feature-verify
Skill2 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
Feature verification (READ-ONLY, P0-P5). Purpose: verify feature behavior after deployment, validate API responses, diagnose production issues, or run a post-deploy smoke test. Not for: modifying data (use flow-drive), code review (use change-verdict), writing tests (use tdd-workflow), security audit (use change-verdict). Output: a P0-P5 verification report with pass/fail evidence per check.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- arcasilesgroup/ai-engineeringtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flowtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harnesstheir own version, first seen Oct 6, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow★ 192same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192same name
- arcasilesgroup/ai-engineering★ 65same 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 repository39 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- change-verdictSkill
- code-simplifySkill
- code-traceSkill
- create-prSkill
- deploy-listSkill
- doc-maintainSkill
- flow-driveSkill
- flow-guideSkill
- git-smart-commitSkill
- git-worktreeSkill
- harness-setupSkill
- issue-analyzeSkill
- js-static-checksSkill
- laravelSkill
- legacy-characterization-testsSkill
- library-authorSkill
- merge-prepSkill
- module-designSkill
- nextjsSkill
- openspec-artifact-guardSkill
- opsx-apply-resumeSkill
- phpSkill
- phpunitSkill
- precommitSkill
- project-auditSkill
- project-briefSkill
- proposal-analyzeSkill
- pr-summarySkill
- pythonSkill
- reactSkill
- release-creatorSkill
- repo-intakeSkill
- repo-verifySkill
- swiftSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- ui-ux-verifySkill
- vue-2-notesSkill
- yii1Skill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Verify deployed behavior with read-only runtime evidence:
- Very specific: line 19
Use this for post-deploy checks, smoke tests, and production diagnosis.
- Distinctive: line 36
Read these at the indicated phase:
- Very specific: line 48
Run scripts/health-probe.sh <health-url> (3 attempts, 2-second timeout).
- Distinctive: line 57
Follow blackbox-testing.md § P1.
- Distinctive: line 61
Follow blackbox-testing.md § P2.
- Very specific: line 65
Run only for L2-API/L3/L4 after approval.
- Very specific: line 68
Run one request at a time with fixed, non-PII test parameters: scripts/api-exec.sh <GET|POST> <allowlisted-url> [json-payload]
- Very specific: line 88
Only when the caller explicitly requests a second opinion, dispatch a fresh, isolated read-only reviewer with P1/P3/P4 evidence.
- Distinctive: line 94
If no second opinion is requested or available, label the result
“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
Feature Verify — Runtime-First API Verification
Verify deployed behavior with read-only runtime evidence:
Primary-model analysis → optional independent reviewer → integrated verdict
Use this for post-deploy checks, smoke tests, and production diagnosis. For
local tests use the repository verification route; for changes use
flow-drive; for code review use
change-verdict.
When NOT to Use
- The requested action changes application data, configuration, or deployment state.
- The task is to implement or modify a feature; use
flow-drive. - The task is a code, security, or test review rather than runtime behavior verification.
- There is no read-only endpoint, observation path, or approved test environment that can produce evidence for the requested claim.
Required References
Read these at the indicated phase:
- P0/P3: safety-rules.md and environments.md
- P1/P2/P4/P5: blackbox-testing.md
- P0/P2/P5: verification-playbook.md
- Report: output-template.md
Bash is permitted only for read-only curl and observation queries reviewed against the safety rules. Missing endpoint allowlist means P3 is skipped.
P0 — Scope and Safety
- Select
--env, defaulting to test, and load its configuration. - Run
scripts/health-probe.sh <health-url>(3 attempts, 2-second timeout). - Compare local HEAD with the deployed version and warn on mismatch.
- Confirm every planned operation is read-only.
- Determine L4/L3/L2-API/L2-OBS/L1 using the playbook matrix.
API unreachable with logs gives L2-OBS; without logs gives L1. At L1 skip P3/P4. --level L2 remains an alias for L2-API.
P1 — Diff-Lite Scope
Follow blackbox-testing.md § P1. Map git diff main...HEAD --name-only to affected endpoints, dependency chains, active triggers, and passive targets. This phase scopes behavior; it does not judge code quality. If no diff exists, build scope from the user's feature description.
P2 — Test Charter and Approval
Follow blackbox-testing.md § P2. Generate only cases supported by the detected level: L1 regression, L2 active trigger, L3 passive observation, and M1 metrics. Present the charter and wait for user approval before any P3 request.
P3 — API Execution
Run only for L2-API/L3/L4 after approval. For each allowlisted case:
- Confirm method and endpoint exactly match the allowlist.
- Run one request at a time with fixed, non-PII test parameters:
scripts/api-exec.sh <GET|POST> <allowlisted-url> [json-payload] - Record its request ID, HTTP status, response fields, and latency.
The script rejects methods other than GET and POST; the operator must separately confirm that POST is allowlisted and read-only. L2-OBS always skips P3.
P4 — Observation Correlation
Follow blackbox-testing.md § P4.
- L3/L4: correlate each request ID, then fall back to alternate fields and endpoint/time window.
- L2-OBS/L3/L4: scan the observation window for related errors and warnings.
- Observe background services after their expected delay; query affected metrics at L4.
- Record blind spots. A missing log signal is not itself proof of failure.
For L2-OBS use deploy time → now, a user-provided window, or the last 30 minutes, in that order.
P5 — Independent Verdict
- The primary model forms a conclusion from P3/P4 evidence.
- Only when the caller explicitly requests a second opinion, dispatch a fresh,
isolated read-only reviewer with P1/P3/P4 evidence. The reviewer must assess
scope, commands, allowlist compliance, evidence, blind spots, and confidence
without receiving the primary conclusion. An explicit
--second-opinion=codex-execmay supply an additional one-shot CLI review; it is additive and opt-in, with no hidden fallback. - If no second opinion is requested or available, label the result primary model only and state plainly: "Only the primary model's verdict is present; no independent review ran." Do not describe the primary result as independently verified.
- Integrate available conclusions using the verdict/confidence rules in the playbook, keeping a skipped or unavailable reviewer visible.
- Render output-template.md.
The report may recommend another skill, but must not auto-invoke it.
Output
Produce the report from references/output-template.md. It must identify the deployed
target and local/deployed alignment, record the detected degradation level, list every
executed and skipped case with the reason, preserve request/log/metric evidence, state
blind spots, and end with the integrated verdict and confidence. A skipped API phase is
valid only when the level or safety gate requires it; it is not a passing execution.
Verification
- P0 established environment, deployment alignment, read-only scope, and the degradation level.
- P1 mapped the diff or explicitly documented the feature-description fallback.
- P2 produced a level-appropriate charter and received approval before any P3 request.
- Every P3 request matched the endpoint allowlist and recorded status, fields, and latency, or was marked skipped with a reason.
- P4 correlated logs or metrics when available and recorded the observation window and blind spots.
- P5 contains the primary analysis, any requested independent review (or the explicit primary-only state), and the integrated verdict from the playbook.
- The final report matches
output-template.mdand does not claim evidence for a phase that was skipped or unavailable.
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.

