agentleFS
Sign inStart free
myshra777-aimyshra777-ai/garuda/skills/violation-repair/SKILL.md

violation-repair

Skill4 starsChanged 13 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use after Garuda reports a BLOCK or REVIEW finding and you need to fix it without causing a second violation. Garuda returns the exact violating lines together with self-repair instructions, explains which policy or documented rule was broken and how the match was resolved, and lets you check a proposed replacement interface or helper before editing. Make the smallest diff that satisfies the rule, ask a human before touching a high-severity surface, then re-run verification until the outcome is allow. The skill keeps repairs minimal and prevents fixes that move the problem to another layer boundary. Use it for remediation, not for first-time review.

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 36

≈ “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

05 — Garuda Assisted Violation Repair

Guides an agent through remediating a BLOCK or REVIEW governance finding without introducing secondary boundary violations.

1. Purpose & Triggers

Invoke this skill when the user or coding workflow asks:

  • "Fix this Talon violation without breaking service boundaries"
  • "Remediate the architectural BLOCK reported by Garuda"
  • "Propose a minimal repair plan for this policy failure"

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 — Retrieve the exact violations list and self_repair_instructions.
  2. garuda.explain_claim — Inspect the exact source line, resolution method (GO_TYPES, AST, DOC_RULE), and governing policy.
  3. garuda.talon_pre_edit — Check the proposed replacement interface or store helper before editing.
  4. Propose a minimal diff (requesting human confirmation before touching HIGH_SEVERE surfaces), apply the fix, and re-run garuda.talon_verify_edit to confirm ALLOW.

CLI Fallback (when MCP stdio is not attached):

garuda check . --diff HEAD --policy policies

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