agentleFS
Jurel89Jurel89/copilot-omni/skills/verify/SKILL.md

verify

Skill0 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Verify that a change really works before you claim completion

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 162 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when the user wants confidence that a feature, fix, or refactor actually works.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer existing tests first.

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    If coverage is missing, run the narrowest direct verification commands available.

    line 16
  4. Distinctive:

    If direct automation is not enough, describe the manual validation steps and gather concrete observable evidence.

    line 17
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not say a change is complete without evidence.

    line 27
  6. Distinctive:

    If a check fails, include the failure clearly.

    line 28
  7. Distinctive:

    If no realistic verification path exists, say that explicitly instead of bluffing.

    line 29
  8. Distinctive:

    Prefer concise evidence summaries over noisy logs.

    line 30

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 162 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

Use this skill when the user wants confidence that a feature, fix, or refactor actually works.

Goal

Turn vague “it should work” claims into concrete evidence.

Workflow

  1. Identify the exact behavior that must be proven.
  2. Prefer existing tests first.
  3. If coverage is missing, run the narrowest direct verification commands available.
  4. If direct automation is not enough, describe the manual validation steps and gather concrete observable evidence.
  5. Report only what was actually verified.

Verification order

  1. Existing tests
  2. Typecheck / build
  3. Narrow direct command checks
  4. Manual or interactive validation

Rules

  • Do not say a change is complete without evidence.
  • If a check fails, include the failure clearly.
  • If no realistic verification path exists, say that explicitly instead of bluffing.
  • Prefer concise evidence summaries over noisy logs.

Output

  • What was verified
  • Which commands/tests were run
  • What passed
  • What failed or remains unverified

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Aug 30: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 6: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projects
Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.
  • Other versions187 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 2

    1. Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 40k100% same
    2. Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 40k100% same

    Edited · 1

    1. zereight/gitlab-mcp★ 2.1k66% same

    Wrote their own version · 184

    1. facebook/react★ 252ksame name
    2. react/react★ 251ksame name
    3. oven-sh/bun★ 96ksame name
    4. anthropics/financial-services★ 41ksame name
    5. anthropics/financial-services-plugins★ 39ksame name
    6. anthropics/claude-quickstarts★ 19ksame name
    7. NVIDIA-NeMo/Speech★ 19ksame name
    8. NVIDIA-NeMo/NeMo★ 19ksame name
    9. sumatrapdfreader/sumatrapdf★ 18ksame name
    10. udecode/plate★ 17ksame name

    174 more not listed

    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.

  • Used alongsideProjects with it also use build-fix, instinct-export and 5 more.

    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.
    • diego-tobalinaSkill

      build-fix

      Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.

      Also in 6 projects that use this

    • TheKREATORSSkill

      instinct-export

      Export instincts from project/global scope to a file

      Also in 3 projects that use this

    • TheKREATORSSkill

      instinct-import

      Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope

      Also in 3 projects that use this

    • AviadPSkill

      risk-assess

      Assess the risk and blast radius of a proposed code change before implementing it. Evaluates CI impact, framework-wide vs localized scope, rollback path, and identifies blindspots. Use when user says "what's the risk", "is this safe", "assess the impact", "risk assess", "blast radius", or before applying framework-wide or CI-affecting changes. Do NOT use for code quality review (use code-quality) or plan validation (use design-validator).

      Also in 3 projects that use this

    • AaravChadhaSkill

      secure

      Security review with a confidence gate - a finding exists only with a concrete exploit scenario and a high/medium/low confidence rating; everything else goes to a worth-hardening list, never inflated. Sweeps five surfaces: auth gates, secrets hygiene, injection and unsafe sinks, unsafe deserialization/crypto/transport, and LLM tool-use trust boundaries. Reports only, never fixes. Use when the user asks for a security review or to check vulnerabilities, secrets, or auth.

      Also in 3 projects that use this

    • ArvorCoSkill

      specify

      Create feature specification from natural language description. Use when starting a new feature or creating a spec. Triggers on: create spec, specify feature, new feature spec.

      Also in 10 projects that use this

  • In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.