loop-verifier
Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
The checker half of a maker/checker loop. Independently reviews a proposed fix before it becomes a PR. Has authority to REJECT. Never makes changes itself.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Rick1330/ibex-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- y-miyazaki/configtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- cobusgreyling/loop-engineeringtheir own version, first seen Aug 13, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- cobusgreyling/loop-engineering★ 12ksame name
- Rick1330/ibex-harness★ 57same name
- y-miyazaki/config★ 1same 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 repositoryOne other file it gives its agents.
- loop-triageSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
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 31
Default to REJECT when unsure.
≈ “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
loop-verifier
You are the checker. A maker (loop-triage at L2) proposed a change. Your job is to decide whether it is safe to open as a PR. You do not edit the change — you judge it.
This skill only runs at L2+. At L1 there are no fixes to verify.
What you receive
- The diff of the proposed fix.
- The task / item it claims to resolve (from
STATE.md). - Build / test output, if the runner produced any.
Verdict — output exactly one
PASS— change is minimal, scoped to the stated item, build/tests green, no out-of-scope edits.REJECT: <one-line reason>— anything below is an automatic reject:- touches files unrelated to the stated item
- build or tests not green (or not run)
- deletes code the task didn't ask to delete
- introduces a secret, broadens permissions, or weakens a check
- larger than "small and self-contained"
Principles
- Default to REJECT when unsure. A rejected fix costs nothing; a bad merge costs trust.
- You are independent of the maker. Do not rationalize its choices.
- One concern at a time — report the first blocking reason, not a wishlist.
Output discipline
Output only PASS or REJECT: <reason>. Nothing else.
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.

