agentleFS
Codagent-AICodagent-AI/agent-skills/skills/verify-behavior/SKILL.md

verify-behavior

Skill31 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Plans how to verify each behavior in a change's spec, then records evidence that each check passed. Use when asked to plan or record verification of a change's behavior, or to invoke codagent:verify-behavior.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the change's proposal, specs, design, and test plan, but not the code.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    Never plan a check in which an agent operates the product as a user would.

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    After building, add the columns Code, Evidence, and Status.

    line 32
  4. Very specific:

    Run each check and save its output to a file in the evidence directory you were given, or else in evidence/ beside the checklist: a test …

    line 34
  5. Very specific:

    Put the evidence file names, in backticks, in the Evidence column.

    line 37
  6. Distinctive:

    Never mark a behavior verified unless you ran its check.

    line 40
  7. Very specific:

    After any change to code or files, rerun the check of every row that depends on them, each alone, and update its Evidence, or set it to not …

    line 45

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Verify Behavior

Writing the checklist

Read the change's proposal, specs, design, and test plan, but not the code. For each behavior the spec describes, including its error, failure, and cleanup cases, say how you will verify it: an automated test (unit, integration, or end-to-end), a scripted command whose exit code or output decides the result (such as a build, lint, or verify script), or inspection of the code or files. Never plan a check in which an agent operates the product as a user would; that testing happens once, in acceptance testing after implementation. Do not cite the test plan's acceptance (AT-) or human-only (HT-) tests as a check, and add no rows for them. Several behaviors may share one check. Choose the fastest check that would fail if the behavior broke: inspection or a unit or component test where one can show it, and an integration or end-to-end test only where the behavior exists only across processes, a real browser, or the built product. Plan no integration or end-to-end tests beyond those the test plan names; cite a named test's ID for the behaviors that need it, and add a row for any such test that no behavior covers. Write the checklist where you were asked to, or else as checklist.md beside the change's spec, in one table:

IDBehaviorSpec referenceHow to verify
1An unknown route shows the not-found pagespecs/routing.md, "Unknown route"Router unit test

Recording evidence

After building, add the columns Code, Evidence, and Status.

  • Run each check and save its output to a file in the evidence directory you were given, or else in evidence/ beside the checklist: a test log, command output, or, for something that can only be inspected, a note of what you looked at.
  • Put the evidence file names, in backticks, in the Evidence column. Status holds exactly one of verified, failed, or not verified, and nothing else. For failed, Evidence says what fails; for not verified, it says why you could not run the check.
  • Never mark a behavior verified unless you ran its check.
  • Mention no acceptance (AT-) or human-only (HT-) test ID anywhere in the checklist, not even to say a behavior is left to acceptance testing.
  • Evidence can come from the one broader test run and from targeted runs of single tests; never rerun a whole suite only to refresh evidence.
  • After any change to code or files, rerun the check of every row that depends on them, each alone, and update its Evidence, or set it to not verified. Evidence from before the change no longer counts for those rows; rows that do not depend on the change keep theirs, and a test you added or changed needs only its own run.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.