validate-plan
Skill34 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub
Validate that an implementation plan was correctly executed by
7 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AhmedMerza/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- kohj1018/agentic-dev-harnesstheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
- sipandey/create-agent-roomtheir own version, first seen Sep 26, 2026
- ConsolaDev/Consolaedited, first seen Sep 23, 2026
- AhmedMerza/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 22, 2026
- corticalstack/flowedited, first seen Jun 10, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use iterate-plan.
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.
corticalstackSkilliterate-plan
Revise an existing implementation plan in flow/plans/ based on feedback, researching when needed. Explicit-only; run only when invoked via /iterate-plan or explicitly asked.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- ConsolaDev/Consola★ 128% same
- corticalstack/flow★ 149% same
Wrote their own version · 5
- AhmedMerza/agent-skills★ 2same name
- AhmedMerza/claude-skills★ 2same name
- kohj1018/agentic-dev-harness★ 2same name
- shawn-dumas/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- sipandey/create-agent-room★ 0same 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 repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- hooks/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- tasks/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- clean-commentsSkill
- raise-prSkill
- configureSkill
- initSkill
- migrateSkill
- pathsSkill
- create-adrSkill
- extract-adrsSkill
- review-adrSkill
- analyse-design-gapsSkill
- inventory-designSkill
- describe-prSkill
- respond-to-prSkill
- review-prSkill
- create-noteSkill
- create-planSkill
- implement-planSkill
- review-planSkill
- stress-test-planSkill
- conduct-spikeSkill
- research-codebaseSkill
- research-issueSkill
- research-topicSkill
- commitSkill
- visualiseSkill
- create-work-itemSkill
- extract-work-itemsSkill
- list-work-itemsSkill
- refine-work-itemSkill
- rekey-work-itemsSkill
- review-work-itemSkill
- stress-test-work-itemSkill
- sync-work-items-recoverySkill
- sync-work-itemsSkill
- update-work-itemSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
23 rules. 0 are common, 18 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
18
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 20
If no "Agent Names" section appears above, use these defaults: accelerator:reviewer, accelerator:codebase-locator, …
- Distinctive: line 49
If existing: Review what was implemented in this session
- Distinctive: line 50
If fresh: Need to discover what was done through the session's VCS and codebase analysis
- Distinctive: line 55
If plan path provided, use it
- Very specific: line 60
If the SessionStart VCS Command Reference is not in context — validate-plan often runs late in a long session, after it may have been …
- Very specific: line 70
Run the repository's checks from its root, aborting if the root cannot be resolved (out of a repository, accelerator vcs root exits …
- Distinctive: line 82
If starting fresh or need more context:
- Distinctive: line 115
Look for checkmarks in the plan (- [x])
- Distinctive: line 116
Verify the actual code matches claimed completion
- Distinctive: line 121
Document pass/fail status
- Distinctive: line 122
If failures, investigate root cause
- Distinctive: line 144
Write the validation report to the configured validations directory:
- Distinctive: line 152
Create the configured validations directory if it doesn't exist.
- Distinctive: line 160
Before writing the validation file, capture metadata and substitute the unified base fields and per-type extras into the template's …
- Distinctive: line 166
Substitute: every field below with the indicated value:
- Distinctive: line 185
Always fill — every validation has a target.
- Distinctive: line 191
Write the file with the substituted frontmatter block followed by the validation report body from Step 3.
- Very specific: line 200
If the validation result is pass, update the plan's frontmatter status field to done (if the plan has YAML frontmatter with a status field).
- Very specific: line 209
Validate the frontmatter: after writing, run corpus frontmatter validate over the validation report you just wrote:
- Distinctive: line 216
If it exits non-zero, the report violates the canonical frontmatter standard.
- Distinctive: line 222
If you were part of the implementation:
- Distinctive: line 225
Check your todo list for what was completed
- Distinctive: line 232
Run all automated checks: - Don't skip verification commands
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 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
Validate Plan
!accelerator config context --skill validate-plan --fail-safe
!accelerator config agents --fail-safe
If no "Agent Names" section appears above, use these defaults: accelerator:reviewer, accelerator:codebase-locator, accelerator:codebase-analyser, accelerator:codebase-pattern-finder, accelerator:documents-locator, accelerator:documents-analyser, accelerator:web-search-researcher.
Plans directory: !accelerator config path plans --fail-safe
Validations directory: !accelerator config path validations --fail-safe
Plan Validation Template
The template below defines the frontmatter and body structure that every plan validation report must carry. Read it now — use it to guide what information you record in the validation process and what shape you persist in Step 4.
!accelerator config template validation --fail-safe
You are tasked with validating that an implementation plan was correctly executed, verifying all success criteria and identifying any deviations or issues.
Initial Setup
When invoked:
- Determine context - Are you in an existing conversation or starting fresh?
- If existing: Review what was implemented in this session
- If fresh: Need to discover what was done through the session's VCS and codebase analysis
- Locate the plan:
- If plan path provided, use it
- Otherwise, search recent commits for plan references or ask user
- Gather implementation evidence:
If the SessionStart VCS Command Reference is not in context — validate-plan
often runs late in a long session, after it may have been compacted out —
re-derive it first with accelerator vcs detect --descriptive and read the
idioms out of the emitted additionalContext string.
- Recent commits: list the checkout's recent revisions using the session's VCS log command (see the SessionStart VCS Command Reference).
- Implementation diff: take the cumulative change since the trunk divergence point using the session's VCS diff-range idiom (see the SessionStart VCS Command Reference).
- Run the repository's checks from its root, aborting if the root cannot be
resolved (out of a repository,
accelerator vcs rootexits non-zero, so the assignment fails and the&&chain stops rather than runningmakein the wrong tree):root="$(accelerator vcs root)" && cd "$root" && make check test
Validation Process
Step 1: Context Discovery
If starting fresh or need more context:
- Read the implementation plan completely
- Identify what should have changed:
- List all files that should be modified
- Note all success criteria (automated and manual)
- Identify key functionality to verify
- Spawn parallel research tasks to discover implementation:
Task 1 - Verify database changes: Research if migration [N] was added and schema changes match plan. Check: migration files, schema version, table structure Return: What was implemented vs what plan specified Task 2 - Verify code changes: Find all modified files related to [feature]. Compare actual changes to plan specifications. Return: File-by-file comparison of planned vs actual Task 3 - Verify test coverage: Check if tests were added/modified as specified. Run test commands and capture results. Return: Test status and any missing coverage
Step 2: Systematic Validation
For each phase in the plan:
- Check completion status:
- Look for checkmarks in the plan (- [x])
- Verify the actual code matches claimed completion
- Run automated verification:
- Execute each command from "Automated Verification"
- Document pass/fail status
- If failures, investigate root cause
- Assess manual criteria:
- List what needs manual testing
- Provide clear steps for user verification
- Think deeply about edge cases:
- Were error conditions handled?
- Are there missing validations?
- Could the implementation break existing functionality?
Step 3: Generate Validation Report
Compose the validation report body following the structure defined in the Plan Validation Template at the top of this skill (Implementation Status, Automated Verification Results, Code Review Findings, Manual Testing Required, Recommendations).
Step 4: Persist the Validation Report
Write the validation report to the configured validations directory:
- Derive the filename from the plan filename: extract the filename stem
(without directory path or
.mdextension) regardless of how the path was provided. For example, if the plan is{plans directory}/2026-03-22-improve-error-handling.md, the validation is{validations directory}/2026-03-22-improve-error-handling-validation.md. - Create the configured validations directory if it doesn't exist.
Populate frontmatter
The target: field is filled automatically from the plan reference under
validation — this is what makes the report traceable back to the plan it
covers. Per ADR-0034, the typed-linkage form is "plan:<plan-id>".
Before writing the validation file, capture metadata and substitute the unified base fields and per-type extras into the template's frontmatter block:
- Invoke
accelerator corpus metadata deriveto obtainCurrent Date/Time (UTC):. - Substitute every field below with the indicated value:
type:←plan-validationid:← the validation filename stem (e.g.2026-05-30-0065-update-artifact-templates-to-unified-schema-validation), always quoted as a YAML stringtitle:←Validation Report: {plan title}date:← theCurrent Date/Time (UTC):valueauthor:← the author value resolved percreate-work-item/SKILL.md:578-580producer:←validate-planstatus:←completelast_updated:← the sameCurrent Date/Time (UTC):valuelast_updated_by:← the same value resolved forauthorschema_version:←1(bare integer, not quoted)parent:← typed-linkage ref to the parent plan ("plan:NNNN"). Fill when the validation names a parent plan; otherwise omit the key.target:←"plan:<plan-id>"(e.g."plan:2026-05-30-0065-update-artifact-templates-to-unified-schema"); the typed-linkage ref to the plan being validated, per ADR-0034. Always fill — every validation has a target.relates_to:← list of typed-linkage refs to related artifacts (["plan-validation:NNNN", ...]). Fill when related validations are explicit; otherwise omit the key.result:←pass | partial | failper the Implementation Status of the report (see derivation rule below)
- Write the file with the substituted frontmatter block followed by the validation report body from Step 3.
Determine the result field from the report:
pass: all phases fully implemented, all automated checks passpartial: some phases implemented or some checks failingfail: major deviations or critical failures
- If the validation result is
pass, update the plan's frontmatterstatusfield todone(if the plan has YAML frontmatter with astatusfield). This closes the plan lifecycle. - Inform the user where the report was saved:
Validation report saved to {validations directory}/{filename}.mdValidate the frontmatter: after writing, run corpus frontmatter
validate over the validation report you just wrote:
accelerator corpus frontmatter validate --file <path>If it exits non-zero, the report violates the canonical frontmatter standard; report the emitted violation and fix the frontmatter before completing.
Working with Existing Context
If you were part of the implementation:
- Review the conversation history
- Check your todo list for what was completed
- Focus validation on work done in this session
- Be honest about any shortcuts or incomplete items
Important Guidelines
- Be thorough but practical - Focus on what matters
- Run all automated checks - Don't skip verification commands
- Document everything - Both successes and issues
- Think critically - Question if the implementation truly solves the problem
- Consider maintenance - Will this be maintainable long-term?
Validation Checklist
Always verify:
- All phases marked complete are actually done
- Automated tests pass
- Code follows existing patterns
- No regressions introduced
- Error handling is robust
- Documentation updated if needed
- Manual test steps are clear
Relationship to Other Commands
Recommended workflow:
/implement-plan- Execute the implementation/commit- Create atomic commits for changes/validate-plan- Verify implementation correctness (saves report to the configured validations directory)/describe-pr- Generate PR description
The validation works best after commits are made, as it can analyze the VCS history to understand what was implemented.
Remember: Good validation catches issues before they reach production. Be constructive but thorough in identifying gaps or improvements.
!accelerator config instructions validate-plan --fail-safe
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.

