Periodic pass that keeps a project's verification skill and feature map honest: parallel source readers per feature, one live session driving every feature, at most one PR of proven corrections. Use for /maintain-verification-skill or "audit the verify skill".
インストール方法を見るインストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
On Codex, read the platform mapping, including its per-skill notes, before following this skill.
On GitHub Copilot, read the platform mapping, including its per-skill notes, before following this skill.
A feature map rots the moment the app changes. This skill is the upkeep loop for a skill generated by /create-verification-skill (or any project-local verification skill with a feature map). The unit of rigor is the feature, not every sentence: cover every feature file from source and exercise every feature live, without terminalising every bullet.
Pick one, and say which:
Only edit the verification skill's own directory (its SKILL.md, features/, and any harness scripts it owns). Never edit product code during a run: a behavior the map describes that the app no longer does is either doc drift (fix the map) or a product regression (report it, don't paper over it in docs).
Locate the target. Find the verification skill to maintain: the project-local skill whose body has launch/drive sections and a feature map (.claude/skills/verify/, or .claude/skills/verify-*/ from an older generator). Several candidates → ask which one; none → stop and point at /create-verification-skill instead of inventing a target.
Index hygiene. Read the feature map README and glob its sibling files. Fix missing, extra, duplicate, or dead entries. Lightweight; no generated inventory.
Source wave. One read-only subagent per feature file, launched concurrently. Each explains "how does this user-facing feature work?" from source, flags likely doc drift with citations, and returns one concise live-verification recipe. Children never drive the app and never edit files. Return shape: feature summary / source entry points / likely drift or none / one recipe.
Reconcile. Every feature file has a returned summary. Merge overlapping recipes into as few app states as practical. Spot-check cited drift; don't re-prove clean claims. Sweep recent churn for user-facing surfaces missing from the map — require a concrete source path before calling one missing.
Live pass. Required even when source looks clean. The coordinator owns all driving; follow the verification skill's own launch model — one long-lived instance driven serially for servers and UIs, or a fresh isolated session per drive for short-lived CLIs (the skill's Launch section decides, not this one). Exercise every feature at least once, and hold three invariants the whole pass, whatever the failure: (1) never drive an instance you haven't health-checked since it last did something surprising — doctor before first drive, doctor on each fresh session where sessions are the unit, doctor again after any failed drive, and where doctor can't see the failure (a wedged UI state on a healthy process), reset to a known state or relaunch rather than hoping; (2) evidence captured so far survives every cleanup, checked at its named location, not assumed; (3) nothing a drive started outlives that drive's usefulness — failed-iteration residue is cleaned whether the session is stuck, exited, or shared (for a shared instance, clean the residue, not the instance). A doctor failure caused by skill drift is drift: fix it under edit scope and retry once — restart whatever the fix invalidated, nothing more — before calling the pass blocked. A feature that can't be reached is verified-unreachable only with the concrete prerequisite (auth, entitlement, OS, external state) and the route attempted; if the map omits that prerequisite, that's drift. Any harness fix from triage gets re-driven live before it ships. Final teardown happens after the last drive of the run — including those re-proofs — so nothing outlives the run (evidence stays, per the skill).
Triage. Wrong or missing user-POV description → doc drift, fix it. Working behavior the harness can't drive → harness gap, fix it; a harness fix follows the same helpers rule as generation (scripts executable, invocation documented in the skill body). App behavior that's actually broken → product gap; record it for the user, keep it out of this PR.
Ship or stop. For changed: one PR of proven corrections, re-read every changed file first. For clean or blocked: no PR, report the outcome and the coverage honestly.
Keep concise run notes (features covered, unreachable prerequisites, confirmed drift, outcome) in a scratch location; don't commit them.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in. Use for /architect, 'architect this', 'design this', or non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Spawn N parallel candidates at the same task, pick a base, graft the strongest parts of the losers into it. Use for /arena, 'arena this', 'throw it in the arena', or when one attempt at a non-trivial artifact would lock in the wrong shape.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use for "automate me", "create/update/refresh my -mode skill", "turn/capture my preferences or working style into a skill", or wanting agents to follow how the user works. Drafts or revises a personal -mode skill via plugin-dev:skill-development + unslop, optionally pulling fresh evidence from recent transcripts.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Vet a perf measurement (limiter, tuning, limits, errors, repeatability, relevance, and whether the work happened) before you report or act on it. Use when you run a benchmark or report a speedup or regression you measured.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code ('make X public', 'X already handles Y') before you design against that assertion.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。