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/ffroliva-live-verify
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: testing
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. 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/live-verify
What's inside
- Skill name
live-verify- Description
- Two-part gate for gflow-cli feature/fix work. Part 1 (Pre-flight): use when starting work on a gflow-cli feature or fix — confirms the checkout reflects current develop before investing effort. Part 2 (Live-verify): use before claiming gflow-cli work done, especially anything touching a generation code path (t2i/i2i/i2v/t2v/r2v) — requires live evidence against real Flow, not just offline tests.
- License
- MIT
- Instructions
- 155 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub
Files (1)
- SKILL.md
SKILL.md (first lines)
# `/gflow:live-verify` — Live-verification enforcement
gflow-cli reverse-engineers a blackbox: Google Flow. Offline checks (`ruff`, `pyright`,
unit/BDD tests) verify gflow-cli's own code does what it's supposed to; they cannot verify
Flow still behaves the way it was captured, because Flow is external and changes without
notice (see [#174](https://github.com/ffroliva/gflow-cli/issues/174)). This gate enforces two
things, both evidence-based (no claim without a fresh verification artifact — see the
`superpowers:verification-before-completion` skill):
1. **Part 1 — Pre-flight**, at the *start* of feature/fix work: confirm the checkout reflects
current `develop` before investing effort.
2. **Part 2 — Live-verify**, *before claiming done* (after `/code-review` and
`/ponytail:ponytail-review`, before commit/PR): exercise the change against real Flow.
Full design rationale:
[`docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-19-live-verify-design.md`](../../docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-19-live-verify-design.md).
---
## Part 1 — Pre-flight
Run before writing any code for a new feature/fix:
```bash
git fetch origin
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD
git rev-list --count HEAD..origin/develop
git log --oneline -5
```
`git rev-list --count HEAD..origin/develop` is an asymmetric DAG set-difference — it counts
commits `develop` has that the current `HEAD` lacks, regardless of `HEAD`'s own private
unmerged history. This is what catches a genuinely diverged stale branch, not just a
behind-by-fast-forward one.
- **If the count is nonzero:** stop. `git pull` (on `develop`) or rebase/merge (on a feature
branch) before continuing.
- **If the branch's last real commit looks old relative to recent `develop` activity** (a
smell for stale WIP — e.g. missing a function/guard that `develop` already has): stop and
surface it. Don't silently proceed, don't silently switch — name the divergence and ask the
user how to proceed.
- **A separate sibling checkout is not itself a red flag** — this project's workflow
routinely uses sibling checkouts for isolated feature branches, and a real feature branch
is *supposed* to differ from `develop`. The actual signal is "differs from `develop` in a
way that suggests staleness" (missing something `develop` has), not "differs by adding new
work on top of it." When in doubt, diff the specific file(s) about to be touched against
`origin/develop`'s version before assuming they match:
```bash
git diff origin/develop -- <path/to/file>
```
## Part 2 — Live-verify
"Live" means: **drive the real generation commands** (`t2i`, `i2i`, `i2v`, and siblings like
`t2v`/`r2v` where applicable) against a real authenticated Flow account, covering **multiple
variations** of the change — not one happy-path call. A change touching a generation code
path is default-in-scope; skipping this gate requires a named reason, not silence.
**1. Define the live matrix.** Before running anything, name explicitly:
- Which command(s) does the change touch?
- Which variations actually exercise it? (E.g. for a mention-resolution fix: a character
mention, a media mention, an ambiguous-name case, an unresolvable name.)
- **Which surface(s)?** A capability that ships as both a CLI command and an MCP tool has
**two live paths, not one** — and the MCP queued path runs different code
(`mcp/tools.py` → queue payload → `worker/codec.py` → request → daemon owns download and
recording). A CLI run does not exercise it. Decide per change whether the MCP path needs
its own live run, and if you skip it, say so with a reason. The cheap version is usually
enough: one queued MCP call on a credit-free operation proves the payload keys round-trip,
which is the hop that silently no-ops (#495). Offline parity tests cannot see this —
they never build a real payload and decode it.
**2. Check the cost tier for each variation — the tier follows the operation, not the
command family:**
- Bare entity CRUD with no image generation (`create_entity`, `list_characters`,
`patch_entity` at the API level; `t2i`/`i2i` themselves) are **credit-free** — run as
needed to cover the matrix without a separate confirm each time. Still mind WAF/volume
discipline: don't fire dozens of live calls back-to-back without surfacing it to the
user first.
- **Anything that generates real media is costed**, even on an otherwise-free command
family — e.g. `gflow character create --face-prompt` generates real face/body images
and drives real image generation despite being "character CRUD" in name (zero credits, daily-capped); `i2v` and other
video-generation paths are always costed. Always get explicit operator go-ahead before
running a costed variation. Batch the ask: name what will run and why, once, not one
confirm per call.
**3. Run each variation, capture evidence per run.** Use the release skill's actual 5-layer
ledger shape (`skills/release/SKILL.md` §4b), adapted per-field to what the change under
test produces:
| Layer | Evidence |
|---|---|
| File count | New file(s)/DB row(s) produced by the run |
| Magic bytes / field value | The specific artifact or field the change is supposed to affect (e.g. a real image's magic bytes, or de-tagged prompt text in the catalog) |
| Dimensions/shape | For media output: actual dimensions match the requested aspect ratio/model |
| Structlog invariants | The expected log event fired (e.g. `mention_resolved`, not `mention_unresolved`) |
| User-confirmable artifact | Real output a human could open and check (image/video file, `size > 1024` bytes) |
Write this to a lightweight per-feature evidence note at `tmp/live-verify/<feature-slug>.md`
(gitignored — this is not the full `docs/LIVE_VERIFICATION_vX.Y.Z.md` release ceremony).
Fold it into the real `LIVE_VERIFICATION` doc when the feature ships in a release.
**4. On pass:** all matrix variations green — proceed to commit.
**5. On fail:** go to Failure-routing below.
## Failure-routing (reproducibility re-test)
**1. Check for a known match first** (costed failures only, to avoid an unnecessary
re-spend): grep `KNOWN_ISSUES.md` and open GitHub issues for a matching error signature.
```bash
gh issue list --repo ffroliva/gflow-cli --search "<error text>" --state all
```
**2. If no match, re-test once.** Free for `t2i`/`i2i` — just re-run. For a costed failure,
re-testing needs the same operator confirm as any costed run.
**3. Compare outcomes and route:**From ffroliva/gflow-cli, MIT.
More from ffroliva/gflow-cli
- 0.799score
scenario
ffroliva
Pre-implementation edge-case and scenario explorer for gflow-cli.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
issue-assessment
ffroliva
Use when triaging a GitHub issue for gflow-cli — a reporter's bug claim, a freshly-filed issue, or deciding whether and how to act on one.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
llm-council
ffroliva
Use when a pr-council-review (PR or branch mode) result needs independent corroboration from a different model family before trusting a GREEN verdict —…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
issue-resolve
ffroliva
Use when an assessed gflow-cli issue (verdict CONFIRMED-BUG or LIKELY-BUG) has localized, verifiable scope and should be driven to a fix.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
plan
ffroliva
Creates a structured task-by-task implementation plan for a gflow-cli feature.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
predict
ffroliva
Pre-implementation multi-persona adversarial analysis for gflow-cli proposals.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.795score
sonar
ffroliva
Check the SonarCloud quality gate for a PR (or the current branch) and drive it to zero.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.792score
check
ffroliva
Auto-fix lint and formatting, then report types and tests.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.791score
status
ffroliva
Surfaces the current state of work in gflow-cli.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.791score
spike
ffroliva
Gather EVIDENCE from the live Flow surface — DOM, network, HAR — before claiming a feature is broken, missing, or impossible.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.787score
release
ffroliva
Cut a new gflow-cli release — bump version, update CHANGELOG, tag, push, and back-merge.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.786score
doc-review
ffroliva
Use before cutting any gflow-cli release or after a major documentation change — systematic council-driven audit that combines a mechanical 7-section…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9
Signals
- Stars
- 332
- Forks
- 95
- Open issues
- 30
- Contributors
- 22
- Last commit (this folder)
- Sep 5, 2026 (1 month ago)
- Last release
- Oct 24, 2026 (4 days ago)
From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).
Details
- License
- MIT
- Repository
- github.com/ffroliva/gflow-cli
- First seen
- Oct 24, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 24, 2026
- Source
- GitHubgithub-graphql
More from ffroliva
- 0.799score
plan
ffroliva
Creates a structured task-by-task implementation plan for a gflow-cli feature.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
predict
ffroliva
Pre-implementation multi-persona adversarial analysis for gflow-cli proposals.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
issue-assessment
ffroliva
Use when triaging a GitHub issue for gflow-cli — a reporter's bug claim, a freshly-filed issue, or deciding whether and how to act on one.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
issue-resolve
ffroliva
Use when an assessed gflow-cli issue (verdict CONFIRMED-BUG or LIKELY-BUG) has localized, verifiable scope and should be driven to a fix.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
llm-council
ffroliva
Use when a pr-council-review (PR or branch mode) result needs independent corroboration from a different model family before trusting a GREEN verdict —…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9 - 0.799score
scenario
ffroliva
Pre-implementation edge-case and scenario explorer for gflow-cli.
SkillAFreshness: A★ 332Claude Code +9
Cite this page
live-verify skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/ffroliva-live-verify (last updated 2026-10-24)