| name | mundi-qmd-fp-check-install |
| description | Mundi-specific integration layer for tob-fp-check — wires false-positive checking into Kadenwood / PitchBook / CapIQ / signal-validation review workflows so "fixed" findings don't retrigger across sessions. Use when running /mundi:security-audit, /mundi:refusal-test, validating intent-signal hits, or reviewing bug reports where recurrence needs suppression. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob |
Mundi QMD — False-Positive Check Integration
Overview
Thin integration pointer layer above tob-fp-check. The base tob skill provides the TRUE/FALSE-POSITIVE verdict protocol; this skill tells you when + how to invoke it in Mundi-specific contexts (Kadenwood CRM bugs, PB/CapIQ data-quality findings, signal hits, outreach bounces) so fixed findings don't retrigger session after session.
The problem this solves: same "issue" gets flagged in 4 consecutive review sessions because no session knows it was already dispositioned.
When to use
- Running
/mundi:security-audit — before flagging an issue, check if it was already dispositioned as FP.
- Running
/mundi:refusal-test — same pattern; rationalization-to-reject table should include prior FPs.
- Validating intent-signal hits — "this company triggered the signal again" — check if we already decided it wasn't a real signal 30 days ago.
- Bug triage in Kadenwood CRM — email bounce / verification failure recurring → check FP log before opening a ticket.
- PB/CapIQ data-quality reviews — "this field looks wrong" — check if last review already said it's fine.
When NOT to use
- Net-new findings that have zero prior context — just run
tob-fp-check directly, no Mundi layer needed.
- Raw tob-fp-check is sufficient for most standalone reviews.
The Mundi FP log pattern
Location: docs/fp-log/ (monorepo root; create if missing)
Structure: one markdown file per domain — kadenwood.md, pitchbook-data.md, capiq-data.md, intent-signals.md, outreach-bounces.md.
Entry format:
## <finding-id> — <short title>
- **Date dispositioned:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Session:** <qmd docid or conversation URL>
- **Verdict:** TRUE | FALSE-POSITIVE | NEEDS-MONITORING
- **Rationale:** <1-2 sentences>
- **Regression triggers:** <what would flip the verdict>
- **Hash signature:** <content hash of the finding for future match>
Integration workflow
1. Review surfaces a finding
2. Hash the finding (normalize: strip dates, volatile IDs, keep semantic content)
3. Grep docs/fp-log/*.md for the hash → if found, check verdict
4. If FALSE-POSITIVE and no regression triggers hit → suppress, log "duplicate"
5. If TRUE or NEEDS-MONITORING → proceed with normal review
6. New finding → append to appropriate domain log after disposition
Invocation
Inline-composition (not usually called directly; called by reviewers):
findings = audit_scan()
for f in findings:
verdict = Skill(skill="mundi-qmd-fp-check-install", {
domain: "kadenwood",
finding: f,
mode: "check"
})
if verdict == "duplicate-fp":
continue
I/O contract (MWP)
state_reads:
docs/fp-log/*.md — per-domain logs
~/.claude/skills/tob-fp-check/SKILL.md — base protocol
state_writes:
docs/fp-log/<domain>.md — append new disposition entry
Failure modes
| failure | recovery |
|---|
| FP log domain file missing | create with header + first entry |
| Hash collision (false match) | log entry includes full finding text for human verification |
| Stale regression triggers | if trigger hit, flip verdict + log re-disposition with new date |
Cross-references
- Base skill:
~/.claude/skills/tob-fp-check/SKILL.md (authoritative TRUE/FALSE-POSITIVE protocol — this skill DOES NOT replace it)
- Invokers:
/mundi:security-audit, /mundi:refusal-test, origination signal review, CRM bug triage
- Memory:
feedback_no_parallel_scraping.md (similar "decide once, don't re-decide" pattern)
- KB:
docs/knowledge-base/outputs/qmd-action-items-for-wave2.md item #1
Safety
- Never auto-suppress without hash match + matching regression triggers. A sloppy match = silencing a real problem.
- Log format is append-only. Past dispositions are preserved for audit.
- If in doubt, mark
NEEDS-MONITORING and proceed with review — safer than false-suppressing.