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
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in 711 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
- Spawn blind sub-agents to attempt implementation
- Give the test agent zero context
- Allow the test agent to use only documentation
- Define an implementation task for the blind agent
- Report gaps instead of guessing missing info
- Fix documentation if the agent reports gaps
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.