verify
Skill3 starsChanged 32 days agoMITView on GitHub
Runs the full Unity verification ladder for a feature — compile, console errors, EditMode/PlayMode tests, scene runtime check — and reports facts separately from human-judgment items. Use when the user says /first-playable:verify <feature>.
188 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Doist/todoist-aitheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- udecode/better-convextheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- pytorch/heliontheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- amir20/dozzletheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Doist/todoist-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-export
Export instincts from project/global scope to a file
Also in 3 projects that use this
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-import
Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope
Also in 3 projects that use this
AviadPSkillrisk-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-tobalinaSkillbuild-fix
Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.
Also in 6 projects that use this
AaravChadhaSkillsecure
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
ArvorCoSkillspecify
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
Other versions188 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 188
- react/react★ 252ksame name
- facebook/react★ 252ksame name
- garrytan/gstack★ 141ksame name
- oven-sh/bun★ 97ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services-plugins★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/claude-quickstarts★ 19ksame name
- NVIDIA-NeMo/Speech★ 19ksame name
178 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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 167 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
Read references/unity-mcp.md in this plugin first — it explains how to discover what the connected MCP server can actually do, the retry …
- Very specific: line 18
If unity --version works, also read references/unity-cli.md.
- Very specific: line 40
If you end up in the deadlock anyway and the Unity CLI is connected, there is an exit (see references/unity-cli.md §4): unity command …
- Distinctive: line 48
Wait for Unity compilation to finish
- Distinctive: line 49
Check for new Console errors (diff against pre-change state, not absolute zero).
- Distinctive: line 53
Check warnings — mandatory, not optional.
- Distinctive: line 56
Run EditMode tests for the feature
- Distinctive: line 57
Run PlayMode tests for the feature
- Very specific: line 76
Never present INFERRED as VERIFIED.
- Distinctive: line 97
If a measurement contradicts what you expected from the code, suspect the measurement setup before rewriting the conclusion.
- Very specific: line 120
Write to Docs/Reports/<DATE>_<FEATURE>_VERIFICATION.md (template: templates/reports/VERIFICATION_REPORT.md):
- Distinctive: line 145
Before writing the report:
“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.
Files
Unity Verification
You are running Phase 6 of the FirstPlayable workflow. "It compiles" is not "it works". Verification means walking the ladder below and reporting exactly which rungs were confirmed, inferred, or skipped.
Read references/unity-mcp.md in this plugin first — it explains how to
discover what the connected MCP server can actually do, the retry protocol
for reload/compile gaps, and the manual verification protocol to use when
no MCP is available (guided user steps recorded as VERIFIED (user-reported),
never silent skips). Test-running details are in references/unity-testing.md.
If unity --version works, also read references/unity-cli.md. The CLI gives
verdict-bearing test exit codes, explicit editor state, and an exit from the
play-mode deadlock. Use whichever transport is connected; the ladder and the
evidence rules below are the same for both.
Hard rule: never edit code while play mode is running
Entering play mode and then editing a script deadlocks the session: Unity
defers the recompile, MCP refuses every command while isCompiling is true,
and nothing can exit play mode except a human pressing Stop. If runtime
verification reveals a defect:
exit play mode → edit → wait for compile → re-enter play modeThis applies to instrumentation scripts too — write them before entering
play mode, not while observing. PlayMode test runs are play mode — no edits
while run_tests is running either. And it applies to every write path: the
unity-guard hook only sees the Edit/Write tools, so a file written from a
shell (sed, python, Set-Content) walks straight past it.
If you end up in the deadlock anyway and the Unity CLI is connected, there is
an exit (see references/unity-cli.md §4): unity command cancel_tests if a
test run is in progress, otherwise unity command editor_stop. Over MCP only,
the user must press Stop.
Verification ladder
- Confirm Unity MCP connection (if unavailable, switch to the manual protocol from
references/unity-mcp.md) - Wait for Unity compilation to finish
- Check for new Console errors (diff against pre-change state, not absolute zero).
The Editor console can be cleared by a recompile; errors logged mid-reload
then vanish from its count. Over the CLI, read the captured buffer
(
unity command console --level error), not only the current count - Check warnings — mandatory, not optional. Font/glyph, missing-reference, and serialization warnings are how rendering and wiring defects surface; tests routinely pass while these fail (see UI rule below)
- Run EditMode tests for the feature
- Run PlayMode tests for the feature
- Open the target scene
- Enter Play Mode (confirm frames actually advance — sample
Time.frameCounttwice; if it is identical,runInBackgroundis off and every runtime observation below is invalid) - Inspect the key objects and state transitions the Feature Spec names
- List everything that could NOT be automatically verified
Evidence labels
Label every claim in the report:
| Label | Meaning |
VERIFIED | Confirmed by test run or actual execution |
INFERRED | Deduced from code/config, not executed |
UNVERIFIED | Not checked |
MANUAL_REQUIRED | Only a human playing can judge this |
Never present INFERRED as VERIFIED. If a test could not run, that is
UNVERIFIED with a reason — not a pass. With unity test this is mechanical:
exit 0 passed, exit 8 ran and failed (a real result — report it, don't
retry it green), exit 6 produced no verdict (UNVERIFIED, cite
errors[0].code).
Runtime instrumentation: state the conditions, or it isn't VERIFIED
Agent-driven instrumentation runs under conditions a human player never experiences — usually no continuous input, no camera manipulation, no sustained collisions. Systems behave completely differently: velocities decay, thresholds are never crossed, cooldowns never overlap.
Rules:
- Every runtime measurement must state its conditions (input? duration?
what was on screen?). A measurement whose conditions differ from real play
is
INFERRED (measured with: no input)— notVERIFIED. - A negative conclusion can never be
VERIFIEDby instrumentation alone. "X does not trigger" is indistinguishable from "I failed to create the conditions for X". Label itUNVERIFIEDand put it in Manual Verification. - If a measurement contradicts what you expected from the code, suspect the measurement setup before rewriting the conclusion.
- Over the Unity CLI you can close the gap: hold real input with
unity command simulate_key --key <K> --action downfor the measurement window, then--action up. State it as the condition ("measured with W held 2s"). Confirm the input landed by its effect (speed, position), not by reading the input action — that read back(0, 0)while the key was clearly driving the ball.simulate_keyonly covers held input: it never produces a press edge, so code usingwasPressedThisFrame(menus, choices, jump) needsInputSystem.QueueStateEventviaeval_fileinstead. If an edge-triggered input "does nothing" undersimulate_key, that is the tool, not a verdict. Seereferences/unity-cli.md§6.
UI text: string assertions do not verify rendering
A passing Assert.That(label.text, Contains("생존")) says nothing about what
appears on screen — the font may have no glyph for those characters and render
as boxes. Any feature that adds UI text requires both: a clean console
(no font/glyph warnings) and a visual check (screenshot or user
confirmation). String assertion alone → INFERRED, never VERIFIED.
Report
Write to Docs/Reports/<DATE>_<FEATURE>_VERIFICATION.md (template:
templates/reports/VERIFICATION_REPORT.md):
# Verification Report
## Scope
## Compilation
- Status / new errors / new warnings
## EditMode Tests
- Passed / failed (with names)
## PlayMode Tests
- Passed / failed (with names)
## Runtime Verification
- Scene checked, objects checked, state changes observed
- **Measurement conditions** (input, duration, what differs from real play)
## Diagnostic Changes Restored
- Values/scene state changed for diagnosis → restored? verified how?
## Manual Verification Required
- e.g. input responsiveness, camera feel, feedback readability
## Remaining RisksCompletion — exit gate
Before writing the report:
- Restore every diagnostic change. Values inflated to observe an effect (e.g. a freeze duration set to 30s to see it), temporarily disabled components, scene tweaks. Read the value back after restoring and put that confirmation in the report.
- Anything you could not restore goes at the top of the report as
⚠ NOT RESTORED: <what, where>. Never let it pass silently — a diagnostic value that reaches a commit is worse than a failed verification.
Then, if everything automatic passes, update the Feature Spec status to
Verified for the automated portion and hand the Manual Verification list
to the user. Suggest /first-playable:playtest after they play.
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.

