launch-verification
Skill2 starsChanged 25 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when a fix or a finding needs proof: re-checking behavior after a change, confirming a blocker is really gone, or turning collected evidence into a scoped launch verdict. It re-runs the original evidence, records what changed, and separates verified, unverified, and review-required items. Do not use it to declare a site legally compliant, or as a substitute for the specialist that found the problem.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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 19
Not as a first pass; find problems with the owning specialist first.
- Very specific: line 63
READY WITH CAVEATS: no open HIGH; listed MEDIUM/UNVERIFIED/REVIEW REQUIRED items remain.
- Distinctive: line 64
NO BLOCKERS FOUND: no open HIGH in the areas verified.
- Distinctive: line 66
Never the bare word "ready".
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
launch-verification
"I edited the file" is not verification. Verification means: the same evidence that exposed the problem now shows it gone, and nothing adjacent broke.
Activate when
- A specialist (or you) changed something and it needs proving.
launch-allreaches its verify step.- The user asks "did that actually fix it?" or "is this ready now?"
- Not as a first pass; find problems with the owning specialist first.
Inspect
For each finding or fix, identify:
- The original evidence: which helper, command, page, viewport, and state exposed it (e.g.
observe-runtimeafter a Reject click at 375px). - The claim being verified: one sentence ("Reject stops analytics requests, including after reload").
- The smallest reliable re-check that could disprove the claim.
Re-run it in the same conditions (same viewport, same starting state, same origin). Then run one adjacent check for regressions in what the change touches:
| Changed | Re-check | Adjacent |
| canonical / sitemap / robots | inspect-metadata | check-links (targets still resolve) |
| links, routes, 404 | check-links | unknown URL returns 404 status |
| consent gating / analytics | observe-runtime reject → accept → reload | privacy disclosure still matches |
| forms | observe-runtime with --canary and a submit step (local/staging only) | error path and required-field path |
| labels, alt, semantics | audit-markup | keyboard tab pass |
| layout | observe-runtime --viewport 375x812 | 768px and desktop |
| secrets/env | scan-secrets | build output rebuilt, not the old dist/ |
| assets/performance | audit-assets | page still renders correctly |
| legal pages with owner facts | audit-markup (PLACEHOLDER_TEXT) | every [[OWNER TO PROVIDE]] marker is either resolved or listed as a blocker |
Helpers live in this skill's scripts/ folder. If a needed helper cannot run (no server, no Playwright) or reports SITE_NOT_READ, the item is UNVERIFIED, not passed.
Evidence that counts
Label each claim OBSERVED, SOURCE-INDICATED, DECLARED, INFERRED, UNKNOWN, or REVIEW REQUIRED. UNKNOWN is never a pass and never a failure.
- Verified requires an OBSERVED re-check after the change.
- Reading the diff and finding it plausible is INFERRED. It does not close a HIGH finding.
- Rebuild before re-checking build-output findings (stale
dist/proves nothing). - A re-check that cannot distinguish "fixed" from "not exercised" is inconclusive. Make the check able to fail (e.g. confirm the tracker does fire after Accept, so its silence after Reject means something).
May change
Nothing in the product. It may write .readyvibe/verification.md (a brief log: claim, evidence command, before/after, status). If a re-check fails, hand back to the owning specialist with the observed difference.
Must not claim
That a site is "launch-ready", "compliant", "secure", or "accessible" as unqualified statements. A launch state is a scoped verdict:
- NOT READY: at least one HIGH finding is open.
- READY WITH CAVEATS: no open HIGH; listed MEDIUM/UNVERIFIED/REVIEW REQUIRED items remain.
- NO BLOCKERS FOUND: no open HIGH in the areas verified. The verified areas are named, and the unverified are named.
Never the bare word "ready".
Verify
Self-check before reporting: every HIGH has a status of verified fixed, still open, unverified (why), or review required (who). No finding disappears from the report without a stated reason.
Escalate
A fix that changes behavior the owner may not have intended (removing a tracker, deleting data, changing copy about legal terms); a re-check that shows a new problem in a HIGH area; facts that need the owner ("is /status meant to be public?").
No change is valid when
The original evidence already shows the issue absent, the finding was a false positive explained by context, or the area does not apply. Record it with the reason instead of "fixing" it.
In this repository54 other files it gives its agents.
- wcag-readinessSkill
- admin-audit-logSkill
- admin-authorizationSkill
- admin-dashboardSkill
- payments-readinessSkill
- subscription-readinessSkill
- ai-features-readinessSkill
- analytics-privacySkill
- consent-managementSkill
- consumer-protection-readinessSkill
- cookie-and-storage-auditSkill
- data-flow-mappingSkill
- data-rightsSkill
- email-complianceSkill
- jurisdiction-applicabilitySkill
- legal-identity-noticesSkill
- minors-readinessSkill
- policy-consistencySkill
- privacy-policySkill
- privacy-readinessSkill
- regulated-domain-triggersSkill
- terms-of-serviceSkill
- third-party-privacySkill
- user-content-safetySkill
- compliance-allSkill
- compliance-diffSkill
- design-system-reconnaissanceSkill
- discoverability-allSkill
- launch-allSkill
- production-allSkill
- quality-allSkill
- site-reconnaissanceSkill
- trust-allSkill
- search-console-readinessSkill
- seo-readinessSkill
- social-sharingSkill
- structured-dataSkill
- multilingual-readinessSkill
- rtl-readinessSkill
- content-trustSkill
- error-pagesSkill
- failure-resilienceSkill
- faq-readinessSkill
- forms-readinessSkill
- launch-identitySkill
- legal-navigationSkill
- link-integritySkill
- mobile-readinessSkill
- performance-readinessSkill
- public-supportSkill
- dependency-securitySkill
- deployment-cleanupSkill
- security-headersSkill
- web-securitySkill
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.

