inspect
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Validate a Blueprint feature's traceability chain — orphan requirements, uncovered acceptance criteria, dangling C/R ids, components nothing builds, unanswered open questions. Use when the user says "/blueprint:inspect", "check the spec", "validate the blueprint", "does everything trace", or after hand-editing any of requirements.md / architecture.md / tasks.md.
13 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sanityops-org/sanityops-frameworktheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- cyrilichti/agent-workflowstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- chalk-lab/Mooncake.jltheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- saleh-alhaddad/itqan-engineeringtheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
- ZeeshanSultan/DocGovtheir own version, first seen Sep 13, 2026
- timelapsetech/mediaskillstheir own version, first seen Aug 15, 2026
Other versions13 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 13
- chalk-lab/Mooncake.jl★ 413same name
- Arman-Kudaibergenov/1c-ai-development-kit★ 163same name
- bluzir/claude-code-design★ 102same name
- NakaokaRei/swift-mcp-gui★ 61same name
- howardpen9/cc-inspect★ 17same name
- saleh-alhaddad/itqan-engineering★ 10same name
- HaipingShi/coderail★ 8same name
- cyrilichti/agent-workflows★ 3same name
- sanityops-org/sanityops-framework★ 3same name
- blackwell-systems/agentskills-code-inspector★ 1same name
3 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.
In this repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- architectureSkill
- buildSkill
- requirementsSkill
- tasksSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/FORMAT.md first (or FORMAT.md at the repo root if you are working inside the blueprint repo itself).
- Distinctive: line 11
Read-only. This skill reports.
- Very specific: line 16
Run these against .blueprint/<slug>/ and work from the output — do not eyeball the documents:
- Distinctive: line 48
If a document is missing, report which step has not run yet and stop — do not report 40 failures because architecture.md does not exist.
- Very specific: line 51
Read declarations, not token occurrences.
- Distinctive: line 78
When everything passes, say so in one line with the counts.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 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
Blueprint: inspect
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/FORMAT.md first (or FORMAT.md at the repo root
if you are working inside the blueprint repo itself).
Read-only. This skill reports; it does not edit. Offer fixes, apply none without being asked.
Gather
Run these against .blueprint/<slug>/ and work from the output — do not
eyeball the documents:
rg -o '^### (R\d+)' requirements.md # declared requirements
rg -o '\*\*(R\d+\.AC\d+)\*\*' requirements.md # declared criteria
rg -o '^### (C\d+)' architecture.md # declared components
rg -o 'covers: *(.+)$' architecture.md # coverage claims
rg -o '\*\*(T\d+)\*\*' tasks.md # declared tasks
rg -o '→ *(C\d+|chore) *\| *(.+)$' tasks.md # task citations
rg -o '\*\*(Q\d+)\*\*' requirements.md architecture.md
rg -n 'status: answered' requirements.md architecture.md
rg -n 'status: dropped' requirements.md architecture.md tasks.mdChecks
| # | Check | Severity |
| 1 | Every R<n> has ≥1 AC | fail |
| 2 | Every R<n> is covered — named directly in a covers: list, or every one of its criteria is | fail |
| 3 | Every R<n>.AC<m> is cited by ≥1 task | fail |
| 4 | Every C<n> is cited by ≥1 task | fail |
| 5 | Every id cited anywhere actually exists (no dangling refs) | fail |
| 6 | No id declared twice | fail |
| 7 | Nothing references an id marked status: dropped | fail |
| 8 | Every task has a done-when line | fail |
| 9 | Every task has a files: line | warn |
| 10 | No unanswered Q<n> — rg '^\s*- \*\*Q\d+\*\* status: answered' matches every declared Q | warn |
| 11 | No task cites more than one C<n> | warn |
| 12 | Phases exist and each has ≥1 task | warn |
If a document is missing, report which step has not run yet and stop — do not report 40 failures because architecture.md does not exist.
Read declarations, not token occurrences. These documents describe Blueprint's
own grammar, so files:, status: dropped and covers: all turn up inside
ordinary prose. A marker counts only where the format puts it: at the start of
its line, in the document that owns it. A phantom id lifted out of a sentence
is worse than a missed one, because it sends the reader hunting for something
that was never declared.
Output
A short table, then the specifics. Nothing else.
Blueprint: token-refresh
requirements 7 R, 19 AC
architecture 5 C
tasks 12 T, 3 phases
FAIL R4 covered by no component
FAIL T9 cites C6, which does not exist
FAIL R2.AC3 cited by no task
WARN Q2 unanswered
WARN T5 has no files: line
3 failures, 2 warnings.When everything passes, say so in one line with the counts. Do not pad.
For each failure, name the cheapest fix in a few words ("R4: add a component or drop the requirement"). Then ask whether to apply them. Do not start editing.
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.

