Validate
Verify a change is ready to ship by checking it against its acceptance criteria and running the repo's own quality gates in order, then report a pass/fail verdict with the exact failures. Use to decide go/no-go right before shipping — when you want a pass/fail verdict against acceptance criteria and the repo's quality gates (lint/build/test), not a code critique (use `review` for that). It reports — it does not fix (route failures to `pr-fix`/`implement`) and does not ship.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add ronaknnathani/relay --skill validateAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
5.1 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Validate
Decide whether a change is ready to ship and report the verdict — pass, or fail with the exact
failures someone else can act on. The bar: every acceptance criterion from clarify/plan is
demonstrably met, and every quality gate the repo defines is green, each shown by a command or
observation rather than asserted. This skill is a gate, not a fixer: on failure it hands precise
error-feedback to pr-fix or implement and stops. It does not edit code and does not ship.
Process
- Gather the acceptance criteria. Read the Success criteria from the
clarify/planartifacts. These are the goal-backward targets — what must be TRUE about the codebase. If no artifact exists, reconstruct the criteria from the task description and list them, so the verdict is checkable. - Discover the repo's own gate commands. Find how this repo lints, type-checks, tests, builds,
and audits — from its scripts/manifest/CI config (
explorewhen it isn't obvious). Use the repo's actual commands; never substitute a generic command or invent a gate the repo doesn't define. A gate the repo doesn't have is skipped as not-applicable (and noted), not faked. - Run every applicable quality gate — none skippable. The gates, in report order: lint → typecheck → unit tests → build → integration → e2e → security/audit → bundle-size. This sequence is the reporting/intent order, not a stop-on-first-failure barrier: run independent gates in parallel when the tooling allows (dispatch sub-agents when available; otherwise inline), never stop at the first failure, and capture every gate's output so the report is complete in one pass.
- Check each acceptance criterion, goal-backward. For each criterion, name the test, command, or direct observation that demonstrates it holds — and run/observe it. A criterion with no evidence is a FAIL, not a pass-by-assertion; "looks done" is not evidence.
- Render the verdict. PASS only if every applicable gate is green AND every acceptance criterion
has passing evidence. Otherwise FAIL. Report, for each failure: the exact command run, its
error output, and the location (file/line/criterion) — this is the error-feedback
pr-fixorimplementconsumes. Do not attempt deep fixes here; a one-line obvious typo is still routed out, not silently patched.
Never mask a failure to go green
Disabling a test, skipping a spec, loosening a lint rule, or lowering a threshold to make a gate pass is a hard red flag — it converts a real failure into a hidden one. If a gate fails, report it as a FAIL with its evidence and route it out. The only legitimate "skip" is a gate the repo genuinely does not define, recorded as not-applicable.
Output schema (the verdict)
# Validation: <task> — VERDICT: PASS | FAIL
## Gates
- <gate>: PASS | FAIL | N/A — `<exact command>` (on FAIL: error + location)
## Acceptance criteria
- [x] <criterion> — evidence: <test/command/observation>
- [ ] <criterion> — FAIL: <what's missing + where>
## Failures (for pr-fix / implement)
- `<exact command>` → <error output> @ <file:line | criterion>
A PASS verdict means nothing in the Failures section. List every failure, not just the first — one pass should give the fixer everything to act on.
Red flags
- Skipping a gate that applies, or running them out of order, instead of the full lint→…→bundle-size sequence.
- Disabling/loosening a test, spec, lint rule, or threshold to turn a gate green.
- Substituting a generic command for the repo's own gate command, or inventing a gate the repo lacks.
- Marking an acceptance criterion PASS without a test/command/observation behind it.
- Editing code to fix a failure here instead of routing it to
pr-fix/implement. - Reporting only the first failure when later gates also failed — the fixer needs the whole set.
- Shipping, merging, or invoking the next skill —
validatereturns a verdict and stops.
Verification checklist
- Acceptance criteria came from the
clarify/planartifact (or were reconstructed and listed). - Gate commands are the repo's own, discovered from its config — not generic or invented.
- Every applicable gate ran in order; results captured; none skipped or masked to go green.
- Each acceptance criterion is backed by a named test/command/observation, not assertion.
- The verdict is PASS only with all gates green and all criteria evidenced; else FAIL.
- Each failure reports exact command + error + location for
pr-fix/implementto consume. - No code was edited, nothing was shipped, and no next skill was invoked.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in ~1.1k tokens
Counted across 1,195 of the 2,094 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Read the output and check the exit codein 54 of 1195, across 14 files
- Verify requirements using a line-by-line checklistin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
- Identify the verification command proving the claimin 51 of 1195, across 12 files
- Run the full verification commandin 50 of 1195, across 11 files
- Verify output confirms the claimin 49 of 1195, across 12 files
- Check version control diff after agent delegationin 46 of 1195, across 6 files
- State claim with evidencein 44 of 1195, across 4 files
- Run the test suitein 33 of 1195, across 26 files
- Keep state in memory by defaultin 27 of 1195, across 6 files
- Make prototype runnable with one commandin 26 of 1195, across 5 files
- Produce a verification reportin 25 of 1195, across 14 files
- Detect the package manager from lockfilesin 24 of 1195, across 5 files
Said here and by no other author read
- gather the acceptance criteria
- discover the repo's own gate commands
- run gates in the specified order
- capture every gate's output
- evidence each criterion with a test or observation
- render a pass or fail verdict
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.