claim-verification-and-promotion
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Verify candidate reverse-engineering claims against current source, actively search for counterexamples, narrow scope, and promote only defensible claims into canonical baseline memory.
In this repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- adversarial-baseline-auditSkill
- architecture-drift-detectionSkill
- architecture-reconstruction-and-diagramsSkill
- artifact-detailed-designSkill
- baseline-source-of-truth-maintenanceSkill
- configuration-source-traceSkill
- contract-impact-test-designSkill
- current-state-tdd-synthesisSkill
- design-artifact-decompositionSkill
- design-artifact-decomposition-verificationSkill
- detailed-design-verificationSkill
- full-reverse-engineeringSkill
- implementation-readiness-certificationSkill
- incident-root-cause-analysisSkill
- integration-selection-analysisSkill
- observability-traceability-analysisSkill
- patch-impact-reviewSkill
- persistence-schema-reverse-engineeringSkill
- post-readiness-adversarial-auditSkill
- regression-test-designSkill
- requirement-compliance-reviewSkill
- resolve-high-impact-unknownsSkill
- resume-reverse-engineeringSkill
- reverse-engineering-bootstrapSkill
- reverse-engineering-coverage-auditSkill
- run-engineering-workflowSkill
- runtime-binding-verificationSkill
- runtime-flow-analysisSkill
- technical-design-proposalSkill
- technical-design-verificationSkill
- wbs-generationSkill
- wbs-verificationSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 73
Do not transfer a condition from one surface to another without evidence.
- Distinctive: line 102
do not require an explicit output-layer condition if upstream flow already guarantees the result
- Distinctive: line 104
if a material provenance link is missing, do not PROMOTE
- Distinctive: line 135
Only PROMOTED claims may be copied into:
- Very specific: line 157
If an applicable item is unresolved, use VERIFIED_NOT_PROMOTED, KEEP AS HYPOTHESIS, or another non-promoted state as appropriate.
- Distinctive: line 164
When a promoted/candidate claim is challenged:
≈ “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
Claim Verification and Promotion — 4.0
Mission
Take candidate claims from:
00_hypotheses.md- detailed reverse-engineering docs
- pending evidence rows
and determine whether they deserve canonical promotion.
For Each Claim
1. Restate Precisely
Avoid words like:
- always
- all
- never
- global
- only
unless proven.
2. Supporting Evidence
Trace exact current source:
- caller
- condition
- selector
- implementation
- boundary
- config as relevant.
Material source-backed claims must record a repo-relative source path. When a specific class/method/function/config key is involved, record the symbol/key as well. Line/range is preferred when practical.
Evidence precision hierarchy:
path + symbol + line/range preferred
path + symbol strong
path minimum for material source-backed claim
class name only insufficient when path is discoverable3. Counterexample Search
Actively search:
- other implementations
- other call sites
- alternate branches
- config-driven paths
- target/model/version/mode variations
- fallback/retry
- reflection/service loader
- tests hinting at alternate production behavior
4. Scope Check
Narrow the claim to the actual proven domain.
For claims spanning multiple endpoints/operations/modes, create a compact scope matrix:
| Surface / Operation | Claim Applies? | Condition | Evidence |
Do not transfer a condition from one surface to another without evidence.
4A. Field / Data Provenance Gate
Mandatory for claims about:
- response/output fields
- conditionally exposed data
- persisted/configured values
- messages/events
- identifiers/normalized values
- downstream-derived state
Prove:
trigger / request condition
→ source/downstream retrieval
→ source field/data availability
→ parse/decode
→ transform/normalize
→ mapping/storage
→ serialization/output
→ observable resultRules:
- conditional output may be implemented indirectly by conditional retrieval
- do not require an explicit output-layer condition if upstream flow already guarantees the result
- implementation shape alone is not enough to promote an observable-behavior claim
- if a material provenance link is missing, do not PROMOTE
5. Baseline Version
Record current commit/branch if available.
6. Decision
PROMOTE
Requirements satisfied, including provenance when applicable.
VERIFIED_NOT_PROMOTED
Evidence supports the claim but one promotion governance requirement is intentionally deferred.
KEEP AS HYPOTHESIS
Useful but incomplete.
REJECT
Contradicted or unsupported.
Update Ledger
Record:
- verification method
- counterexample search
- result
- status
- supersession if applicable
Canonical Promotion
Only PROMOTED claims may be copied into:
00_current_understanding.md00_master_decision_matrix.md
Canonical entries must reference Evidence ID.
Promotion Completion Gate
Before PROMOTE:
[ ] claim wording is precise and scope-limited
[ ] current-source support exists
[ ] counterexamples/alternate paths were searched
[ ] scope conditions were not borrowed from another surface
[ ] runtime wiring is proven where relevant
[ ] field/data provenance is proven for observable-data claims
[ ] no material evidence link remains unresolved
[ ] material source evidence includes repo-relative path
[ ] symbol/config key is recorded where applicableIf an applicable item is unresolved, use VERIFIED_NOT_PROMOTED, KEEP AS HYPOTHESIS,
or another non-promoted state as appropriate.
Challenge Reverification
A user correction or reviewer disagreement is not evidence.
When a promoted/candidate claim is challenged:
- reopen the claim
- re-trace current source
- search counterevidence
- revise only if evidence supports revision
Important
A claim becoming familiar through repetition is not evidence.
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.

