validate-issue-loop
Skill50 starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user asks to validate a GitHub issue and then autonomously drive it to a reviewed PR in one shot — "validate and work on this issue", "validate-issue-loop", "fully automate issue #N". Runs validate-issue, auto-applies its update-issue edits when the verdict calls for it, then hands off to work-on-issue-loop with no plan stage — stopping instead when validation flags the issue as too large, architecturally infeasible, or already addressed by an existing PR, or recommended for closure as completed or invalid, or when the issue edit does not land.
In this repository39 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- app-prdSkill
- cli-dispatchSkill
- codex-validate-plan-work-on-issueSkill
- create-releaseSkill
- execution-plan-reviewSkill
- expo-app-initializeSkill
- fable-advisorSkill
- fable-dispatchSkill
- fable-new-issue-loopSkill
- fable-new-issueSkill
- fable-orchestrateSkill
- fableplan-loopSkill
- fableplanSkill
- fableplan-work-on-issueSkill
- fable-validate-fableplan-loopSkill
- fable-validate-fableplanSkill
- fable-validate-loopSkill
- fable-validateSkill
- fix-pr-review-loopSkill
- fix-pr-reviewSkill
- github-issue-formatSkill
- issueplanSkill
- milestoneplanSkill
- milestone-workflowSkill
- new-app-pipelineSkill
- new-issue-loopSkill
- new-issueSkill
- prd-questionsSkill
- prd-to-issuesSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- sync-docs-releaseSkill
- sync-docsSkill
- tldrSkill
- validate-fableplan-loopSkill
- validate-issueSkill
- wansSkill
- work-on-issue-loopSkill
- work-on-issueSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is 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.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 11
Do not skip validation: Every step of validate-issue still runs.
- Very specific: line 19
Follow fable-validate-loop steps 1 through 3, which own the verdict block, the owner/repo#N record, the stop table, and the edit step with …
≈ “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-issue-loop
Chain validate-issue → (conditional) update issue → work-on-issue-loop into one autonomous run. Where validate-issue's → next-step line would wait for the user's reply, read the verdict yourself and decide the next step.
Do not skip validation. Every step of validate-issue still runs; only the "wait for the user's reply" step is replaced by the decision rules below.
Input
Same as fable-validate-loop, including the optional targetBranch.
Steps
Follow fable-validate-loop steps 1 through 3, which own the verdict block, the owner/repo#N record, the stop table, and the edit step with its landing check, with these changes:
Step 1 (validation): invoke the plain validate-issue skill (Skill tool, skill: validate-issue) in place of fable-validate. Let it run its full process, steps 0 through 8, and parse the verdict block that fable-validate-loop step 1 quotes. Its final → next-step line is written for interactive use, so treat the verdict as structured output and decide from the step 2 table. Record the resolved issue as owner/repo#N per fable-validate-loop step 1.
Step 2 (scope gate): fable-validate-loop step 2's STOP table applies, sourced from the plain validation (the already-addressing PR comes from validate-issue's step 1 linked-PR check; too large from validate-issue step 7). Rows (a) to (c) are Fable validation only and do not apply here.
Step 3 (update-issue edits): apply validate-issue's step 11 (this chain has no fable-validate step), from the current checkout, with fable-validate-loop step 3's read-back and STOP row unchanged. The stacked attribution line is Validated with LLM: <session model> | <session tier> | Harness: <harness> | validate-issue-loop, naming the session model and tier that ran the validation.
Then run this skill's steps 4 and 5 in place of fable-validate-loop's steps 4 to 6.
4. Hand off to work-on-issue-loop
This chain never plans. Read the plan signal once: a plan is due when fable-validate-loop step 4's gate would run fableplan, that is, when the verdict signal is plan: yes, the validation flags a safety concern, or the issue's ## Execution block (read after step 3) stamps plan first: Yes (or the legacy fableplan first: Yes). When a plan is due, build with no plan and record it for step 5.
Invoke the work-on-issue-loop skill (Skill tool, skill: work-on-issue-loop) with the step 1 owner/repo#N passed explicitly.
5. Report
Relay work-on-issue-loop's final summary to the user (PR URL, review cycles run, final verdict). Prefix it with a one-line note of what happened in steps 2 and 3 (issue updated or not; scope check passed). When step 4 recorded a due plan, say that a plan was due and that validate-fableplan-loop is the chain that plans. On a STOP row, report the row and its evidence in place of the summary.
Cap the whole report (prefix + relayed summary) at 55 words and 5 sentences, plain simple English in ASD-STE100 — apply the Response Style rules in CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md, written for a reader with no context on this codebase or its internals.
Red Flags — STOP
fable-validate-loop's Red Flags table applies, reading "validate-issue" wherever it says "fable-validate" and "the step 4 handoff" wherever it says "fableplan runs". Two owner rows do not apply: the row for step 2 rows (a) to (c) and the fableplan's sanity-check row. The owner's first row reads, for this chain, as the row below. In addition:
| Situation | Action |
| Tempted to skip validation and jump to implementation | Never skip validation; this chain has no plan stage and no sanctioned skip |
Tempted to run fableplan because the signal reads yes | This chain never plans; build without a plan and name validate-fableplan-loop in the report |
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.