verify
Skill19 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Active QA verification - full validation before completion
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 9 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
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
Jurel89Skillai-slop-cleaner
Clean AI-generated code slop with a regression-safe, deletion-first workflow and optional reviewer-only mode
Also in 4 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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- assess-findingsSkill
- autopilotSkill
- build-fixSkill
- code-searchSkill
- context-usageSkill
- debugSkill
- decideSkill
- designSkill
- docsSkill
- forgetSkill
- gitSkill
- implementSkill
- memoriseSkill
- patternsSkill
- perfSkill
- plan-swarmSkill
- recallSkill
- reflectSkill
- reviewSkill
- semgrepSkill
- surveySkill
- swarmSkill
- swarm-statusSkill
- testSkill
- worktree-resolveSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 167 edited versions we read keep these.
12
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 27
Run ALL of the following. Each must pass.
- Distinctive: line 42
Expected: All tests pass, no failures, no skipped tests.
- Distinctive: line 57
Expected: No type errors.
- Distinctive: line 73
Expected: No lint errors. Warnings acceptable if pre-existing.
- Distinctive: line 92
Search for common debug artifacts that shouldn't be committed:
- Distinctive: line 111
Expected: No debug artifacts in new code.
- Distinctive: line 144
Create a verification report.
- Distinctive: line 220
Document which tests fail and why
- Very specific: line 221
Do NOT fix them yourself (that's BUILD-FIX stage (via /aide:build-fix))
- Distinctive: line 227
Document all lint errors
- Distinctive: line 234
Document all type errors with file:line
- Distinctive: line 235
Always FAIL on type errors
- Distinctive: line 241
Always FAIL on build errors
- Very specific: line 279
When FAIL, the BUILD-FIX stage (via /aide:build-fix) addresses issues, then VERIFY runs again.
“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
Verify Mode
Recommended model tier: smart (opus) - this skill requires complex reasoning
Active QA verification: run all quality checks and report pass/fail status.
Purpose
This is the VERIFY stage of the SDLC pipeline. Implementation is complete. Your job is to run comprehensive validation and report results.
This is different from review: Review is read-only analysis. Verify is active execution of quality checks.
Verification Checklist
Run ALL of the following. Each must pass.
1. Full Test Suite
# TypeScript/JavaScript
npm test
# Go
go test ./...
# Python
pytestExpected: All tests pass, no failures, no skipped tests.
2. Type Checking
# TypeScript
npx tsc --noEmit
# Go (implicit in build)
go build ./...
# Python (if using mypy)
mypy .Expected: No type errors.
3. Linting
# TypeScript/JavaScript
npm run lint
# Go
go vet ./...
golangci-lint run
# Python
ruff check .Expected: No lint errors. Warnings acceptable if pre-existing.
4. Build
# TypeScript/JavaScript
npm run build
# Go
go build ./...
# Python
python -m py_compile *.pyExpected: Build succeeds without errors.
5. Debug Artifact Check
Search for common debug artifacts that shouldn't be committed:
# Console logs (JS/TS)
Grep for "console.log" in changed files
# Debug prints (Go)
Grep for "fmt.Println" or "log.Print" that look like debug
# Python debug
Grep for "print(" or "pdb" or "breakpoint()"
# TODO/FIXME comments
Grep for "TODO" or "FIXME" in changed files
# Debugger statements
Grep for "debugger" in JS/TS filesExpected: No debug artifacts in new code. Pre-existing ones noted but not blocking.
6. Uncommitted Changes Check
git statusExpected: Working directory clean, or only expected files modified.
Workflow
Step 1: Run All Checks
Execute each check in sequence, capturing output:
# Run all checks, capture results
npm test 2>&1 | head -50
npm run lint 2>&1 | head -50
npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1 | head -50
npm run build 2>&1 | head -50Step 2: Check for Debug Artifacts
# Search for debug code in recently changed files
git diff --name-only HEAD~1 | xargs grep -l "console.log\|debugger" 2>/dev/null || trueStep 3: Compile Results
Create a verification report.
Output Format
All Checks Pass
## Verification Report: PASS
### Tests
- Status: PASS
- Total: 42
- Passed: 42
- Failed: 0
### Type Check
- Status: PASS
- Errors: 0
### Lint
- Status: PASS
- Errors: 0
- Warnings: 3 (pre-existing)
### Build
- Status: PASS
### Debug Artifacts
- Status: CLEAN
- No debug code found in new files
### Verdict: READY FOR DOCS STAGESome Checks Fail
## Verification Report: FAIL
### Tests
- Status: FAIL
- Total: 42
- Passed: 40
- Failed: 2
- Failures:
- `UserService.test.ts:45` - expected 200, got 401
- `AuthMiddleware.test.ts:23` - timeout after 5000ms
### Type Check
- Status: PASS
### Lint
- Status: FAIL
- Errors:
- `src/user.ts:12` - 'unused' is defined but never used
### Build
- Status: PASS
### Debug Artifacts
- Status: WARNING
- Found:
- `src/user.ts:34` - console.log("debug user:", user)
### Verdict: NEEDS BUILD-FIX
Issues to resolve:
1. Fix 2 failing tests
2. Remove console.log on line 34
3. Fix lint error (remove unused variable)Failure Handling
Tests Fail
- Document which tests fail and why
- Do NOT fix them yourself (that's BUILD-FIX stage (via
/aide:build-fix)) - Report failures clearly
- Verdict: FAIL, needs BUILD-FIX stage (via
/aide:build-fix)
Lint Errors
- Document all lint errors
- Distinguish new errors from pre-existing
- New errors = FAIL
- Pre-existing warnings = PASS with notes
Type Errors
- Document all type errors with file:line
- Always FAIL on type errors
- Type errors must be fixed before proceeding
Build Fails
- Document build error
- Always FAIL on build errors
- Critical blocker for release
Decision Tree
All tests pass?
├── No → FAIL (needs BUILD-FIX)
└── Yes → Type check pass?
├── No → FAIL (needs BUILD-FIX)
└── Yes → Lint pass?
├── No (new errors) → FAIL (needs BUILD-FIX)
└── Yes/Warnings only → Build pass?
├── No → FAIL (needs BUILD-FIX)
└── Yes → Debug artifacts?
├── Found → FAIL (needs cleanup)
└── Clean → PASSCompletion
On PASS
Verification complete: ALL CHECKS PASS
Ready for DOCS stage.On FAIL
Verification complete: CHECKS FAILED
Returning to BUILD-FIX stage (via `/aide:build-fix`).
Issues:
1. [list of issues]When FAIL, the BUILD-FIX stage (via /aide:build-fix) addresses issues, then VERIFY runs again.
Integration with SDLC Pipeline
[DESIGN] → [TEST] → [DEV] → [VERIFY] → [DOCS]
↑
YOU ARE HERE
│
┌──────────┴──────────┐
│ │
PASS FAIL
│ │
▼ ▼
[DOCS] [BUILD-FIX] → [VERIFY]- Input: Completed implementation from DEV stage
- Output: Pass/Fail report with specifics
- On Pass: Proceed to DOCS stage
- On Fail: Return to BUILD-FIX stage (via
/aide:build-fix), then re-verify
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.

