Agent skill
seek-verdict
Independent second-opinion verification for any finding. Use when: Claude or user wants independent Codex verification of a review finding — dismiss (false positive check), confirm (does this issue exist?), or clarify (what's the impact?). Triggers: dismiss verification, seek verdict, verify dismiss, false positive check, second opinion, confirm finding, clarify impact. Not for: general code review (use codex-code-review), architecture debates (use codex-brainstorm). Output: [DISMISS_VERDICT] or [SEEK_VERDICT] audit trail with verdict, confidence, and evidence refs.
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow/tree/main/skills/seek-verdict
SKILL.md
seek-verdict: Independent Second-Opinion Verification
When NOT to Use
- General code review (use
/codex-review-fast) - Architecture debates (use
/codex-brainstorm) - Nit findings with no dismiss intent (use
[NIT_DEFERRED])
Intent x Severity
| Intent | Purpose | Eligible Severities | Output Token |
|---|---|---|---|
dismiss |
Is this a false positive? | All (P0/P1/P2/Nit) | [DISMISS_VERDICT] |
confirm |
Does this issue actually exist? | All | [SEEK_VERDICT] |
clarify |
What's the actual impact? | All | [SEEK_VERDICT] |
Default intent: dismiss (backward compatible with v1).
Dismiss Authorization
| Severity | Authorization | Gate |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | DISMISS_CANDIDATE |
Human confirmation required |
| P1 | DISMISS_CANDIDATE |
Human confirmation required |
| P2 | DISMISS_VERIFIED |
Automated |
| Nit | DISMISS_VERIFIED |
Automated |
P0/P1 dismiss produces a candidate, not a final authorization. See Policy Mapping for human gate protocol.
3-Phase Protocol
sequenceDiagram
participant C as Claude
participant S as seek-verdict
participant X as Codex (fresh thread)
C->>S: Finding + intent + severity
Note over S: Phase A: Candidate Packaging
S->>S: Extract finding_packet<br/>(no Claude conclusions)
S->>X: Phase B: Blind Independent Verdict
Note over X: Independent research<br/>git status / grep / cat
X-->>S: verdict + confidence + evidence
Note over S: Phase C: Policy Mapping (intent x severity)
alt intent=dismiss + P2/Nit
S-->>C: DISMISS_VERIFIED / FIX_REQUIRED (automated)
else intent=dismiss + P0/P1
S-->>C: DISMISS_CANDIDATE + Need Human (human gate)
else intent=confirm/clarify
S-->>C: [SEEK_VERDICT] informational result
end
Phase A: Candidate Packaging
Extract finding artifact from review output:
| Field | Source |
|---|---|
finding_key |
file + canonical_issue_text |
severity |
<P0 | P1 | P2 | Nit> |
intent |
<dismiss | confirm | clarify> |
original_finding_text |
Codex review original (secrets redacted) |
origin_thread_id |
Review session threadId |
current_head_sha |
git rev-parse HEAD |
relevant_diff |
git diff HEAD -- <file> |
Critical: Record Claude's hypothesis locally. Never send it to Codex.
Phase B: Blind Independent Verdict
Use the prompt template in Verdict Prompt.
| Requirement | Detail |
|---|---|
| Thread | Fresh mcp__codex__codex (never reuse review thread) |
| Sandbox | read-only |
| Approval policy | never |
| Anti-anchoring | No Claude conclusions in prompt |
Phase C: Policy Mapping
Apply thresholds from Policy Mapping.
Dismiss intent: graduated thresholds by severity (P0: 0.95/4, P1: 0.90/3, P2: 0.80/2, Nit: 0.70/1).
Confirm intent: ACTIONABLE->CONFIRMED, NON_ACTIONABLE->DISPUTED, low confidence->UNCERTAIN.
Clarify intent: HIGH_IMPACT / LOW_IMPACT / UNCERTAIN.
Output audit trail per Policy Mapping.
Rebuttal
If Codex returns FIX_REQUIRED and Claude has objective counter-evidence:
- 1 round max via
mcp__codex__codex-reply(same verdict thread) - Only objective artifacts (tests, specs, language semantics)
- After rebuttal: still FIX_REQUIRED -> fix; ambiguous ->
NEED_HUMAN
Anti-Abuse Guard
See Policy Mapping for full rules.
- Dismiss: 3 consecutive
DISMISS_VERIFIED->[DISMISS_PATTERN_WARN]+ heightened thresholds - Confirm/Clarify: per-finding cap (1 confirm + 1 clarify per finding per commit)
- Session end or branch switch resets all counters
Output
Dismiss intent:
[DISMISS_VERDICT] key=<file|canonical_issue> | severity=<P0-Nit> | verdict=<DISMISS_VERIFIED|DISMISS_CANDIDATE|FIX_REQUIRED|NEED_HUMAN> | confidence=<0..1> | codex_thread=<id> | evidence=<brief> | timestamp=<ISO8601> | intent=dismiss | authorization=<automated|human-required|human-confirmed>
Confirm/Clarify intent:
[SEEK_VERDICT] key=<file|canonical_issue> | severity=<P0-Nit> | intent=<confirm|clarify> | verdict=<CONFIRMED|DISPUTED|HIGH_IMPACT|LOW_IMPACT|UNCERTAIN> | confidence=<0..1> | codex_thread=<id> | evidence=<brief> | timestamp=<ISO8601>
Verification
- Intent is valid (
dismiss/confirm/clarify) - Codex prompt contains no Claude conclusions (anti-anchoring)
- Fresh Codex thread used (not review session thread)
- Correct audit trail token output (
[DISMISS_VERDICT]or[SEEK_VERDICT]) - P0/P1 dismiss produces
DISMISS_CANDIDATE+ human gate (never auto-dismiss) - Anti-abuse streak tracked (dismiss) / per-finding cap enforced (confirm/clarify)
References
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Verdict Prompt | Codex blind verification prompt template |
| Policy Mapping | Intent x severity thresholds, audit format, anti-abuse |
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
runbook
Generate and update feature release runbooks from existing docs and codebase. Use when: creating operational runbook, release handbook, deployment checklist, pre-release preparation. Not for: incident response (v2), code review (use codex-code-review), architecture design (use architecture).
ask
Context-aware Q&A with auto context gathering. Use when: user has a quick question about codebase, git history, rules, docs, or skills during development. Not for: code changes (use feature-dev), code review (use codex-review-fast), deep research (use deep-research), full code trace (use code-explore). Output: structured answer with source attribution.
project-brief
Convert a technical spec into a PM/CTO-readable executive summary. Simplify technical details, focus on business value.
codex-test-gen
Generate unit tests for specified functions using Codex MCP
bug-fix
Bug fix workflow. Use when: fixing bugs, resolving issues, regression fixes. Not for: new features (use feature-dev), understanding code (use code-explore). Output: fix + regression test + review gate.
skill-health-check
Validate skill quality against routing, progressive loading, and verification criteria. Use when: auditing skills, checking skill health, reviewing skill design. Not for: code review (use codex-code-review) or doc review (use doc-review). Output: health report with per-skill ratings + Gate.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?