validation-planner
Skill7 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when checking whether a verified implementation actually satisfies the user's real workflow, mission intent, or operational need.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- accolver/skill-makertheir own version, first seen Mar 10, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- accolver/skill-maker★ 4same 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- conops-builderSkill
- decision-analysisSkill
- integration-plannerSkill
- requirements-auditorSkill
- requirements-distillerSkill
- technical-assessment-loopSkill
- verification-plannerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill to test whether the right thing was built for the intended use.
- Very specific: line 22
Start with references/source-grounding.md, then inspect Section 5.4 pages extraction/pages/page_109.md through extraction/pages/page_115.md …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Validation Planner
Use this skill to test whether the right thing was built for the intended use.
Workflow
- Restate the user need, intended environment, actors, and CONOPS scenario.
- Define validation scenarios in user/workflow language, not implementation language.
- Identify success signals: user-observable outcome, acceptance by stakeholder, task completion, or operational fit.
- Compare verified behavior against those scenarios; do not assume verification proves validation.
- Identify gaps between requirements compliance and intended-use success.
- Choose the smallest validation artifact: walkthrough, browser flow, screenshot, user script, demo, recorded trace, or reviewer checklist.
- Output a validation plan: need, scenario, environment, success signal, artifact, gaps, residual risk.
Source grounding
Start with references/source-grounding.md, then inspect Section 5.4 pages extraction/pages/page_109.md through extraction/pages/page_115.md and Appendix E pages extraction/pages/page_213.md through extraction/pages/page_214.md before making validation-specific claims.
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.