prove-it-works
Skill1 starsChanged 10 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use after finishing a task and before saying it is done. Checks the real result (run the feature, read the actual value, look at the actual changes) instead of trusting a stand-in such as a status report, a cached copy, or "it compiles." Finishes by writing a UAT document so the user can confirm the solution works for themselves.
2 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- rockcookies/skillsedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- nicknisi/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 17, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- rockcookies/skills★ 113% same
Wrote their own version · 1
- nicknisi/skills★ 5same 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 repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- vercel-react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- application-lifecycle-traceSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- awsSkill
- codebase-mapperSkill
- code-review-frontendSkill
- comment-sickoSkill
- cspSkill
- demo-scriptSkill
- documentation-writerSkill
- dotnetSkill
- feature-orchestratorSkill
- frontend-patternsSkill
- lets-talk-about-itSkill
- nextjs-proxy-csp-hardeningSkill
- owasp-securitySkill
- pr-body-styleSkill
- prd-modeSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- simplifySkill
- sweSkill
- systems-architectureSkill
- task-generation-modeSkill
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewSkill
- typescript-react-reviewerSkill
- typescript-strict-styleSkill
- vercel-react-best-practicesSkill
- whats-going-onSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
After finishing a task, check the real result directly before saying it is done.
- Distinctive: line 50
Check that a process is running by asking the system directly, not by looking at files or logs it may have left behind.
- Distinctive: line 52
Read the actual value from where it lives, not from a cached or re-formatted copy.
- Distinctive: line 54
Run the feature the way a user would, and look at what it really does.
- Distinctive: line 55
Look at the actual changes made, not your memory of making them.
- Distinctive: line 59
Before assuming the system is broken, make sure you looked in the right place and in the right way.
- Distinctive: line 68
Keep the script and its output where the user can see them.
≈ “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
Prove It Works
After finishing a task, check the real result directly before saying it is done. Do not rely on stand-ins such as "it compiles," a status report, or a guess based on indirect signs.
Why: Work that has not been checked may be wrong, and nobody knows. Indirect checks (file timestamps, how fresh the output looks, an agent saying it succeeded, an old screenshot) feel cheaper than looking at the real thing. Acting on a wrong guess costs far more than checking the source.
When to Use
- A task is finished and you are about to tell the user it is done.
- You are about to trust another agent's report that something worked.
- A check just failed and you are not sure whether the system or the check is at fault.
When Not to Use
- The task is still in progress. Check once the work is complete.
- The user asked only for an explanation or opinion, with no result to verify.
What You Need First
- A clear list of what the user asked for: the exact outputs, values, file paths, and formats they named.
- A way to see the real result: run the feature, open the file, or read the value from where it actually lives.
Workflow
Step 1: List what "done" means
Re-read the original request and write down each thing that must be true.
Step 2: Check each one at the source
- Check that a process is running by asking the system directly, not by looking at files or logs it may have left behind.
- Read the actual value from where it lives, not from a cached or re-formatted copy.
- Run the feature the way a user would, and look at what it really does.
- Look at the actual changes made, not your memory of making them.
Step 3: If a check fails, doubt the check first
Before assuming the system is broken, make sure you looked in the right place and in the right way. Then fix whichever one is actually wrong.
Step 4: Script the check when you can
The strongest proof is a script that repeats the same comparison every time, instead of a one-time look. Write the script, run it, and keep its output so a reviewer can run it again instead of taking your word.
Keep the script and its output where the user can see them. Save them to version control only for large or complex work where the trail must be auditable later, such as a big port or migration (see the show-me-your-work skill).
Step 5: Report what you checked
Tell the user what you checked and how. Say plainly anything you could not check, instead of claiming the task is complete.
Step 6: Write the UAT document
This is always the last step. Once the checks above are done, read
references/uat-documentation.md and follow it to write the UAT document
for the work. It has its own rules for when it does not apply (for
example, when there is no feature to test), so follow them. Do not skip
this step just because the checks passed.
References
references/uat-documentation.md: how to write the UAT document. Read it in Step 6.
Final Checks
- Every requirement from the request was checked against the real result
- Each check looked at the source, not a cached copy, a status report, or "it compiles"
- Any failed check was traced to its real cause (the system or the check itself)
- Anything that could not be checked is stated openly in the report
- The UAT document was written last, or you explained why it did not apply
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
| Trusting "it compiles" or "no errors" | Run the feature and look at what it actually does |
| Believing another agent's "it worked" | Check the result yourself |
| Judging by file timestamps or output freshness | Ask the system directly |
| Reading a cached or re-formatted value | Read the actual value from where it lives |
| Blaming the system when a check fails | Make sure the check was looking in the right place first |
| Checking once by eye and moving on | Script it so anyone can re-run it |
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.

