verify
Skill20 starsChanged 44 days agoMITView on GitHub
Verify software by intentional testing.
188 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Doist/todoist-aitheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- udecode/better-convextheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- pytorch/heliontheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- amir20/dozzletheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Doist/todoist-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use instinct-export, instinct-import and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-export
Export instincts from project/global scope to a file
Also in 3 projects that use this
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-import
Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope
Also in 3 projects that use this
AviadPSkillrisk-assess
Assess the risk and blast radius of a proposed code change before implementing it. Evaluates CI impact, framework-wide vs localized scope, rollback path, and identifies blindspots. Use when user says "what's the risk", "is this safe", "assess the impact", "risk assess", "blast radius", or before applying framework-wide or CI-affecting changes. Do NOT use for code quality review (use code-quality) or plan validation (use design-validator).
Also in 3 projects that use this
diego-tobalinaSkillbuild-fix
Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.
Also in 6 projects that use this
AaravChadhaSkillsecure
Security review with a confidence gate - a finding exists only with a concrete exploit scenario and a high/medium/low confidence rating; everything else goes to a worth-hardening list, never inflated. Sweeps five surfaces: auth gates, secrets hygiene, injection and unsafe sinks, unsafe deserialization/crypto/transport, and LLM tool-use trust boundaries. Reports only, never fixes. Use when the user asks for a security review or to check vulnerabilities, secrets, or auth.
Also in 3 projects that use this
ArvorCoSkillspecify
Create feature specification from natural language description. Use when starting a new feature or creating a spec. Triggers on: create spec, specify feature, new feature spec.
Also in 10 projects that use this
- +1 more from TheKREATORS
Other versions188 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 188
- react/react★ 252ksame name
- facebook/react★ 252ksame name
- garrytan/gstack★ 141ksame name
- oven-sh/bun★ 97ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services-plugins★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/claude-quickstarts★ 19ksame name
- NVIDIA-NeMo/Speech★ 19ksame name
178 more not listed
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 repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- breakdownSkill
- bug-investigationSkill
- code-review-adversarialSkill
- code-review-multiSkill
- code-review-with-followupSkill
- document-changesSkill
- grillingSkill
- type-test-codeSkill
- explain-changesSkill
- github-actions-ciSkill
- github-appSkill
- github-ticketsSkill
- implementation-planSkill
- implement-simpleSkill
- implementSkill
- implement-ttcSkill
- orchestrationSkill
- pull-requestSkill
- review-and-wrap-upSkill
- verusSkill
- specSkill
- ticketsSkill
- update-working-copySkill
- wrap-upSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 0 are common, 19 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 167 edited versions we read keep these.
19
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 9
If altering code reduces the amount of verification needed or makes it easier, that is likely a worthwhile change to make.
- Distinctive: line 10
Use strong typing to reduce edge cases.
- Distinctive: line 13
Treat implementation and verification as separate reasoning tasks.
- Distinctive: line 18
When deciding whether to add a test, ask:
- Distinctive: line 20
When deciding whether testing is sufficient, ask:
- Distinctive: line 24
Avoid unnecessary mocks, brittle implementation coupling, arbitrary sleeps, order dependencies.
- Distinctive: line 25
Write seeds for creating data that is needed for testing and avoid duplicated setup.
- Distinctive: line 29
Run progressively broader verification as more code is written, ending with e2e.
- Distinctive: line 53
Every "not verified" or "not run" line must point to existing documentation or name the exact command you attempted and the exact error you …
- Distinctive: line 56
Do not claim that the verification cannot be performed: there may be a way to get unblocked.
- Distinctive: line 62
Before writing tests, identify:
- Distinctive: line 74
Run relevant existing tests.
- Distinctive: line 78
Look for counterexamples to code by probing:
- Distinctive: line 96
When randomizing, lean towards inputs that will explore complicated state and code paths.
- Distinctive: line 107
Use when behavior can be expressed as general invariants across many inputs.
- Distinctive: line 127
Use when a trustworthy alternative implementation or oracle exists.
- Distinctive: line 141
Consider fuzzing for code that processes:
- Distinctive: line 152
Use discovered failures to create minimized permanent regression tests.
- Distinctive: line 171
Add a test when the survivor represents a plausible defect that the test suite should detect.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 167 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
Core Principles
- Good Code is easy to verify and needs fewer tests If altering code reduces the amount of verification needed or makes it easier, that is likely a worthwhile change to make. Use strong typing to reduce edge cases.
- Verify behavior, not implementation details Treat implementation and verification as separate reasoning tasks. Derive expectations from requirements, contracts, documentation, and domain rules rather than the implementation.
- Optimize for fault detection
Coverage is useful for identifying untested areas. It is not a measure of test quality.
When deciding whether to add a test, ask:
What plausible defect would this test detect that the existing tests would not? When deciding whether testing is sufficient, ask: If this implementation is subtly wrong, how likely is the current verification strategy to expose it?
- Keep tests deterministic, understandable, and maintainable Avoid unnecessary mocks, brittle implementation coupling, arbitrary sleeps, order dependencies. Write seeds for creating data that is needed for testing and avoid duplicated setup.
- Verify while coding Code should be verified immediately after writing it (or sooner). Run progressively broader verification as more code is written, ending with e2e. For bug fixes, strongly prefer reproducing with a regression test before fixing.
Workflow
- Develop Automated Tests See Test writing Process
- Perform manual verifications e2e tests in particular may not be worth automating.
- Perform an adversarial review Are the tests meeting these outlined standards and process? Is the specification/plan fully verified?
Final Report Briefly report:
- behavior that was verified
- verification commands or checks run
- important tests added or changed
- stronger testing techniques used
- remaining risks or under tested areas
- Manual verifications or automated tests not ran on the CI must document how they were ran (pointing to other docs is good) and their result.
Every "not verified" or "not run" line must point to existing documentation or name the exact command you attempted and the exact error you got as
BLOCKED: <command> -> <error>Do not claim that the verification cannot be performed: there may be a way to get unblocked.
Test writing Process
Understand the behavior Before writing tests, identify:
- intended behavior and public contracts
- important business rules
- boundaries and edge cases
- failure paths
- state transitions
- integration boundaries
- existing test conventions
Derive expectations from requirements, contracts, documentation, and domain rules rather than the implementation.
- Establish a Baseline Run relevant existing tests. Note any pre-existing failures and use coverage, when available, to identify potentially untested areas.
- Look for high-value test areas
Look for counterexamples to code by probing:
- changed or important behavior
- boundary conditions
- error handling
- important branches and state transitions
- regressions
- integration behavior that could realistically fail
- Look for high-defect areas Think about areas likely to have subtle bugs before implementing; for each, state likely mistakes and plausible alternative interpretations, then come up with a check where the results differ (prefer asymmetric / boundary examples on both sides of the boundary).
- Choose appropriate techniques
Unit test examples are not the only way to verify.
- Leverage types and static analysis (linting or other tools) first.
- property-based testing for invariants and large input spaces
- differential testing when a trustworthy alternative implementation or oracle exists
- fuzzing for parsers, protocols, serialization, untrusted input, and similar boundaries
- mutation testing for important logic or subtle defects When randomizing, lean towards inputs that will explore complicated state and code paths.
- Review Inputs and Outputs For non-trivial logic, actively try to construct an input that breaks it. For high risk areas, independently re-derive the result without context on production code and compare.
Advanced Testing Methods
Property-based tests and proofs
Use when behavior can be expressed as general invariants across many inputs.
Look especially for:
- round trips
decode(encode(x)) == x - idempotence
normalize(normalize(x)) == normalize(x) - preservation: sorting preserves the input elements
- algebraic relationships
- monotonicity
- bounds
- equivalence between transformations
- invariants across state transitions
Differential tests
Use when a trustworthy alternative implementation or oracle exists.
Examples:
- old implementation vs. replacement
- reference implementation vs. optimized implementation
- two independent libraries implementing the same specification
- server calculation vs. client calculation
- legacy parser vs. rewritten parser
Generate or collect diverse inputs and investigate disagreements.
Fuzz testing
Consider fuzzing for code that processes:
- parsers
- file formats
- network input
- protocol messages
- untrusted text or binary data
- serialization
- compilers/interpreters
- security-sensitive boundaries
Use discovered failures to create minimized permanent regression tests.
Mutation testing
Use for
- tests moved to a new test seam- this can often produce tests that don't fail
- important logic when ordinary test results and coverage do not provide enough confidence.
Mutation testing is particularly useful for determining whether tests would detect subtle changes to:
- conditions
- comparisons
- arithmetic
- boolean expressions
- return values
- control flow
Investigate surviving mutants.
Add a test when the survivor represents a plausible defect that the test suite should detect.
Equivalent or irrelevant mutants do not require tests.
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.

