loop-verify
Skill8 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Runs this project's verification contract and decides honestly whether something is verified, a gap, or a lie. Use before calling anything done, and whenever a report says "should work".
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- manastalukdar/ai-devstudiotheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- erp-mafia/accountedtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- ksed8/cc-loopkittheir own version, first seen Jul 8, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- erp-mafia/accounted★ 403same name
- ksed8/cc-loopkit★ 1same name
- manastalukdar/ai-devstudio★ 1same 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- loop-closeSkill
- loop-councilSkill
- loop-doctorSkill
- loop-planSkill
- loop-setupSkill
- loopSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 8
Read .loop/VERIFY.md and run the slots that apply to what changed.
- Distinctive: line 18
Add two more that fool people constantly:
- Distinctive: line 40
If the project has a test database or a seeded environment, use it: set up, run, tear down.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Verify for real
Read .loop/VERIFY.md and run the slots that apply to what changed. Then write down
what you observed, in the words of what you saw — not in the words of what you hoped.
The three things that are not verification
- A green build. It proves the code compiles. Nothing else.
- "I read the code and it looks right." The bug you are looking for is exactly the one that looks right.
- "It should work." Then it is not verified. Say that instead.
Add two more that fool people constantly:
- An exit code of 0 — a command can succeed while doing nothing.
- An HTTP 200 — many servers answer 200 for a page that does not exist. Verify by finding a string that only exists in the new behaviour, not by status code.
What counts
Each slot must produce an artifact or a direct observation:
- BUILD — the project's build/test command, green. Necessary, never sufficient.
- OBSERVE — the thing itself, doing its thing: a page rendered in a real browser with a clean console and a real interaction (click, type, navigate); a CLI run with its real output; an endpoint returning the new field. A screenshot or captured output is the artifact.
- DATA — query the store and confirm the effect: the row exists, the value changed, the wrong value is refused.
- MONEY — if money moves, use the provider's test mode and confirm the resulting state changed for real. Never test with live money.
Testing against a real system
If the project has a test database or a seeded environment, use it: set up, run,
tear down. That is the default. Working against a live system is an exception
that must be declared in .loop/VERIFY.md, and when it is unavoidable: wrap in a
transaction and roll back, or restore the fixtures afterwards and confirm nothing
was left behind.
Two traps worth naming: your own tooling may run with more privileges than a real user, which hides permission bugs — check with the actual role. And a check that passes for you may fail for a signed-out visitor — check both.
The verdict
For each slot: VERIFIED (with the one line of what you observed), GAP
(with the reason it cannot be checked here — a missing access, no browser, no test
environment), or FAILED (go back to building). A slot may not be silently
skipped. If a required slot is a GAP, the item is not done — it is delivered with a
declared gap, and it says so in .loop/STATE.md.
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.