agentleFS
tuana-vntuana-vn/system-reverse-engineer/.github/skills/wbs-verification/SKILL.md

wbs-verification

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Independently verify an implementation WBS for completeness, traceability, dependency correctness, source/design consistency, verification coverage, and missing work. Use before implementation readiness certification.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not only review tasks that exist.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    test design/current source

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    Every WBS task must map to:

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    Run this check for every WBS task, not a sample.

    line 45
  5. Very specific:

    If task A references Artifact B but Artifact B owns a different primary implementation unit, mark: WBS_ARTIFACT_SEMANTIC_MISMATCH.

    line 66
  6. Very specific:

    If a subordinate class/type is intended to belong to an artifact, ownership must be explicit in the registry or VERIFIED DD scope.

    line 71
  7. Distinctive:

    Use current source to search likely affected surfaces implied by the verified design:

    line 97
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not add a task unless the design/source evidence supports the impact.

    line 110
  9. Distinctive:

    test fixture/setup prerequisites

    line 121
  10. Distinctive:

    Every changed external contract and HIGH/CRITICAL behavior must have concrete verification.

    line 140
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not accept unit-only coverage for externally visible changes when higher-level proof is feasible.

    line 142
  12. Distinctive:

    Use the active workflow-declared WBS verification output path.

    line 175
  13. Distinctive:

    If the WBS contains any implementation effort estimate such as:

    line 182

≈ “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

WBS Verification

Mission

Do not only review tasks that exist. Actively search for missing implementation work.

Inputs

  • authoritative requirement
  • verified gap analysis
  • verified TDD
  • artifact registry
  • verified detailed designs
  • detailed-design verification reports
  • WBS
  • test design/current source

1. Backward Trace Every Task

Every WBS task must map to:

Requirement
→ Gap
→ TDD Decision
→ Design Artifact
→ Verified DD
→ WBS Task

Tasks with no approved design basis are:

UNAPPROVED_WORK

1A. Exhaustive WBS ↔ Artifact Semantic Identity

Run this check for every WBS task, not a sample.

For each WBS row, derive the task's primary implementation deliverable from its title/objective and compare it with:

referenced Artifact ID
→ canonical registry artifact name
→ registry responsibility/scope
→ VERIFIED DD owned implementation unit(s)

A PASS requires semantic identity, not just link existence.

Create:

WBS IDTask / Primary DeliverableArtifact IDCanonical Artifact NameRegistry ResponsibilityDD-Owned UnitMatch?Finding

Hard rules:

  • If task A references Artifact B but Artifact B owns a different primary implementation unit, mark: WBS_ARTIFACT_SEMANTIC_MISMATCH.
  • A symbol appearing somewhere in the TDD/DD is not enough to re-label the artifact.
  • The canonical artifact name/responsibility comes from the design artifact registry; do not invent a different semantic label for the same Artifact ID in another section.
  • If a subordinate class/type is intended to belong to an artifact, ownership must be explicit in the registry or VERIFIED DD scope. Mere @see, mention, dependency, or cross-reference is not ownership.
  • Any HIGH/CRITICAL semantic mismatch blocks WBS_VERIFIED.

Required threshold:

all WBS task semantic mappings valid = 100%

2. Forward Coverage Every Design Artifact

For every DD_VERIFIED artifact ask:

  • production/config/data changes covered?
  • callers/consumers affected by signature/contract change covered?
  • integration changes covered?
  • migration/compatibility work covered?
  • tests covered?
  • docs/config samples covered if required?

Missing work is a first-class finding.

3. Source-Side Missing Work Search

Use current source to search likely affected surfaces implied by the verified design:

  • callers/references
  • implementations
  • constructors/factories/DI
  • serializers/mappers
  • config consumers
  • migrations/schema
  • tests/fixtures
  • generated/config files
  • integration adapters
  • sibling operations that must preserve behavior

Do not add a task unless the design/source evidence supports the impact.

4. Dependency Verification

Check:

  • dependency direction
  • prerequisites
  • circular dependency
  • sequencing of interface vs consumer changes
  • migration/config sequencing
  • test fixture/setup prerequisites

5. Done-Criteria Verification

Done criteria must be observable and verifiable.

Reject vague criteria like:

  • "works correctly"
  • "update code"
  • "test as needed"

Prefer:

  • build/test target
  • exact contract behavior
  • artifact/test IDs
  • source-visible state

6. Test / Verification Coverage

Every changed external contract and HIGH/CRITICAL behavior must have concrete verification.

Do not accept unit-only coverage for externally visible changes when higher-level proof is feasible.

7. Verification Matrix

Finding IDWBS / ArtifactFindingEvidenceSeverityRequired Correction

8. Gate

Before WBS_VERIFIED:

[ ] every task has approved design traceability
[ ] every task's primary deliverable semantically matches its referenced artifact responsibility / DD-owned unit
[ ] semantic identity verification was executed for 100% of WBS tasks
[ ] every verified design artifact has complete task coverage
[ ] source-side missing-work search completed
[ ] dependency DAG is implementable
[ ] every code-changing task has verification
[ ] external contract changes have appropriate higher-level tests
[ ] done criteria are concrete
[ ] no unresolved HIGH/CRITICAL WBS gap remains

Overall:

  • WBS_VERIFIED
  • WBS_PARTIALLY_VERIFIED
  • WBS_INCOMPLETE
  • WBS_BLOCKED_SOURCE_GAP

Output

Use the active workflow-declared WBS verification output path. Do not reuse legacy WBS verification artifacts.

4.0 WBS / Effort Separation Gate

WBS is not effort estimation.

If the WBS contains any implementation effort estimate such as:

  • hours
  • person-days
  • story points
  • "~1 week"
  • duration estimates attached to tasks/phases

record:

WBS_CONTAINS_UNAPPROVED_EFFORT_ESTIMATE

and do NOT return WBS_VERIFIED.

Effort estimation requires a separate explicitly-invoked capability and evidence model.

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.