Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

verify(验证)

verify 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

verify 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 66,577。

总安装 261周安装 11GitHub Stars 9下载 92核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:verify(验证)
来源仓库:https://github.com/florianbuetow/claude-code
仓库路径:skills/verify
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/florianbuetow/claude-code --skill verify
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/florianbuetow/claude-code --skill verify

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。verify 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合根据关键词快速定位候选结果。可结合来源仓库继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限和维护状态。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

注意是否会触发联网或文件读写。

来源仓库内路径:skills/verify

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/florianbuetow/claude-code --skill verify;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

verify 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/florianbuetow/claude-code --skill verify。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

verify 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

verify 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

verify 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

verify 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 261 次,近一周安装 11 次,下载 92 次,GitHub 9 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

verify 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
verify

验证 · 本页

2619只读未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Fix Verification

Confirm that a security fix actually resolves the reported vulnerability. Re-runs the specific check -- scanner rule or Claude analysis -- that originally detected the issue. Outputs a clear verdict: FIXED or STILL VULNERABLE with explanation. Updates the finding record in .appsec/findings.json.

Supported Flags

Read ../../shared/schemas/flags.md for the full flag specification.

FlagVerify Behavior
--scopeIdentifies which findings to verify. Default: all findings with status fix-applied in scope.
--depth quickCheck only the exact location referenced in the finding.
--depth standardCheck the location + immediate callers and related code paths.
--depth deepStandard + verify no variant of the vulnerability was introduced nearby.
--depth expertDeep + attempt to construct a proof-of-concept that bypasses the fix.
--severityOnly verify findings at or above this severity.
--formatDefault text. Use json for structured verification results.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Findings to Verify

Resolve which findings need verification:

  1. By finding ID: User provides e.g., INJ-001. Load from .appsec/findings.json.
  2. By status: Find all findings with status fix-applied that have not yet been verified.
  3. By scope: Find all findings whose location.file falls within the resolved scope.
  4. All pending: If no specific target, verify all fix-applied findings.

If no findings match, inform the user. If findings exist but none have fix-applied status, suggest running /appsec:fix first.

Step 2: Load Finding Context

For each finding to verify:

  1. Read the finding record: Original vulnerability details, CWE, location, snippet.
  2. Read the fix record: What was changed (the diff), when it was applied.
  3. Read the current code: Load the file at the finding's location using the Read tool.
  4. Determine the original detection method: Was it found by a scanner (check scanner.name) or by Claude analysis?

Step 3: Re-Run Detection

Apply the same detection method that found the original vulnerability:

Scanner-Detected Findings

If scanner.name is present and the scanner is available:

  1. Run the specific scanner rule against the fixed file.
  2. If the scanner no longer reports the finding at that location, mark as FIXED.
  3. If the scanner still reports, mark as STILL VULNERABLE with scanner output.

Scanner version awareness: If the scanner version or configuration has changed since the original detection, note this in the verification result: FIXED (note: scanner version changed since original detection — re-verify recommended). This prevents false FIXED verdicts from rule changes.

Claude-Detected Findings

If the finding was detected by Claude analysis (no scanner, or scanner not available):

  1. Re-read the code at the finding location with full context.
  2. Apply the same analysis that detected the original vulnerability:

- Is the vulnerable pattern still present? - Is user input still reaching the dangerous sink without sanitization? - Is the missing security control still missing?

  1. Check that the fix is correct and complete:

- Does the fix use the right mitigation for this vulnerability type? - Are there edge cases the fix misses (e.g., alternate code paths, encoding bypasses)? - Is the fix applied to all instances of the pattern, not just one?

Step 4: Check for Fix Bypasses

At --depth deep and above, look for ways the fix might be circumvented:

  1. Alternate code paths: Is there another route to the same sink that bypasses the fix?
  2. Encoding bypasses: Can the input be encoded to evade the validation (double encoding, unicode, null bytes)?
  3. Type confusion: Can the input type be changed to bypass validation (array instead of string)?
  4. Race conditions: Can the check be bypassed via TOCTOU?
  5. Partial fix: Does the fix cover all variants of the vulnerability?

Step 5: Render Verdict

For each finding, output one of two verdicts:

FIXED
## FIXED: <Finding ID> - <Title>

**Status**: FIXED
**Verified at**: <timestamp>
**Method**: <scanner re-run | code analysis>

The vulnerability at `<file>:<line>` has been resolved.

**What changed**: <1-2 sentence summary of the fix>
**Confidence**: <high|medium> -- <why>
STILL VULNERABLE
## STILL VULNERABLE: <Finding ID> - <Title>

**Status**: STILL VULNERABLE
**Verified at**: <timestamp>
**Method**: <scanner re-run | code analysis>

The vulnerability at `<file>:<line>` has NOT been resolved.

**Reason**: <specific explanation of why the fix is insufficient>
**Remaining issue**: <what still needs to change>
**Suggestion**: <concrete next step to actually fix it>

Step 6: Update Finding Records

Update each finding in .appsec/findings.json:

  • FIXED: Set status to verified-fixed. Add verified_at timestamp and verification.method.
  • STILL VULNERABLE: Set status to fix-failed. Add verification.reason explaining why. Preserve the original finding so /appsec:fix can be re-run.

Copy verified-fixed findings to .appsec/fixed-history.json for regression tracking (used by /appsec:regression).

Step 7: Summary

After verifying all targeted findings, output a summary:

## Verification Summary

| Finding | Status | Confidence |
|---------|--------|------------|
| INJ-001 | FIXED | High |
| AC-003  | STILL VULNERABLE | High |

Verified: N/M findings fixed. N still require remediation.

Output Format

Verification results reference the original finding but add verification metadata.

  • metadata.tool: "verify"
  • Original finding ID is preserved (not re-prefixed).

Finding ID prefix: VER (e.g., VER-001) only for new issues discovered during verification (e.g., the fix introduced a different vulnerability).

Findings follow ../../shared/schemas/findings.md.

Pragmatism Notes

  • A finding is FIXED when the specific vulnerable pattern is resolved. Do not fail verification because of unrelated issues in the same file.
  • Scanner re-runs are the strongest evidence. If the scanner that originally detected the issue no longer flags it, that is high-confidence FIXED.
  • Claude analysis verification is medium-confidence by default. Note this in the output.
  • If the fix moved the vulnerable code rather than resolving it, mark as STILL VULNERABLE and note the new location.
  • If the entire function or file was deleted, verify the functionality was actually removed and not relocated. If truly removed, mark as FIXED.
  • Do not penalize fixes that use a different mitigation strategy than suggested, as long as the vulnerability is resolved.

平台分布

Codex

36.75%
按下载量换算34

Claude

26.77%
按下载量换算25

Cursor

18.33%
按下载量换算17

Gemini CLI

8.7%
按下载量换算8

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

未通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills