delivery-verification
Skill1 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when closing or resuming multi-step work. Verify acceptance before declaring delivery.
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-branch-integrationSkill
- agent-config-syncSkill
- blocked-page-recoverySkill
- brand-retrofitSkill
- clickable-concept-prototypeSkill
- codebase-inspectionSkill
- commit-workSkill
- contrastive-refactor-demoSkill
- custom-domain-emailSkill
- delegate-coding-taskSkill
- delegated-agent-supervisionSkill
- domain-dns-cutoverSkill
- first-run-onboardingSkill
- frontend-render-performanceSkill
- github-pages-deploySkill
- hermes-cron-jobsSkill
- hermes-messaging-channelsSkill
- hermes-on-oracle-free-tierSkill
- hermes-provider-credentialsSkill
- isolated-worktree-testingSkill
- measurement-validitySkill
- multi-layout-previewSkill
- new-project-scaffoldingSkill
- parallel-agent-fanoutSkill
- premortemSkill
- recall-and-claim-verificationSkill
- single-source-training-materialsSkill
- stakeholder-decision-elicitationSkill
- static-site-vps-deploySkill
- supabase-auth-debuggingSkill
- windows-background-process-hygieneSkill
- windows-desktop-automationSkill
- windows-performance-tuningSkill
- worktree-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
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 17
Read the artifact and run nonempty checks against the actual acceptance criteria.
- Distinctive: line 18
If a baseline, source or criterion is missing, mark that criterion inconclusive.
- Distinctive: line 19
Do not turn absent telemetry into zero failures.
- Distinctive: line 20
After an external write, read back the exact target.
- Distinctive: line 30
Never include secrets in evidence.
- Very specific: line 32
Run python scripts/check_delivery.py report.json from this skill directory.
≈ “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
Delivery verification
Extract a contract before executing: objective, allowed and forbidden scope, owner, source of authority, observable acceptance criteria, evidence, pending decisions, and next step. Keep one canonical editable handoff, not two competing queues.
Decision rules
- Local reversible changes require scope authorization; publication, spending, destructive actions and external sends require specific approval.
- A worker report, completed status or successful process exit is a claim, not proof. Read the artifact and run nonempty checks against the actual acceptance criteria.
- If a baseline, source or criterion is missing, mark that criterion inconclusive. Do not turn absent telemetry into zero failures.
- After an external write, read back the exact target. Local tests do not prove deployment.
- Resume from the handoff and validate local reality; stale notes are not installed state.
- Permission failures are blockers, not invitations to bypass controls. Retry operational failures only with a reason and a bounded budget.
Evidence contract
Each criterion needs an ID, an observed result, evidence and a verdict: verified,
failed, or inconclusive. Completion requires every criterion verified and no pending
items. Evidence should identify command, exit code, artifact and revision where relevant.
Never include secrets in evidence. Report unknowns explicitly.
Run python scripts/check_delivery.py report.json from this skill directory.
The checker validates structure and recorded verdicts only: it cannot establish that
someone ran the command or that evidence is truthful. Independently inspect evidence.
Minimal report:
{"criteria":[{"id":"smoke","status":"verified","evidence":"python -m unittest: exit 0; smoke assertion passed"}],"pending":[]}Run tests: python -B -m unittest discover -s tests -v.
Closure
Return the artifact or usable link, verified results, remaining limitations and the next owner/action. Do not say an attachment was sent unless the outgoing message actually contains it. Save procedure separately from project-specific decisions.
Provenance
Adapted from the supplied local workflow-delivery procedure. No named human author
or license was declared in that source; no third-party authorship or license is inferred.
This rewrite removes private orchestration and storage conventions.
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.

