incremental-verification
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Continuously verify work at every step rather than waiting until the end to test.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- codebase-navigationSkill
- context-window-managementSkill
- dependency-assessmentSkill
- error-interpretationSkill
- human-escalationSkill
- multi-agent-collaborationSkill
- production-awarenessSkill
- requirement-extractionSkill
- safe-refactoringSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
21 rules. About 0 are common, 21 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈21
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
After every meaningful change, run a verification:
- Distinctive: line 34
Before writing new code, confirm the current state is clean:
- Distinctive: line 35
Run the full test suite - all green?
- Distinctive: line 36
Run the build command - compiles without errors?
- Distinctive: line 37
Run the linter - no new violations?
- Distinctive: line 39
If any of these fail before you've made changes, flag it immediately.
- Distinctive: line 42
Write assertions liberally during development:
- Distinctive: line 43
After fetching data: assert it has the expected shape
- Distinctive: line 44
After transforming data: assert the output matches expectations
- Distinctive: line 45
After calling an external service: assert the response status is successful
- Distinctive: line 46
After state transitions: assert the new state is valid
- Distinctive: line 51
After every change, verify nothing broke:
- Distinctive: line 65
If a test fails that you didn't expect, stop.
- Distinctive: line 68
When a task (not just a single change) is complete:
- Distinctive: line 69
Run the complete test suite
- Distinctive: line 70
Verify the acceptance criteria from the task definition
- Distinctive: line 71
Check for console errors, warnings, or deprecation notices
- Distinctive: line 73
If the task has UI, visually verify the result
- Distinctive: line 77
Never stack unverified changes: - Verify change A before starting change B
- Distinctive: line 78
Test failures are stop signals: - Don't proceed past a red test.
- Distinctive: line 81
Commit verified work frequently: - Every green state is a checkpoint worth saving
≈ “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
Incremental Verification
What This Skill Enables
An agent that confirms correctness at every micro-step - after every function, every file change, every integration point - rather than building a large body of code and hoping it works. Without this skill, agents produce code that looks plausible but fails at runtime, and bugs compound silently until the system is too broken to debug efficiently.
Core Competencies
1. The Verify-As-You-Go Loop
After every meaningful change, run a verification:
Write code → Verify → Commit → Next change
↑ |
└────────────────────────────┘Verification methods by change type:
| Change | Verification |
| New function | Run its unit test |
| Modified function | Run existing tests + new test for the change |
| New API endpoint | Send a test request, check response shape and status |
| UI component | Render it, check the DOM/accessibility tree |
| Configuration change | Restart the service, verify it loads without errors |
| Database migration | Run the migration, verify the schema matches expectations |
2. Build Verification
Before writing new code, confirm the current state is clean:
- Run the full test suite - all green? Proceed
- Run the build command - compiles without errors? Proceed
- Run the linter - no new violations? Proceed
If any of these fail before you've made changes, flag it immediately. Do not write code on top of a broken foundation.
3. Assertion Density
Write assertions liberally during development:
- After fetching data: assert it has the expected shape
- After transforming data: assert the output matches expectations
- After calling an external service: assert the response status is successful
- After state transitions: assert the new state is valid
These can be formal tests or temporary debug assertions that get removed later - the point is catching errors at the moment they occur, not ten steps later.
4. Regression Detection
After every change, verify nothing broke:
CHANGED: src/auth/validate.ts
VERIFICATION STEPS:
1. Run unit tests for auth module → ✅ 12/12 pass
2. Run integration tests touching auth → ✅ 5/5 pass
3. Run full test suite → ✅ 147/147 pass
4. No new linter warnings → ✅
RESULT: Change verified. Committing.If a test fails that you didn't expect, stop. Don't fix it silently. Understand why the change affected that test.
5. End-of-Task Verification
When a task (not just a single change) is complete:
- Run the complete test suite
- Verify the acceptance criteria from the task definition
- Check for console errors, warnings, or deprecation notices
- Review your own diff - does anything look unintended?
- If the task has UI, visually verify the result
Behavioral Rules
- Never stack unverified changes - Verify change A before starting change B
- Test failures are stop signals - Don't proceed past a red test; fix it first
- The build must always be green - A broken build is the highest-priority fix
- Unexpected passes are suspicious - A test that passes when you expected it to fail needs investigation
- Commit verified work frequently - Every green state is a checkpoint worth saving
Failure Modes
| Failure | Symptom | Correction |
| Writing 500 lines then testing | Cascade of errors with unclear root cause | Verify after every function or small logical change |
| Ignoring test failures | Broken tests accumulate; suite becomes unreliable | Fix every failure immediately or investigate why |
| Only testing happy path | Code works for valid input, crashes on edge cases | Test error conditions and boundary values at each step |
| Skipping build verification | Runtime errors that the compiler would have caught | Run build after every file modification |
| Not checking your own diff | Accidental debug code, TODO comments, or unrelated changes ship | Review your diff before marking any task complete |
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.

