Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

validate(validate 文档)

validate 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。

validate 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,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 64,557。

总安装 297周安装 12GitHub Stars 168下载 93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:validate(validate 文档)
来源仓库:https://github.com/whawkinsiv/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/validate
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/whawkinsiv/claude-code-skills --skill validate
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/whawkinsiv/claude-code-skills --skill validate

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。

validate 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。适用于文档验证或合规性检查的信息支持场景。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。可在多种 AI 宿主中调用,安装方式为 GitHub。使用前应评估其对系统权限和网络访问的需求。

validate 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/validate

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/whawkinsiv/claude-code-skills --skill validate;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

    它需要需要联网,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

validate 怎么安装?

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

validate 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。

validate 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

validate 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。

validate 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 297 次,近一周安装 12 次,下载 93 次,GitHub 168 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。

validate 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

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
validate

validate 文档 · 本页

297168需要联网未明确有提醒

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

Idea Validation

The #1 reason startups fail is "no market need." Validation isn't about asking people if they'd use something — it's about observing whether they'll pay, sign up, or take action. This skill helps you test demand before writing a single line of code.

Core Principles

  • Ideas are free. Validated demand is valuable. Never skip validation because you're excited.
  • "Would you use this?" is a useless question. "Will you pay $X right now?" is the only one that matters.
  • The goal of validation is to fail fast and cheap — not to confirm what you already believe.
  • You don't need to build anything to validate. Landing pages, waitlists, and conversations come first.
  • Validation is not a one-time event. You re-validate at every stage: idea, MVP, pricing, features.

Pressure-Test Your Idea

Before running experiments, pressure-test the idea itself. These six questions expose fatal flaws fast — answer them honestly, not optimistically.

Which Questions to Answer

Your StageFocus On
Pre-product (just an idea)Q1, Q2, Q3
Have a prototype or early usersQ2, Q4, Q5
Have paying customersQ4, Q5, Q6

The Six Questions

Q1 — Demand Reality: What evidence do you have — beyond your own experience — that someone else actually wants this? Not "I think people need it." What have you seen, heard, or measured?

Q2 — Status Quo: What are people in your field doing right now to handle this — even badly? What does that workaround cost them in time, money, or errors?

Q3 — Desperate Specificity: Name one specific person who needs this most. Not "dentists" — which dentist, at which practice, with what problem? If you can't name someone, you haven't found your customer yet.

Q4 — Narrowest Wedge: What's the smallest version of this someone would pay for this week — not after you build the platform? One screen, one workflow, one outcome.

Q5 — Observation: Have you watched a colleague struggle with this task without helping them? What surprised you about how they actually do it vs. how you assumed?

Q6 — Future-Fit: How does your industry change in 3 years, and does that make this tool more essential or less?

Interest is not demand. Waitlist signups are not demand. Someone would be genuinely upset if it disappeared — that's demand.
"Everyone in my field needs this" means you haven't found anyone specific yet. The more universal you think the need is, the less validated it actually is.
The status quo is your real competitor — not the other startup. It's the spreadsheet-and-email workaround people already live with. You have to be dramatically better than "good enough."

Validation Levels

Level 1: Problem Validation (Do People Have This Problem?)

Before you validate your solution, validate that the problem exists and is painful enough to pay for.

Where to look for evidence:

SourceWhat to Look For
Reddit, forums, communitiesPeople complaining about the problem repeatedly
Google TrendsSearch volume for problem-related terms
Competitor reviews (G2, Capterra)1-3 star reviews mentioning unmet needs
Twitter/XPeople publicly frustrated with current solutions
Your own experienceYou've felt this pain yourself (strongest signal)

Tell AI:

Research the problem of [describe the problem].
Find evidence that people are actively looking for solutions:
- Search volume for related terms
- Reddit/forum threads where people discuss this pain
- Competitors that exist (even partial solutions)
- How much people currently pay to solve this (or workarounds they use)
Summarize: Is this a real, painful, frequent problem?

Level 2: Solution Validation (Will People Want YOUR Solution?)

The Mom Test — Never ask leading questions. Instead:

Bad QuestionGood Question
"Would you use an app that does X?""How do you currently handle X?"
"Would you pay for this?""What do you spend on solving X today?"
"Do you think this is a good idea?""Tell me about the last time X was a problem."
"Would this be useful?""What have you tried? What didn't work?"

Conversation template:

1. "What's the hardest part about [area]?"
2. "Tell me about the last time that happened."
3. "How did you deal with it?"
4. "What didn't work about that solution?"
5. "If you could wave a magic wand, what would change?"
6. "How much time/money does this cost you today?"

Talk to 10-15 potential customers. If 8+ describe the same pain with intensity, you have signal.

Level 3: Willingness to Pay (Will They Open Their Wallets?)

The strongest validation signals, ranked:

SignalStrength
They pre-pay before the product existsStrongest
They sign up for a waitlist with a credit cardVery strong
They sign up for a waitlist with emailStrong
They click a "Buy" button (fake door test)Moderate
They say "I'd definitely pay for that"Weak
They say "That's a cool idea"Worthless

For Domain Experts: Your Network Is Your Validation Lab

If you're a [profession] building for other [professionals], you already have what most founders spend months trying to get: direct access to target customers.

  • Skip the cold outreach. Message 10 peers you actually know: "Hey, how do you handle [pain]? I'm thinking about building something."
  • You've already had 1,000 customer conversations. Mine your memory: what do colleagues complain about at conferences, in group chats, over lunch?
  • Your professional associations are focus groups. Post in the group: "Quick question — how long does [task] take you?" Count the replies.
  • Validate in days, not weeks. You don't need to "find" your market. You're standing in it.

See translate skill for identifying which pain is worth building for, and niche-advantage for leveraging your professional network.


Smoke Tests (Validate Without Building)

Landing Page Test

Create a landing page describing your product. Drive traffic. Measure signups.

Tell AI:

Create a landing page for [product idea] that:
- Clearly describes the problem and solution
- Has a CTA: "Join the waitlist" or "Get early access"
- Collects email addresses
- Optionally asks 1-2 qualifying questions (role, company size)
Target: 100 visitors, measure signup rate.

Benchmarks:

  • < 5% signup rate → Weak interest. Rethink positioning or audience.
  • 5-15% signup rate → Moderate interest. Worth exploring further.
  • 15%+ signup rate → Strong signal. Build an MVP.

Fake Door Test

Add a button or link for a feature that doesn't exist yet. Measure clicks.

1. Create a CTA for the feature: "Try [Feature Name]"
2. When clicked, show: "This feature is coming soon!
   Sign up to be the first to know."
3. Collect email.
4. Measure click rate.

Pre-Sale Test

Offer the product at a discount before it exists. If people pay, you have validation.

"[Product] launches in [timeframe]. Get 50% off as a founding member.
$X/month (normally $Y/month). Cancel anytime."

If 10+ strangers pay, build it. If 0 pay, pivot.


Go / No-Go Decision Framework

After running validation experiments, score your idea:

Validation Scorecard:
                                          Score (1-5)
Problem frequency (daily=5, yearly=1):    ___
Problem intensity (hair on fire=5):       ___
Willingness to pay (pre-paid=5):          ___
Market size (>$1B TAM=5):                 ___
Your unique advantage (deep=5):           ___
Current solutions (none/bad=5):           ___
                                   Total: ___/30

25-30: Strong go. Build the MVP.
18-24: Promising. Run one more validation experiment.
12-17: Weak. Pivot the angle or audience.
<12:   No go. Find a different problem.

Where to Find People to Validate With

ChannelCostSpeedQuality
Your personal networkFreeFastMedium (biased)
Reddit / niche communitiesFreeMediumHigh (real users)
Twitter/X DMs to people with the problemFreeMediumHigh
Facebook/LinkedIn groupsFreeMediumMedium
Google Ads to landing page$50-200FastHigh (intent-based)
Cold email to prospectsFreeSlowHigh
Indie Hackers / HNFreeMediumMedium

Tell AI:

Help me find 5 specific online communities where [target audience]
hangs out and discusses [problem area]. For each, give me:
- The community name and link
- How active it is
- Rules about self-promotion
- A non-spammy way to start conversations about [problem]

Validation Timeline

Week 1: Problem research + 5 customer conversations
Week 2: 5 more conversations + landing page live
Week 3: Drive traffic to landing page (100+ visitors)
Week 4: Analyze results, make go/no-go decision

Total cost: $0-200
Total time: 10-15 hours

Common Mistakes

MistakeFix
Building before validatingSpend $0 and 2 weeks on validation before writing any code
Asking friends and familyTalk to strangers who match your target customer
Asking "Would you use this?"Ask about their current behavior and spending
Taking "That's a cool idea" as validationOnly actions count: signups, pre-payments, clicks
Validating once and stoppingRe-validate at every stage (pricing, features, positioning)
Giving up after 3 conversationsTalk to at least 10-15 people before deciding
Over-validating (analysis paralysis)Set a deadline. Decide by week 4

Success Looks Like

  • Clear evidence of demand before writing a single line of code
  • 10+ customer conversations documented with recurring pain points
  • Landing page with measurable signup rate
  • Go/no-go decision backed by data, not gut feeling
  • Confidence that you're building something people will pay for

Related Skills

  • translate — Turn your professional expertise into a product spec (start here if you're a domain expert)
  • niche-advantage — Leverage your industry network and credibility for distribution
  • customer-research — Go deeper with interviews and personas
  • market-research — Size the market and analyze competitors
  • landing-page — Build the landing page for your smoke test
  • plan — Write the spec once you've validated the idea
  • pricing — Validate willingness to pay alongside demand

平台分布

Codex

37.14%
按下载量换算35

Claude

30.45%
按下载量换算28

Cursor

19.77%
按下载量换算18

Gemini CLI

10.1%
按下载量换算9

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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