verify-django
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Django/DRF verification checklist — models, serializers, views, security, API contract.
- Reads credentials
In this repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- actionableSkill
- astro-bootstrapSkill
- astro-patternsSkill
- autopilotSkill
- axon-code-intelSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- commit-conventionsSkill
- cross-repo-contextSkill
- django-bootstrapSkill
- django-patternsSkill
- executeSkill
- find-sessionSkill
- flutter-bootstrapSkill
- flutter-patternsSkill
- full-featureSkill
- intelSkill
- nextjs-bootstrapSkill
- nextjs-fullstack-bootstrapSkill
- nextjs-fullstack-patternsSkill
- nextjs-mui-bootstrapSkill
- nextjs-patternsSkill
- nextjs-shadcn-bootstrapSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- phase-breakdownSkill
- plan-and-scopeSkill
- prdSkill
- reactSkill
- recallSkill
- reflectSkill
- relaySkill
- rememberSkill
- scaffoldSkill
- scratchSkill
- tailwindSkill
- ux-specSkill
- ux-to-promptsSkill
- verify-astroSkill
- verify-flutterSkill
- verify-nextjs-fullstackSkill
- verify-nextjs-muiSkill
- verify-nextjs-shadcnSkill
- verify-nextjsSkill
- verifySkill
- visual-feedbackSkill
- work-disciplineSkill
- worktreesSkill
- wrapSkill
- write-as-friendSkill
- write-as-humanSkill
- writing-clearlySkill
- writing-skillsSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 14
Run through each section. Flag issues as PASS, WARN, or FAIL.
≈ “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.
Files
Skill: Verify Django
Purpose
Systematic verification checklist for Django/DRF code. Used by the reviewer agent in a separate Claude session after code execution.
Verification Process
Run through each section. Flag issues as PASS, WARN, or FAIL.
1. Tests
- Tests exist for new/changed code
pytestpasses with no failures- Test coverage is reasonable (not just happy path)
- Factory data is realistic (not "test123" placeholder values)
2. Models
- Migrations are generated and match model changes
- No migration conflicts with main branch
- New fields have sensible defaults or are nullable where appropriate
- Indexes exist on fields used in filters/lookups
__str__methods are defined
3. Serializers
- Fields are explicitly listed (no
__all__) - Read vs write serializers separated where needed
- Validation covers edge cases (empty strings, nulls, boundaries)
- Nested serializer performance — no N+1 from nested reads
4. Views
permission_classesset on every view- Querysets use
select_related/prefetch_relatedappropriately - Pagination is configured for list endpoints
- Error responses are consistent and informative
- No business logic in views — delegated to models/services
5. Security
- Authentication required on all non-public endpoints
- Object-level permissions checked (not just role-based)
SECRET_KEYis set from the environment and not the shipped default (django-insecure-change-me-in-production) in production- No sensitive data in response bodies that shouldn't be there
- Input validation prevents injection (Django handles most, but check raw SQL)
6. API Contract
- Endpoint paths follow project conventions
- Response shapes are consistent with existing endpoints
- Integration summary is up to date
- Breaking changes are documented
7. Code Quality
- No commented-out code
- No debug prints or leftover logging
- Imports are clean (no unused)
- Linting passes (ruff/flake8)
- Type hints on function signatures
8. Development Environment
Dockerfile.devexistsdocker-compose.ymlhas the services for the project's blueprint tier — minimal: web + db; standard: + redis; full: + celery + celery-beat (check which tier the project was bootstrapped with)Makefileexists and wraps all commands viadocker compose exec- No
python manage.pycommands used directly on host
Output
Produce a verification-report.md:
# Verification Report: [Feature/Phase]
Date: [date]
Reviewer: Claude (automated)
## Summary: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
## Details
### Tests: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- [notes]
### Models: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- [notes]
...
## Issues Found
1. [FAIL] Description + suggested fix
2. [WARN] Description + recommendation
## Recommended Actions
- [ ] Fix: ...
- [ ] Consider: ...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.

