agentleFS
Sign inStart free
myshra777-aimyshra777-ai/garuda/skills/post-edit-verification/SKILL.md

post-edit-verification

Skill4 starsChanged 13 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use after finishing a code change, and before committing or opening a pull request, to check that the edit introduced no new architectural or policy violations. Garuda re-indexes only the modified files, evaluates the git diff against configured YAML policies and ADR claims, and separates net-new violations from findings that already existed on the baseline, so reviewers see only what this change caused. It confirms the build context behind the result (platform, CGO, build tags, commit) and can verify that conditional build tags are not hiding violations on other operating systems. Returns an allow, review or block outcome with file-and-line evidence. Read-only by default.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Epistemic States: Always distinguish SUPPORTED (backed by compiler/AST + runtime evidence where required), UNVERIFIED (statically …

    line 35

≈ “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.

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

04 — Garuda Post-Edit Verification

Evaluates the completed git diff against configured YAML policies and ADR claims, separating net-new violations from pre-existing baseline findings.

1. Purpose & Triggers

Invoke this skill when the user or coding workflow asks:

  • "I've finished the change. Verify it before I commit."
  • "Run Garuda diff-scoped verification on my working tree"
  • "Did my edit introduce any new architectural or policy violations?"

2. Required Context

  • workspace: Target Garuda workspace name (default: "default").
  • repo_dir: Repository root path (default: ".").
  • diff / target: Git revision range (e.g. "HEAD") or symbol/package name.

3. Ordered MCP Workflow

  1. garuda.talon_verify_edit (with save_to_ledger: false in read-only mode) — Incrementally analyze modified files and evaluate net-new violations vs baseline violations.
  2. garuda.verify_receipt — Confirm the deterministic BuildContext (GOOS/GOARCH, CGO_ENABLED, build tags, commit SHA, and receipt_hash).
  3. garuda.build_matrix_check — Optionally verify that conditional build tags do not hide violations across linux/amd64, darwin/arm64, and windows/amd64.

CLI Fallback (when MCP stdio is not attached):

garuda talon guard . --diff HEAD --fail-on-block

4. Decision & Epistemic Rules

  • Epistemic States: Always distinguish SUPPORTED (backed by compiler/AST + runtime evidence where required), UNVERIFIED (statically extracted, awaiting runtime trace), and CONTRADICTED (violates ADR, policy, or static boundary).
  • Governance Verdicts: ALLOW (proceed), WARN (proceed with note), REVIEW (requires human architectural review), BLOCK (halt and remediate net-new violation), INCONCLUSIVE (0 entities matched policy scope; never treat as vacuous ALLOW).

5. Output Contract

Format every report using this six-part structure: Finding -> Evidence (file:line & match_method) -> Affected Components (callers & tier) -> Policy / ADR -> Confidence / Status -> Recommended Action

6. Safety & Limitations

  • Read-Only by Default: Public installations run with GARUDA_MCP_READ_ONLY=true. Never invoke mutating tools (garuda.approve_base_rulebook, garuda.decide_logic_variant, garuda.reconcile_data_audit) without explicit human authorization (GARUDA_MCP_APPROVER).
  • Scope Qualification: RFC 6962 Merkle proofs (H_leaf = SHA256(0x00 || data)) establish tamper-evident integrity and inclusion of recorded governance evaluations; they do not replace unit, integration, or dynamic security testing.

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