agentleFS
hmj1026hmj1026/dhpk/skills/feature-verify/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Verify deployed behavior with read-only runtime evidence:

    line 15
  2. Very specific:

    Use this for post-deploy checks, smoke tests, and production diagnosis.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    Read these at the indicated phase:

    line 36
  4. Very specific:

    Run scripts/health-probe.sh <health-url> (3 attempts, 2-second timeout).

    line 48
  5. Distinctive:

    Follow blackbox-testing.md § P1.

    line 57
  6. Distinctive:

    Follow blackbox-testing.md § P2.

    line 61
  7. Very specific:

    Run only for L2-API/L3/L4 after approval.

    line 65
  8. Very specific:

    Run one request at a time with fixed, non-PII test parameters: scripts/api-exec.sh <GET|POST> <allowlisted-url> [json-payload]

    line 68
  9. Very specific:

    Only when the caller explicitly requests a second opinion, dispatch a fresh, isolated read-only reviewer with P1/P3/P4 evidence.

    line 88
  10. Distinctive:

    If no second opinion is requested or available, label the result

    line 94

“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.

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

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

  1. Select --env, defaulting to test, and load its configuration.
  2. Run scripts/health-probe.sh <health-url> (3 attempts, 2-second timeout).
  3. Compare local HEAD with the deployed version and warn on mismatch.
  4. Confirm every planned operation is read-only.
  5. 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:

  1. Confirm method and endpoint exactly match the allowlist.
  2. Run one request at a time with fixed, non-PII test parameters: scripts/api-exec.sh <GET|POST> <allowlisted-url> [json-payload]
  3. 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

  1. The primary model forms a conclusion from P3/P4 evidence.
  2. 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-exec may supply an additional one-shot CLI review; it is additive and opt-in, with no hidden fallback.
  3. 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.
  4. Integrate available conclusions using the verdict/confidence rules in the playbook, keeping a skipped or unavailable reviewer visible.
  5. 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.md and does not claim evidence for a phase that was skipped or unavailable.

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.