# Fp Check

Systematically verifies suspected security bugs to eliminate false positives.

- Repository: https://github.com/vigolium/vigolium (1141 stars)
- Category: Security
- License: see repository
- Last updated: 2026-10-25
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add vigolium/vigolium --skill fp-check -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add vigolium/vigolium --skill fp-check -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add vigolium/vigolium --skill fp-check -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add vigolium/vigolium --skill fp-check -g -a gemini-cli -y`

## Description

Systematically verifies suspected security bugs to eliminate false positives. Produces TRUE POSITIVE or FALSE POSITIVE verdicts with documented evidence for each bug.

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

# False Positive Check

## When to Use

- "Is this bug real?" or "is this a true positive?"
- "Is this a false positive?" or "verify this finding"
- "Check if this vulnerability is exploitable"
- Any request to verify or validate a specific suspected bug

## When NOT to Use

- Finding or hunting for bugs ("find bugs", "security analysis", "audit code")
- General code review for style, performance, or maintainability
- Feature development, refactoring, or non-security tasks
- When the user explicitly asks for a quick scan without verification

## Rationalizations to Reject

If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP.

| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Rapid analysis of remaining bugs" | Every bug gets full verification | Return to task list, verify next bug through all phases |
| "This pattern looks dangerous, so it's a vulnerability" | Pattern recognition is not analysis | Complete data flow tracing before any conclusion |
| "Skipping full verification for efficiency" | No partial analysis allowed | Execute all steps per the chosen verification path |
| "The code looks unsafe, reporting without tracing data flow" | Unsafe-looking code may have upstream validation | Trace the complete path from source to sink |
| "Similar code was vulnerable elsewhere" | Each context has different validation, callers, and protections | Verify this specific instance independently |
| "This is clearly critical" | LLMs are biased toward seeing bugs and overrating severity | Complete devil's advocate review; prove it with evidence |

---

## Step 0: Understand the Claim and Context

Before any analysis, restate the bug in your own words. If you cannot do this clearly, ask the user for clarification using AskUserQuestion. Half of false positives collapse at this step, the claim doesn't make coherent sense when restated precisely.

Document:

The rest: https://github.com/vigolium/vigolium/blob/HEAD/platform/vigolium-audit/src/content/skills/fp-check/SKILL.md