checking-delivery
Skill33 starsChanged 34 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Verify an artifact at its actual delivery destination and distinguish send attempts, acknowledgements, publication and consumer checks. Use when reporting a file, message, export or deployment as delivered; creating a local draft alone does not imply delivery.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Grit-77/done-is-a-claimword for word, first seen Oct 15, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- Grit-77/done-is-a-claim★ 33100% 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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- acceptance-designSkill
- collecting-worker-resultsSkill
- debugging-with-evidenceSkill
- evidence-freshnessSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- implementing-with-testsSkill
- planning-changesSkill
- public-claimsSkill
- reading-measurementsSkill
- responding-to-reviewSkill
- resuming-workSkill
- reviewing-changesSkill
- using-done-is-a-claimSkill
- whose-redSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
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 18
Keep these observations separate, using the states the system exposes:
- Distinctive: line 33
If delivery is authorized, inspect its result and retain the operation or receipt identity.
- Distinctive: line 44
Check the delivered artifact through the appropriate consumer: decode an image, parse an export, open a document, or load and inspect the …
- Distinctive: line 60
Use a brief receipt when delivery matters: source inspected, destination and operation, acknowledgement, read-back comparison, consumer …
≈ “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
Checking delivery
Inspecting the source establishes what was prepared. Delivery requires evidence about the destination the user was meant to receive. Check only within the authorized scope; this skill grants no publishing or send rights.
Identify the artifact and destination
Record the inspected source artifact and its revision or byte identity, the intended destination and the relevant operation identity. A source path, preview or successful build does not identify the delivered copy.
Keep these observations separate, using the states the system exposes:
- Prepared: the source exists and has been inspected.
- Attempted: a send, upload or publication operation was issued.
- Acknowledged: the system returned a receipt matching that operation.
- Published: the intended destination exposes the artifact or revision.
- Consumer checked: the delivered artifact was opened in its intended use.
- Unverified: a necessary observation is unavailable or inconclusive.
These are claims with separate evidence, not a universal status sequence. An acknowledgement can establish system acceptance without establishing publication, usable content or that a human read the message.
Read the destination back
- If delivery is authorized, inspect its result and retain the operation or receipt identity. Match an acknowledgement to the latest applicable attempt, including artifact, destination and revision where available. An old or unrelated receipt cannot verify a newer attempt.
- Fetch or reopen the actual destination using an available read interface. Inspect the retrieved artifact rather than trusting a "saved" log, a status flag or a source preview. Record which destination revision was observed.
- Compare the destination with the inspected source. Hashes can establish equal bytes when both copies are accessible. For a service that transforms content, check the relevant content and revision, and state the narrower comparison; do not claim byte equality from a successful response.
- Check the delivered artifact through the appropriate consumer: decode an image, parse an export, open a document, or load and inspect the page. A matching hash does not establish that the format works or renders well. Likewise, a useful render alone does not establish source byte equality.
- Report destination read-back and consumer outcomes independently. If the destination cannot be inspected, report delivery as unverified and retain any known attempt or acknowledgement evidence without upgrading the claim.
Reconcile before retrying
A missing acknowledgement or timeout can leave a successful operation behind. Inspect destination state and correlate durable receipts with the original operation before resending. Unknown remains unresolved; do not manufacture certainty by sending again. Operation identity helps reconciliation only to the extent supported by that system; it is not a general exactly-once promise.
Use a brief receipt when delivery matters: source inspected, destination and operation, acknowledgement, read-back comparison, consumer result and gaps. For a local draft or trivial edit, report the observed result directly without inventing a delivery workflow or requesting new permissions to verify it.
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.

