verify-against-code
Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when about to assert any factual claim about what code or a product does - in an answer, a doc, a commit message, or anything a user will see.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- build-release-mindsetSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- de-ai-proseSkill
- entry-point-auditSkill
- feasibility-guardSkill
- fix-in-the-shared-layerSkill
- fix-the-root-causeSkill
- independent-review-gateSkill
- logging-for-remote-diagnosisSkill
- no-duplicate-logicSkill
- opportunistic-fixesSkill
- performance-at-scaleSkill
- plan-with-teethSkill
- project-onto-all-systemsSkill
- question-the-premiseSkill
- tests-with-teethSkill
- user-action-edge-casesSkill
- using-instinctsSkill
- ux-designer-mindsetSkill
The file
Files
The rule
Before you state a fact about what the code or product does, go read the thing that proves it. Your memory, the user's framing, a plan that says "done", a table in the docs — all of these go stale, and stating one as fact when it's wrong costs more than the thirty seconds it takes to check.
Fires when
Answering "does it do X?", writing a doc or README line, writing a commit or PR body, shipping anything outward-facing (store copy, a caption, a before/after), agreeing with a claim the user just made about the code.
How to apply
For each claim, find the concrete artifact that proves it — the symbol, the field, the default value, the line — and read it. Cite what you read as the evidence, briefly.
"It doesn't actually do that" and "only partially" are valid, valuable answers. Say so plainly and surface the conflict instead of going along with the assumption.
Hold this bar even when nobody asked you to check. Especially when nobody asked.
Worked example
A user asks: "Our API trims whitespace from usernames before saving, right?" You remember writing something like that. The cheap move is "yes." The right move: open the save path and read it. You find username.toLowerCase() but no .trim(). The honest answer is "It lowercases, but it does not trim — leading spaces are saved as-is." That gap is exactly the bug the user was about to assume away. The thirty-second read changed a confident wrong answer into a real finding.
Red flags
| Thought | Reality |
| "I'm pretty sure it does that" | Sure isn't read. Open the file. |
| "The plan says it's done" | Plans go stale. The code is the truth. |
| "The user said it works that way" | The user can be wrong about their own system. Check. |
| "It's just a doc line, not code" | A wrong doc line is a wrong claim shipped to every reader. |
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.

