agentleFS
gleicongleicon/devskills/skills/ds-verify-this/SKILL.md

ds-verify-this

Skill20 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub

Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner".

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    When safe to write artifacts:

    line 42
  3. Distinctive:

    If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the …

    line 54
  4. Very specific:

    Do not soften a negative result.

    line 77

≈ “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

Verification is not a recap. It proves or disproves a specific claim with repeatable evidence.

When To Use

  • The user asks "verify this", "prove it works", "did this fix it", or "show me the evidence".
  • A bug fix needs a before/after repro.
  • A UI, CLI, API, performance, or memory claim needs measurement.
  • A test passes but the user-visible behavior still needs confirmation.

Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner". Ask for a measurable claim first.

To find the cause of a failure (not just confirm a fix), use /ds-debug first — it ends by handing the proven fix to this command.

Workflow

  1. Restate the claim in falsifiable form: condition, metric, and threshold.
  2. Pick the smallest local surface that can disprove it.
  3. Capture a baseline from the old state: merge base, parent commit, failing branch, or current broken repro.
  4. Capture treatment from the changed state with the same command, data, warmup, and environment.
  5. Compare raw artifacts: numbers, screenshots, terminal transcripts, HTTP responses, profiles, heap snapshots, or test output.
  6. Return exactly one verdict: VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.

Local Surfaces

Capture baseline and treatment with the smallest repeatable local harness — reuse the repo's own test/demo/e2e scripts before building anything. No CI required.

  • Code behavior: a focused unit/integration test or a minimal repro script.
  • CLI/TUI behavior: a deterministic terminal harness — the repo's own scripts, or tmux (send-keys / capture-pane) or a short PTY script — saved as a before/after transcript.
  • UI behavior: the repo's browser harness (Playwright/Cypress), or a one-off probe against the local dev server — screenshots or accessibility snapshots.
  • API behavior: a local HTTP/RPC request, diffing the responses.
  • Performance: same-machine baseline/treatment timings or CPU profiles.
  • Memory: heap snapshots before and after the suspected operation.

Artifact Layout

When safe to write artifacts:

/tmp/verify-this/<claim-slug>/
├── claim.md
├── timeline.md
├── baseline/
├── treatment/
├── diff/
└── verdict.md

If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the user agrees to disk storage.

Verdict Rules

  • VERIFIED: baseline and treatment differ in the predicted direction, by the claimed threshold, with no obvious confound.
  • NOT VERIFIED: the behavior is unchanged, moves the wrong way, or misses the threshold.
  • INCONCLUSIVE: no valid baseline, noisy signal, failed measurement, or an environment difference invalidates the comparison.

Output

Use this shape:

VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE
Claim: <falsifiable claim>

Evidence:
<metric/artifact>: baseline=<...>, treatment=<...>, delta=<...>, threshold=<...>

Reasoning:
<one tight paragraph naming the evidence and any confounds>

Do not soften a negative result. A clear NOT VERIFIED is useful.

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.