team-verify
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Verify teammate code delivery against task brief. Use with /team-verify.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- andeya/team-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 27, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- andeya/team-skills★ 4same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- content-rewriteSkill
- content-writeSkill
- core-auditSkill
- core-bootstrapSkill
- core-commitSkill
- core-explainSkill
- core-finalizeSkill
- core-orchestrateSkill
- core-pullSkill
- core-setupSkill
- core-updateSkill
- design-convertSkill
- design-shipSkill
- design-tokensSkill
- dev-inspectSkill
- dev-learnSkill
- dev-manualSkill
- dev-optimizeSkill
- dev-securitySkill
- dev-shipSkill
- dev-tweakSkill
- game-debugSkill
- game-optimizeSkill
- game-shipSkill
- game-tweakSkill
- marketing-contentSkill
- marketing-researchSkill
- marketing-screenshotsSkill
- project-addSkill
- project-appSkill
- project-memorySkill
- project-planSkill
- project-removeSkill
- project-researchSkill
- project-seedSkill
- project-syncSkill
- project-todoSkill
- project-tunnelSkill
- team-issuesSkill
- team-outsourceSkill
- team-reviewSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
26 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 12 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
12
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 36
Verify teammate code delivery.
- Very specific: line 42
After teammate delivers code on a feature (with or without /dev-ship (define phase))
- Distinctive: line 43
When teammate pushes code for a backlog TODO item
- Distinctive: line 44
When teammate branch code needs verification before merge
- Very specific: line 88
Team-mode gate: Read TEAM_MODE via shared/PROJECT-MODE.md read pattern.
- Distinctive: line 150
Use AskUserQuestion to confirm:
- Very specific: line 168
Read CLAUDE.md ### Stack section
- Very specific: line 169
Read .claude/research/stack-baseline.md (if available)
- Very specific: line 172
Project context: Read .project/project.json (if it exists).
- Very specific: line 177
Read .project/project-context.json (if it exists).
- Very specific: line 180
If project.json/project-context.json or stack-baseline does not exist → continue without (backwards compatible).
- Distinctive: line 275
Always start dev server + tunnel — needed for both AUTO and MANUAL items.
- Very specific: line 283
If found, verify it's live: curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" {tunnel_url}.
- Distinctive: line 346
Trigger: Always after PHASE 4b (regardless of whether everything is PASS or there are FAILs).
- Distinctive: line 453
No fixes applied in PHASE 5c
- Distinctive: line 454
No previously-PASS AUTO items in PHASE 4b
- Distinctive: line 455
All fixes were MANUAL-only (config/styling — low chance of side effects)
- Distinctive: line 457
Goal: Verify that fixes have not broken previously working functionality.
- Distinctive: line 478
Regressions found: Add FAIL items to results.
- Distinctive: line 490
After regression fix: Do NOT repeat PHASE 5d (max 1 regression pass to prevent loops).
- Very specific: line 502
Add/update tests section with session results
- Very specific: line 503
Update feature status if appropriate
- Distinctive: line 504
Do NOT overwrite other sections
- Very specific: line 509
All PASS + no MISSING → .status = "DONE", remove stage
- Distinctive: line 522
Add new components if they were created during fixes
- Distinctive: line 545
Read these Just-In-Time during specific phases — do not load upfront.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Verify — Teammate Verification
Overview
Verify teammate code delivery. Detects available context (feature.json with requirements, backlog TODO with description, or just a branch diff), checks completeness where possible, generates and runs tests, and produces structured feedback.
Trigger: /team-verify or /team-verify {feature-name} or /team-verify {feature-name} {feedback}
When to Use
- After teammate delivers code on a feature (with or without
/dev-ship (define phase)) - When teammate pushes code for a backlog TODO item
- When teammate branch code needs verification before merge
NOT for:
- Testing own code (use
/dev-ship (verify phase)) - Unit-level test writing during build (use
/dev-ship (build phase))
Input Formats
# Auto-detect context (recommended)
/team-verify
# Specific feature
/team-verify user-registration
# Inline feedback (skips automation)
/team-verify user-registration
1:PASS
2:FAIL no validation error
3:PASSWorkflow
Phase tracking — first action of the skill: call TaskCreate with these 12 items (status pending), then use TaskUpdate to set each phase in_progress at the start and completed at the end. During context compaction the task list remains visible — no risk of skipping phases.
- PHASE 0: Context Detection
- PHASE 0.5: Completeness Check
- PHASE 1: Research + Scenario Generation
- PHASE 2: Test Plan + Classification
- PHASE 3: Automated Test Execution
- PHASE 4: Manual Test Execution
- PHASE 4b: Combined Results
- PHASE 4c: Coverage Adequacy Analysis
- PHASE 5: Results Report + Action Choice
- PHASE 5c: Fix Loop
- PHASE 5d: Regression Check
- PHASE 6: Update + Feedback
PHASE 0: Context Detection
Todo: call
TaskCreatewith the 12 phase items (see above). Mark PHASE 0 →in_progressviaTaskUpdate.
Team-mode gate. Read
TEAM_MODEviashared/PROJECT-MODE.mdread pattern. If"solo"or absent → show AskUserQuestion (warn-only):header: "Solo project" question: "This project is marked solo (team.mode). /team-verify is meant for verifying teammate deliveries. Continue anyway?" options: - label: "Cancel (Recommended)" description: "Exit. Toggle to team via the ⚙ button in the backlog or run /core-setup to mark this as a team project." - label: "Yes, continue once" description: "Proceed with verification for this single invocation." multiSelect: falseCancel → exit. Continue → proceed with step 1.
Get branch and project info:
git branch --show-currentCapture git baseline (for scoped commit in PHASE 6):
mkdir -p .project/session git status --porcelain | sort > .project/session/pre-skill-status.txtFind context (in order of richness):
a. feature.json — if feature name given →
.project/features/{name}/feature.json. Otherwise → scan.project/features/*/feature.jsonfor features with status DOING + stage built, or withexternalRef.assigneesset.b. Backlog TODO — if no feature.json found, check
.project/backlog.jsonfor a TODO/DOING item matching the feature name or branch name. Extract the item's description/title.c. Nothing — no feature.json, no backlog match.
Determine mode:
Condition Mode Description feature.json exists with requirements[]BRIEF_REVIEWFull brief available — completeness check + test No feature.json, but backlog TODO with description TODO_REVIEWBacklog description as test basis No feature.json, no backlog match BRANCH_ONLYGit diff only — test what's visible - Parse user input:
- Feature name only → proceed to PHASE 0.5
- Feature name + inline feedback → parse into structured results (item number, PASS/FAIL, notes); map to requirements where possible; show summary; skip directly to PHASE 5
- Feature name + free text → same as inline feedback above
Output:
CONTEXT DETECTION Mode: {BRIEF_REVIEW | TODO_REVIEW | BRANCH_ONLY} Feature: {name or branch name} Assignee: {name or "none"} Branch: {branch} Context: {feature.json | backlog TODO | git diff only} Status: {backlog status: DOING/DONE/etc or "unknown"}Use AskUserQuestion to confirm:
- header: "Test Mode"
- question: "Continue with {mode} for {feature}?"
- options:
- label: "Yes, continue (Recommended)", description: "{mode description}"
- label: "Different feature", description: "I want to test a different feature"
- label: "Cancel", description: "Stop"
- multiSelect: false
Signal active feature (after feature name is determined):
echo '{"skill":"team-verify"}' | node ~/.claude/scripts/ship-checkpoint.js signal {feature-name}Load stack & project context (for agent prompts):
Stack detection:
- Read CLAUDE.md
### Stacksection - Read
.claude/research/stack-baseline.md(if available) - Fallback: detect from package.json / go.mod / etc.
Project context: Read
.project/project.json(if it exists). Extract only:stack(framework, language, testing, packages)endpoints(method, path, auth)data.entities(names, fields, relations)
Read
.project/project-context.json(if it exists). Extract:context(structure, routing, patterns)
If project.json/project-context.json or stack-baseline does not exist → continue without (backwards compatible).
Assemble STACK_CONTEXT (passed to all agents in this skill):
STACK CONTEXT: Framework: {stack.framework} ({stack.language}) Testing: {stack testing info or stack-baseline testing conventions} Packages: {relevant packages} PROJECT CONTEXT: Structure: {context.structure or "not available"} Routing: {context.routing or "not available"} Patterns: {context.patterns or "not available"} Endpoints: {endpoints or "not available"} Entities: {data.entities or "not available"}- Read CLAUDE.md
PHASE 0.5: Completeness Check
Todo: mark PHASE 0 →
completed, PHASE 0.5 →in_progress. Skip ifBRANCH_ONLYmode. Otherwise read.claude/skills/team-verify/references/phase-0-5-completeness.mdand follow the agent prompts for the detected mode.
PHASE 1: Research + Scenario Generation (Explore agent)
Todo: mark PHASE 0.5 →
completed, PHASE 1 →in_progress. Read.claude/skills/team-verify/references/phase-1-scenario-agent.mdand spawn the Explore agent with the prompt template.
Goal: Research test strategies and generate scenarios. Runs in a single Explore agent to keep Context7 results and scenario details out of the main context.
PHASE 2: Test Plan + Classification
Todo: mark PHASE 1 →
completed, PHASE 2 →in_progress.
Goal: Classify scenarios into AUTO/MANUAL, generate test data, set up dev server.
Classification criteria: See
../shared/test-classification.mdfor AUTO/BROWSER, AUTO/CLI, and MANUAL criteria with pattern tables.
Generate test data (via Explore agent — zero source file reads in main context):
Feature: {feature-name} Scenarios from PHASE 1: {list of scenarios with requirement mapping} {STACK_CONTEXT} Read the source code and look for: - Form fields, validation rules, API endpoints relevant to the test items - Existing test files that can be reused - Test patterns matching the stack (e.g. Vitest for React, PHPUnit for Laravel) Return as structured overview: FEATURE_CONTEXT_START Existing tests: {path to test files, or "none"} Per scenario: - Item {N}: {title} Test data: {concrete values} Expected: {expected outcome} Recommended method: BROWSER | CLI | MANUAL Reason: {why this method} FEATURE_CONTEXT_ENDClassify each scenario using
test-classification.mdcriteria:TEST CLASSIFICATION: {feature-name} | # | Test | Type | Requirement | Reason | |---|--------------------------|--------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------| | 1 | Register with valid data | AUTO/BROWSER | REQ-001 | DOM: redirect + welcome message visible | | 2 | Without email | AUTO/BROWSER | REQ-002 | DOM: error message visible | | 3 | Welcome mail sent | MANUAL | REQ-004 | Email verification not via DOM | AUTO: {n} (BROWSER: {n}, CLI: {n}) MANUAL: {n}User override:
Use AskUserQuestion:
- header: "Test Plan"
- question: "Continue with test execution?"
- options:
- label: "Yes, run tests (Recommended)", description: "Start automated tests, then manual"
- label: "Automated only", description: "Skip manual tests"
- label: "All manual", description: "Skip automated tests"
- label: "Cancel", description: "Stop"
- multiSelect: false
Dev server + Cloudflare Tunnel:
Always start dev server + tunnel — needed for both AUTO and MANUAL items.
a) Check for existing tunnel:
grep -oE 'https://[a-z0-9-]+\.trycloudflare\.com' /tmp/cloudflared.log 2>/dev/null | head -1If found, verify it's live:
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" {tunnel_url}. If HTTP 200 and serves correct project → use it.b) No tunnel running — start dev server + tunnel (same process as
/project-tunnel):# Detect framework from package.json and start # Wait for server ready for i in $(seq 1 15); do curl -s http://localhost:3000 > /dev/null 2>&1 && break || sleep 1; done # Start Cloudflare Tunnel cloudflared tunnel --url http://localhost:3000 > /tmp/cloudflared.log 2>&1 & sleep 8 grep -oE 'https://[a-z0-9-]+\.trycloudflare\.com' /tmp/cloudflared.log | head -1c) If server or tunnel fails:
⚠ Dev server + tunnel not started. All items will be MANUAL.Graceful fallback: reclassify ALL items as MANUAL, skip PHASE 3.
PHASE 3: Automated Test Execution (Task Agent)
Todo: mark PHASE 2 →
completed, PHASE 3 →in_progress. Skip if no AUTO items or dev server unavailable. Otherwise read.claude/skills/team-verify/references/phase-3-task-agent.mdand spawn the Task agent.
PHASE 4: Manual Test Execution (interactive)
Todo: mark PHASE 3 →
completed, PHASE 4 →in_progress. Skip if no MANUAL items. Otherwise read.claude/skills/team-verify/references/phase-4-manual.mdand follow the interactive loop.
PHASE 4b: Combined Results
Todo: mark PHASE 4 →
completed, PHASE 4b →in_progress.
Merge automated (PHASE 3) and manual (PHASE 4) results:
COMBINED RESULTS: {feature-name}
| # | Test | Type | Requirement | Result |
|---|-----------------------|--------|-------------|------------------------|
| 1 | Valid registration | AUTO | REQ-001 | ✓ PASS |
| 2 | Without email | AUTO | REQ-002 | ✗ FAIL: no error |
| 3 | Welcome mail | MANUAL | REQ-004 | ✗ FAIL: no mail |
AUTO PASS: {n} AUTO FAIL: {n}
MANUAL PASS: {n} MANUAL FAIL: {n} SKIP: {n}
TOTAL PASS: {n} TOTAL FAIL: {n}PHASE 4c: Coverage Adequacy Analysis
Todo: mark PHASE 4b →
completed, PHASE 4c →in_progress.
Trigger: Always after PHASE 4b (regardless of whether everything is PASS or there are FAILs).
Goal: Analyze whether the generated test scenarios cover the code sufficiently, or whether there are blind spots.
Spawn Explore agent (subagent_type="Explore", model: "sonnet", thoroughness: "very thorough"):
Analyze whether the test scenarios fully cover the code.
{STACK_CONTEXT}
Feature: {feature-name}
Code diff: {diff summary}
Executed test scenarios:
{list of all scenarios with results from PHASE 4b}
ANALYZE:
1. Which code paths in the diff are NOT covered by the current scenarios?
2. Which error handling / edge cases have not been tested?
3. Are there security-relevant paths (auth, input validation, permissions) without a test?
4. Are there integration points with other components that have not been tested?
RETURN FORMAT:
ADEQUACY_START
Coverage: SUFFICIENT | INSUFFICIENT
Gaps: {list of missing scenarios, or "none"}
Suggested: {0-3 extra scenario proposals if gaps found}
ADEQUACY_ENDIf SUFFICIENT + no gaps:
COVERAGE ANALYSIS: ✓ Scenarios adequately cover the codeContinue to PHASE 5.
If INSUFFICIENT or gaps found:
COVERAGE ANALYSIS: {feature-name}
Gaps found:
1. {gap description}
2. {gap description}
Extra scenarios will be added and tested automatically...Classify the proposed scenarios (PHASE 2 logic), execute them (PHASE 3/4 logic), and merge results back into the PHASE 4b table. No user interaction — Claude adds gaps automatically and tests them. Max 1 iteration (no repeat of PHASE 4c after the extra scenarios).
PHASE 5: Results Report + Action Choice
Todo: mark PHASE 4c →
completed, PHASE 5 →in_progress.
Goal: Combined report with requirement coverage, then choose: feedback or fix.
TEST RESULTS: {feature-name}
REQUIREMENT COVERAGE
| REQ | Description | In Code | Tested | Result |
|---------|---------------------|---------|--------|---------|
| REQ-001 | User can log in | ✓ | ✓ | PASS |
| REQ-002 | Email validation | ✓ | ✓ | FAIL |
| REQ-003 | Rate limiting | ✗ | — | MISSING |
| REQ-004 | Welcome mail | ✓ | ✓ | PASS |
Total: {pass}/{total} PASS | {fail} FAIL | {missing} MISSINGIf all PASS + no MISSING → skip action choice, proceed to PHASE 6 (feedback = positive message).
If any FAIL or MISSING:
Use AskUserQuestion:
- header: "Action"
- question: "There are {fail} failed and {missing} missing items. What do you want to do?"
- options:
- label: "Send feedback (Recommended)", description: "Generate feedback for teammate — they fix it themselves"
- label: "Fix myself", description: "Fix the issues in their code and send back as working"
- label: "Both", description: "Fix what can be fixed, send back the rest as feedback"
- multiSelect: false
If "Send feedback" → proceed to PHASE 6 (feedback). If "Fix myself" → proceed to PHASE 5c (fix loop for ALL failed items). If "Both" → proceed to PHASE 5c (fix loop). After fixes, PHASE 6 generates feedback for remaining MISSING/unfixed items.
PHASE 5c: Fix Loop
Todo: mark PHASE 5 →
completed, PHASE 5c →in_progress. Skip if user chose "Send feedback". Read.claude/skills/team-verify/references/phase-5c-fix-loop.mdand follow the fix-iterate-retest flow.
PHASE 5d: Regression Check
Todo: mark PHASE 5c →
completed, PHASE 5d →in_progress.
Skip when:
- No fixes applied in PHASE 5c
- No previously-PASS AUTO items in PHASE 4b
- All fixes were MANUAL-only (config/styling — low chance of side effects)
Goal: Verify that fixes have not broken previously working functionality.
Collect all items from PHASE 4b that were PASS and had AUTO classification. Re-run these via Task agent (same approach as PHASE 3).
Display:
REGRESSION CHECK: {feature-name}
{n} previously-PASS AUTO items re-tested...
| # | Test | Was | Now |
|---|--------------------|--------|--------|
| 1 | Valid registration | ✓ PASS | ✓ PASS |
| 4 | Email format | ✓ PASS | ✗ FAIL |
Regressions: {n} | Stable: {n}No regressions: Continue to PHASE 6.
Regressions found: Add FAIL items to results. Offer the same fix/feedback choice as PHASE 5:
Use AskUserQuestion:
- header: "Regression"
- question: "{n} previously working items are now failing. What do you want to do?"
- options:
- label: "Fix (Recommended)", description: "Fix the regressions (back to PHASE 5c for these items)"
- label: "Send feedback", description: "Report regressions in feedback to teammate"
- label: "Accept", description: "Mark as known issue"
- multiSelect: false
After regression fix: Do NOT repeat PHASE 5d (max 1 regression pass to prevent loops).
PHASE 6: Update + Feedback
Todo: mark PHASE 5d →
completed, PHASE 6 →in_progress.
Step 1: Parallel Sync (feature.json + backlog + dashboard) — follow shared/SYNC.md 3-File Sync Pattern
- Update feature.json (
BRIEF_REVIEWmode only, skip if it does not exist):requirements[].status→"pass"/"fail"/"missing"per requirement- Add/update
testssection with session results - Update feature
statusif appropriate - Do NOT overwrite other sections
- Update backlog (if
.project/backlog.jsonexists,BRIEF_REVIEWorTODO_REVIEWmode): (seeshared/BACKLOG.mdfor parse/write pattern)- Find feature in
data.features[]by name - All PASS + no MISSING →
.status = "DONE", removestage - Otherwise →
.statusstays"DOING",.stagestays"built" data.updated→ current date- Edit
.project/backlog.json
- Find feature in
- Update project.json (if
.project/project.jsonexists,BRIEF_REVIEWorTODO_REVIEWmode): (seeshared/DASHBOARD.md)featuresarray: find feature by name, set status to"DONE"(all pass) or"DOING"+ stage"built"(fails remaining)stack.packages: merge if packages were installed during fix loopendpoints: merge if changed during fixesdata.entities: merge if changed during fixesarchitecture.componentsin.project/project-context.json— follow component-first model fromshared/DASHBOARD.md:- Confirm component status →
"done", merge test files from PHASE 3 into componenttest[], merge source fixes from PHASE 5c intosrc[] - Add new components if they were created during fixes
- Skip if no
architecture.componentsexists in project-context.json
- Confirm component status →
- Scoped auto-commit — follow shared/SCOPED-COMMIT.md. team-verify deltas:
- Baseline: status form —
.project/session/pre-skill-status.txt. - OVERLAP policy: interactive.
- Fallback: stage known codebase skill-output files only (acceptance test files, source files modified during verification).
.project/is local-only — never stage it. - Commit:
git commit -m "test({feature}): {pass}/{total} requirements verified" - Cleanup:
rm -f .project/session/pre-skill-status.txt /tmp/current-status.txtplusnode ~/.claude/scripts/ship-checkpoint.js signal-clear {feature-name}
- Baseline: status form —
Step 2: Teammate Feedback
Todo: if not
BRANCH_ONLYmode → read.claude/skills/team-verify/references/phase-6-feedback.mdand generate feedback using the appropriate template.
Mode Comparison
See PHASE 0 step 4 for the mode definition table (BRIEF_REVIEW / TODO_REVIEW / BRANCH_ONLY). The behavioral differences per phase are documented inline at each phase that specifies a Skip if: or mode requirement.
References
Read these Just-In-Time during specific phases — do not load upfront.
| File | When to load |
references/phase-0-5-completeness.md | PHASE 0.5 — completeness agent prompts for BRIEF_REVIEW and TODO_REVIEW |
references/phase-1-scenario-agent.md | PHASE 1 — Explore agent prompt for scenario research |
references/phase-3-task-agent.md | PHASE 3 — Task agent prompt + result parsing for AUTO test execution |
references/phase-4-manual.md | PHASE 4 — interactive manual test loop |
references/phase-5c-fix-loop.md | PHASE 5c — fix-iterate-retest flow (only when user chose Fix myself/Both) |
references/phase-6-feedback.md | PHASE 6 Step 2 — feedback templates for BRIEF_REVIEW and TODO_REVIEW |
references/completeness-patterns.md | PHASE 0.5 — matching patterns for Explore agent (load alongside phase-0-5) |
Todo: mark PHASE 6 →
completed.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

