agentleFS
sunitghubsunitghub/canon-skills/skills/output-validator/SKILL.md

output-validator

Skill9 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub

Validates agent-generated reports and summaries before delivery. Catches generator-evaluator collapse — where the AI summarizes data without checking if the summary is true. Run before delivering any report, status update, or data summary.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before delivering any report or summary: define what a valid output looks like, generate, then verify the output against that spec.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Before pulling data or rendering output, answer these three questions and write the answers as a short checklist:

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    After the report is generated, run each check explicitly against the spec from Phase 1:

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Add up the detail rows and compare to the summary counts.

    line 32
  5. Very specific:

    If all checks pass: state output-validator: clean then deliver.

    line 42
  6. Distinctive:

    If any check fails: state the divergence, revise the affected section, then re-run the failed check before delivering.

    line 44

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Output Validator

Before delivering any report or summary: define what a valid output looks like, generate, then verify the output against that spec.

When to use

Any time an agent produces a summary over source data: status reports, feature trackers, project dashboards, analysis outputs. Run this before handing off to the user.

Phase 1 — Pre-generation spec

Before pulling data or rendering output, answer these three questions and write the answers as a short checklist:

  1. What counts reconcile? Name the summary metric and how it should relate to the detail rows. Example: "Released + In Development + Ready to Release = Total features."
  2. What exceptions must always surface? Name the categories that cannot be buried in detail regardless of the headline. Examples: security issues, blockers, items past their target date, status contradictions (a critical item marked done while work is open).
  3. What does an accurate headline look like? Define what the top-line metric (% complete, count, status) must reflect. Example: "99% complete is only accurate if no open security issues or blockers exist in the detail."

This checklist is the validation spec. Keep it visible — it is the external anchor for Phase 2.

Phase 2 — Post-generation checks

After the report is generated, run each check explicitly against the spec from Phase 1:

Check 1 — Number reconciliation Add up the detail rows and compare to the summary counts. Quote both. If they differ, state the discrepancy and correct the summary before delivering.

Check 2 — Exception surfacing Scan every detail row for the exception categories defined in Phase 1. List each hit explicitly — name, status, and why it matters. If any exception is present but absent from the summary or headline, flag it as a divergence.

Check 3 — Headline accuracy Given the exceptions found in Check 2, does the headline still hold? If a security issue, blocker, or overdue item exists in the detail, the headline must acknowledge it — or be revised to accurately represent the actual state.

Output

If all checks pass: state output-validator: clean then deliver.

If any check fails: state the divergence, revise the affected section, then re-run the failed check before delivering.

Usage in claude.ai / Project instructions

This skill has no sub-skills and works in any single-model environment. To use in claude.ai without Claude Code: paste the content of this skill (below the frontmatter) into your Project's custom instructions. The agent will follow the two-phase protocol for any report task in that project.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.