agentleFS
buildpad-aibuildpad-ai/skills/buildpad-validate-impl/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Very specific:

    All tasks marked [x] in tasks.md

    line 21
  2. Distinctive:

    No orphaned code, conflicting implementations, integration seams, or boundary spillover

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    If steering/spec context is already available from conversation, skip redundant file reads.

    line 54
  4. Very specific:

    Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/spec.json for metadata

    line 56
  5. Very specific:

    Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/requirements.md for requirements

    line 57
  6. Very specific:

    Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/design.md for design structure

    line 58
  7. Very specific:

    Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/tasks.md for task list and Implementation Notes

    line 59
  8. Distinctive:

    Prefer commands already used by repo automation over ad hoc shell pipelines

    line 66
  9. Distinctive:

    If multiple candidates exist, prefer the command with the smallest setup cost that still exercises the real built artifact

    line 68
  10. Distinctive:

    Test execution: Run the complete test suite, report pass/fail with details

    line 77
  11. Distinctive:

    Design alignment: Verify architecture matches design.md, report drift and dependency violations

    line 79
  12. Distinctive:

    Cross-task integration: Verify data flows, API contracts, shared state consistency

    line 80
  13. Distinctive:

    Run the discovered canonical full-test command.

    line 89
  14. Distinctive:

    If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.

    line 90
  15. Very specific:

    If the canonical test command cannot be identified → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED

    line 91
  16. Distinctive:

    If matches found that were introduced by this feature → flag as Warning

    line 95
  17. Distinctive:

    If matches found that aren't environment variable references → flag as Critical

    line 99
  18. Distinctive:

    Run the discovered canonical smoke command that proves the built artifact actually starts and reaches its first usable state.

    line 102
  19. Distinctive:

    If boot produces a runtime crash, unhandled exception, module-load failure, native ABI mismatch, or missing required env/config → NO-GO.

    line 104
  20. Very specific:

    If no trustworthy smoke command can be identified, or the required runtime environment is unavailable → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED

    line 105
  21. Distinctive:

    Verify that Task A's output format matches Task B's expected input

    line 111
  22. Distinctive:

    Check for conflicting assumptions between tasks (naming conventions, error codes, data shapes)

    line 112
  23. Distinctive:

    Verify shared state (database schemas, config, environment) is consistent across tasks

    line 113
  24. Distinctive:

    Verify integration work happens at the intended seams rather than by leaking one boundary's behavior into another

    line 114
  25. Very specific:

    Use the original section numbering from requirements.md.

    line 120
  26. Distinctive:

    Verify the overall component graph matches design.md

    line 123
  27. Distinctive:

    Check that integration patterns (event flow, API boundaries, dependency injection) work as designed

    line 124
  28. Distinctive:

    Verify dependency direction follows design.md's architecture (no upward imports)

    line 125
  29. Distinctive:

    Verify File Structure Plan matches the actual file layout

    line 126
  30. Very specific:

    Use the original section numbering from design.md

    line 128
  31. Distinctive:

    If a revalidation trigger fired, verify the affected adjacent specs or integration points were actually re-checked

    line 135
  32. Very specific:

    Check for any tasks still marked _Blocked:_ — report why and assess impact on feature completeness

    line 138
  33. Very specific:

    Before returning GO, apply the buildpad-verify-completion protocol to the feature-level claim.

    line 143
  34. Very specific:

    If ownership is UPSTREAM, do not collapse the issue into local remediation for this feature.

    line 150
  35. Distinctive:

    If NO-GO, REMEDIATION is mandatory — identify the exact issue and what needs to change.

    line 179
  36. Very specific:

    Boundary integrity over convenience: Do not return GO if the feature only works by smearing responsibilities across boundaries, even when …

    line 183
  37. Very specific:

    No Implementation Found: If no [x] tasks found, report "No implementations detected"

    line 188
  38. Very specific:

    Missing Spec Files: Stop with error if spec.json/requirements.md/design.md missing

    line 190
  39. Distinctive:

    Do not treat the feature as complete

    line 203

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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

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-impl commands 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.json for metadata
  • Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/requirements.md for requirements
  • Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/design.md for design structure
  • Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/tasks.md for 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, then README*
  • Derive a feature-level validation set for this repo: TEST_COMMANDS, BUILD_COMMANDS, and SMOKE_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 invent REQ-* 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, and Revalidation 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 Notes in 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:

  • LOCAL if the defect belongs to the feature being validated
  • UPSTREAM if the root cause belongs to a dependency, foundation, shared platform, or earlier spec
  • UNCLEAR if 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 GO only when all integration checks passed; return NO-GO for concrete failures and MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED when mandatory validation could not be completed
  • Boundary integrity over convenience: Do not return GO if 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_REQUIRED and explain which validation command is missing; do not return GO
  • 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

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.