issue-verify
Skill8 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when referencing issues in documentation, commits, or PRs. Verifies issue identifiers exist, validates cross-references.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- anthony-chaudhary/dos-kerneltheir own version, first seen Jun 13, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- anthony-chaudhary/dos-kernel★ 20same 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 repository129 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- guidance/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- guidance/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- blast-radius-checkSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- branch-flow-gateSkill
- branch-sync-gateSkill
- codebase-reconSkill
- codeowners-drift-auditSkill
- code-review-batterySkill
- cognitive-complexity-refactoringSkill
- debateSkill
- debug-conductorSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- domain-buildSkill
- evidence-adjudicatorSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- external-cli-auditSkill
- feature-developmentSkill
- field-rename-verificationSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- git-branch-conventionsSkill
- gitlab-cliSkill
- hotfix-charterSkill
- implementation-trackerSkill
- incident-revert-reviewSkill
- infra-config-investigatorSkill
- investigation-stateSkill
- kernel-splitSkill
- llm-behavior-investigatorSkill
- llm-skill-reviewSkill
- merge-authorization-gateSkill
- micro-harsh-reviewSkill
- output-verificationSkill
- pre-commit-gateSkill
- progressive-code-review-gateSkill
- progressive-harsh-reviewSkill
- providing-code-reviewSkill
- pr-triage-gateSkill
- push-authorization-gateSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- reproduction-experiment-investigatorSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- requirements-validation-pmSkill
- requirements-validationSkill
- scope-tripwireSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- skills-hierarchy-tuningSkill
- sp-bughuntSkill
- state-consistency-investigatorSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- timeline-trace-investigatorSkill
- token-estimationSkill
- unified-commit-gateSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 51
URL: call verify_link → check exists: true and entityType: "issue" before proceeding.
- Very specific: line 52
Use search_issues only when the exact identifier is unknown
- Distinctive: line 87
When linking PRs to issues:
- Distinctive: line 97
Before committing with issue identifier:
- Distinctive: line 100
Verify issue is in appropriate state (not Done/Closed unless reopening)
≈ “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
Issue Identifier Verification
Purpose: Verify issue identifiers before referencing in commits, PRs, or documentation Pattern: Evidence before assertion — verify existence before citing Adapter: See
_adapters/for platform-specific configurationWrong skill? Creating issues →
issue-authoring. Updating issues →issue-editing. Verifying URLs in issues →issue-link-verification.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when:
- Writing commit messages with issue identifier prefixes
- Linking PRs to issues
- Documenting issues in wiki pages
- Cross-referencing issues in changelogs
- Any time you reference an issue identifier outside your tracker
Issue Identifier Verification
<EXTREMELY_IMPORTANT>
Before writing ANY issue reference, verify it exists using your adapter:
- Exact identifier: normalize first using adapter rules (e.g., GitHub: strip
#prefix; Jira: use key as-is), then callget_issue→ checkexists: trueandentityType: "issue"before proceeding - URL: call
verify_link→ checkexists: trueandentityType: "issue"before proceeding. Note:verify_linkguaranteesexists,identifier, andentityTypebut nottitleorstatus. If you need to report title/status (e.g., in verification output), callget_issuewith the returnedidentifieras a follow-up step. - Use
search_issuesonly when the exact identifier is unknown
In all cases, the adapter returns exists and entityType. Apply the following policy:
entityType: "issue"→ proceedentityType: "pull_request"or"other"→ HARD BLOCK; do not reference this target as an issueentityType: "unknown"(permission/cross-workspace ambiguity) → WARN; stop and require explicit user confirmation that the reference is intentional before proceeding. Silence, unclear responses, off-topic replies, echoing, and partial acknowledgments do not count as approval.exists: falseandentityType: "unknown"→ HARD BLOCK (not-found overrides ambiguous path)
Expected response for existing issue:
- Issue identifier, title, status returned (from get_issue; title and status may not be present in verify_link result)
For non-existent issue:
- Empty results or "not found"
If issue doesn't exist:
⚠️ ISSUE NOT FOUND
The issue "[IDENTIFIER]" does not exist.
- Verify the issue identifier is correct
- Check if the issue was deleted or moved
- Do NOT reference this identifier in commits/docs</EXTREMELY_IMPORTANT>
Cross-Reference Validation
Issue → PR Linking
When linking PRs to issues:
- Verify issue exists using your adapter
- Verify PR exists in your source control
- Only then create the link
Commit Messages with Issue Identifiers
Recommended format: [IDENTIFIER] Brief description (use the exact identifier format your tracker uses — e.g. PROJ-123, #42, or TICKET-456)
Before committing with issue identifier:
- Verify issue exists
- Verify issue is in appropriate state (not Done/Closed unless reopening)
Batch Verification
For bulk operations (changelog, sprint reports):
## Issue Identifier Verification Report
| Issue Identifier | Status | Title | Verified |
|-----------------|--------|-------|----------|
| PROJ-123 | Done | Implement feature X | ✅ |
| #456 | In Progress | Fix bug Y | ✅ |
| TICKET-789 | — | — | ❌ NOT FOUND |
Summary: 2 verified, 1 not foundHallucination Prevention
<EXTREMELY_IMPORTANT>
AI assistants commonly hallucinate issue identifiers based on:
- Sequential patterns (PROJ-100 exists, so PROJ-101 must too)
- Memory from previous conversations
- Assuming issues referenced in docs still exist
Verification is MANDATORY, not optional.
</EXTREMELY_IMPORTANT>
Verification Checklist
Before referencing ANY issue identifier:
1. QUERY — Use get_issue for exact identifier lookup (or verify_link for URL-based verification)
2. VERIFY — Issue exists and is in expected state
3. FETCH — Get actual title (don't guess)
4. REFERENCE — Only then cite the issueCompanion Skills
- issue-authoring: Creating new issues
- issue-editing: Updating existing issues
Example
# Verify issue metadata matches reality
# Check assignee exists, sprint is current, labels are valid
node ~/.codex/superpowers-augment/superpowers-augment.js use-skill issue-verifyFailure Modes
- Skipping URL verification: Assuming all links in the issue body are valid without fetching them
- Checking only title/description: Missing label, assignee, or priority validation
- Trusting memory: Verifying against what you remember the issue said instead of re-fetching it
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.

