agentsclimarketplace

Validate

Skill ronaknnathani/relay/skills/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

Install
npx -y skills add ronaknnathani/relay --skill validate

Assembled 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

  1. Gather the acceptance criteria. Read the Success criteria from the clarify/plan artifacts. 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.
  2. Discover the repo's own gate commands. Find how this repo lints, type-checks, tests, builds, and audits — from its scripts/manifest/CI config (explore when 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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-fix or implement consumes. 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 — validate returns a verdict and stops.

Verification checklist

  • Acceptance criteria came from the clarify/plan artifact (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/implement to 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.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,835. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.