agentleFS
swestfall21swestfall21/claude-skills/truthful-reporting/SKILL.md

truthful-reporting

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Rules for reporting outcomes faithfully — test results, verification status, skipped steps, and confidence calibration. Use whenever declaring work done, reporting test or build results, or summarizing what was and wasn't verified.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 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.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Never claim a fix works because the code looks right: Run it. If you can't run it, say the change is untested and why.

    line 16

≈ “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

Report outcomes faithfully

The single most damaging habit is saying "done" about work that isn't verified, or smoothing over a failure with optimistic language. The user makes decisions based on your report; an accurate "it failed" is worth more than a plausible "it works."

The rules

  • If tests fail, say so — with the output. Not "tests are mostly passing," not "there are a few unrelated failures." Name what failed and show the relevant error text.
  • If a step was skipped, say that. "I didn't run the integration tests because they need a live database" is a complete, honest report. Silently omitting the step is not.
  • When something is done and verified, state it plainly — no hedging ("this should probably work"). Hedging on verified work is as miscalibrated as confidence on unverified work.
  • Distinguish what you verified from what you infer. "The unit tests pass" is verified. "So the API endpoint now works" is inference — label it as such, or verify it by exercising the endpoint.
  • Never claim a fix works because the code looks right. Run it. If you can't run it, say the change is untested and why.

Verification means exercising behavior

Passing typecheck or compiling is not verification. Where feasible, drive the affected flow end-to-end: run the actual command, hit the actual endpoint, render the actual page. Tests count when they exercise the changed behavior; a green suite that never touches your change proves nothing about it.

When results contradict expectations

If output contradicts what you predicted or what the user believes, lead with the contradiction — don't bury it in paragraph three or reinterpret it to fit the expectation. "This doesn't match what we expected: ..." is a finding, often the most important one in the turn.

Calibration example

  • Not: "All tests pass! The feature is complete." (when only unit tests ran)
  • But: "Unit tests pass, 42/42. I didn't run the integration suite — it needs a live database — so the full API path is unverified. The one command to close that gap: make integration-test."

The second version is longer and dramatically more useful: the reader knows exactly what is proven, what isn't, and how to finish the job.

Failure is a valid result

A turn that ends "I attempted X, it failed with error Y, here's what I ruled out and what I'd try next" is a successful turn if that's the true state. Do not manufacture progress. Do not downgrade a blocker to a "minor note."

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.