← ClaudeAtlas

shadow-verifylisted

Dispatch a parallel adversarial verifier wave after any high-stakes sub-agent investigation (code reviews, audits, findings reports, large refactors, gap analyses) — 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/STALE/UNVERIFIABLE, and flag disagreements before the user acts. Use when sub-agent output will drive decisions, file changes, commits, or external side-effects.
griffinwork40/agent-afk · ★ 54 · AI & Automation · score 80
Install: claude install-skill griffinwork40/agent-afk
## Sub-agent contract /contract When a sub-agent (or wave) returns investigation findings, code-review conclusions, audit claims, refactor plans, gap-analysis results, or counts that will drive user decisions or file changes, do NOT surface the report. Instead, run a shadow verification wave **before** merging. ### Pre-flight: claim normalization and scale guard Before dispatching verifiers, the coordinating agent normalizes each claim to a canonical form: ``` [CLAIM_ID] <subject> :: <predicate> :: <evidence_ref> ``` `evidence_ref` must be a concrete pointer — a file path, line number, git ref, config key, or API endpoint. Claims that cannot be anchored to a concrete `evidence_ref` are classified **`UNVERIFIABLE`** immediately and removed from the verification queue. They are preserved in the final output under a dedicated section with the reason they could not be anchored (no re-derivation sub-agent is dispatched for them). **Scale cap:** if the normalized claim list exceeds 50 items, the coordinating agent halts and asks the operator to scope the investigation before proceeding. Verification at scale degrades into noise; a 50-item cap prevents a finding flood from becoming an echo-chamber rubber-stamp. Select 2–3 of the highest-stakes normalized claims to send to the verifier wave. Prefer claims that are (a) decision-driving, (b) expressed with high-confidence language, or (c) hard to re-derive from a single artifact. --- **Wave 2 — Adversarial verifiers (parallel,