agentleFS
vladimirstempelvladimirstempel/oh-my-claude-code-slim/skills/verification-planning/SKILL.md

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

  • Other versions4 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 2

    1. akitaonrails/my-skills★ 28394% same
    2. Bossmann007/cursor-kit★ 015% same

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. mdrubelamin2/omc-slim★ 1same name
    2. 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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Before changing a non-trivial system, build an evidence path: a project-specific route from the claim being made to evidence that can …

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Consider what must change, what must remain true, where the behavior crosses a boundary, and which failure would matter most.

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    When the existing system leaves the decisive truth too indirect or ambiguous, extend the evidence path with a verification affordance: the …

    line 51
  4. Distinctive:

    Ask what capability would let an agent establish the claim directly, repeat the scenario from a known state, and explain a failure without …

    line 56
  5. Distinctive:

    Treat the affordance as part of the evidence path, not an automatic product feature.

    line 61
  6. Very specific:

    When the right evidence path depends on an unfamiliar dependency, framework, external service, or rapidly changing capability, delegate …

    line 70
  7. Distinctive:

    Ask for official or project-specific facilities, constraints, and trade-offs that affect this exact verification problem.

    line 75
  8. Distinctive:

    Ask before introducing dependencies, persistent diagnostic surfaces, or structural changes whose sole purpose is evidence gathering.

    line 91
  9. Distinctive:

    After implementation, follow the planned path and interpret the resulting evidence against the original claim.

    line 99
  10. Distinctive:

    Use this skill proportionately.

    line 110

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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.

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.