Skip to main content
Glama

record_gate_skip

Release a TruVerifAI proactive-invocation gate WITHOUT running (another) review, by logging an explicit reason. Use it when a gate fired (before a commit or a Write/Edit) and EITHER the review is genuinely unnecessary — e.g. a false positive, a trivial/test/docs-only change, or generated/vendored code — OR you ran ONE review and want to proceed on it: apply its findings and pass recommendations_applied, or pass review_deferred_to_commit to defer a batch to the commit gate. NO judgment skip reason releases a FLOOR hunk (auth/secrets/money/migrations/removed-guard/gate-self — the gate's own code — or a repo-defined custom floor from .truverifai/risk.json) — not even test_or_docs_only / generated_or_vendored_code, because the path doesn't change what the hunk IS (a real credential in a test file is still a live credential, and .github/workflows/ classifies as test/docs). The ONE exception is recommendations_applied WITH your recent review on record: after you ran a review and applied its findings, it releases the re-fired change's floor hunks too (lineage-verified, minutes-TTL, logged distinctly as 'findings applied' — never as an audited PASS). Otherwise, while a floor hunk is UNREVIEWED every skip is denied: cover the floor first — audit_coding, confirm_floor (free), synthesize_coding, or, as a last resort, ship it un-reviewed with accept_risk_no_review (a logged override + substantive pre-mortem) — and the same skip then becomes admissible and releases the change's remaining NON-floor hunks. On a MERGE commit whose branch content was already reviewed, branch_already_reviewed releases the non-floor hunks in one call (merge fires only; name where it was reviewed in reason_text). (Note: 'already reviewed' is NOT a skip — a real prior PASS releases the gate automatically.) On a non-floor change the skip releases it on retry. FREE — no credits; the reason is logged. Pass the gate_repo from the gate's message, plus the gate_context_id it printed (REQUIRED — the server verifies a gate truly fired and releases only the hunks IT recorded, so you never supply hunks yourself). There is no way to skip without it: if the gate printed no id (rare), don't skip — run audit_coding with gate_repo + gate_diff.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreNoOptional. The score from the gate's gate_signal line.
gate_repoYesThe repo fingerprint from the gate's message (the gate_repo value).
reason_codeYesWhy you're releasing the gate without running (another) review. Pick the closest fit. Single-call model: after ONE panel-review call, use 'recommendations_applied' (you got findings, applied them — server-verified against that review; releases floor at both gates, and a floor hunk released at the WRITE gate is still re-audited at commit) or 'review_deferred_to_commit' (defer ALL review to the commit gate; releases the write for this session/area, the batch is re-reviewed at commit). On a FLOOR block (auth/secrets/money/migrations/removed-guard/gate-self, or a repo-defined custom floor) match the tool to your situation: a genuine floor change you want reviewed → audit_coding (a PASS releases; recommended); you believe the gate mis-fired → confirm_floor (free) or synthesize_coding (each releases only if it agrees it's not risky). 'accept_risk_no_review' is the LAST RESORT — only after the real paths above genuinely don't fit (the gate mis-fired, you're deadlocked, or you're consciously shipping un-reviewed): it ships the floor hunk UN-reviewed, needs a substantive pre-mortem reason_text, is logged as a distinct override to the human, and expires in minutes. 'other', 'disagree_with_classification', and 'accept_risk_no_review' REQUIRE reason_text (and so do the judgment codes at the write and commit gates). Note: 'prior_pass_receipt_match' is NOT a skip — a real prior audit PASS releases automatically; if the gate fired, re-review the changed hunks.
reason_textNo1 sentence on why this skip is justified — REQUIRED for 'other' / 'disagree_with_classification', and for the judgment codes (false_positive_not_risky, trivial_change, reviewed_outside_truverifai, time_critical_hotfix) at the write and commit gates. For 'accept_risk_no_review' it must be a SUBSTANTIVE pre-mortem (assume it IS a real issue: name the failure, who it affects, why it's acceptable). No secrets, file paths, or proprietary identifiers; general terms only. LIMITS (fix A10): ordinary reasons are clipped past 500 chars; an 'accept_risk_no_review' pre-mortem gets 4000 chars (its substance IS the audit trail). Clipping never fails the call and the response says when it happened (reason_text_truncated) — don't retry to shorten.
gate_context_idNoREQUIRED. The `gate_context_id = "gc_…"` the gate's block message printed — copy it verbatim. The server verifies a gate truly fired and releases only the hunks IT recorded, so you never supply hunks yourself. There is no way to skip without it: if the message has no id (rare), don't skip — run `audit_coding` with gate_repo + gate_diff, whose PASS releases floor and non-floor hunks alike.
risk_categoriesNoOptional. The risk_categories from the gate's gate_signal line.
classifier_versionNoOptional. The classifier_version from the gate's gate_signal line. Forwarding it (and score/risk_categories) sharpens the data that improves the classifier — no source, just the labels the gate already showed you.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers richly: the tool is free, the reason is logged, the server verifies a gate truly fired and releases only hunks IT recorded, recommendations_applied is lineage-verified with minutes-TTL and logged distinctly (never as an audited PASS), accept_risk_no_review expires in minutes and is logged as a distinct override, and reason_text clipping never fails the call. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to predict side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense ~400-word wall of text with no paragraph breaks or bullet structure, which hurts scannability for an agent. The length is largely justified by the tool's genuine complexity (floor rules, exceptions, 14 reason codes), and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, there is meaningful redundancy with the schema's already-extensive reason_code and reason_text descriptions, so not every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a high-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers every critical dimension: what it does, when to use it, floor-hunk restrictions, the single exception (recommendations_applied), merge behavior, alternatives, required parameters, the no-gate_context_id fallback (run audit_coding), cost, and logging semantics. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial decision-making value beyond the schema: it explains WHY gate_context_id is required (server verification, never supply hunks yourself), provides the routing logic for choosing among the 14 reason_code values, and clarifies the floor-hunk consequences of each choice. The description's decision tree is genuinely additive to the per-parameter schema text, especially for reason_code and gate_context_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Release a TruVerifAI proactive-invocation gate WITHOUT running (another) review, by logging an explicit reason.' This precisely distinguishes it from sibling review tools (audit_coding, synthesize_coding, confirm_floor) by making clear it is the skip/release path, not a review path. The scope is unambiguous and the tool's role in the gate workflow is immediately identifiable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is explicitly conditional: 'Use it when a gate fired... and EITHER the review is genuinely unnecessary... OR you ran ONE review and want to proceed on it.' The description names concrete alternatives (audit_coding, confirm_floor, synthesize_coding, accept_risk_no_review) and states exclusions — no judgment skip releases a FLOOR hunk. It even covers the merge-commit case (branch_already_reviewed) and the 'already reviewed is NOT a skip' caveat. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.