Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

verification-mastery(验证掌握)

verification-mastery 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-mastery 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,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 73,397。

总安装 94周安装 4GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 33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
MIT

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-mastery(验证掌握)
来源仓库:https://github.com/xenitv1/claude-code-maestro
仓库路径:skills/verification-mastery
安装命令:
npx skills add xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill "verification-mastery"
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。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill "verification-mastery"

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-mastery 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。适用于需要快速定位候选结果的关键词搜索、任务场景匹配或来源线索筛选等研究检索类需求。

通过 npx skills add xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill "verification-mastery" 安装,具体用法请参考来源仓库 README。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操作。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/verification-mastery

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 xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill "verification-mastery";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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

verification-mastery 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill "verification-mastery"。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

verification-mastery 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-mastery 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

verification-mastery 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

verification-mastery 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 94 次,近一周安装 4 次,下载 33 次。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-mastery 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

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。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 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。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 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-mastery

验证掌握 · 本页

94—只读MIT未收录

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

name
verification-mastery
description
Evidence before claims, always. No completion claims without fresh verification. The final gate before declaring success.

<domain_overview>

✅ VERIFICATION MASTERY: EVIDENCE BEFORE CLAIMS

Philosophy: Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency. Evidence before claims, always.

EVIDENCE INTEGRITY MANDATE (CRITICAL): Never claim a task is complete based on assumption or past memory. You MUST generate fresh evidence (logs, screenshots, test output) for every claim. AI-generated success reports are untrustworthy without proof. Any completion signal sent without accompanying verification artifacts must be rejected as "Hallucinated Success".


🚨 THE IRON LAW

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes. Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule. </domain_overview> <core_workflow>

🚪 THE GATE FUNCTION

BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying

</core_workflow> <quality_standards>

📋 COMMON CLAIMS AND REQUIREMENTS

ClaimRequiresNOT Sufficient
"Tests pass"Test command output: 0 failuresPrevious run, "should pass"
"Linter clean"Linter output: 0 errorsPartial check, extrapolation
"Build succeeds"Build command: exit 0Linter passing, logs look good
"Bug fixed"Test original symptom: passesCode changed, assumed fixed
"Regression test works"Red-green cycle verifiedTest passes once
"Agent completed"VCS diff shows changesAgent reports "success"
"Requirements met"Line-by-line checklistTests passing
"No errors"Command output reviewed"I think it's fine"

<red_flags>

🚨 RED FLAGS - STOP IMMEDIATELY

If you catch yourself:

  • Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
  • Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
  • About to commit/push/PR without verification
  • Trusting agent success reports
  • Relying on partial verification
  • Thinking "just this once"
  • Tired and wanting work over
  • ANY wording implying success without having run verification

ALL of these require: STOP. Run verification. THEN speak.


🚫 RATIONALIZATION PREVENTION

ExcuseReality
"Should work now"RUN the verification
"I'm confident"Confidence ≠ evidence
"Just this once"No exceptions
"Linter passed"Linter ≠ compiler
"Agent said success"Verify independently
"I'm tired"Exhaustion ≠ excuse
"Partial check is enough"Partial proves nothing
"Different words so rule doesn't apply"Spirit over letter
"It worked before"Run it NOW
"Too slow to run again"Slow verification > fast lies

</red_flags>


KEY PATTERNS

Tests

✅ CORRECT:
[Run: npm test]
[Output: 34/34 passing]
"All 34 tests pass."
❌ WRONG:
"Should pass now"
"Looks correct"
"Tests are green" (without running)

Regression Tests (TDD Red-Green)

✅ CORRECT:
1. Write test → Run (MUST PASS initial state or FAIL for right reason)
2. Break the code → Run (MUST FAIL)
3. Fix → Run (MUST PASS)
❌ WRONG:
"I've written a regression test"
(without red-green verification)

Build

✅ CORRECT:
[Run: npm run build]
[Output: Compiled successfully]
"Build passes."
❌ WRONG:
"Linter passed, so build should work"
(linter doesn't check compilation)

Requirements

✅ CORRECT:
1. Re-read plan/requirements
2. Create explicit checklist
3. Verify EACH item with evidence
4. Report gaps or confirm completion
❌ WRONG:
"Tests pass, phase complete"
(tests ≠ requirements)

Agent Delegation

✅ CORRECT:
1. Agent reports success
2. Check VCS diff (git diff, git status)
3. Verify changes are what was requested
4. Report actual state
❌ WRONG:
Trust agent report without verification

</quality_standards> <integration_and_tooling>

🔗 RALPH WIGGUM INTEGRATION

When Ralph Wiggum is active, verification gates are MANDATORY at each iteration:

  1. Before claiming iteration complete:

- Run all relevant tests - Run build if applicable - Run linter if applicable - Provide evidence in output

  1. Quality Gate Check:

- Proactive Gate verified? - Reflection Loop completed? - Verification Matrix updated?

  1. Completion Signal:

- Only create .maestro/ralph.complete AFTER full verification - Include verification evidence in final summary


📊 VERIFICATION COMMANDS REFERENCE

JavaScript/TypeScript

# Tests
npm test
npm run test -- --coverage
# Build
npm run build
# Lint
npm run lint
npx eslint . --ext .ts,.tsx
# Type check
npx tsc --noEmit

Python

# Tests
pytest
pytest --cov=src
# Lint
ruff check .
flake8 .
# Type check
mypy src/

General

# Git status (uncommitted changes)
git status
# Git diff (what changed)
git diff
# Process exit code (last command)
echo $?  # Unix
$LASTEXITCODE  # PowerShell

</integration_and_tooling> <reference_and_audit>

⏱️ WHEN TO APPLY

ALWAYS before:

  • ANY variation of success/completion claims
  • ANY expression of satisfaction
  • ANY positive statement about work state
  • Committing, PR creation, task completion
  • Moving to next task
  • Delegating to agents
  • Creating completion signals

Rule applies to:

  • Exact phrases ("Tests pass")
  • Paraphrases ("Everything is green")
  • Synonyms ("All good")
  • Implications ("Ready for review")
  • ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness

💡 WHY THIS MATTERS

From failure analysis:

  • "I don't believe you" - trust broken with user
  • Undefined functions shipped - would crash in production
  • Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
  • Time wasted: false completion → redirect → rework

Core principle: Honesty is non-negotiable. Unverified claims are lies.


🏁 THE BOTTOM LINE

No shortcuts for verification. Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result. This is non-negotiable.


🔗 RELATED SKILLS

  • @tdd-mastery - Verification through failing tests first
  • @debug-mastery - Verify fix actually worked
  • @clean-code - Quality standards to verify against

</reference_and_audit>

平台分布

Claude Code

76.7%
按下载量换算25

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。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