code-preflight
Skill0 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run build, typecheck, lint, tests, and security checks for the current project. Auto-detects Python vs Node/Next.js.
- Reads credentials
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- 5x5Skill
- business-planSkill
- chart-forgeSkill
- code-blast-radiusSkill
- code-edgesSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-securitySkill
- hail-marySkill
- organizeSkill
- plan-capacitySkill
- plan-directionsSkill
- plan-reviewSkill
- postmortemSkill
- research-critiqueSkill
- research-searchSkill
- session-auditSkill
- session-driftSkill
- skill-builderSkill
- skill-evalSkill
- ui-ideasSkill
- update-prSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 11
Run a complete pre-PR check suite for the current project.
- Distinctive: line 15
Check the current directory for:
- Distinctive: line 18
If both exist, run both suites
- Distinctive: line 23
Run sequentially, capture exit codes:
- Very specific: line 64
If the user passed an argument (e.g., /code-preflight tests), only run that specific check
- Distinctive: line 68
Do NOT modify any files. This is read-only + run checks.
- Distinctive: line 69
If a tool is missing (ruff, mypy, eslint), mark that check as SKIP with reason.
≈ “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
Verification Skill
Run a complete pre-PR check suite for the current project.
Step 1: Detect Project Type
Check the current directory for:
- Python:
pyproject.tomlorrequirements.txtpresent - Next.js/Node:
package.jsonpresent, optionallynext.config.* - If both exist, run both suites
Step 2: Run Checks
Python Projects
Run sequentially, capture exit codes:
- Tests:
python -m pytest -x --tb=short -q(FAIL if exit != 0) - Lint:
ruff check .(FAIL if exit != 0) - Format:
ruff format --check .(FAIL if exit != 0) - Type Check:
mypy . --ignore-missing-imports(WARN only — never FAIL on mypy) - Secrets Scan:
grep -rn "sk-\|API_KEY\s*=\|SECRET\s*=\|TOKEN\s*=" --include="*.py" . | grep -v ".env" | grep -v "__pycache__"(FAIL if matches found)
Next.js/Node Projects
Run sequentially, capture exit codes:
- Build:
npm run build(FAIL if exit != 0) - Type Check:
npx tsc --noEmit(FAIL if exit != 0) - Lint:
npm run lint(FAIL if exit != 0) - Tests:
npm run test -- --run(FAIL if exit != 0, SKIP if no test script) - Secrets Scan:
grep -rn "sk-\|API_KEY\s*=" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" . | grep -v "node_modules" | grep -v ".env"(FAIL if matches found)
Step 3: Format Report
Output exactly this format:
=== VERIFICATION REPORT ===
Project: [name] ([Python|Next.js|Both])
Directory: [cwd]
Branch: [git branch --show-current]
[PASS|FAIL|WARN|SKIP] Tests [1-line summary]
[PASS|FAIL|WARN|SKIP] Lint [1-line summary]
[PASS|FAIL|WARN|SKIP] Format [1-line summary]
[PASS|FAIL|WARN|SKIP] Type Check [1-line summary]
[PASS|FAIL|WARN|SKIP] Secrets Scan [1-line summary]
[PASS|FAIL|WARN|SKIP] Build [1-line summary, Node only]
VERDICT: [READY | NOT READY] ([N failures, M warnings])
===========================Step 4: Verdict Rules
- READY: Zero FAILs (WARNs and SKIPs are OK)
- NOT READY: One or more FAILs
- For each FAIL, suggest the specific fix but do NOT auto-fix
- If the user passed an argument (e.g.,
/code-preflight tests), only run that specific check
Important
- Do NOT modify any files. This is read-only + run checks.
- If a tool is missing (ruff, mypy, eslint), mark that check as SKIP with reason.
- Respect the 3-file rule: if the user needs fixes, list them but let the user decide scope.
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.

