validate-answer
Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Trust-check an answer, plan, or decision you already have — multiple identical independent reads converge per question, agreement signals confidence and splits flag what's contested, then walk each decision. TRIGGER when: user says 'validate', 'trust-check', 'is this right', 'pressure-test my decision'; user has a near-final answer or a few focused decisions to confirm. SKIP when: no answer yet, want one built (best-answer); surfacing what's missing (find-gaps).
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-soulSkill
- audit-transcripts-for-learningsSkill
- best-answerSkill
- check-coherenceSkill
- compress-fileSkill
- deep-modulesSkill
- design-critiqueSkill
- durable-docs-updateSkill
- execute-chatSkill
- execute-planSkill
- explain-deeplySkill
- explain-simplySkill
- find-gapsSkill
- fix-verify-loopSkill
- generate-mockupsSkill
- grill-meSkill
- handoffSkill
- interview-meSkill
- jtbdSkill
- map-design-languageSkill
- memory-pruneSkill
- multi-agent-analysisSkill
- place-factSkill
- post-purchase-ui-extensionSkill
- product-interviewSkill
- prove-behaviorSkill
- refine-fileSkill
- second-opinionSkill
- sentry-analysisSkill
- shopify-dev-mcpSkill
- structure-proseSkill
- tech-designSkill
- test-completed-planSkill
- tighten-fileSkill
- tighten-instructionSkill
- tldrSkill
- triageSkill
- trim-specSkill
- two-pass-reviewSkill
- vet-factSkill
- write-planSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 15
NOT this if you have no answer yet and want one built → best-answer.
- Very specific: line 16
NOT this if you want to surface what you missed → find-gaps.
- Very specific: line 17
NOT this if you're grading one concrete proposal → second-opinion.
- Very specific: line 25
Preflight: if any question is vague, sharpen via AskUserQuestion first.
- Distinctive: line 36
Dependency override: if a decision can invalidate later questions, walk it first.
- Very specific: line 43
Checkpoint: use AskUserQuestion to confirm the walk order before walking.
≈ “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
Validate Answer
Trust-check an answer or a few focused decisions.
When to use
You have an answer, plan, or decision and want to know if you can trust it.
- Multiple identical independent reads: agreement = confidence, disagreement = contested. The reviewers are deliberately the same — diversity here would destroy the signal.
- NOT this if you have no answer yet and want one built →
best-answer. - NOT this if you want to surface what you missed →
find-gaps. - NOT this if you're grading one concrete proposal →
second-opinion.
Steps
Step 1 — Dispatch
- Reviewers: R0 (you, concurrent) + R1, R2 (two
general-purposesubagents in parallel). - Prompt (identical for all three): artifact path(s), the questions, a confidence (0.00–1.00) and impact score per recommendation.
- Preflight: if any question is vague, sharpen via
AskUserQuestionfirst. - Output schema per question: recommendation, confidence (0.00–1.00), impact — render
Label (value): Minimal (0.25) · Low (0.5) · Medium (1) · High (2) · Massive (3) — 1-2 sentence reason. - Unprompted observations (any reviewer): 1-sentence claim, raising reviewer(s), confidence 0.00–1.00, impact; merge duplicates.
Step 2 — Classify, synthesize, and confirm
- Classify each question by its three reviewer scores — here unanimous agreement is the trust signal:
- agreed — all three ≥ 0.80. Unanimous across identical reviewers; the answer holds.
- contested — ≥1 reviewer ≥ 0.80 OR ≥2 reviewers ≥ 0.70. Real support, not consensus — walk it, flagged as contested.
- drop — ≤1 reviewer ≥ 0.70 and none ≥ 0.80. Too thin to walk.
- Order: sort the walk set by max score descending.
- Dependency override: if a decision can invalidate later questions, walk it first.
- Table:
| # | Question | R0 | R1 | R2 | Impact | Band |
Band = agreed or contested.
- Checkpoint: use
AskUserQuestionto confirm the walk order before walking.
Step 3 — Walk questions one at a time
Queue rule: drop later questions invalidated by an approved decision, with a one-line reason.
For each question:
- Present: restate the question, quote the artifact span if location-specific, show R0/R1/R2 side-by-side, and say whether it came in
agreedorcontested. - Decide:
AskUserQuestionwith options: apply / alternative / defer. Apply if actionable; otherwise record.- On pushback: invoke the
second-opinionskill via the Skill tool on the challenged pick.
- On pushback: invoke the
Step 4 — Walk unprompted observations
List all observations; walk those at confidence ≥ 0.80 (Step 3's sub-procedure, skip R0/R1/R2 split) — a solo observation is uncorroborated.
Step 5 — Summary
One line each:
- Decisions applied — question # + pick.
- Decisions deferred — reason.
- Questions skipped (upstream invalidation) — reason.
- Questions dropped (Step 2 drop band) — question + score.
- Unprompted observations — applied / deferred / dropped.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

