check
Skill173 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
This skill should be used when the user wants to verify their changes before pushing, or update the project's rule checklists. Phase 1: validate changed files against .hoyeon/rules/ checklists and report PASS/WARN. Phase 2 (conditional): propose rule additions when unmatched patterns are detected. Essential before git push. Trigger phrases: "check", "checklist", "verify changes", "what did I miss", "pre-push check", "cascading changes", "any more changes needed", "update checklist", "update rules", "rules update", "체크", "체크리스트", "변경 확인", "빠뜨린 거 없나", "push 전 확인", "뭐 더 건드려야 해?", "연쇄 변경 확인", "규칙 갱신".
- Reads credentials
- Commits and pushes
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 67 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 44
Read YAML frontmatter from all .hoyeon/rules/*.md files to construct the rule graph.
- Very specific: line 48
Follow depends_on edges from matched rules to pull in related rules (1-depth only)
- Very specific: line 94
If active rules have agents or commands fields:
- Distinctive: line 96
agents: Run automatically via the Agent tool for additional verification.
- Distinctive: line 102
Read the changed code to determine whether a change is actually needed
- Very specific: line 126
Read references/rules-authoring.md for authoring guidelines, then classify findings:
- Very specific: line 149
After adding or modifying rules, verify that the frontmatter triggers patterns correctly match the intended files.
- Distinctive: line 157
If one or more WARN items exist, present the list and use AskUserQuestion to ask the user:
- Distinctive: line 163
When "Fix All" or "Select" is chosen, apply the fixes in order and display the updated results.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 67 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
Check — Change Verification + Rule Evolution
Analyze git diff against
.hoyeon/rules/to catch missed cascading changes, then propose rule updates when new unmatched patterns are detected.
Prerequisite: The project must have a .hoyeon/rules/ directory containing rule files with YAML frontmatter. If .hoyeon/rules/ does not exist, guide the user to create it: mkdir -p .hoyeon/rules, then help them write their first rule file following ${baseDir}/references/rules-authoring.md.
Two-phase structure:
- Phase 1 (always): Validate changes — produce PASS/WARN results
- Phase 2 (conditional): Propose rule updates — only when unmatched patterns exist
Phase 1: Change Validation
1. Collect Changed Files
# Gather committed + uncommitted changes
git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD
git diff --name-only --cached
git diff --name-onlyDeduplicate and store as CHANGED_FILES.
2. Build Rule Graph and Match
Read YAML frontmatter from all .hoyeon/rules/*.md files to construct the rule graph. Refer to references/rules-authoring.md ("Structure" section) for the frontmatter schema.
Matching order:
- Glob-match each file in
CHANGED_FILESagainst every rule'striggerspatterns - Follow
depends_onedges from matched rules to pull in related rules (1-depth only) - Finalize the active rule set
- Store unmatched files separately as
UNMATCHED_FILES(used in Phase 2)
Note: Meta documents (e.g., RULES.md) are excluded from matching.
3. Parallel Subagent Verification
Spawn one subagent per active rule using the Agent tool (subagent_type="general-purpose") and run them in parallel.
Pass each subagent:
- The
CHANGED_FILESlist - The rule file's body (checklist content)
- The actual diff of changed files (
git diff)
Each subagent:
- Applies checklist items against CHANGED_FILES
- Identifies cases where a file was changed but related files were not
- Reads the actual diff for WARN items to determine if the omission is genuine
- Returns results classified as PASS / WARN / Not Applicable
4. Aggregate and Output Results
Collect all subagent results and output them grouped by category: domain rules first, then concern rules, then pipeline rules.
## Phase 1: Verification Results
### PASS (N items)
#### domain
- [billing] schema.ts changed -> migration file created
#### concern
- [infra] .env changed -> terraform synced
#### pipeline
- [api-codegen] swagger changed -> types regenerated
### WARN (N items)
#### concern
- [ux] en.json changed -> ko.json not updated
### Not Applicable (N items)
- [docs] no docs/ changes5. Execute agents/commands
If active rules have agents or commands fields:
- agents: Run automatically via the Agent tool for additional verification. Merge any WARNs from agent results into the Phase 1 WARN list.
- commands: Present the commands to the user for manual execution (e.g.,
pnpm generate:api).
6. Process WARNs
For each WARN item:
- Read the changed code to determine whether a change is actually needed
- Distinguish between intentional omissions and accidental misses
- For genuine misses, specify exactly which file and section needs modification
Phase 2: Rule Update Proposals (Conditional)
Phase 2 trigger conditions — Execute Phase 2 if ANY of the following is true:
UNMATCHED_FILEScontains at least one meaningful source file (.ts,.tsx,.json,.yaml,.tf, etc.) — exclude meta files (.md, lock files, etc.)- Any WARN from Phase 1 indicates a rule gap (not a rule violation)
Skip condition: If
UNMATCHED_FILESis empty AND no WARNs indicate rule gaps, skip Phase 2 and proceed directly to follow-up actions (step 9).Distinguishing rule gaps from rule violations: If a WARN was caused by violating an existing checklist item, it is a rule violation (handled in Phase 1). If no checklist item exists anywhere that could have caught the WARN in advance, it is a rule gap — this triggers Phase 2.
7. Analyze Patterns and Cross-Reference Rules
Analyze UNMATCHED_FILES and Phase 1 WARN results to identify:
- Uncovered change patterns — file changes not matched by any rule's
triggers - Near-miss cascading changes — duplicate logic across multiple locations where only some were updated
- Newly discovered sync points — relationships where changing one location requires updating another
Read references/rules-authoring.md for authoring guidelines, then classify findings:
- Existing rule needs new items — propose the rule file and specific items to add
- New rule file needed — entirely new pattern not covered by any existing rule; include the
categoryfield (domain | concern | pipeline)
8. Output Rule Update Proposals
## Phase 2: Rule Update Proposals
1. [subscriptions.md] Add sync check for URL detection functions across 3 apps
- Reason: isSubstackUrl() duplicated in 3 locations, only 2 updated
2. [New file: webhook.md] Add sync check for webhook event changes
- category: domain
- Reason: new domain with no existing rule coverageConfirm each proposal with AskUserQuestion:
- "Add" — Apply the item to the rule file
- "Edit & Add" — Adjust the content before adding
- "Skip" — Unnecessary, skip this item
Apply approved items to the corresponding rule files. For new rule files, create them with frontmatter (category and triggers are required).
After adding or modifying rules, verify that the frontmatter triggers patterns correctly match the intended files.
9. Follow-Up Actions
Consolidate WARNs from Phase 1 and rule updates from Phase 2 into a follow-up change list.
If one or more WARN items exist, present the list and use AskUserQuestion to ask the user:
- "Fix All" — Automatically fix all WARN items
- "Select" — Choose specific items to fix (multiSelect)
- "Ignore & Proceed" — Treat as intentional omissions, finish without changes
When "Fix All" or "Select" is chosen, apply the fixes in order and display the updated results.
Additional Resources
Reference Files
${baseDir}/references/rules-authoring.md— Rule authoring principles, frontmatter schema, category classification, and abstraction-level guidelines. Consult when creating or updating rules.
Other versions77 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 77
- tw93/Waza★ 7.5ksame name
- tw93/claude-health★ 7.3ksame name
- katanemo/archgw★ 7.1ksame name
- katanemo/plano★ 7.1ksame name
- tokio-rs/topcoat★ 6.1ksame name
- Giskard-AI/giskard-oss★ 5.9ksame name
- VibiumDev/vibium★ 2.9ksame name
- DAIR-AutoResearch/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- PKU-DAIR/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
- skyllwt/AutoSci★ 1.7ksame name
67 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use daily-arxiv, exp-eval 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.
LambenthanSkilldaily-arxiv
每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文,过滤相关性,auto-ingest 高优先级论文,检测 SOTA 更新
Also in 5 projects that use this
LambenthanSkillexp-eval
实验判决门:Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges
Also in 5 projects that use this
JuliusBrusseeSkillbackprop
Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.
Also in 4 projects that use this
DAIR-AutoResearchSkillexp-pilot-eval
Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.
Also in 4 projects that use this
DAIR-AutoResearchSkillexp-pilot-run
Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +6 more from Lambenthan
- +1 more from DAIR-AutoResearch
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- analyze-ossSkill
- blueprintSkill
- browser-workSkill
- bugfixSkill
- clarifySkill
- compoundSkill
- councilSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dev-scanSkill
- discussSkill
- executeSkill
- google-searchSkill
- issueSkill
- mirrorSkill
- qaSkill
- ralphSkill
- reference-seekSkill
- rulphSkill
- scaffoldSkill
- skill-session-analyzerSkill
- specifySkill
- stepbackSkill
- tech-decisionSkill
- tribunalSkill
- ultraworkSkill
- verifySkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

