verification
Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Domain-specific verification beyond tests, closing the feedback loop for web, API, CLI, data
- Sends data out
47 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- neuraforge-cl-es/adaptive-engineeringtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- facebook/docusaurustheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- maideps/ai-harness-frameworktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Lanqiao-Luca/ai-java-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Beskars-Code/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- Gabriel-Lafrance/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use evidence-driven-writing, experiment-results-planning and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Norman-burySkillevidence-driven-writing
Use when writing or revising Introduction, Related Work, background, literature synthesis, or any section where references must drive claims
Also in 3 projects that use this
Norman-burySkillexperiment-results-planning
Use when designing experiments, result tables, mock planning data, evaluation protocols, or results sections before real data are final
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +10 more from Norman-bury
Other versions47 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- sefaertunc/anthropic-watch★ 1100% same
Wrote their own version · 46
- facebook/docusaurus★ 67ksame name
- open-metadata/OpenMetadata★ 16ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- hi-godot/godot-ai★ 3.4ksame name
- Norman-bury/research-writing-skill★ 3.4ksame name
- Norman-bury/articlewriting-skill★ 3.4ksame name
- forcedotcom/salesforcedx-vscode★ 1ksame name
- vercel/vercel-plugin★ 328same name
- s3s-project/s3s★ 315same name
- project-numina/numina-lean-agent★ 279same name
36 more not listed
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 repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-routingSkill
- backend-conventionsSkill
- claude-md-maintenanceSkill
- coding-principlesSkill
- context-managementSkill
- coordinator-modeSkill
- frontend-design-systemSkill
- git-conventionsSkill
- memory-architectureSkill
- planning-with-filesSkill
- project-patternsSkill
- prompt-engineeringSkill
- review-and-handoffSkill
- security-checklistSkill
- subagent-usageSkill
- testingSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
28 rules. 0 are common, 28 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 39 edited versions we read keep these.
28
Distinctive
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 29
Every change needs a feedback loop: make a change, verify it worked, then move on.
- Distinctive: line 37
After changing UI or API behavior:
- Distinctive: line 39
Start the dev server
- Distinctive: line 41
Test the happy path manually
- Distinctive: line 42
Test at least one error path
- Distinctive: line 43
Check browser console for errors/warnings
- Distinctive: line 44
Verify responsive behavior if UI changed
- Distinctive: line 58
Test beyond the happy path:
- Distinctive: line 67
Use curl, httpie, or the project's API test suite.
- Distinctive: line 72
After changing CLI behavior:
- Distinctive: line 74
Run the command with typical arguments
- Distinctive: line 75
Run with edge case arguments (empty, very long, special characters)
- Distinctive: line 76
Run with invalid arguments (verify error messages are helpful)
- Distinctive: line 77
Test piping and redirection if applicable
- Distinctive: line 93
After changing data transformations:
- Distinctive: line 95
Run with sample input data
- Distinctive: line 96
Verify output schema matches expectations
- Distinctive: line 97
Check row counts (input vs output)
- Distinctive: line 99
Test with empty input
- Distinctive: line 100
Test with malformed input
- Distinctive: line 112
All five must pass. If any fails, stop and fix before continuing.
- Distinctive: line 117
Don't panic. Read the error carefully.
- Distinctive: line 118
Check if it's a pre-existing issue or something you introduced.
- Distinctive: line 119
If you introduced it, fix it before committing.
- Distinctive: line 120
If it's pre-existing, document it and decide whether to fix now or file it.
- Distinctive: line 131
Use pre-flight for anything that can be checked cheaply up front.
- Distinctive: line 139
Don't skip verification because "it's a small change." Small changes cause production outages too.
- Distinctive: line 142
If verification is painful, invest in making it easier.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 39 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Verification
Note: The bash examples below are reference snippets. If you enable
disableSkillShellExecutionin Claude Code settings (v2.1.101+), any inline shell execution from skills is blocked. These fenced examples are safe to read; copy-paste them into your terminal to run.
Beyond Unit Tests
Unit tests verify code logic. Verification confirms the feature actually works in its real environment. Both are necessary. Neither alone is sufficient.
The /verify command runs automated checks, but domain-specific verification often requires manual steps or specialized tooling.
Closing the Feedback Loop
Every change needs a feedback loop: make a change, verify it worked, then move on. The loop must be closed BEFORE committing.
Bad workflow: change code -> commit -> move to next task -> discover it's broken Good workflow: change code -> verify -> commit -> move to next task
Web Application Verification
After changing UI or API behavior:
- Start the dev server
- Navigate to the affected page/endpoint
- Test the happy path manually
- Test at least one error path
- Check browser console for errors/warnings
- Verify responsive behavior if UI changed
For API changes:
# Test the endpoint directly
curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/api/resource \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"field": "value"}'
# Check response status and bodyAPI Verification
Test beyond the happy path:
- Valid request with all fields
- Valid request with minimum fields
- Invalid request (missing required field)
- Invalid request (wrong types)
- Authentication failures
- Rate limiting behavior
- Concurrent request handling (if relevant)
Use curl, httpie, or the project's API test suite. Automate what you can, but do at least one manual check of the actual running server.
CLI Verification
After changing CLI behavior:
- Run the command with typical arguments
- Run with edge case arguments (empty, very long, special characters)
- Run with invalid arguments (verify error messages are helpful)
- Test piping and redirection if applicable
- Verify exit codes
# Test normal usage
my-cli init --name "test project"
# Test error handling
my-cli init # missing required flag
# Test edge cases
my-cli init --name "" # empty stringData Pipeline Verification
After changing data transformations:
- Run with sample input data
- Verify output schema matches expectations
- Check row counts (input vs output)
- Spot-check specific records for correctness
- Test with empty input
- Test with malformed input
Build Verification
The full verification suite (triggered by /verify):
npm test/pytest/cargo test— unit and integration testsnpm run build/ equivalent — compilation and bundlingnpm run lint/ equivalent — style and static analysis- Type checking if applicable (
tsc --noEmit,mypy, etc.) - Domain-specific checks from above
All five must pass. If any fails, stop and fix before continuing.
When Verification Reveals Problems
If verification fails:
- Don't panic. Read the error carefully.
- Check if it's a pre-existing issue or something you introduced.
- If you introduced it, fix it before committing.
- If it's pre-existing, document it and decide whether to fix now or file it.
Verification Gate Types
Different situations call for different gate behaviors:
- Pre-flight: Validate preconditions before starting. Deterministic checks only (file exists, env var set, branch clean). Fail fast if not met.
- Revision: Evaluate output quality, loop back with feedback. Maximum 3 iterations before escalating to user.
- Escalation: Surface unresolvable issues to the user. Pause work, present options clearly, wait for input.
- Abort: Terminate to prevent damage. Preserve current state, report what happened and why, suggest recovery steps.
Use pre-flight for anything that can be checked cheaply up front. Use revision for quality gates that may need iteration. Escalate when you've exhausted your ability to resolve. Abort only when continuing would make things worse.
Gotchas
- "Tests pass" is not the same as "it works." A test suite can have 100% coverage and still miss real-world failures. Always do at least one real verification.
- Don't skip verification because "it's a small change." Small changes cause production outages too.
- Browser console errors are free bug reports. Check them.
- If verification is painful, invest in making it easier. A script that starts the server, runs checks, and reports results saves cumulative hours.
- Flaky tests must be fixed or quarantined. A test suite that sometimes fails trains people to ignore failures.
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.

