Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Configure human-in-the-loop gating for AI agent review actions in Claude Code. Use when setting up a project where an agent may post PR reviews, comments, merges, or edit CI configuration, and you want a cryptographically auditable approval trail with Cedar-enforced gates.
.claude/skills/wshobson-review-agent-setup/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-20 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -3% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 12% | 0% |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 8% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 16% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -13% | 0% |
Gate AI agent review actions (PR reviews, comments, merges, CI edits) behind explicit human approval. Every attempt, approved or denied, produces an Ed25519-signed receipt.
Install it in projects where a Claude Code agent:
gh pr review, gh pr merge)gh issue comment, gh issue close)gh release create).github/workflows/, .gitlab-ci.yml)main, master, release, production)If the agent is only doing local file edits and running tests, this plugin is overkill. Use protect-mcp for general tool-call policy enforcement and skip this one.
bashclaude plugin install wshobson/agents/review-agent-governance
bashcp .claude/plugins/review-agent-governance/policies/review-agent-governance.cedar \ ./review-governance.cedar
You can edit this file to match your project's specific rules. See ../agents/review-policy-author.md for guidance on authoring review policies.
bashmkdir -p ./review-receipts echo "./review-receipts/" >> .gitignore echo "./review-governance.key" >> .gitignore echo "./.review-approved" >> .gitignore
The first invocation of protect-mcp sign will create the key. Commit the public key from the first receipt so auditors can verify later.
The Cedar policy denies review-surface actions unconditionally. To approve a specific action, open an approval window before it and close it after.
bash# Before the action you want to approve touch ./.review-approved # Let Claude Code run the review / comment / merge # Immediately after rm ./.review-approved
/approve-review "Reviewing PR #123 authored by contributor X"This creates ./.review-approved with the given reason embedded as a note, and writes a human-approved receipt to the chain. A follow-up rm is still needed to close the window.
If you want every tool call to go through Cedar with no approval bypass:
bashexport REVIEW_APPROVAL_FLAG=./.never-approve
Any tool call matching a forbid rule will be denied; approved windows have no effect. Useful for CI or for a locked-down audit run.
List all receipts:
bashls -la ./review-receipts/
Verify the entire chain offline:
bashnpx @veritasacta/verify ./review-receipts/*.json
Exit 0 means every receipt is authentic and the chain is intact. Exit 1 means one receipt has been tampered with. Exit 2 means a receipt is malformed.
Look at recent denials:
/list-pendingWithin Claude Code this slash command walks the receipt chain and prints any recent decision: deny entries with the tool name, command pattern, and timestamp.
bash# 1. Human reviews the agent's proposed comment $ /list-pending Recent denials: - 2026-04-17T14:23:01Z Bash "gh pr review 42 --approve --body 'LGTM'" - 2026-04-17T14:23:02Z Bash "gh pr comment 42 --body 'Looking good'" # 2. Human decides the first one is appropriate, approves it $ /approve-review "Approving LGTM on PR 42 after visual inspection" ./.review-approved created # 3. Agent retries the action; this time it succeeds $ agent: gh pr review 42 --approve --body "LGTM" [receipt: rec_XXX, decision=allow, reason=human_approved] # 4. Human closes the window $ rm ./.review-approved
Every step is in the receipt chain. The chain is offline-verifiable for regulators, counterparties, or downstream auditors who want to confirm that no review action bypassed the human gate.
If both plugins are installed, each plugin's hooks/hooks.json registers its own PreToolUse hook, and Claude Code runs both on every tool call:
json{ "type": "command", "command": "\"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}\"/hooks/evaluate.sh" }
Each evaluate.sh reads tool_name and tool_input from the hook payload on stdin (Claude Code sets no TOOL_NAME variable) and evaluates its own policy: ./protect.cedar for protect-mcp and ./review-governance.cedar here.
Both hooks must pass for the tool call to proceed. Cedar deny in either policy blocks it.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-20 | fail→pass | 11,894 | 3,693 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,225 | 2,154 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 8,826 | 2,866 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,590 | 1,777 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 12,644 | 4,629 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,089 | 2,253 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 12,524 | 5,693 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,053 | 2,381 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 16,999 | 6,805 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,241 | 2,811 | -13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 28,150 | 6,611 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,267 | 2,763 | +118% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 28,463 | 5,519 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,875 | 2,745 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 11,504 | 44,316 | +285% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,958 | 2,216 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 9,167 | 1,932 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,532 | 1,809 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | 10,996 | 3,208 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,017 | 2,041 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 11,321 | 2,568 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,970 | 1,951 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 8,863 | 1,842 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,571 | 1,765 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 7,037 | 3,637 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,241 | 2,175 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 25,883 | 4,688 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,985 | 1,833 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 8,222 | 2,968 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,557 | 2,018 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 5,047 | 1,175 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 840 | 1,657 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 60,837 | 52,765 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,146 | 2,962 | +158% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 15,319 | 3,852 | -75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,679 | 2,135 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 14,986 | 3,360 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,441 | 2,024 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 11,814 | 3,953 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,925 | 2,246 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 17,160 | 2,484 | -86% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,038 | 1,950 | +88% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 9,904 | 1,770 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 956 | 1,798 | +88% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 19 counted toward the lift figure. The other 3 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +77 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 19 comparable cases.
The publisher has shipped newer versions since this run, so these numbers describe v1, not the version currently listed.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.