's reasoning. Returns `{claim, verifier_verdict, evidence_pointer, evidence_base}`, where `verifier_verdict` is one of `CONFIRMED

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score81/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars45SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
griffinwork40/agent-afk
Skill path
src/bundled-plugins/awa-bundled/skills/shadow-verify/SKILL.md
Commit
803066d4f1e0cd57e983658dc670d647fcd893c9
License
Apache-2.0
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Sub-agent contract

/contract

When a sub-agent (or wave) returns investigation findings, code-review conclusions, audit claims, refactor plans, or counts that will drive user decisions or file changes, do NOT surface the report. Instead, run a shadow verification wave before merging.

Wave 2 — Adversarial verifiers (parallel, independent):

  1. Extract 2–3 concrete, re-checkable claims from the returned report (e.g., "X function is unused", "file Y exceeds 300 lines", "PR targets main", "no tests cover Z").
  2. Dispatch one shadow sub-agent per claim, in parallel. Each receives ONLY the claim + the user's original goal — never the original agent's reasoning or cited evidence. Default to subagent_type: "research-agent" (mechanically locked to Read/Grep/Glob/WebFetch/WebSearch — cannot Edit/commit/push). If the claim requires Bash to verify (running a failing test, gh pr view, git log origin/...), fall back to a Bash-capable subagent type with isolation: "worktree" and prepend this prefix to the prompt: "Verifier sub-agent — do not Edit, Write, commit, push, gh pr create, or curl. Return findings only."
  3. Each verifier re-derives the verdict independently using tool calls only — never re-reading the original report's reasoning. Returns {claim, verifier_verdict, evidence_pointer, evidence_base}, where verifier_verdict is one of CONFIRMED, REFUTED, or UNVERIFIABLE, and evidence_base is independent-rederivation (read primary sources outside the cited artifact's boundary) or artifact-internal (re-read only the cited file/region). On REFUTED, the verifier also emits a corrected finding.

Merge:

  • CONFIRMED → surface the claim as validated.
  • REFUTED → replace the claim with the verifier's corrected finding, annotated [was: confident, now: refuted], and show it alongside the original with evidence. Do not act until the conflict is resolved.
  • UNVERIFIABLE → surface with a [needs-human-review] tag rather than passing it through silently.

The two verdicts below are not emitted by individual verifiers — they are produced by the Composition-axis guard (defined below) and handled here:

  • UNVERIFIED-COMPOSITION → surface with [needs-human-review: composition boundary unchecked]; do not act until a boundary read confirms or refutes the claim.
  • UNVERIFIED-ECHO-CHAMBER → surface with [needs-human-review: echo-chamber suspected]; require at least one verifier to re-derive from outside the cited artifact before acting.

Bound the loop: at most 3 verification rounds per session. Claims still unresolved after 3 rounds are escalated to the user, never silently dropped.

Composition-axis guard (echo-chamber check): A verifier that re-derives a claim by re-reading the same file/region the original sub-agent cited has confirmed the citation, not the claim — it can be blind to composition-boundary failures (temporal interleaving, state threading, render/event-pipeline ordering, scrollback/call-graph adjacency) that only manifest outside the artifact's boundary. Before accepting a CONFIRMED:

  1. Read each verifier's evidence_base.
  2. For any artifact-internal CONFIRMED, require one composition-boundary read (≥1 upstream caller + ≥1 downstream consumer, plus the pipeline that interleaves the artifact with siblings) before merging. If a missed boundary surfaces, downgrade to UNVERIFIED-COMPOSITION and tag [needs-human-review]. (An artifact-internal REFUTED is intentionally exempt: a refutation already halts action under the Merge rule above, so its boundary-blindness cannot drive a wrong commit — the asymmetry is safe by construction.)
  3. Echo-chamber guard: if ≥2 verifiers cite the same in-repo artifact as primary evidence with no external referent, flag UNVERIFIED-ECHO-CHAMBER regardless of verdict and require one verifier to read outside that artifact's boundary. If the 3-round loop cap is already exhausted when this fires, escalate to the user as UNVERIFIED-ECHO-CHAMBER [loop-cap-reached] — do not dispatch a new round.

Scope guard: skip the composition check when the claim cites an external referent (RFC, spec, threat model, upstream-API contract) that survives independently of the repo, or when the artifact is purely local with no composition surface. Runs once per artifact, not on every cite.

When to invoke: Any time sub-agent output will drive user decisions, file edits, commits, external side-effects, or is the basis of a user-facing summary. Treat high-confidence language as a trigger in its own right: when a review/audit sub-agent asserts a claim with markers like "confident", "certain", "clearly", "obviously", "must be", or a stated probability ≥ 80%, verify it as if it were decision-driving regardless of stakes. Confidence is a trigger, not a verdict.

Skip when: Sub-agent ran inside an orchestrator skill that already verifies (resolve, diagnose, appmap); sub-agent returned explicit failure; work was purely exploratory and no decision follows; or the session is text-terminal — a pure explanation, architecture walkthrough, onboarding Q&A, or capability map that names no mutated artifact (file/PR/commit/test), where there are no re-checkable state claims for adversarial verifiers to re-derive (assess coverage, coherence, and citation density instead of dispatching re-derivation sub-agents).

Appendix: verification methods by domain (non-binding)

Reference aid for choosing re-derivation methods when dispatching a verifier. Consult when the claim's domain isn't obvious.

DomainRe-derivation methods
softwareGrep, Read, test runs, git commands (gh pr view, git log, git diff), build output
researchWeb search for citation verification, independent literature re-search, replication/methodology audit, cross-reference checks
designCompetitive audit via web search, heuristic evaluation against stated criteria, accessibility/usability re-assessment
businessMarket comp search, independent financial/metric re-derivation, assumption stress-test via web research
(other)Web search re-derivation, independent source verification, assumption audit — use whatever tools can independently check the claim

When domain is unspecified, infer from the claim content.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing