agentleFS
Sign inStart free
helderbertohelderberto/agent-skills/skills/check/SKILL.md

check

Skill19 starsChanged 32 days agoMITView on GitHub

Validate code quality — auto-fix formatting/lint, verify types, run tests. Use when asked to "validate code", "check code", or validate before committing; also lint-only asks ("run linter", "fix lint errors"). Don't use for committing (/commit), pushing (/to-pr), or writing new tests (/tdd).

80 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use daily-arxiv, exp-eval 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.
  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-arxiv

    每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文，过滤相关性，auto-ingest 高优先级论文，检测 SOTA 更新

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-eval

    实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • JuliusBrusseeSkill

    backprop

    Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • skyllwtSkill

    exp-pilot-eval

    Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • skyllwtSkill

    exp-pilot-run

    Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +6 more from Lambenthan
  • +1 more from skyllwt

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 69 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Detect the project's commands: Prefer a task the project already defines over a raw tool call:

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Run fix → check → test sequentially

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    If the fix step fails, still run check + tests.

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Never commit, stage, or push anything

    line 31
  5. Distinctive:

    If no recognizable manifest/tasks → ask the user for the validate command, or report and stop

    line 35
  6. Distinctive:

    If a step's command doesn't exist → skip it, note it was skipped

    line 36
  7. Distinctive:

    If all steps missing → report nothing to run, stop

    line 37
  8. Distinctive:

    If tests time out → report and suggest raising the runner's timeout

    line 38
  9. Distinctive:

    If a runner crashes (exit code other than 0 or 1) → report crash output and stop

    line 39

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 69 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.

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

Check

Run the project's own quality gates — format/lint fix, type check, tests — whatever this project defines. Detect the toolchain; never assume npm. Lint-only ask → steps 1–3, skip tests. --check or check-only wording ("check lint", "run the linter" without "fix") → skip step 2, so no file is written.

Workflow

  1. Detect the project's commands. Prefer a task the project already defines over a raw tool call:
    • Node → package.json scripts (lint:fix/lint-fix, lint, typecheck/tsc, test)
    • Python → pyproject.toml / tox.ini / Makefile (ruff --fix/black, ruff/flake8, mypy, pytest)
    • Go → gofmt -w, golangci-lint run / go vet, go build ./..., go test ./...
    • Rust → cargo fmt, cargo clippy, cargo check, cargo test
    • else → read the Makefile / CI config for the equivalent targets
  2. Format + lint fix (the fix variant). These rewrite files in place and exit 0 silently — capture what changed right after (git status --short / git diff --stat) and remember it for the report. The user is about to commit; they need to know their tree was modified.
  3. Lint + types (check variants).
  4. Tests.
  5. Report: an Auto-fixed section listing files the fix step changed (or "nothing auto-fixed"), then overall PASS or FAIL with file:line error references.

Rules

  • Detect the project's commands — never hardcode a package manager
  • Auto-fix before reporting errors, unless --check — but never modify files silently; always report which files auto-fix changed
  • Run fix → check → test sequentially
  • If the fix step fails, still run check + tests; report all failures at the end
  • Report errors as file:line references
  • Never commit, stage, or push anything

Error Handling

  • If no recognizable manifest/tasks → ask the user for the validate command, or report and stop
  • If a step's command doesn't exist → skip it, note it was skipped
  • If all steps missing → report nothing to run, stop
  • If tests time out → report and suggest raising the runner's timeout
  • If a runner crashes (exit code other than 0 or 1) → report crash output and stop

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.

Check your setup, free