agentleFS
leekleek/agent-skills/skills/verify/SKILL.md

verify

Skill5 starsChanged 10 days agoMITView on GitHub

Exercise a change end to end in the running application (hit the route, run the command, click through the page) and report what actually happened. Use after tests pass, when a change needs proving in the real app, or when another skill's build step ends.

188 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use instinct-export, instinct-import 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.
  • TheKREATORSSkill

    instinct-export

    Export instincts from project/global scope to a file

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • TheKREATORSSkill

    instinct-import

    Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AviadPSkill

    risk-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

  • diego-tobalinaSkill

    build-fix

    Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • AaravChadhaSkill

    secure

    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

  • ArvorCoSkill

    specify

    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

  • +1 more from TheKREATORS

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 167 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    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:

    Verify against local/dev: never run mutating flows against a real environment's data without explicit approval.

    line 23
  2. Distinctive:

    Leave no residue: throwaway records created during verification get cleaned up, or created under an obviously-fake identity the seeds …

    line 24

“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.

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

Verify

Tests passing is not the finish line. Exercise the actual flow once, in the running application, and report what you observed: never what should happen.

Process

  1. Pick the flow the change owns. The route a user would hit, the command an operator would run, the job the system would dispatch, the Filament/Livewire page a back-office user would open. Select a small scenario that can expose the changed behavior: grouped or aggregated UI needs multiple related records with distinct values; interactive state needs the action and its reversal (for example expand, collapse, expand), checking controls and content agree each time. Use existing suitable records or isolated fixtures under the guardrails below. Keep the pass focused on the change, not a broad test suite.
  2. Run it for real.
    • HTTP / UI: load the URL the app is already served at. For a Laravel app on Herd that is the main checkout's https://<dir>.test, or for a worktree the url its bootstrap's herd workspace printed (herd workspaces --json lists it again). Use the project's browser tooling (agent-browser, Boost's browser-logs) to load the page, perform the action, and screenshot the result. A Pest browser test, including one pointed at 127.0.0.1, is a test run, not this step. If agent-browser fails with ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID after herd secure, close and reopen the browser session so Chromium reloads the trust store; if a dev toolbar (such as Laravel Debugbar) covers a click target, collapse or disable it rather than forcing the click.
    • Console: run the artisan command with realistic arguments.
    • Jobs / listeners: dispatch through the real path (dispatchSync or trigger the event), then check the side effect where it lands, database rows, storage, logs.
  3. Check the seams the tests can't see. Before driving the flow, watch them under Monitor where available: tail -f storage/logs/laravel.log | grep --line-buffered -E 'ERROR|CRITICAL|Exception', plus php artisan queue:work when a queued job is involved, so each error arrives tied to the action that caused it. Otherwise read the log tail after each action. Look for browser console errors, the Laravel log (storage/logs/ or Boost's read-log-entries/last-error), a queue that needed a running worker, an unbuilt frontend (a Vite manifest error means run npm run build, not that the change is broken).
    • Calculated reports: for one nontrivial record, reconcile detail rows, totals, badges/status, units, and the selected period against an independent worked example or source records. When adjacent values intentionally use different periods or populations, confirm the UI makes that difference explicit. Record the scenario and observed values; an unexplained mismatch fails verification.
  4. Report faithfully. What you did, what you saw (status codes, redirects, rendered state, rows written), and anything that surprised you: with the evidence. If a step couldn't be exercised (needs credentials, a webhook, a human), say so plainly instead of marking it verified. List each screenshot's path, so a PR opened later can embed it. Start each step's line with ✅ worked as expected, ❌ broke, or ⚠️ surprised you or could not be exercised.

Guardrails

  • Verify against local/dev: never run mutating flows against a real environment's data without explicit approval.
  • Leave no residue: throwaway records created during verification get cleaned up, or created under an obviously-fake identity the seeds already use.

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.