validate-as-consumer
Skill2 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
Runs a verified change the way a consumer does, against its requirement. Use at VALIDATE or before a README claims a capability.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- niksavis/handilyword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- niksavis/handily★ 2100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository58 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- best-practices-auditSkill
- catalog-authoringSkill
- cli-toolsSkill
- conventional-commitsSkill
- councilSkill
- decompose-planSkill
- falsify-firstSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- harness-clientSkill
- harness-loopSkill
- hill-climbSkill
- interface-factsSkill
- no-commentsSkill
- nodeSkill
- plain-englishSkill
- pythonSkill
- release-processSkill
- repair-in-placeSkill
- retention-probeSkill
- root-causeSkill
- session-finishSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- swarmSkill
- test-disciplineSkill
- tier-injectionSkill
- work-trackerSkill
- worktree-isolationSkill
- best-practices-auditSkill
- catalog-authoringSkill
- cli-toolsSkill
- conventional-commitsSkill
- councilSkill
- decompose-planSkill
- falsify-firstSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- harness-clientSkill
- harness-loopSkill
- hill-climbSkill
- interface-factsSkill
- no-commentsSkill
- nodeSkill
- plain-englishSkill
- pythonSkill
- release-processSkill
- repair-in-placeSkill
- retention-probeSkill
- root-causeSkill
- session-finishSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- swarmSkill
- test-disciplineSkill
- tier-injectionSkill
- validate-as-consumerSkill
- work-trackerSkill
- worktree-isolationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
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 10
Read existing verification evidence.
- Distinctive: line 14
Ask: could this transcript exist without the change?: If yes, you ran the suite again and validated nothing.
- Distinctive: line 25
Look for a missing prerequisite, an error that names an internal path, or an instruction that assumes this repository.
- Distinctive: line 30
When the change ships to a consumer, run it there: a new directory, an install, and the documented command.
- Distinctive: line 43
Check each acceptance criterion against the picture.
- Very specific: line 45
When the repository supplies an overflow checker, run it and read both of its signals, render-overflow and render-overlap.
≈ “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.
Files
<!-- Generated by `basicly skills-build` from skill.yaml. Do not edit; edit the source. -->Validate as a consumer
This skill checks a verified change as a consumer uses it. Read existing verification evidence; repeating deterministic checks alone is not consumer validation.
Rules
- Ask: could this transcript exist without the change? If yes, you ran the suite again and validated nothing.
- Check the whole task contract. Assess Context, every Acceptance criterion and any distinct Requirements together; the builder's summary alone can drift from the user need.
- Paste the output, never describe it. A description is a claim about a result.
- Preserve findings and responsibility. An independent validator reports defects to the owner before repair. An owner doing consumer checks fixes demonstrated in-scope causes and retains the failing evidence; no new refinement pass is needed.
Three questions, in order
- Does the demonstration do what the child claimed? Type the command or make the request. Read what it prints.
- Does it meet the acceptance criterion, or does it only run with no error? A criterion that passes without the behaviour is the failure to find.
- What does a consumer hit that a builder does not? Look for a missing prerequisite, an error that names an internal path, or an instruction that assumes this repository.
Use the operational environment
A consumer has no worktree, no fixtures and no knowledge of the implementation. When the change ships to a consumer, run it there: a new directory, an install, and the documented command. Some defects are visible only there, for example a file over a budget that the local config raised.
Rendered pages
A rendered page is an image. A page can pass every check and still be unreadable, so look at the picture:
- Render the page and open the screenshot before you call it done. On WSL, drive Windows Chrome over a UNC path:
chrome.exe --headless=new --disable-gpu --window-size=1920,1080 --screenshot=<win-path> "file://\\\\wsl.localhost\\<distro>\\<path>"- Check each acceptance criterion against the picture.
- Render from real data as well as the fixture. A fixture with fewer rows hides an overflow.
- When the repository supplies an overflow checker, run it and read both of its signals,
render-overflowandrender-overlap. A clipped box shows no scrollbar.
uv run python .scripts/check_render_overflow.py <page.html>- Shoot every viewport width the layout claims.
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.

