validate
Skill0 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub
Determine whether a verified change actually satisfies the governing intent under representative conditions. Use when technical correctness alone cannot establish that the right outcome was achieved.
63 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- joeldevz/skynex-pitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- 99Luuk/Forge-or-Scraptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- etr/groundworktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- cykedev/vereinsheimtheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- vzhukovs/podman-desktop-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- aya-taleb/biz-ready-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use policy-init, create and 9 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.
open-coder-aiSkillpolicy-init
Create conformant Chock policy from request. args(request, target_path,
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillcreate
Also in 4 projects that use this
HermeticOrmusSkillclose
End-of-session ritual. Captures session state, updates auto-memory, writes a session summary, then exits the session cleanly.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Hugging FaceSkillsprint
Work on a batch of GitHub issues in parallel using Agent Teams. Creates one worktree per issue with TDD enforcement, coordinates via a lead agent, then produces stacked PRs.
Also in 4 projects that use this
qtzx06Skilleval
Evaluate trained YOLO model accuracy with mAP metrics and per-class error analysis. Identifies failure cases for targeted improvement. Use after training.
Also in 4 projects that use this
csiddhant796-blipSkillboard
Read, write, and browse the AgentHub message board for agent coordination.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions63 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 63
- iPlug2/iPlug2★ 2.4ksame name
- sirius-db/sirius★ 1.1ksame name
- H-mmer/pentest-agents★ 815same name
- nudgebee/nudgebee★ 520same name
- microsoft/skills-for-copilot-studio★ 486same name
- boshu2/agentops★ 453same name
- scaccogatto/okf-skills★ 444same name
- whawkinsiv/solo-founder-skills★ 260same name
- whawkinsiv/claude-code-skills★ 258same name
- OffchainLabs/arbitrum-docs★ 252same name
53 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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- create-checkSkill
- decideSkill
- design-changeSkill
- design-moduleSkill
- groundSkill
- harden-boundarySkill
- harden-checkSkill
- intentSkill
- investigateSkill
- learnSkill
- pave-pathSkill
- ratchetSkill
- realizeSkill
- specifySkill
- verifySkill
- wire-checkSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 53 edited versions we read keep these.
1
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 14
Use representative conditions: Prefer realistic actors, environments, data, workloads, workflows, and dependency behavior.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 53 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
Validate
Determine whether we built the right thing. Verification establishes conformance; validation establishes intended effect.
Work
- Return to the intent. Temporarily ignore implementation success and restate the real-world change this work was meant to produce.
- Define outcome evidence. Identify observations that would support or falsify achievement of that intent. Do not substitute convenient implementation metrics without justification.
- Use representative conditions. Prefer realistic actors, environments, data, workloads, workflows, and dependency behavior.
- Detect proxy success. Deployment is not adoption; traffic is not demand; passing tests is not usability; feature completion is not problem resolution.
- Compare reality with intent. Classify the outcome as satisfied, partially satisfied, not satisfied, or insufficient evidence.
- Expose discrepancy. Describe the gap without rationalizing it. Route the discrepancy to grounding, specification, investigation, decision, or realization as appropriate.
For a UI added to an existing product, inspect the complete representative workflow inside its real layout and compare it with the product's established screens. Evaluate hierarchy, primary actions, density, typography, spacing, and relevant viewport behavior. An isolated component capture or passing interaction test does not establish visual integration. Record discrepancies or unavailable visual evidence explicitly; do not substitute functional coverage for usability or fit.
Return
- Governing intent
- Validation method
- Outcome evidence
- Result: SATISFIED / PARTIAL / NOT SATISFIED / INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
- Discrepancies
- Remaining uncertainty
- Next loop, if needed
Failure signals
Watch for validating the implementation instead of the intent, proxy metrics silently becoming goals, unrealistic test conditions, and declaring victory because the artifact shipped.
Done when
There is sufficient representative evidence to assess the intended outcome, or the inability to obtain that evidence is itself explicit and actionable.
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.

