Zero context validation
Skill whykusanagi/zero-context-validation/skills/zero-context-validation
Use when you need to validate documentation completeness and cannot objectively test it yourself because you have implementation contextFrom its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add whykusanagi/zero-context-validation --skill zero-context-validationAssembled 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
3.4 KB, 711 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Zero-Context Validation
Overview
Test documentation completeness by spawning blind sub-agents to attempt implementation. They expose blindspots you can't see because you have context.
You orchestrate, judge results, iterate. Blind agents test docs, report gaps.
When to Use
Use: Validating docs before publishing, testing API/setup guides, verifying docs after refactors.
Don't use: Code review, testing code functionality, proof-reading.
Quick Reference
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Just wrote docs | Spawn blind agent with implementation task |
| Agent reports gaps | Judge if real → fix docs → re-test |
| Agent invents details | Strengthen "no assumptions" → re-test |
| Agent succeeds clean | Documentation ready ✅ |
| Multiple iterations | Normal - iterate until clean success |
The Iron Law
NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED. Test agent uses ONLY documentation. Missing info = report gap, not guess.
Violating: Fills gaps → incomplete docs → wasted time.
Process
1. Prepare: Define implementation task for blind agent.
2. Spawn: Launch blind sub-agent using Task tool - ZERO context, ONLY docs, NO assumptions, REPORT gaps.
3. Judge: Succeeds clean → docs ready ✅ | Reports gaps → fix, re-test | Invents → strengthen rules, re-test
4. Iterate: Repeat until success. Multiple iterations normal.
Common Rationalizations (FORBIDDEN)
| Rationalization | Why It Fails |
|---|---|
| "Docs approved by experts" | Approval ≠ tested |
| "Use your best judgment" | Assumptions hide gaps |
| "Common patterns apply" | Document patterns |
| "Implementation successful" (but invented 80%) | Invention ≠ validation |
| "Just a quick sanity check" | Review misses gaps |
Re-run with no-assumptions enforced.
Red Flags - STOP Validation
- "Using common patterns" for undocumented details
- Creating base classes not in docs
- Inventing file structures/imports
- "Assuming X based on Y"
- Success but invented components
- Instructions include "use best judgment"
Validation invalid. Restart with stricter rules.
Success Metrics
Good: Agent succeeds with zero assumptions OR reports gaps. Bad: Agent invents details. Goal: Find gaps before wasting developer time.
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| "Just review, don't implement" | Require implementation attempt |
| Including context in instructions | Fresh agent, docs only |
| Allowing "reasonable assumptions" | Forbid assumptions, require reports |
| Authority pressure ("approved by experts") | Neutral instructions |
| Treating blocked agents as failure | Blocked = found gaps |
Impact
Without: Docs look complete → publish → blocked developers. With: Test docs → find gaps → fix → ship complete.
1 hour validation saves 2-4 hours confusion.
Example
Typical workflow: 3 iterations to find and fix gaps. See examples.md for detailed multi-iteration workflow.
Related Skills
- superpowers:test-driven-development - Same principles, applied to docs
- superpowers:writing-skills - Testing skills uses same validation
Technical Implementation
Uses the built-in Task tool to spawn blind sub-agents. No external dependencies required.
What ships with it: 2 files
12.2 KB alongside SKILL.md
- examples.md6.8 KB
- workflow.md5.4 KB