agentleFS
NeogenuityNeogenuity/harness-kit/.agents/skills/verify-live/SKILL.md

verify-live

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Reproduces and verifies application behavior against the running local app, using the repository's dev runtime contract, deterministic seed data, and targeted logs or traces. Activates when changing UI or request behavior, fixing a live-only bug, smoke-testing an application flow, or when tests alone cannot prove the user-visible result.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use the real application to close the loop: establish a deterministic state, reproduce before editing, observe the narrowest useful …

    line 13
  2. Very specific:

    Read docs/runbooks/local-development.md for this repo's runtime map.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Treat each recognized action's stdout as protocol, not prose.

    line 23
  4. Very specific:

    Start or reuse the current-worktree instance: Run scripts/dev.sh up, capture stdout and the exit code separately, validate the response, …

    line 48
  5. Very specific:

    Reset to known data: Run scripts/dev.sh seed, validate the response, and require exit 0 with action: "seed", status: "seeded", the same …

    line 55
  6. Very specific:

    Reproduce before editing: Write down the shortest exact flow that shows the affected behavior: URL or endpoint, viewport or client when …

    line 60
  7. Very specific:

    Inspect only targeted evidence: Use the response's repo-relative logs path and, when nonempty, traces path.

    line 75
  8. Very specific:

    Run the repository gate: Run bash scripts/harness/verify after the live behavior passes.

    line 94

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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 Live Application Behavior

Use the real application to close the loop: establish a deterministic state, reproduce before editing, observe the narrowest useful evidence, make the change, and run the identical flow again. Unit tests remain necessary; they are not a substitute for this live check.

Preconditions and hard stops

  1. Read docs/runbooks/local-development.md for this repo's runtime map.
  2. Require executable scripts/dev.sh and jq. If the script is missing or non-executable, stop and report that the runtime contract is unavailable.
  3. Treat each recognized action's stdout as protocol, not prose. It must be one compact JSON object on one line, with no other stdout, and must satisfy the JSON v1 schema below. Stop on invalid output or a contradictory exit/status; do not guess framework commands as a fallback.

The v1 object has exactly these required keys:

  • schema_version: integer 1
  • action: up, health, seed, or down, matching the request
  • status: ready, seeded, stopped, unhealthy, or error
  • instance: the scripts/harness/lib/dev-instance.sh suffix output, matching ^h[0-9a-f]{12}$
  • url: string, possibly empty only when stopped or on error
  • logs: nonempty repo-relative path string
  • traces: repo-relative path string or the empty string
  • started: boolean, true only when this up call launched the instance

A nonzero failure may add only a string message. Reject missing keys, wrong types, extra keys, multiple JSON values, or absolute/artifact paths outside the repo. Successful up/health are ready; successful seed is seeded; successful down is stopped. health is the only action where stopped or unhealthy is a valid nonzero result.

Workflow

  1. Start or reuse the current-worktree instance. Run scripts/dev.sh up, capture stdout and the exit code separately, validate the response, and require exit 0 with action: "up" and status: "ready". Immediately record started, instance, url, logs, and traces from that object. The initial started value owns the cleanup decision for the entire task; never replace it with a later action's value.
  2. Reset to known data. Run scripts/dev.sh seed, validate the response, and require exit 0 with action: "seed", status: "seeded", the same instance, and started: false. Seeding is an explicit action; up must not be treated as having seeded anything.
  3. Reproduce before editing. Write down the shortest exact flow that shows the affected behavior: URL or endpoint, viewport or client when relevant, input/actions, and expected versus actual result. Execute it against the recorded url before touching code. If it does not reproduce, stop and report that fact instead of changing code against an assumption.
  4. Use the best already-available observation surface. For UI behavior, prefer an existing browser or computer-use capability exposed by the current agent surface. Otherwise use the repo's already-configured Playwright CLI, Playwright tests, or browser MCP tools. Do not install a browser, extension, MCP server, skill, or package merely to complete this workflow, and never link installed repo content back to a harness/plugin cache. If none is available, exercise the same route with HTTP tools such as curl and explicitly report that visual behavior remains unverified.
  5. Inspect only targeted evidence. Use the response's repo-relative logs path and, when nonempty, traces path. Search or tail the smallest time window and request/operation identifiers that cover the reproduction; do not dump entire logs or unrelated traces into context. Capture a before-change screenshot for a visual defect when the available surface supports it.
  6. Make the narrow change. Preserve the recorded reproduction steps and seeded state. Add or update deterministic tests for the defect where the repo has an appropriate test layer.
  7. Run the identical live flow. Confirm the instance is still ready with scripts/dev.sh health; validate exit 0, action: "health", status: "ready", the same instance, and started: false. Run scripts/dev.sh seed again, then repeat the same URL, inputs, actions, viewport/client, and targeted log/trace checks from steps 3–5. Capture the matching after-change screenshot when visual tooling exists. Do not quietly substitute a unit test or a different happy path for the failed flow.
  8. Run the repository gate. Run bash scripts/harness/verify after the live behavior passes. Report the live flow, relevant evidence paths, test result, and any visual-verification limitation.
  9. Clean up only what this task started. On success or an early failure after a valid up response, run scripts/dev.sh down only when the recorded initial started was true; validate exit 0 with action: "down", status: "stopped", the same instance, and started: false. If the initial started was false, leave the reused instance running. If up output was invalid and started could not be trusted, stop without calling down.

Common mistakes

  • Starting the framework directly bypasses worktree ownership, port collision, and cleanup semantics. Use only scripts/dev.sh.
  • Treating up as a seed makes reproductions depend on old data. Call seed explicitly before both the before and after flows.
  • Killing a process by port can stop another worktree or a user's service. Cleanup is down, and only when the initial up reported started: true.
  • Calling a changed route once is not an identical rerun. Preserve the inputs, state, viewport/client, and evidence checks.
  • An HTTP 200 does not prove layout or interaction. When no browser surface is available, say visual verification was not performed.

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.