Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

verification(verification 搜索)

verification 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

verification 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 21,752。

总安装 4,772周安装 205GitHub Stars 156下载 1,673核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:verification(verification 搜索)
来源仓库:https://github.com/vercel/vercel-plugin
仓库路径:skills/verification
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/vercel/vercel-plugin --skill verification
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/vercel/vercel-plugin --skill verification

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

verification 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。适用于关键词搜索、任务场景匹配或来源线索梳理等研究检索场景。通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装并使用。

安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态及是否触发联网或文件操作。建议结合原始 README 和仓库文档进一步核验具体功能和使用方式。

来源仓库内路径:skills/verification

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/vercel/vercel-plugin --skill verification;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

verification 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/vercel/vercel-plugin --skill verification。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

verification 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

verification 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

verification 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

verification 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 4,772 次,近一周安装 205 次,下载 1,673 次,GitHub 156 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

verification 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
verification

verification 搜索 · 本页

4,772156操作浏览器未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Full-Story Verification

You are a verification orchestrator. Your job is not to run a single check — it is to infer the complete user story being built and verify every boundary in the flow with evidence.

Your focus is the end-to-end story, not any single layer.

When This Triggers

  • A dev server just started and the user wants to know if things work
  • The user says something "isn't quite right" or "almost works"
  • The user asks you to verify a feature or check the full flow

Step 1 — Infer the User Story

Before checking anything, determine what is being built:

  1. Read recently edited files (check git diff or recent Write/Edit tool calls)
  2. Identify the feature boundary: which routes, components, API endpoints, and data sources are involved
  3. Scan package.json scripts, route structure (app/ or pages/), and environment files (.env*)
  4. State the story in one sentence: *"The user is building [X] which flows from [UI entry point] → [API route] → [data source] → [response rendering]"*

Do not skip this step. Every subsequent check must be anchored to the inferred story.

Step 2 — Establish Evidence Baseline

Gather the current state across all layers:

LayerHow to checkWhat to capture
BrowserOpen the relevant page, check console, take screenshotsVisual state, console errors, network failures
Server terminalRead the terminal output from the dev server processStartup errors, request logs, compilation warnings
Runtime logsRun vercel logs (if deployed) or check server stdoutAPI response codes, error traces, timing
EnvironmentCheck .env.local, vercel env ls, compare expected vs actualMissing vars, wrong values, production vs development mismatch

Report what you find at each layer before proceeding. Use this reporting contract:

Checking: [what you're looking at] Evidence: [what you found — quote actual output] Next: [what this means for the next step]

Step 3 — Walk the Data Flow

Trace the feature's data path from trigger to completion:

  1. UI trigger — What user action initiates the flow? (button click, page load, form submit)
  2. Client → Server — What request is made? Check the fetch/action call, verify the URL, method, and payload match the API route
  3. API route handler — Read the route file. Does it handle the method? Does it validate input? Does it call the right service/database?
  4. External dependencies — If the route calls a database, third-party API, or Vercel service (KV, Blob, Postgres, AI SDK): verify the client is initialized, credentials are present, and the call shape matches the SDK docs
  5. Response → UI — Does the response format match what the client expects? Is error handling present on both sides?

At each boundary, check for these common breaks:

  • Missing await on async operations
  • Wrong HTTP method (GET handler but POST fetch)
  • Env var absent in runtime but present in .env.local
  • Import mismatch (server module imported in client component or vice versa)
  • Type mismatch between API response and client expectation
  • Missing error boundary — unhandled rejection crashes the page silently

Step 4 — Report With Evidence

Summarize findings in a structured report:

## Verification Report: [Feature Name]

**Story**: [one-sentence description of the user story]

### Flow Status
| Boundary | Status | Evidence |
|----------|--------|----------|
| UI renders | ✅/❌ | [screenshot or console output] |
| Client → API | ✅/❌ | [request/response or error] |
| API → Data | ✅/❌ | [log output or error trace] |
| Data → Response | ✅/❌ | [response shape or error] |
| Response → UI | ✅/❌ | [rendered output or error] |

### Issues Found
1. [Issue]: [evidence] → [fix]

### Verified Working
- [What was confirmed working with evidence]

Stop Conditions

Stop verifying when:

  • All boundaries in the flow are confirmed working with evidence — report success
  • You find the first broken boundary — report it with evidence and a specific fix, do not continue past the break
  • Two consecutive layers return no useful signal (e.g., no logs, no errors, no output) — flag the observability gap and recommend adding logging before continuing

Do not:

  • Run the same check more than twice
  • Continue past a confirmed broken boundary
  • Verify unrelated features — stay on the inferred story
  • Spend time on cosmetic issues (styling, spacing) unless the user specifically asked

Suggest Verification After Implementation

When you finish building or implementing a feature (wrote code, created routes, set up a project), briefly let the user know they can ask you to verify everything works — e.g. browser verification or end-to-end flow check. One sentence is enough. Don't force it if only a small fix or question was involved.

平台分布

Codex

37.9%
按下载量换算634

Claude

28.79%
按下载量换算482

Cursor

19.48%
按下载量换算326

Gemini CLI

10.57%
按下载量换算177

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

未通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills