verification-planning
Skill0 starsChanged 56 days agoMITView on GitHub
Build a project-specific evidence path before implementing a feature, bug fix, refactor, or any non-trivial behavior change — decide up front what would prove or refute the change working. Use before the work, not after.
4 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- yakoshiq/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Bossmann007/cursor-kitedited, first seen Sep 18, 2026
- akitaonrails/my-skillsedited, first seen Sep 17, 2026
- mdrubelamin2/omc-slimtheir own version, first seen Sep 7, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- akitaonrails/my-skills★ 28394% same
- Bossmann007/cursor-kit★ 015% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- mdrubelamin2/omc-slim★ 1same name
- yakoshiq/skills★ 0same name
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.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- clonedepsSkill
- codemapSkill
- deepworkSkill
- omcs-configSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- reflectSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
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 10
Before changing a non-trivial system, build an evidence path: a project-specific route from the claim being made to evidence that can …
- Distinctive: line 22
Consider what must change, what must remain true, where the behavior crosses a boundary, and which failure would matter most.
- Distinctive: line 51
When the existing system leaves the decisive truth too indirect or ambiguous, extend the evidence path with a verification affordance: the …
- Distinctive: line 56
Ask what capability would let an agent establish the claim directly, repeat the scenario from a known state, and explain a failure without …
- Distinctive: line 61
Treat the affordance as part of the evidence path, not an automatic product feature.
- Very specific: line 70
When the right evidence path depends on an unfamiliar dependency, framework, external service, or rapidly changing capability, delegate …
- Distinctive: line 75
Ask for official or project-specific facilities, constraints, and trade-offs that affect this exact verification problem.
- Distinctive: line 91
Ask before introducing dependencies, persistent diagnostic surfaces, or structural changes whose sole purpose is evidence gathering.
- Distinctive: line 99
After implementation, follow the planned path and interpret the resulting evidence against the original claim.
- Distinctive: line 110
Use this skill proportionately.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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
Verification Planning
Build an evidence path
Before changing a non-trivial system, build an evidence path: a project-specific route from the claim being made to evidence that can establish, limit, or refute it.
The purpose is not to select a familiar technique. The purpose is to decide how this system can reveal the truth of this particular change.
1. Frame the claim
State the behavior that needs to become true and the conditions that could make a confident conclusion wrong.
Consider what must change, what must remain true, where the behavior crosses a boundary, and which failure would matter most.
Complete when: the claim, its meaningful uncertainty, and its important failure modes are concrete enough to investigate.
2. Design the evidence path
Derive possible evidence paths from the system itself: its controllable inputs, observable effects, state transitions, invariants, boundaries, artifacts, and ability to repeat or reverse a scenario.
Generate alternatives before choosing. Prefer the path that produces a trustworthy conclusion with proportionate cost, safety, and effort.
Complete when: there is a preferred path, its limitations are understood, and a weaker or stronger alternative is available if circumstances change.
Set a verification budget
At the final state, state the distinct claims, assign one owner to establish or refute each, and choose the minimum non-duplicative evidence that covers the claims and important boundaries. Reuse evidence only while its relevant code, inputs, environment, and state remain valid. Required repository and release checks still apply; broaden or repeat verification only when a stated condition justifies it.
3. Create a verification affordance when needed
When the existing system leaves the decisive truth too indirect or ambiguous, extend the evidence path with a verification affordance: the smallest capability that makes the relevant state controllable, observable, repeatable, and diagnosable for an agent.
Ask what capability would let an agent establish the claim directly, repeat the scenario from a known state, and explain a failure without inference. Prefer an affordance that strengthens directness, determinism, agent-legibility, isolation, resetability, or future reuse.
Treat the affordance as part of the evidence path, not an automatic product feature. Decide deliberately whether it is temporary or durable before building it.
Complete when: the chosen path can establish the claim directly enough for its stakes, and any needed affordance has a defined lifecycle.
4. Research when the path is unknown
When the right evidence path depends on an unfamiliar dependency, framework,
external service, or rapidly changing capability, delegate focused research
to librarian (Agent tool, subagent_type: "oh-my-claudecode-slim:librarian")
before committing to an approach.
Ask for official or project-specific facilities, constraints, and trade-offs that affect this exact verification problem. Use existing project evidence directly when it already resolves the choice.
Complete when: the chosen path rests on known capabilities and real constraints rather than assumption.
5. Make the path runnable
Prepare only the support needed to follow the evidence path reliably. Keep the support narrow, repeatable, and safe to inspect.
Decide whether that support has recurring value or exists only to resolve the current uncertainty. Retain durable value deliberately; remove temporary support once it has served its purpose.
Ask before introducing dependencies, persistent diagnostic surfaces, or structural changes whose sole purpose is evidence gathering.
Complete when: the path can be followed without guessing about setup, state, or interpretation.
6. Close the evidence path
After implementation, follow the planned path and interpret the resulting evidence against the original claim.
Report whether the claim was established, limited, or refuted; distinguish known facts from remaining uncertainty.
Complete when: a future reader can see what supports the conclusion and what remains outside its reach.
Scope
Use this skill proportionately. Small mechanical changes can follow ordinary project checks directly. For larger multi-phase work, let this skill establish the evidence path that later work follows.
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.

