agentleFS
XakkiXakki/ai-agents-skills/skills/quality-change-verify/SKILL.md

quality-change-verify

Skill6 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Run and report a final, post-repair or pre-completion validation pass with exact commands, exit codes and limits, discovering the project''s sanctioned checks. Use before declaring work done or after a repair. RU: проверка перед завершением, итоговая валидация, качество.

The file

Files
SKILL.md

Change verification

Use for a requested final or post-repair validation pass, or before declaring a task done. Establish the actual project, candidate, current inputs, authorized scope and applicable required gates. Record relevant branch and revision, staged and unstaged changes, and untracked deliverables before and after; ordinary Git diff checks do not include untracked files. For final verification do not stage, unstage, repair or start services unless separately authorized.

Discover the project's sanctioned checks from AGENTS.md, project guidance, Make targets, manifests and scripts, CI workflows and saved project instructions; use their entrypoints and working directory. Do not guess a command, target or test filter and do not run a first-use questionnaire. Scope checks to the task-owned diff; use required Make/container gates when project instructions require them, otherwise documented project-native runners. Broader regression checks are justified by project requirements or material blast radius, without routine confirmation. Use only authorized, documented environment setup; never install ad-hoc dependencies or bypass sanctioned runners.

Inspect a command's side effects before calling a pass read-only: tests may start services, modify generated files or shared state. A read-only authorization does not authorize edits, index changes, service startup, mutation or deployment. Run only permitted checks, state any missing authorization or environment blocker, and do not perform a repair in an independent read-only review.

Record each exact command, working directory, exit status, meaningful totals and failures. Green means exit status 0 and no new warnings under the project's policy. A launched or timed-out process is not a completed gate; track its actual completion when supported. Avoid concurrent tests that share mutable state. Separate earlier evidence from checks on the present candidate and label unrun, blocked, failed and passed checks; never imply broader coverage than measured. For long-running, shared-state or runtime checks use verification modes.

For a repair, verify the original failure with focused checks where feasible, then required broader gates and proportionate integration checks where shared state or ordering matters; do not automatically require every suite. Classify direct, baseline and environment failures separately. A wrong invocation or working directory is an operator error, not a product result. Do not infer a root cause without evidence. If a check is red and fixing is authorized and in scope, fix the root cause and rerun.

Never make a check pass by: skipping or disabling lint/type checks; marking tests skipped, xfail or commented out without a real, stated reason; --no-verify; silencing failures with || true or discarded stderr; substituting a native runner for a required Make/container gate; or inventing a targeted filter to avoid a sanctioned gate. Do not run a whole suite by default when a sanctioned focused check suffices.

Report the candidate, commands and outcomes, counts and failures, worktree effects, untested scope and blockers. A passing subset is not the whole gate. Distinguish self-check from independently authorized review; for defect and mutation evidence see quality-change-review. Passing checks is not authorization to publish, merge or deploy: those need valid action-specific authorization covering the target and all required gates, and are never inferred from a green check.

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.