self-check
Skill1 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub
Verify your own implementation before handing it to a reviewer. Derive checks from the assigned requirements, changed behavior and concrete edge cases, then report coverage and limits. For authors of changes, not independent reviewers.
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shakhruz/mila-coretheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- wizz92/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- xcota/postheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- borgr/paper-sharpenertheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- superzhangmch/claude-code-webtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- Greg-Klein/implementation-harnessword for word, first seen Oct 9, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- Greg-Klein/implementation-harness★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- xcota/pos★ 32same name
- borgr/paper-sharpener★ 19same name
- hhhyyyy99/prot-skills★ 7same name
- Ron-dali/vibe-coding-rules★ 4same name
- xiding-code/job-application-skills★ 4same name
- shakhruz/mila-core★ 3same name
- fagemx/prismstack★ 2same name
- superzhangmch/claude-code-web★ 1same name
- wizz92/skills★ 1same name
- TechHU-GS/cc-discipline★ 0same name
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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- clarify-specSkill
- collect-evidenceSkill
- document-changeSkill
- figma-reviewSkill
- gh-github-apiSkill
- gitlab-ticketsSkill
- glab-gitlab-apiSkill
- howSkill
- review-changeSkill
- unslopSkill
- whySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
If repeated attempts fail, stop patching on the same unproven premise.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 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.
Files
Implementation self-check
Input: assigned requirements, scope, implementation and repository verification conventions. Return checks, results, uncovered behavior and reproduction details. Use only the caller's authorized files and execution tools.
- Map each assigned requirement to behavior the user or consumer can observe. Separate general quality gates from checks that establish a specific criterion.
- For a bug, reproduce it before you change any code, on the surface where it was reported, and record what you observed: that observation is the baseline. Write the regression test and see it fail for the pre-fix behavior, then fix, then run the same reproduction again. Report both observations. A fix written before the defect was seen is a hypothesis: say so, and say which part of the claim remains unverified when the reproduction or the base could not be run.
- Add or update tests for changed behavior, including relevant boundaries and error states. Every case a criterion lists (states, variants, inputs) gets its own test, or is reported uncovered with the reason. Check that they can fail for the defect: force each condition the change adds or alters to always hold, then never hold, remove each value it adds that a criterion depends on (a class, a key, a label), and see a test fail each time. When you add or change a test, apply tests in the diff.
- Examine the changed boundary's consumers and real edge cases. For UI changes include semantics, keyboard access, focus, and existing selector contracts; for asynchronous work consider cancellation, retries, ordering and cleanup where affected.
- Execute the repository's checks and observe relevant runtime behavior. The separate
collect-evidenceskill can supply mechanics after you select the checks; it does not decide coverage for you. If unavailable, use documented project commands and report the limitation. - Report what passed, failed, was not executed or is non-conclusive. Identify remaining criteria and setup recipes. Never label your self-check an independent review.
If repeated attempts fail, stop patching on the same unproven premise. Isolate a smaller reproduction, compare competing causes and escalate a plan or product decision that the evidence disproves.
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.

