proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/sherlock-review
Claude Code and agent skill by proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe
- community
Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.
Evidence-based investigative code review using deductive reasoning to determine what actually happened versus what was claimed. Use when verifying implementation claims, investigating bugs, validating fixes, or conducting root cause analysis. Elementary approach to finding truth through systematic observation.
Install
npx vskill@latest install proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/sherlock-reviewSKILL.md
Sherlock Review
<default_to_action> When investigating code claims:
- OBSERVE: Gather all evidence (code, tests, history, behavior)
- DEDUCE: What does evidence actually show vs. what was claimed?
- ELIMINATE: Rule out what cannot be true
- CONCLUDE: Does evidence support the claim?
- DOCUMENT: Findings with proof, not assumptions
The 3-Step Investigation:
Holmesian Principles:
- "Data! Data! Data!" - Collect before concluding
- "Eliminate the impossible" - What cannot be true?
- "You see, but do not observe" - Run code, don't just read
- Trust only reproducible evidence
</default_to_action>
Quick Reference Card
Evidence Collection Checklist
| Category | What to Check | How | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | PR description, commit messages | Read thoroughly | |
| Code | Actual file changes | git diff | |
| Tests | Coverage, assertions | Run independently | |
| Behavior | Runtime output | Execute locally | |
| Timeline | When things happened | git log, git blame |
Verdict Levels
| Verdict | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|
| ✓ TRUE | Evidence fully supports claim | |
| ⚠ PARTIALLY TRUE | Claim accurate but incomplete | |
| ✗ FALSE | Evidence contradicts claim | |
| ? NONSENSICAL | Claim doesn't apply to context | |
| … UNVERIFIED | Not enough evidence either way; state what would settle it |
Investigation Template
Evidence Over Volume (No Findings Quota)
Every finding and every verdict must chain to observable evidence: code, command output, test results, history. There is no minimum number of observations. When the evidence supports the claim, the correct verdict is TRUE (the output schema's case-closed-clean), with a list of what was examined. Manufacturing clues to make an investigation look productive is the same failure Sherlock exists to catch. If the evidence is insufficient either way, say so, state what would settle it, and do not guess.
Investigation Scenarios
Scenario 1: "This Fixed the Bug"
Steps:
- Reproduce bug on commit before fix
- Verify bug is gone on commit with fix
- Check if fix addresses root cause or symptom
- Test edge cases not in original report
Red Flags:
- Fix that just removes error logging
- Works only for specific test case
- Workarounds instead of root cause fix
- No regression test added
Scenario 2: "Improved Performance by 50%"
Steps:
- Run benchmark on baseline commit
- Run same benchmark on optimized commit
- Compare in identical conditions
- Verify measurement methodology
Red Flags:
- Tested only on toy data
- Different comparison conditions
- Trade-offs not mentioned
Scenario 3: "Handles All Edge Cases"
Steps:
- List all edge cases in code path
- Check each has test coverage
- Test boundary conditions
- Verify error handling paths
Red Flags:
catch {}swallowing errors- Generic error messages
- No logging of critical errors
Example Investigation
Agent Integration
Agent Coordination Hints
Memory Namespace
Fleet Coordination
Related Skills
- brutal-honesty-review - Direct technical criticism
- context-driven-testing - Adapt to context
- bug-reporting-excellence - Document findings
Remember
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." Trust only reproducible evidence. Don't trust commit messages, documentation, or "works on my machine."
The Sherlock Standard: Every claim must be verified empirically. What does the evidence actually show?
Security
- Security scanPassed, 95 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
- Model reviewPassed
Quality evaluation
- Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.
Source
- SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingassets/skills/sherlock-review/SKILL.md
Popularity
- Repository stars
- 461
- Repository forks
- 85
- Repository npm downloads, 7 days
- 16,240
- 7-day trend score
- 53
Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Downloads are for the repository's npm package. Refreshed 23 Aug 2026, 2 months ago.
Works with
Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- GitHub Copilot
- Windsurf
- Codex
- Gemini CLI
- Cline
- Amp
- Roo Code
- Goose
- Continue
- Kilo Code
- Junie
- Trae
- OpenHands
- Qwen Code
- AI Agent
- Tabnine Chat
- Sourcegraph Cody
- Amazon Q
- Firebase Genkit
- Sweep
- Devin
- Phind
- Mentat
- Claude Desktop
- Aider
- GPT Pilot
- Plandex
- bolt.new
- v0
- Replit Agent
- Anse
- TypingMind
- BetterChatGPT
- LibreChat
- Warp AI
- Pieces
- Fig AI
Embed badge
[](https://verified-skill.com/skills/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/sherlock-review)