agentleFS
NoaiRoxNoaiRox/specialist-agent/skills/verify/SKILL.md

verify

Skill2 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing - before committing, creating PRs, or moving to next task. Requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims.

188 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use instinct-export, instinct-import and 10 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.
  • 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

  • diego-tobalinaSkill

    build-fix

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

    Also in 6 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

  • +1 more from TheKREATORS

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 167 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 11

    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:

    If you haven't run the verification command in THIS message, you cannot claim it passes.

    line 21
  2. Distinctive:

    Before creating a pull request

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    Before marking a task as complete

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Before moving to the next task in a plan

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    After fixing a bug (prove it's actually fixed)

    line 31
  6. Distinctive:

    NOT for: research or exploration tasks

    line 32
  7. Distinctive:

    Run ALL of the above in sequence.

    line 92
  8. Distinctive:

    If you catch yourself thinking:

    line 125
  9. Distinctive:

    Fresh runs only: - Never cite previous runs

    line 164
  10. Distinctive:

    Full output: - Don't truncate or summarize

    line 165
  11. Distinctive:

    One claim per verification: - Don't bundle claims

    line 168

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 167 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 - Verification Before Completion

Evidence before claims. Always.

Target: $ARGUMENTS

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If you haven't run the verification command in THIS message, you cannot claim it passes.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.

When to Use

  • Before committing code
  • Before creating a pull request
  • Before marking a task as complete
  • Before moving to the next task in a plan
  • After fixing a bug (prove it's actually fixed)
  • NOT for: research or exploration tasks

The Gate Function

BEFORE claiming any status:

1. IDENTIFY - What command proves this claim?
2. RUN - Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete, not cached)
3. READ - Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY - Does output ACTUALLY confirm the claim?
   → If NO: State actual status with evidence
   → If YES: State claim WITH the evidence
5. ONLY THEN - Make the claim

Skip any step = lying, not verifying.

Verification Matrix

ClaimRequired CommandNOT Sufficient
"Tests pass"npm test output: 0 failuresPrevious run, "should pass"
"Lint clean"npm run lint output: 0 errors"I fixed the warning"
"Build succeeds"npm run build exit code 0"Lint passed so build should too"
"Bug fixed"Test that reproduces bug: PASS"Code changed, should work"
"Types correct"npx tsc --noEmit exit code 0"I added the types"
"No regressions"Full test suite: 0 failures"Only changed one file"
"Requirements met"Line-by-line checklist verified"Tests pass"

Operations

/verify test

npm test 2>&1
# Read FULL output
# Count: X passed, Y failed, Z skipped
# Exit code: 0 or non-zero

/verify build

npm run build 2>&1
# Check: exit code 0?
# Check: no error output?

/verify lint

npm run lint 2>&1
# Count: 0 errors, 0 warnings

/verify types

npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1
# Count: 0 errors

/verify all

Run ALL of the above in sequence. Stop at first failure.

/verify (no args)

Auto-detect what to verify based on package.json scripts.

Output

──── /verify ────
Command: npm test
Exit code: 0
Result: 42/42 tests passed, 0 failed

VERIFIED ✓ - All tests pass (evidence above)

Or:

──── /verify ────
Command: npm test
Exit code: 1
Result: 40/42 tests passed, 2 failed

FAILED ✗ - 2 tests failing:
  - src/auth.test.ts: "should validate token" - Expected true, got false
  - src/user.test.ts: "should create user" - Timeout after 5000ms

DO NOT claim completion. Fix failures first.

Red Flags - STOP

If you catch yourself thinking:

  • "Should work now"
  • "I'm confident this is correct"
  • "Just this once I can skip verification"
  • "Lint passed, so build will too"
  • "I only changed one line"
  • "The agent said it succeeded"
  • "I'll verify after committing"
  • "It's obvious this works"

ALL of these mean: RUN THE COMMAND. READ THE OUTPUT.

Rationalization Prevention

ExcuseReality
"Should work now"RUN the verification
"I'm confident"Confidence is not evidence
"Just this once"No exceptions, ever
"Lint passed"Lint is not build is not test
"Agent said success"Verify independently
"I only changed a comment"Comments can break builds (JSX, directives)
"Previous run passed"State changed since then. Run again.
"Partial check is enough"Partial proves nothing
"Too slow to run full suite"Slow verification beats fast regression

Integration

This skill is a cross-cutting concern. It applies to:

  • @builder - Before claiming module is complete
  • @executor - Before marking task checkpoint
  • @tdd - Before claiming GREEN phase
  • @reviewer - Before giving verdict
  • @debugger - Before claiming bug is fixed
  • @migrator - Before claiming migration is complete

Rules

  1. Evidence before claims - Non-negotiable
  2. Fresh runs only - Never cite previous runs
  3. Full output - Don't truncate or summarize
  4. Exit codes matter - 0 = success, anything else = failure
  5. Read warnings - Warnings can indicate real problems
  6. One claim per verification - Don't bundle claims

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.