uverify
Use after execute to attack the change and demonstrate how it's broken.
Skill by btseytlin
Install
Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.
npx agentmarket install skill/btseytlin-uverify
Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.
Get the weekly diff
The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.
About
Use cases: productivity
Reviews
Write a reviewNo reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work
Permissions
What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md and code. Checked Oct 25, 2026.
- Tools
- No tools found
- Secrets
- None asked for
- Install scripts
- None found
Network hosts it talks to 1
codeload.github.com· found in install command
Files it touches
~/.claude/skills/uverify
What's inside
- Skill name
uverify- Description
- Use after execute to attack the change and demonstrate how it's broken. Default stance — the change is broken, prove and demonstrate it. Builds an attack checklist (happy-path / negative / invariant / interface hypotheses), runs each freshly, smokes the end-to-end, writes a short summary to the task file's Verify section, loops back to execute on any demonstrated break.
- License
- WTFPL
- Instructions
- 113 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub
Files (1)
- SKILL.md
SKILL.md (first lines)
# Verify Try to demonstrate a break in the change. Each check tests a concrete failure hypothesis against current artifacts. Save the outcome in the task file's `## Verify` section, then send failures to [uexecute](../uexecute/SKILL.md) or advance to [ureview](../ureview/SKILL.md). Read the [brevity rules](../_brevity.md) before responding or writing results. Passed checks take one line. Failures, deferrals, and surprising results carry evidence and reasons. ## Phase 1 — Build the attack list Build hypotheses from the plan, design constraints, assumptions, interfaces, and your own inspection. Number them `CK1` through `CKN` within the task file. Keep the working list in-session until writing the results. Cover these angles: - Valid input: find a supported input, environment, ordering, or retry that the change mishandles. - Invalid input: find missing values, type confusion, or malformed input that bypasses validation or raises the wrong error. - Invariants and assumptions: try to violate each relevant guarantee or disprove an external premise. Reference its design ID. - Interfaces: find callers, outputs, or documentation references that disagree with the declared contract. Reference its interface ID. - Purpose, per [GPC9](../_principles.md): look at real outputs, such as runs, files or screens, and state in one line how the result met the goal. Then try to show it met the checks by a route on the goal's `Useless if:` list, or by a new route that defeats the purpose. Two signs are a demonstrated break, not a finding: work that should be better scores worse, and a change kept for its score gain with no diagnosed failure behind it. For example, an item endpoint should reject `name: null` as a client error. Test whether it instead reaches the handler and returns a server error. "Test the happy path" is not a failure hypothesis. ## Phase 2 — Run each attack freshly Run the attacks during the current verification. Previous-session results do not establish the current state. - Use minimal direct probes, following [try](../try/SKILL.md)'s approach. One-off scripts belong in gitignored, project-local `tmp/` and are removed after use. - Capture actual commands and output. Inspect what happened before deciding the verdict. - A failed attempt to break the change is a valid outcome when the probe ran and the evidence supports it. An unavailable probe is a deferral, not evidence that the condition held. - Respect user authorization for expensive or remote checks. Report missing permission rather than running them or claiming success. ## Phase 3 — Smoke the end-to-end Run the shortest representative full path: invoke a changed command, call the running endpoint, exercise the interface in a browser, or run a small model step when authorized. A failing smoke is a demonstrated break. A passing smoke does not replace the other attacks. If it cannot run, name the blocker. Do not substitute a unit test and call it a smoke. If the smoke is only a proxy for the goal, state what it covers and what remains. A small local sample does not establish success for a full remote dataset. Goal validation must retain that distinction. ## Phase 4 — Write the Verify summary Append or replace `## Verify` in the task file, whether the outcome passed or failed. - `held`: the attack ran and demonstrated no break. - `broke`: the attack demonstrated a break. Include evidence and expected behavior. - `deferred`: the attack could not run. Name the blocker and justification. Set `Result: passed` only when every check held or has a justified, user-visible deferral. Any broken check makes the result `failed`. Never label an unrun check `held`. ```markdown ## Verify Result: <passed | failed> Happy-path: - CK1 — <hypothesis> — <verdict> Negative: - CK2 — <hypothesis> — <verdict> Invariants / assumptions: - CK3 (IV1) — <hypothesis> — <verdict> - CK4 (AS1) — <hypothesis> — <verdict> Interfaces: - CK5 (IF1) — <hypothesis> — <verdict> Smoke: <command and result> Goal: proxy only — <coverage and remaining real-world validation> Notes: <failure evidence, expected behavior, deferrals, or reruns> ``` Omit empty categories. Omit `Smoke` if it did not run, but record the blocker in `Notes`. Omit `Goal` when the smoke covered the actual goal. Omit `Notes` only when there is no failure, deferral, or other material evidence to report. Example failure: ```markdown ## Verify Result: failed Negative: - CK2 — null name on item creation — broke: null reached the handler and raised TypeError, returning 500 instead of 400. Notes: reject null, empty, and whitespace-only names before the handler runs. Return to execution with this reproduction. ``` ## Phase 5 — Handoff - Every check held or was justifiably deferred: report verification passed and invoke [ureview](../ureview/SKILL.md), preserving deferrals and remaining goal validation. - Any check broke: describe the intended behavior under that input, include the reproduction, and invoke [uexecute](../uexecute/SKILL.md). Do not advance to review. ## Future work and incomplete work In-scope requirements remain part of this task. Complete them or obtain user consent to change scope. A future-work entry requires a design-scope line excluding it or a newly discovered fact that changes scope. Record that justification. Do not relabel a required failing check as future work to pass verification. ## Never - Claim a check held without running it during the current verification. - Declare pass when an attack broke. - Treat a clean diff, lint result, ordinary unit-test result, child assertion, or confidence statement as an adversarial verification by itself. - Claim there is no way to break the change without naming the angles tried. - Skip verification or rely on a prior session's verdict. ## Hands-off mode Read [handsoff](../handsoff/SKILL.md). The pass-to-review and fail-to-execution loop is unchanged. Record infeasible smoke tests under `### Deferred (needs user input)` with the blocker. Never fabricate success. ## Terminal state The summary is saved. Pass returns to review. Failure returns to execution with evidence and intended behavior.
From btseytlin/ultrapack, WTFPL.
More from btseytlin/ultrapack
- 0.658score
expand
btseytlin
Turn one user criticism into a principle-level fix: find the violated principle, every similar occurrence, and fix the shared cause.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.658score
uexecute
btseytlin
Use to implement an approved plan.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.658score
make
btseytlin
Orchestrate the full Ultrapack workflow in Codex and Pi: create or resume a task file, design, plan, execute, verify, review, and validate the observable goal.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.655score
udesign
btseytlin
Use before any creative work — features, components, behavior changes.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
attack-loop
btseytlin
Run a bounded implement-attack-repair loop for a user-specified task.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
git-worktrees
btseytlin
Use when a task needs an isolated checkout.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
handsoff
btseytlin
Contract for hands-off mode — the ultrapack workflow variant that minimizes user prompts after Design, takes the safest reversible path, and logs every…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
qplan
btseytlin
Quickly design and plan, wait for plan approval, then execute sequential phases with focused verification and a manual try.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
udocument
btseytlin
Use when writing or editing documentation — project docs, CLAUDE.md, READMEs, SKILL.md, docstrings, inline comments.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
ureview
btseytlin
Use after verify passes for the future maintainer's audit — sit in the chair of the person who'll touch this code in 3-6 months and ask "what will bite us…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.615score
uplan
btseytlin
Use after design to turn a validated spec into a lean implementation plan.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.615score
udebug
btseytlin
Use on any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior before proposing a fix.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9
Signals
- Stars
- 46
- Forks
- 12
- Open issues
- 1
- Last commit (this folder)
- Oct 15, 2026 (14 days ago)
From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).
Details
- License
- WTFPL
- Repository
- github.com/btseytlin/ultrapack
- First seen
- Oct 24, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 24, 2026
- Source
- GitHubgithub-graphql
More from btseytlin
- 0.658score
expand
btseytlin
Turn one user criticism into a principle-level fix: find the violated principle, every similar occurrence, and fix the shared cause.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.658score
make
btseytlin
Orchestrate the full Ultrapack workflow in Codex and Pi: create or resume a task file, design, plan, execute, verify, review, and validate the observable goal.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.658score
uexecute
btseytlin
Use to implement an approved plan.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.655score
udesign
btseytlin
Use before any creative work — features, components, behavior changes.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
attack-loop
btseytlin
Run a bounded implement-attack-repair loop for a user-specified task.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9 - 0.618score
handsoff
btseytlin
Contract for hands-off mode — the ultrapack workflow variant that minimizes user prompts after Design, takes the safest reversible path, and logs every…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 46Claude Code +9
Cite this page
uverify skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/btseytlin-uverify (last updated 2026-10-24)