buildpad-validate-impl
Skill1 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Validate feature-level integration after all tasks are implemented. Checks cross-task consistency, full test suite, and overall spec coverage.
In this repository66 other files it gives its agents.
- add-ai-chatSkill
- add-buildpadSkill
- add-commentsSkill
- add-cronSkill
- add-external-oauthSkill
- add-filesSkill
- add-i18nSkill
- add-mcp-serverSkill
- add-microappSkill
- add-microfrontendSkill
- add-microfrontend-zonesSkill
- add-mobile-appSkill
- add-multitenancySkill
- add-usersSkill
- add-workflowsSkill
- amplify-env-varsSkill
- authentication-proxySkill
- buildpad-debugSkill
- buildpad-discoverySkill
- buildpad-implSkill
- buildpad-referenceSkill
- buildpad-reviewSkill
- buildpad-spec-batchSkill
- buildpad-spec-designSkill
- buildpad-spec-initSkill
- buildpad-spec-quickSkill
- buildpad-spec-requirementsSkill
- buildpad-spec-statusSkill
- buildpad-spec-tasksSkill
- buildpad-steering-customSkill
- buildpad-steeringSkill
- buildpad-validate-designSkill
- buildpad-validate-gapSkill
- buildpad-verify-completionSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- create-api-routeSkill
- create-collectionSkill
- create-componentSkill
- create-cronSkill
- create-featureSkill
- create-form-builderSkill
- create-migrationSkill
- create-projectSkill
- create-rbacSkill
- create-serviceSkill
- create-testsSkill
- create-workflowSkill
- daas-platformSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- generate-docsSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- grant-module-accessSkill
- hooks-extensionsSkill
- idea-refineSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- manage-scopeSkill
- migrate-to-engineSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
39 rules. About 0 are common, 24 are distinctive, and 15 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈24
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
15
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 21
All tasks marked [x] in tasks.md
- Distinctive: line 26
No orphaned code, conflicting implementations, integration seams, or boundary spillover
- Distinctive: line 54
If steering/spec context is already available from conversation, skip redundant file reads.
- Very specific: line 56
Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/spec.json for metadata
- Very specific: line 57
Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/requirements.md for requirements
- Very specific: line 58
Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/design.md for design structure
- Very specific: line 59
Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/tasks.md for task list and Implementation Notes
- Distinctive: line 66
Prefer commands already used by repo automation over ad hoc shell pipelines
- Distinctive: line 68
If multiple candidates exist, prefer the command with the smallest setup cost that still exercises the real built artifact
- Distinctive: line 77
Test execution: Run the complete test suite, report pass/fail with details
- Distinctive: line 79
Design alignment: Verify architecture matches design.md, report drift and dependency violations
- Distinctive: line 80
Cross-task integration: Verify data flows, API contracts, shared state consistency
- Distinctive: line 89
Run the discovered canonical full-test command.
- Distinctive: line 90
If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.
- Very specific: line 91
If the canonical test command cannot be identified → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- Distinctive: line 95
If matches found that were introduced by this feature → flag as Warning
- Distinctive: line 99
If matches found that aren't environment variable references → flag as Critical
- Distinctive: line 102
Run the discovered canonical smoke command that proves the built artifact actually starts and reaches its first usable state.
- Distinctive: line 104
If boot produces a runtime crash, unhandled exception, module-load failure, native ABI mismatch, or missing required env/config → NO-GO.
- Very specific: line 105
If no trustworthy smoke command can be identified, or the required runtime environment is unavailable → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- Distinctive: line 111
Verify that Task A's output format matches Task B's expected input
- Distinctive: line 112
Check for conflicting assumptions between tasks (naming conventions, error codes, data shapes)
- Distinctive: line 113
Verify shared state (database schemas, config, environment) is consistent across tasks
- Distinctive: line 114
Verify integration work happens at the intended seams rather than by leaking one boundary's behavior into another
- Very specific: line 120
Use the original section numbering from requirements.md.
- Distinctive: line 123
Verify the overall component graph matches design.md
- Distinctive: line 124
Check that integration patterns (event flow, API boundaries, dependency injection) work as designed
- Distinctive: line 125
Verify dependency direction follows design.md's architecture (no upward imports)
- Distinctive: line 126
Verify File Structure Plan matches the actual file layout
- Very specific: line 128
Use the original section numbering from design.md
- Distinctive: line 135
If a revalidation trigger fired, verify the affected adjacent specs or integration points were actually re-checked
- Very specific: line 138
Check for any tasks still marked _Blocked:_ — report why and assess impact on feature completeness
- Very specific: line 143
Before returning GO, apply the buildpad-verify-completion protocol to the feature-level claim.
- Very specific: line 150
If ownership is UPSTREAM, do not collapse the issue into local remediation for this feature.
- Distinctive: line 179
If NO-GO, REMEDIATION is mandatory — identify the exact issue and what needs to change.
- Very specific: line 183
Boundary integrity over convenience: Do not return GO if the feature only works by smearing responsibilities across boundaries, even when …
- Very specific: line 188
No Implementation Found: If no [x] tasks found, report "No implementations detected"
- Very specific: line 190
Missing Spec Files: Stop with error if spec.json/requirements.md/design.md missing
- Distinctive: line 203
Do not treat the feature as complete
≈ “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
buildpad-validate-impl Skill
Role
Individual tasks have already been reviewed by the per-task reviewer during implementation. Your job is to catch problems that only become visible when looking across all tasks together.
Boundary terminology continuity:
- discovery identifies
Boundary Candidates - design fixes
Boundary Commitments - tasks constrain execution with
_Boundary:_ - feature validation checks for cross-task
Boundary Violations
Core Mission
- Success Criteria:
- All tasks marked
[x]in tasks.md - Full test suite passes (not just per-task tests)
- Cross-task integration works (data flows between components, interfaces match)
- Requirements coverage is complete across all tasks (no gaps between tasks)
- Design structure is reflected end-to-end (not just per-component)
- No orphaned code, conflicting implementations, integration seams, or boundary spillover
- All tasks marked
What This Skill Does NOT Do
Per-task checks are the reviewer's responsibility during /buildpad-impl. This skill does not re-check:
- Individual task acceptance criteria
- Per-file reality checks (mock/stub detection)
- Single-task spec alignment
This skill's main question is: when the completed tasks are viewed together, do they still respect the designed boundary seams and dependency direction?
Execution Steps
Step 1: Detect Validation Target
If no arguments provided:
- Parse conversation history for
/buildpad-implcommands to detect recently implemented features and tasks - Scan
.kiro/specs/for features with completed tasks[x] - Report detected implementations (e.g., "user-auth: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3")
If feature provided (feature specified, tasks empty):
- Use specified feature
- Detect all completed tasks
[x]in.kiro/specs/{feature}/tasks.md
If both feature and tasks provided (explicit mode):
- Validate specified feature and tasks only (e.g.,
user-auth 1.1,1.2)
Step 2: Gather Context
If steering/spec context is already available from conversation, skip redundant file reads. Otherwise, for each detected feature:
- Read
.kiro/specs/<feature>/spec.jsonfor metadata - Read
.kiro/specs/<feature>/requirements.mdfor requirements - Read
.kiro/specs/<feature>/design.mdfor design structure - Read
.kiro/specs/<feature>/tasks.mdfor task list and Implementation Notes - Core steering context:
product.md,tech.md,structure.md - Additional steering files only when directly relevant to the validated boundaries, runtime prerequisites, integrations, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect the GO/NO-GO call
Discover canonical validation commands:
- Inspect repository-local sources of truth in this order: project scripts/manifests (
package.json,pyproject.toml,go.mod,Cargo.toml, app manifests), task runners (Makefile,justfile), CI/workflow files, existing e2e/integration configs, thenREADME* - Derive a feature-level validation set for this repo:
TEST_COMMANDS,BUILD_COMMANDS, andSMOKE_COMMANDS - Prefer commands already used by repo automation over ad hoc shell pipelines
- For
SMOKE_COMMANDS, choose the lightest trustworthy runtime-liveness check for the app shape (for example: root URL load, Electron launch, CLI--help, service health endpoint, mobile simulator/e2e harness if one already exists) - If multiple candidates exist, prefer the command with the smallest setup cost that still exercises the real built artifact
Step 3: Execute Integration Validation
Subagent Dispatch (parallel)
The following validation dimensions are independent and can be dispatched as subagents via the Agent tool. The agent should decide the optimal decomposition based on feature scope — split, merge, or skip subagents as appropriate. Each subagent returns a structured findings summary to keep the main context clean for GO/NO-GO synthesis.
Typical validation dimensions (adjust as appropriate):
- Test execution: Run the complete test suite, report pass/fail with details
- Requirements coverage: Build requirements → implementation matrix, report gaps
- Design alignment: Verify architecture matches design.md, report drift and dependency violations
- Cross-task integration: Verify data flows, API contracts, shared state consistency
For simple features (few tasks, small scope), run checks in main context without subagent dispatch.
Mechanical Checks (run commands, use results)
These checks apply at the feature level. Use command output as the primary signal.
A. Full Test Suite
- Run the discovered canonical full-test command. Use the exit code.
- If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.
- If the canonical test command cannot be identified →
MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
B. Residual TBD/TODO/FIXME
- Run:
grep -rn "TBD\|TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX" <files-in-feature-boundary> - If matches found that were introduced by this feature → flag as Warning
C. Residual Hardcoded Secrets
- Run:
grep -rn "password\s*=\|api_key\s*=\|secret\s*=\|token\s*=" <files-in-feature-boundary>(case-insensitive) - If matches found that aren't environment variable references → flag as Critical
D. Runtime Liveness (Smoke Boot)
- Run the discovered canonical smoke command that proves the built artifact actually starts and reaches its first usable state.
- Examples if relevant: open the root URL in a headless browser and require zero boot-time console errors; launch Electron and wait for the main process ready signal and first renderer load; run a CLI with
--help; start a service and hit its health endpoint. - If boot produces a runtime crash, unhandled exception, module-load failure, native ABI mismatch, or missing required env/config → NO-GO.
- If no trustworthy smoke command can be identified, or the required runtime environment is unavailable →
MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
Judgment Checks (read code, compare to spec)
E. Cross-Task Integration
- Identify where tasks share interfaces, data models, or API contracts
- Verify that Task A's output format matches Task B's expected input
- Check for conflicting assumptions between tasks (naming conventions, error codes, data shapes)
- Verify shared state (database schemas, config, environment) is consistent across tasks
- Verify integration work happens at the intended seams rather than by leaking one boundary's behavior into another
F. Requirements Coverage Gaps
- Map every requirement section to at least one completed task
- Identify requirements that no single task fully covers (cross-cutting requirements)
- Identify requirements partially covered by multiple tasks but not fully by any
- Use the original section numbering from
requirements.md; do NOT inventREQ-*aliases
G. Design End-to-End Alignment
- Verify the overall component graph matches design.md
- Check that integration patterns (event flow, API boundaries, dependency injection) work as designed
- Verify dependency direction follows design.md's architecture (no upward imports)
- Verify File Structure Plan matches the actual file layout
- Identify any architectural drift from the original design
- Use the original section numbering from
design.md
G.5 Boundary Audit
- Compare completed work against the design's
Boundary Commitments,Out of Boundary,Allowed Dependencies, andRevalidation Triggers - Identify cross-task spillover where one area quietly absorbed another boundary's responsibility
- Identify downstream-specific workarounds embedded upstream "to make integration easier"
- Identify new hidden dependencies or shared ownership that were not declared in the design
- If a revalidation trigger fired, verify the affected adjacent specs or integration points were actually re-checked
H. Blocked Tasks & Implementation Notes
- Check for any tasks still marked
_Blocked:_— report why and assess impact on feature completeness - Review
## Implementation Notesin tasks.md for cross-cutting insights that need attention
Step 4: Generate Report
Before returning GO, apply the buildpad-verify-completion protocol to the feature-level claim. Tests alone are insufficient: include full-suite, runtime liveness, coverage, integration, design-alignment, and blocked-task status in the evidence.
Classify concrete failures by ownership before writing remediation:
LOCALif the defect belongs to the feature being validatedUPSTREAMif the root cause belongs to a dependency, foundation, shared platform, or earlier specUNCLEARif ownership cannot be established from the available evidence
If ownership is UPSTREAM, do not collapse the issue into local remediation for this feature. Name the owning upstream spec and explain which dependent specs should be revalidated after that upstream fix lands.
Provide summary in the language specified in spec.json:
## Validation Report
- DECISION: GO | NO-GO | MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- MECHANICAL_RESULTS:
- Tests: PASS | FAIL (command and exit code)
- TBD/TODO grep: CLEAN | <count> matches
- Secrets grep: CLEAN | <count> matches
- Smoke boot: PASS | FAIL | MANUAL_REQUIRED
- INTEGRATION:
- Cross-task contracts: <status>
- Shared state consistency: <status>
- Boundary audit: <status>
- COVERAGE:
- Requirements mapped: <X/Y sections covered>
- Coverage gaps: <list of uncovered requirement sections>
- DESIGN:
- Architecture drift: <findings>
- Dependency direction: <violations if any>
- File Structure Plan vs actual: <match/mismatch>
- OWNERSHIP: LOCAL | UPSTREAM | UNCLEAR
- UPSTREAM_SPEC: <feature-name | N/A>
- BLOCKED_TASKS: <list and impact assessment>
- REMEDIATION: <if NO-GO: specific, actionable steps to fix each issue>If NO-GO, REMEDIATION is mandatory — identify the exact issue and what needs to change. Vague feedback is not acceptable.
Important Constraints
- Strict Final Gate: Return
GOonly when all integration checks passed; returnNO-GOfor concrete failures andMANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIREDwhen mandatory validation could not be completed - Boundary integrity over convenience: Do not return
GOif the feature only works by smearing responsibilities across boundaries, even when tests pass
Safety & Fallback
Error Scenarios
- No Implementation Found: If no
[x]tasks found, report "No implementations detected" - Test Command Unknown: Return
MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIREDand explain which validation command is missing; do not returnGO - Missing Spec Files: Stop with error if spec.json/requirements.md/design.md missing
Next Steps Guidance
If GO Decision:
- Feature validated end-to-end and ready for deployment or next feature
If NO-GO Decision:
- Address issues listed in REMEDIATION
- Re-run
/buildpad-impl {feature} [tasks]for targeted fixes - Re-validate with
/buildpad-validate-impl {feature}
If MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED:
- Do not treat the feature as complete
- Provide the exact missing validation step or environment prerequisite
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.

