agentleFS
Sign inStart free
leighstillardleighstillard/coach-ship-skills/skills/verify/SKILL.md

verify

Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Prove a change actually works before it ships. Use whenever a change is done, after implementing a feature/fix, before opening a PR, or when the user says verify/check this works/is this actually working. Tests passing is not sufficient; this skill requires real entry-point evidence.

189 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

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 167 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    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:

    Run the repo's relevant gates, escalating from cheapest to broadest:

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    If a gate was already failing before the change, record that evidence and do not pretend it passed.

    line 21
  3. Distinctive:

    Check that new failure modes are diagnosable:

    line 44
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not verify by re-reading code.

    line 58
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not count executor claims or CI summaries as evidence unless you retrieved the underlying output.

    line 59

“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

Core principle: tests passing ≠ feature working. Verification means executing the changed behaviour through the same boundary a user, service, or downstream caller uses.

Process

1. Restate the contract

Briefly state what the change is supposed to do from the user's perspective. If you cannot state it, ask or mark NOT VERIFIED.

2. Run the existing gates

Run the repo's relevant gates, escalating from cheapest to broadest:

  • format/lint/typecheck/build
  • focused tests for touched area
  • full test suite when practical before PR/merge

If a gate was already failing before the change, record that evidence and do not pretend it passed.

3. Drive the real entry point

Exercise the actual surface:

  • CLI → run the installed/local binary or package command with real args.
  • API/service → start the service, call the endpoint, inspect body and side effects.
  • UI → run the app, interact with the changed path, capture screenshots if useful.
  • Workflow/worker/pipeline → run a small real input and inspect output artifacts/rows/state.
  • Library → write and run a throwaway consumer script.

Capture command + representative output. Screenshots or logs count only when tied to the command/path that produced them.

4. Edge/failure sweep

Try the highest-value applicable cases, not an infinite checklist:

  • empty/zero/nil input
  • boundary/off-by-one
  • duplicate/repeated invocation/idempotency
  • malformed dependency response or timeout
  • unicode/long strings if strings cross a boundary
  • permissions/auth for new access paths
  • backwards compatibility for old config/data/callers

5. Reliability sweep

Check that new failure modes are diagnosable:

  • errors carry context and are not swallowed
  • external calls have timeout/retry/cancellation where appropriate
  • logs are useful but contain no secrets/PII
  • resources are cleaned up

6. Verdict

End with exactly one:

  • VERIFIED — evidence proves the contract through the real entry point.
  • NOT VERIFIED — something failed, could not run, or only tests/builds ran.

Partial verification is NOT VERIFIED with notes.

Gotchas

  • Do not verify by re-reading code.
  • Do not count executor claims or CI summaries as evidence unless you retrieved the underlying output.
  • Any code change after VERIFIED invalidates the verdict; re-run the relevant verification.

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.

Check your setup, free