validation-pipeline
Skill524 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub
Runs multi-stage validation gates with per-step scoring, pass/fail verdicts, and aggregate quality reports. Use when validating requirements, code, or artifacts through structured gate enforcement before merge or release.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AgentShekel/agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- AgentShekel/agentic-workflow★ 4same name
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 repository129 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/commands/monitoring/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- aqe-plan-qualitySkill
- aqe-plan-workSkill
- aqe-researchSkill
- aqe-review-qualitySkill
- aqe-rufloSkill
- aqe-test-changeSkill
- rufloSkill
- a11y-allySkill
- accessibility-testingSkill
- AgentDB Advanced FeaturesSkill
- AgentDB Learning PluginsSkill
- AgentDB Memory PatternsSkill
- AgentDB Performance OptimizationSkill
- AgentDB Vector SearchSkill
- agentic-quality-engineeringSkill
- api-testing-patternsSkill
- browserSkill
- brutal-honesty-reviewSkill
- bug-reporting-excellenceSkill
- chaos-engineering-resilienceSkill
- cicd-pipeline-qe-orchestratorSkill
- code-review-qualitySkill
- compatibility-testingSkill
- compliance-testingSkill
- consultancy-practicesSkill
- context-driven-testingSkill
- contract-testingSkill
- coverage-drop-investigatorSkill
- coverage-guardSkill
- database-testingSkill
- debug-loopSkill
- e2e-flow-verifierSkill
- enterprise-integration-testingSkill
- exploratory-testing-advancedSkill
- flow-nexus-neuralSkill
- flow-nexus-platformSkill
- flow-nexus-swarmSkill
- freeze-testsSkill
- github-code-reviewSkill
- github-multi-repoSkill
- github-project-managementSkill
- github-release-managementSkill
- github-workflow-automationSkill
- holistic-testing-pactSkill
- Hooks AutomationSkill
- iterative-loopSkill
- localization-testingSkill
- middleware-testing-patternsSkill
- mobile-testingSkill
- mutation-testingSkill
- n8n-expression-testingSkill
- n8n-integration-testing-patternsSkill
- n8n-security-testingSkill
- n8n-trigger-testing-strategiesSkill
- n8n-workflow-testing-fundamentalsSkill
- no-skipSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are 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.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 15
Run structured validation pipelines that execute steps sequentially, enforce gates at blocking failures, and produce scored reports.
- Distinctive: line 19
When validating requirements documents
- Distinctive: line 20
When running structured quality gates
- Distinctive: line 21
When assessing document completeness, testability, or traceability
- Very specific: line 22
When invoked via /validation-pipeline
- Distinctive: line 44
Read the file specified by the user.
- Distinctive: line 115
After pipeline execution, record the outcome for learning:
≈ “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
Validation Pipeline
Purpose
Run structured validation pipelines that execute steps sequentially, enforce gates at blocking failures, and produce scored reports. Uses .claude/helpers/validation-pipeline.cjs with 13 requirements validation steps (BMAD-003).
Activation
- When validating requirements documents
- When running structured quality gates
- When assessing document completeness, testability, or traceability
- When invoked via
/validation-pipeline
Quick Start
# Validate a requirements document (all 13 steps)
/validation-pipeline requirements docs/requirements.md
# Validate with specific steps only
/validation-pipeline requirements docs/requirements.md --steps format-check,completeness-check,invest-criteria
# Continue past blocking failures
/validation-pipeline requirements docs/requirements.md --continue-on-failure
# Output as JSON
/validation-pipeline requirements docs/requirements.md --jsonWorkflow
Step 1: Read the Target Document
Read the file specified by the user. If no file is provided, ask for one.
Read the target document using the Read tool.
Store the content for pipeline execution.Step 2: Select Pipeline
Choose the appropriate pipeline based on the user's request:
| Pipeline | Steps | Use Case |
requirements | 13 | Requirements documents, PRDs, user stories |
Additional pipelines can be added to .claude/helpers/validation-pipeline.cjs.
Step 3: Execute Pipeline
The pipeline helper (.claude/helpers/validation-pipeline.cjs) handles execution:
- Sequential execution — steps run in order, each receiving results from prior steps
- Gate enforcement — blocking steps that fail halt the pipeline (unless
--continue-on-failure) - Per-step scoring — each step produces a 0-100 score with findings and evidence
- Weighted rollup — overall score uses category weights (format=10%, content=30%, quality=25%, traceability=20%, compliance=15%)
Requirements Pipeline Steps (13 total)
| # | Step ID | Category | Severity | What It Checks |
| 1 | format-check | format | blocking | Headings, required sections, document length |
| 2 | completeness-check | content | blocking | Required fields populated, acceptance criteria present |
| 3 | invest-criteria | quality | warning | Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable |
| 4 | smart-acceptance | quality | warning | Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound |
| 5 | testability-score | quality | warning | Can each requirement be tested? |
| 6 | vague-term-detection | content | info | Flags "should", "might", "various", "etc." |
| 7 | information-density | content | info | Every sentence carries weight, no filler |
| 8 | traceability-check | traceability | warning | Requirements-to-tests mapping exists |
| 9 | implementation-leakage | quality | warning | Requirements don't prescribe implementation |
| 10 | domain-compliance | compliance | info | Alignment with domain model |
| 11 | dependency-analysis | traceability | info | Cross-requirement dependencies identified |
| 12 | bdd-scenario-generation | quality | warning | Can generate Given/When/Then for each requirement |
| 13 | holistic-quality | compliance | blocking | Overall coherence, no contradictions |
Step 4: Report Results
Format the pipeline result as a structured report:
# Validation Report: Requirements Pipeline
**Overall**: PASS/FAIL/WARN | **Score**: 85/100 | **Duration**: 42ms
## Step Results
| # | Step | Status | Score | Findings | Duration |
|---|------|--------|-------|----------|----------|
| 1 | Format Check | PASS | 100 | 0 | 2ms |
| 2 | Completeness | WARN | 60 | 2 | 5ms |
...
## Blockers
- (blocking findings listed here)
## All Findings
- [HIGH] Missing acceptance criteria: Requirement US-104 has no AC
- [MEDIUM] Vague term: "should" used 5 times without specifics
...Step 5: Record Learning
After pipeline execution, record the outcome for learning:
// Store validation pattern
memory store --namespace validation-pipeline --key "req-validation-{timestamp}" --value "{score, findings_count, halted}"Parameters
| Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
pipeline | string | requirements | Pipeline type to run |
file | string | required | Path to document to validate |
--steps | string | all | Comma-separated step IDs to run (e.g., format-check,completeness-check) |
--continue-on-failure | boolean | false | Skip blocking gates |
--json | boolean | false | Output as JSON instead of markdown |
--metadata | object | {} | Additional context for steps |
Integration Points
- qe-requirements-validator agent — delegates structured validation to this pipeline
- qe-quality-gate agent — uses pipeline for gate evaluation
- YAML Pipelines — can invoke validation steps as workflow actions
- MCP — accessible via
pipeline_validatetool
Output Schema
The pipeline produces a PipelineResult object (see schemas/output.json):
{
pipelineId: string;
pipelineName: string;
overall: 'pass' | 'fail' | 'warn';
score: number; // 0-100 weighted average
steps: StepResult[]; // per-step details
blockers: Finding[]; // blocking findings
halted: boolean;
haltedAt?: string; // step ID where halted
totalDuration: number;
timestamp: string;
}Error Handling
- Step throws exception — captured as a FAIL with critical finding, pipeline continues or halts per severity
- File not found — report error, do not run pipeline
- Empty document — format-check step will catch this as a blocking failure
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.

