delegate-and-verify
Skill30 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Subagent orchestration and verification discipline. Use whenever a task has independent subtasks that could run in parallel, whenever work is substantial enough to need checking before it ships, and whenever tempted to review your own work by re-reading it. Trigger on multi-file changes, audits, migrations, reviews, and any long-running build.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- demeyer1/Autobottheir own version, first seen Oct 2, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- demeyer1/Autobot★ 21same 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- evidence-audited-analysisSkill
- finish-the-turnSkill
- lessons-ledgerSkill
- minimal-diffSkill
- outcome-first-writingSkill
- plain-handoffSkill
- root-cause-firstSkill
- verified-doneSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 12
Spot independence early: Before starting a multi-part task, ask: which parts share no state?
- Distinctive: line 15
Intervene on drift: If a subagent's output shows it misunderstood the goal or lacks context, correct it or re-dispatch.
- Distinctive: line 19
Fresh-context verifiers outperform self-critique: When you review your own work, you re-read it with the same assumptions that produced it, …
- Distinctive: line 24
A clean review of risky work is itself a flag: If a verifier finds nothing wrong with a large, complex, or security-sensitive change, …
≈ “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
Delegate and Verify
Two disciplines that compound: fan independent work out to subagents instead of doing everything serially, and verify finished work with a fresh context instead of your own re-reading.
Delegation
- Spot independence early. Before starting a multi-part task, ask: which parts share no state? Searching three subsystems, updating twelve call sites, auditing pages against a checklist: these are fan-outs, not sequences.
- Delegate and keep working. Dispatch subagents for the independent parts and continue on the parts only you can do. Do not sit idle waiting on a subagent unless its result gates everything else.
- Brief like a handoff. A subagent knows nothing you do not tell it. Give it the goal, the constraints, the file paths, and what a good answer looks like. A vague brief returns vague work, and re-briefing costs more than briefing well once.
- Intervene on drift. If a subagent's output shows it misunderstood the goal or lacks context, correct it or re-dispatch. Do not silently absorb wrong work into the result.
Verification
Fresh-context verifiers outperform self-critique. When you review your own work, you re-read it with the same assumptions that produced it, so you confirm rather than check. A verifier that never saw your reasoning has no such blind spot.
- Give the verifier the spec and the artifact, never your reasoning. It gets the original requirement and the finished work. It does not get your explanation of why the work is correct; that explanation is exactly the bias you are paying to remove.
- Ask it to break the work, not bless it. "Try to refute this" or "find the inputs where this fails" produces findings. "Does this look right?" produces agreement.
- On long autonomous runs, verify on an interval. Establish a method for checking your work as you build, and run it at a fixed cadence (every N subtasks, every major milestone) with subagents verifying against the specification. Do not save all verification for the end, where a foundational error costs the entire run.
- A clean review of risky work is itself a flag. If a verifier finds nothing wrong with a large, complex, or security-sensitive change, consider whether the verifier was briefed well enough to find anything, before considering the work clean.
Why this matters
Serial work wastes the hours that parallel work recovers, and self-review is the weakest form of review that exists. The combination, parallel builders plus adversarial fresh-context checkers, is how a single orchestrating agent produces work at a quality that self-directed effort cannot reach.
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.

