verification
Skill1 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Establish concrete evidence that a change works by selecting and running the strongest practical tests, checks, builds, or integration validations for the task.
47 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- facebook/docusaurustheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- maideps/ai-harness-frameworktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Lanqiao-Luca/ai-java-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Beskars-Code/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- Gabriel-Lafrance/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- the-inconvenience-store/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use evidence-driven-writing, experiment-results-planning 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.
Norman-burySkillevidence-driven-writing
Use when writing or revising Introduction, Related Work, background, literature synthesis, or any section where references must drive claims
Also in 3 projects that use this
- Norman-burySkill
experiment-results-planning
Use when designing experiments, result tables, mock planning data, evaluation protocols, or results sections before real data are final
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +10 more from Norman-bury
Other versions47 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 47
- facebook/docusaurus★ 67ksame name
- open-metadata/OpenMetadata★ 16ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- hi-godot/godot-ai★ 3.4ksame name
- Norman-bury/research-writing-skill★ 3.4ksame name
- Norman-bury/articlewriting-skill★ 3.4ksame name
- forcedotcom/salesforcedx-vscode★ 1ksame name
- vercel/vercel-plugin★ 328same name
- s3s-project/s3s★ 315same name
- project-numina/numina-lean-agent★ 279same name
37 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adaptive-engineeringSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- existing-system-scanSkill
- memory-groundingSkill
- minimal-planningSkill
- simplification-gateSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- task-triageSkill
- verified-implementationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 39 edited versions we read keep these.
4
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
- Distinctive: line 23
Prefer executable evidence over visual confidence.
- Distinctive: line 24
Verify the changed behavior and at least one important adjacent path when risk warrants it.
- Distinctive: line 25
Do not report commands as passing unless they were actually run and passed.
- Distinctive: line 27
If verification is blocked, identify the exact blocker and residual risk.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 39 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.
Files
Verification
Select evidence by risk
Possible evidence includes:
- focused unit/behavior tests
- integration tests
- full relevant test suite
- type checker
- linter/static analysis
- build/package step
- reproducible CLI/API request
- migration dry run
- rollback test
- deployment/configuration validation
Verification rules
- Prefer executable evidence over visual confidence.
- Verify the changed behavior and at least one important adjacent path when risk warrants it.
- Do not report commands as passing unless they were actually run and passed.
- Separate pre-existing failures from failures caused by the change.
- If verification is blocked, identify the exact blocker and residual risk.
Completion evidence
Return the compact evidence receipt described in EXECUTION.md, scaled to the task:
- mode and PASS / FAIL / BLOCKED / PARTIAL outcome
- acceptance criterion and actual evidence
- precise command/check and observed result (or NOT RUN with reason)
- expected-versus-actual scope when relevant
- remaining blocker, rollback risk or unknown
For delegated work, independently examine returned artifacts rather than reporting a subordinate agent's assertion as proof. Do not claim measured savings, reliability or performance improvements without a real baseline and repeatable measurement.
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.