agentleFS
Sign inStart free
Fable-ForgeFable-Forge/agents-md-verification-map/SKILL.md

agents-md-verification-map

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when auditing, creating, or tightening a project AGENTS.md verification map with concrete T0-T3 checks, repo-specific commands, anti-weakening rules, pending_external boundaries, or global-vs-project instruction compression.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. Fable-Forge/fableforge-agent-skills★ 1100% same

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 0

    None found.

    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 repositoryOne other file it gives its agents.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    Distinctive · estimate

    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. Distinctive:

    Write short, project-specific AGENTS.md guidance that maps change risk to real validation commands.

    line 10
  2. Very specific:

    Read package.json, test folders, tool scripts, docs, project files, and existing QA notes only as needed.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Use only commands and files that actually exist.

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    Write the smallest useful map.

    line 25
  5. Distinctive:

    Add one project-specific anti-weakening rule: do not delete, skip, loosen, fake, bypass, or relabel tests and acceptance gates to make an …

    line 30
  6. Distinctive:

    Avoid weak long-lived wording.

    line 32
  7. Very specific:

    Do not use placeholders such as <相关测试> or vague lines like “run relevant checks”.

    line 33
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not invent scripts, paths, scenes, devices, credentials, services, or QA proof.

    line 34
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not make every edit run the full suite.

    line 35
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not claim local simulation is real external integration.

    line 36
  11. Distinctive:

    Verify the policy edit.

    line 38
  12. Distinctive:

    Run git diff --check at repo scope for T0 hygiene.

    line 40
  13. Distinctive:

    If the file is untracked, manually inspect the full file because git diff may not show it.

    line 41

≈ “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.

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

AGENTS.md Verification Map

Overview

Write short, project-specific AGENTS.md guidance that maps change risk to real validation commands. Keep global rules compact; put checkout-specific commands, source-of-truth paths, and acceptance boundaries in the project file.

Workflow

  1. Confirm target and authority.
    • Identify the exact repo root and the AGENTS.md file to edit.
    • Respect nested repo boundaries. If the user names a nested root, keep parent files read-only unless explicitly allowed.
    • Preserve existing dirty or untracked work. Do not reset, stash, reformat, or widen the write set.
  2. Audit real verification surfaces before writing.
    • Read package.json, test folders, tool scripts, docs, project files, and existing QA notes only as needed.
    • Use only commands and files that actually exist.
    • For Godot/Cocos projects, distinguish static contracts, headless/import checks, editor preview, real-window/device checks, and external human review.
    • For web projects, distinguish typecheck/lint/unit tests, build, browser/E2E, local simulation, real integration, and deployment.
  3. Write the smallest useful map.
    • T0: doc/copy/config-only changes use repo-wide git diff --check plus manual current Diff inspection.
    • T1: nearest focused test, static check, or targeted validator.
    • T2: fuller automated build, contract, smoke, headless, or E2E coverage for new behavior or cross-file changes.
    • T3: release, payment, auth, safety, permissions, real platform, device, real-window, or external-human validation. Keep this separate from automation and mark unavailable evidence as pending_external.
    • Add one project-specific anti-weakening rule: do not delete, skip, loosen, fake, bypass, or relabel tests and acceptance gates to make an implementation pass.
  4. Avoid weak long-lived wording.
    • Do not use placeholders such as <相关测试> or vague lines like “run relevant checks”.
    • Do not invent scripts, paths, scenes, devices, credentials, services, or QA proof.
    • Do not make every edit run the full suite; map validation to risk.
    • Do not claim local simulation is real external integration.
  5. Verify the policy edit.
    • Re-read the edited block.
    • Run git diff --check at repo scope for T0 hygiene.
    • If the file is untracked, manually inspect the full file because git diff may not show it.
    • Confirm the diff touches only the intended AGENTS.md unless broader writes were explicitly authorized.

Output Contract

Report the target file, evidence inspected, inserted or changed T0-T3 map, verification actually run, unverified T3/external gates, and any scope deliberately left untouched.

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