agentleFS
Sign inStart free
EvanBattenEvanBatten/pstack-for-cc/skills/verify-this/SKILL.md

verify-this

Skill2 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub

Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.

11 other projects use a version of this, 8 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use fix-merge-conflicts and caveman.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • jaydubya818Skill

    fix-merge-conflicts

    Use when a branch needs conflicts resolved and the merged result verified.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    caveman

    Ultra-compressed response style that reduces output token count while preserving technical accuracy, with intensity levels and auto-clarity safety rules

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 2 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 2

    Common

    Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner".

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    When safe to write artifacts (<scratchpad> is the scratchpad directory the system prompt names):

    line 39
  3. Common:

    If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the …

    line 51
  4. Very specific:

    Do not soften a negative result.

    line 74

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 edited versions of this file we could read. “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 This

Verification is not a recap. It proves or disproves a specific claim with repeatable evidence.

When To Use

  • The user asks "verify this", "prove it works", "did this fix it", or "show me the evidence".
  • A bug fix needs a before/after repro.
  • A UI, CLI, API, performance, or memory claim needs measurement.
  • A test passes but the user-visible behavior still needs confirmation.

Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner". Ask for a measurable claim first.

Workflow

  1. Restate the claim in falsifiable form: condition, metric, and threshold.
  2. Pick the smallest local surface that can disprove it.
  3. Capture a baseline from the old state: merge base, parent commit, failing branch, or current broken repro.
  4. Capture treatment from the changed state with the same command, data, warmup, and environment.
  5. Compare raw artifacts: numbers, screenshots, terminal transcripts, HTTP responses, profiles, heap snapshots, or test output.
  6. Return exactly one verdict: VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.

Local Surfaces

  • Code behavior: focused unit/integration tests or a minimal repro script.
  • CLI/TUI behavior: control-cli, terminal transcript, or demo recording.
  • UI behavior: control-ui, screenshots, accessibility snapshots, or browser traces.
  • API behavior: local HTTP/RPC request and response diff.
  • Performance: same-machine baseline/treatment timings or CPU profiles.
  • Memory: heap snapshots before and after the suspected operation.

Artifact Layout

When safe to write artifacts (<scratchpad> is the scratchpad directory the system prompt names):

<scratchpad>/verify-this/<claim-slug>/
├── claim.md
├── timeline.md
├── baseline/
├── treatment/
├── diff/
└── verdict.md

If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the user agrees to disk storage.

Verdict Rules

  • VERIFIED: baseline and treatment differ in the predicted direction, by the claimed threshold, with no obvious confound.
  • NOT VERIFIED: the behavior is unchanged, moves the wrong way, or misses the threshold.
  • INCONCLUSIVE: no valid baseline, noisy signal, failed measurement, or an environment difference invalidates the comparison.

Output

Use this shape:

VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE
Claim: <falsifiable claim>

Evidence:
<metric/artifact>: baseline=<...>, treatment=<...>, delta=<...>, threshold=<...>

Reasoning:
<one tight paragraph naming the evidence and any confounds>

Do not soften a negative result. A clear NOT VERIFIED is useful.

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.

Check your setup, free