# Sherlock Review

Evidence-based investigative code review using deductive reasoning to determine what...

- Repository: https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe (521 stars)
- Category: Git and review
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-11-01
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill sherlock-review -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill sherlock-review -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill sherlock-review -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill sherlock-review -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe`

## Description

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.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Sherlock Review

<default_to_action>
When investigating code claims:
1. OBSERVE: Gather all evidence (code, tests, history, behavior)
2. DEDUCE: What does evidence actually show vs. what was claimed?
3. ELIMINATE: Rule out what cannot be true
4. CONCLUDE: Does evidence support the claim?
5. DOCUMENT: Findings with proof, not assumptions

**The 3-Step Investigation:**
```bash
# 1. OBSERVE: Gather evidence
git diff <commit>
npm test -- --coverage

# 2. DEDUCE: Compare claim vs reality
# Does code match description?
# Do tests prove the fix/feature?

# 3. CONCLUDE: Verdict with evidence
# SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / NOT SUPPORTED
```

**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

```markdown
## Sherlock Investigation: [Claim]

### The Claim
"[What PR/commit claims to do]"

### Evidence Examined
- Code changes: [files, lines]
- Tests added: [count, coverage]
- Behavior observed: [what actually happens]

### Deductive Analysis

The rest: https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/blob/HEAD/.claude/skills/sherlock-review/SKILL.md