Agent skill

Common Verification First

by macalbert in macalbert/envilder

Normative verification-first policy for all change intents. An agent skill from macalbert/envilder.

MITAuto-check passedDevOps & Cloud

Install Common Verification First

skills CLI
$ npx skills add macalbert/envilder --skill common-verification-first -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install macalbert/envilder common-verification-first --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/macalbert/envilder.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.github/skills/common-verification-first .claude/skills/common-verification-first && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
common-verification-first
GitHub stars
138
Token cost
~4.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,222 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
30
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Normative verification-first policy for all change intents. An agent skill from macalbert/envilder.

  • Works in 9 steps: Approve the requirement, observable… → Classify intent and choose the… → Delegate a fresh Contract Verifier. → …
  • DevOps & Cloud work in your project
  • SKILL.md covers Core Principle, Distinct Concepts, Two Independent Dimensions and Role Ownership, plus 11 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Common Verification First is an agent skill from macalbert/envilder. Normative verification-first policy for all change intents. Defines independent verification contracts, strategy selection, evidence rules, role ownership, and final evaluation without prescribing microscopic implementation steps.

Its SKILL.md is about 4.8k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in DevOps & Cloud. The repository describes itself as: One secret mapping for local dev, CI/CD, and runtime. Envilder resolves cloud secrets from your own vaults without SaaS middlemen, duplicated config, or .env drift. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • DevOps & Cloud work in your project

Example prompts

  • “/common-verification-first”

Workflow steps

9 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Approve the requirement, observable outcome, invariants, scope, and
  2. Classify intent and choose the verification strategy independently.
  3. Delegate a fresh Contract Verifier.
  4. Confirm the VerificationContract derives from approved semantics and uses
  5. Delegate a fresh Implementer to produce the coherent solution.
  6. Run a fresh read-only Reviewer in candidate-review mode unless the strict
  7. Route findings to their owner and repeat only the affected downstream
  8. Delegate a new fresh Final Verifier.
  9. Only an explicit Final result: PASS in FinalVerificationResult for the

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit b6a0327. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Common Verification First loads about 4.8k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 64 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,222 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~64
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~4.8k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from macalbert/envilder at commit b6a0327, republished under its MIT licence (© macalbert). 2,222 words, ~4,817 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/common-verification-first/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
common-verification-first
description
Normative verification-first policy for all change intents. Defines independent verification contracts, strategy selection, evidence rules, role ownership, and final evaluation without prescribing microscopic implementation steps.
user-invocable
false

Verification-First Engineering

This is the normative policy for planning, implementing, reviewing, and verifying repository changes across every Envilder stack.

Core Principle

The implementation must not define its own success criteria.

Expected results derive from approved requirements, invariants, acceptance criteria, architecture constraints, and stable external contracts. Control the correctness of the result without prescribing the microscopic process used to produce it.

A passing command is evidence. It is not proof that the requirement was interpreted correctly.

Distinct Concepts

  • TDD controls how implementation evolves through Red, minimal Green, and Refactor. An Implementer may use that loop when useful, but this workflow does not require it.
  • Test-first establishes a test before implementation. The ordering can separate expected behavior from solution generation, but physical ordering alone does not guarantee independence.
  • Automated testing executes test-based evidence against a system.
  • Verification-first establishes the strongest practical, implementation-independent oracle before solution edits when meaningful. The oracle may be a test, compiler, type checker, schema validator, policy check, contract check, generated-artifact check, or direct workflow.

The goal is reliable evidence of correctness, not the maximum number of tests.

Two Independent Dimensions

Classify every task by both intent and verification strategy. Neither dimension mechanically determines the other.

Intent

Choose exactly one:

IntentMeaning
NEW_BEHAVIORIntroduces an observable capability or system property
BEHAVIOR_CHANGEIntentionally changes an existing observable contract
BUG_FIXRestores expected behavior by correcting a confirmed defect
PURE_REFACTORChanges structure while preserving observable behavior
NON_BEHAVIORAL_CHANGEChanges artifacts without changing system behavior

Infrastructure, configuration, migrations, generated artifacts, and test infrastructure are subjects of work, not extra intents. Classify what the change means, not which directory it touches.

Verification Strategy

Select one or more strategies justified by the requirement:

StrategyTypical use
New, updated, or reused behavioral testsObservable behavior and regressions
Existing-suite baselinePure refactors and already protected behavior
Consumer or direct-workflow evidenceTest infrastructure and operational workflows
Compiler, type, or static validationAPI shape, type safety, architecture, lint, generated consistency
Schema, policy, migration, or contract validationConfiguration, data evolution, and external contracts
Explicit limitationNo meaningful executable oracle is available

Prefer the fastest deterministic strategy that directly exercises the important boundary. Add broader gates when a narrow oracle cannot expose integration risk.

Role Ownership

Change Orchestrator
  • Owns one coherent approved change, its classification, routing, and final judgment.
  • Preserves the approved requirement, invariants, scope, constraints, and limitations.
  • Never edits artifacts or executes repository commands.
  • Routes implementation defects to the Implementer, contract defects to the Contract Verifier, and semantic changes to human approval.
Contract Verifier
  • Is the sole editor of verification-contract artifacts.
  • Selects, reuses, updates, or creates the required executable oracle before implementation.
  • Never derives expected behavior from the candidate implementation.
Final Verifier
  • Has read-only tools and cannot edit verification or solution artifacts.
  • Reassesses the exact reviewed candidate against the original approved intent and independent contract in a fresh context.
  • Returns BLOCKED when required final evidence needs command execution that the read-only profile cannot perform.
  • Never derives expected behavior from the candidate implementation.
Implementer
  • Is the sole editor of solution artifacts: production code, configuration, documentation, migrations, refactors, and test infrastructure.
  • Never edits or weakens the established verification contract.
  • May inspect, compile, test, debug, iterate, and refactor freely.
  • Does not need to follow microscopic Red/Green/Refactor cycles.
Reviewer
  • Is strictly read-only and evaluates final artifacts rather than implementation history.
  • Supports candidate-review for one orchestrated candidate and change-set-review for a staged, unstaged, branch, commit-range, or pull-request diff.
  • Never edits or delegates fixes.
  • May return no findings when the candidate is already correct and well factored.

Artifact Ownership

Verification-contract artifacts encode success criteria: behavioral, regression, contract, architecture, or acceptance tests; expectation snapshots; and dedicated validation scripts or specifications created to express the approved contract.

Solution artifacts include production code, configuration, documentation, migrations, refactors, fixtures, builders, seeders, mocks, containers, data loaders, runner setup, and other test infrastructure.

The Contract Verifier may edit only verification-contract artifacts while establishing a contract. The Implementer may edit only solution artifacts. The Reviewer and Final Verifier edit nothing.

Capability Exposure and Inheritance

On filtering hosts, a descendant's effective tools are limited by its own profile and every ancestor's exposed tools. Change Orchestrator, Content Designer, and PR Resolver therefore each declare the explicit inheritance envelope [read, search, edit, execute, agent]. Every ancestor must expose all required descendant tools, including agent for nested delegation.

Exposure does not grant semantic authority: coordinators never edit artifacts, and Change Orchestrator never executes repository commands. Contract Verifier owns verification-contract edits; Implementer owns solution edits. Host approval gates remain in force; never use wildcard tool grants or bypass approvals to repair propagation.

Workers retain their own limits: Contract Verifier and Implementer use [read, search, edit, execute], Reviewer uses [read, search, execute], and Final Verifier uses [read, search]. None delegates. A broader ancestor envelope must not expand a worker's effective boundary.

These common aliases are portability defaults, not universal host tool names or support guarantees. Preflight actual tool exposure, nested delegation, and worker boundaries; return BLOCKED with the missing capability when required support cannot be established. Implementer diagnoses missing read/edit/execute and may use execute-based search when no dedicated search tool is exposed.

Semantic Handoffs

Fresh contexts provide separation of responsibilities and independent evaluation. Fresh does not mean starved of context.

Every worker receives the approved semantic inputs it needs:

  • requirement and observable outcome;
  • intent and verification strategy;
  • invariants and exact in-scope and out-of-scope boundaries;
  • architecture, compatibility, security, and operational constraints;
  • assumptions and explicit limitations;
  • relevant repository context, commands, prior evidence, and required gates;
  • the current VerificationContract;
  • the exact candidate diff and path set when a candidate exists; and
  • the latest relevant ImplementationResult, ReviewResult, or FinalVerificationResult.

Do not propagate transcripts, raw command logs, failed attempts, temporary hypotheses, private reasoning, or obsolete result histories. Communicate semantic results, not full working trajectories.

Verification-First Workflow

  1. Approve the requirement, observable outcome, invariants, scope, and constraints.
  2. Classify intent and choose the verification strategy independently.
  3. Delegate a fresh Contract Verifier.
  4. Confirm the VerificationContract derives from approved semantics and uses the narrowest credible oracle.
  5. Delegate a fresh Implementer to produce the coherent solution.
  6. Run a fresh read-only Reviewer in candidate-review mode unless the strict omission rule applies.
  7. Route findings to their owner and repeat only the affected downstream stages.
  8. Delegate a new fresh Final Verifier.
  9. Only an explicit Final result: PASS in FinalVerificationResult for the exact current reviewed candidate permits Change Orchestrator completion judgment. PASS is necessary, not sufficient: all existing acceptance conditions still apply.

If any candidate artifact changes after review or final verification, invalidate the affected results and rerun the necessary review and final verification against the new candidate.

Final Result Gate and Recovery
  • FAIL prevents acceptance. Route implementation defects to a fresh Implementer and contract defects to a fresh Contract Verifier, then repeat affected downstream stages. Changes to approved semantics, invariants, scope, or requirements require human approval.
  • BLOCKED propagates a reason-bearing ChangeResult with final judgment BLOCKED; callers must not claim successful completion, publish PR replies, or resolve threads. Unavailable required evidence alone is not an instruction to edit the solution.
  • An approved limitation cannot replace final PASS or waive FAIL or BLOCKED. A legitimately approved limitation strategy can still receive PASS when the approved contract is actually satisfied and assessable.
  • A genuinely resolved blocker, including independently owned contract repair, requires reassessment of the corrected contract/candidate, appropriate review, and fresh final verification. Only a fresh explicit PASS reopens judgment.
  • Missing, unknown, or ambiguous final results cannot pass the gate. Neither another role's success nor passing commands establish final PASS.

Callers must require this qualifying final PASS for each artifact-changing action, even if its ChangeResult nominally claims success. All approved actions must succeed before batch publication; prepared but held replies are not published success. Aggregate validation and remote availability are additional gates, not substitutes for final PASS. Direct no-artifact answers and approved skips retain their existing workflow and applicable exemptions.

Show full SKILL.md (920 more words)Show less
Review Omission

Candidate review may be omitted only when every condition is true:

  • intent is exactly NON_BEHAVIORAL_CHANGE;
  • scope is trivial;
  • the edit is mechanical;
  • the subject is not infrastructure, configuration, migration, a generated artifact, or test infrastructure; and
  • definitive artifact-appropriate validation passed.

Record the rationale, evidence, and residual risk. Any uncertainty requires review. A lifecycle-level or complete change-set review may still be required by the caller.

Rules by Intent

NEW_BEHAVIOR
  • Identify the absent observable behavior and its invariants.
  • Reuse verification that already expresses the requirement.
  • Add verification only for uncovered behavior.
  • Establish a meaningful expected-failure or absence signal when the oracle can do so.
  • Use integration evidence when wiring or cross-layer collaboration is part of the risk.
BEHAVIOR_CHANGE
  • Update the existing behavioral contract before implementation when one exists.
  • Remove or replace contradictory expectations.
  • Add verification only for an uncovered part of the approved change.
  • Record how current behavior differs from the newly approved expectation.
BUG_FIX
  • Investigate the symptom, trigger, root cause, affected scope, and existing coverage.
  • Reuse or update existing verification when it reproduces the real defect.
  • Otherwise add one focused regression at the lowest level that crosses the failing boundary.
  • Demonstrate the defect on the pre-fix state whenever practical.
  • Confirm that any failing signal matches the reported behavioral defect rather than a compilation, setup, dependency, or environment failure.
  • Stop when the defect cannot be reproduced; do not guess at a fix.
  • Keep regression protection and run the broader relevant suite.
PURE_REFACTOR
  • Establish a green baseline with existing behavioral verification.
  • Keep behavioral verification unchanged.
  • Preserve outputs, side effects, contracts, compatibility, and architecture invariants.
  • If behavioral expectations must change, stop and reclassify the task.
NON_BEHAVIORAL_CHANGE
  • Use artifact-appropriate lint, parser, schema, reference, dry-run, or build checks.
  • Establish a baseline only when comparison is meaningful.
  • Do not create a test, force a failure, or run an unrelated suite for ceremony.
  • Report when no automated validator exists.

Infrastructure and Configuration

Classify by intent first, then choose the natural oracle. Appropriate evidence can include workflow or configuration schema validation, policy validation, migration checks, API or event contract validation, compiler checks, type checking, lint, and generated-code consistency.

Do not force infrastructure behavior into a shallow unit test when policy, contract, plan, or migration evidence expresses the real system property more directly.

Test Infrastructure

Fixtures, builders, mocks, stubs, seeders, containers, data loaders, and test-runner configuration are solution artifacts.

Use this order:

  1. Run a production-behavior consumer test that uses the support artifact.
  2. Reproduce the affected test workflow directly when needed.
  3. Add the smallest focused test of a stable support contract only when the first two paths cannot localize the defect with enough diagnostic precision.

The focused support test is diagnostic instrumentation, not a coverage target. Record why consumer or workflow evidence was insufficient.

Oracle Effectiveness

Physical test-first ordering is only a proxy for independence. The stronger question is:

Can the verification meaningfully reject an incorrect or previous behavior?

Useful effectiveness evidence may include:

  • a focused failing regression;
  • a known counterexample;
  • a contract, schema, policy, or generated-artifact mismatch;
  • a mutation that the oracle rejects; or
  • another meaningful negative signal.

A failing signal counts only when its observed reason matches the expected absent, previous, or defective behavior. Compilation, setup, dependency, and environment failures are limitations to resolve or report, not evidence that the behavioral oracle is effective.

Do not require visible Red merely as ritual. For critical behavior, consider stronger techniques such as property-based testing, mutation testing, boundary analysis, concurrency scenarios, contract validation, and independent review.

Behavioral Test Strategy

Inside-out and outside-in are both valid ways to discover behavioral verification. Neither dictates how the Implementer must construct the solution.

Use the lowest test level that can prove the requirement without mocking away the risk:

LevelSelect when
UnitPure behavior has no I/O and a small stable boundary
IntegrationBehavior crosses layers, persistence, HTTP, queues, or framework wiring
AcceptanceA stakeholder use case needs full application-path evidence
E2EA small number of critical flows require real user and deployed-style boundaries

Behavioral verification should be isolated, order-independent, deterministic, readable as a requirement, specific enough to localize failure, insensitive to private structure, and maintainable in proportion to the protected risk.

Coverage and test count are diagnostics, not goals. Prefer observable results and required side effects over private methods, trivial storage, framework registration in isolation, or mock interactions as ends in themselves.

Compact Result Shapes

These are the canonical workflow envelopes. Role agents may add task-specific detail but must not rename, remove, or contradict these fields.

text
VerificationContract

Intent and strategy:
Behaviors and invariants:
Verification artifacts:
Targeted commands:
Pre-state effectiveness evidence:
Broader gates:
Assumptions:
Result:
Risks or limitations:
text
ImplementationResult

Intent and strategy:
VerificationContract received:
Solution artifacts changed:
Candidate paths:
Design decisions:
Targeted command and result:
Broader gates and results:
Contract status: SATISFIED | UNSATISFIED | BLOCKED
Unresolved concerns or risks:
text
ReviewResult

Mode and scope:
Summary:
Prioritized findings:
No-finding rationale:
Verification observations and commands:
Contract assessment: <assessment | NOT_PROVIDED>
Verdict: APPROVE | COMMENT | REQUEST_CHANGES | BLOCKED
Remaining risks:
text
FinalVerificationResult

Candidate paths assessed:
Approved semantics assessed:
Review disposition assessment:
Behaviors and invariants assessed:
Targeted command results:
Broader gate results:
Contract assessment:
Final result: PASS | FAIL | BLOCKED
Risks or limitations:
text
ChangeResult

Approved specification:
Intent and strategy:
VerificationContract:
Changed paths and candidate scope:
Latest ImplementationResult:
Latest ReviewResult or ReviewOmission:
FinalVerificationResult:
Final judgment:
Limitations and residual risks:

What Remains Strict

  • Approved requirements, invariants, scope, and constraints precede implementation.
  • Expected behavior is established independently of the candidate implementation.
  • Verification-contract artifacts remain Contract Verifier-owned.
  • Bug fixes reproduce the defect whenever practical.
  • Pure refactors preserve behavior and behavioral verification.
  • Test infrastructure uses consumer or direct-workflow evidence first.
  • Required targeted and broader gates run before completion.
  • Missing, failed, skipped, or unavailable evidence is reported honestly.
  • Candidate review is mandatory except for the strict non-behavioral omission.
  • A fresh final evaluator reassesses evidence against original intent.

What Remains Flexible

  • Whether the oracle is a test.
  • Whether verification is new, updated, or reused.
  • Whether an effectiveness signal is a failing test or another negative signal.
  • The test level and inside-out or outside-in perspective.
  • How many files or local implementation iterations are needed.
  • When the Implementer compiles, tests, debugs, or refactors.
  • Whether review finds anything; no findings is valid.

Never require a new test, a failing test, or a separate cleanup phase merely to satisfy a ritual. Require independent criteria, appropriate evidence, sound architecture, and a credible final judgment.

© macalbert, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in .github/skills/common-verification-first of macalbert/envilder.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit b6a0327

Compare with similar skills

Common Verification First next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Common Verification First compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Common Verification First this skillmacalbert/envilder138—~4.8kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Monitor CInrwl/nx29k5 repos~4.7kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Terraform and OpenTofu Guideagentscope-ai/QwenPaw35k6 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Vercel Optimize Auditvercel-labs/agent-skills32k8 repos~4.3kAutomated safety check: PassNone
Analyze GitHub Action Logswithastro/astro63k1 repos~1.3kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Docs Learn PR Previewnetdata/netdata81k—~2kAutomated safety check: PassGPL-3.0

Similar skills

  • Monitor CI

    nrwl/nx

    Monitor Nx Cloud CI pipeline and handle self-healing fixes. An agent skill from nrwl/nx.

    29k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~4.7k tokens
    DevOps & CloudAuto-check passed
  • Terraform and OpenTofu Guide

    agentscope-ai/QwenPaw

    Guidance for writing and testing Terraform and OpenTofu code: module structure, naming, test approaches, CI/CD workflows, state handling and security scanning.

    35k GitHub starsUsed in 6 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevOps & CloudAuto-check passed
  • Vercel Optimize Audit

    vercel-labs/agent-skills

    Official

    Runs a metrics-first audit of a deployed Vercel project, gating investigations on real signals to produce ranked, citation-backed cost and performance recommendations.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 8 repos~4.3k tokens
    DevOps & CloudAuto-check passed
  • Official

    Analyze recent GitHub Actions workflow runs to identify patterns, mistakes, and improvements.

    63k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~1.3k tokens
    DevOps & CloudAuto-check passed
  • Docs Learn PR Preview

    netdata/netdata

    Use only when the user explicitly asks to build, run, preview, inspect, or validate learn.netdata.cloud locally using the contents of a PR or documentation branch before merge.

    81k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated today
    DevOps & CloudAuto-check passed
  • Repo Mirror Sources

    netdata/netdata

    Inspect Netdata-org source checkouts under NETDATAREPOSDIR, or set up and synchronize that mirror when requested.

    81k GitHub stars~1.2k tokensUpdated today
    DevOps & CloudAuto-check: notes

More from macalbert/envilder

All 30 skills in this repo
  • Code Review Perspectives

    macalbert/envilder

    Five independent analysis perspectives for code review: correctness, architecture, security, conventions, and complexity.

    138 GitHub stars~1k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Index of Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for cross-cutting technical decisions.

    138 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Common Git

    macalbert/envilder

    Git commit messages, PR workflow, and branching strategy using Conventional Commits and Semantic Versioning.

    138 GitHub stars~991 tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Common Testing Conventions

    macalbert/envilder

    Mandatory testing conventions including the narrow diagnostic exception for testing test-only code, AAA pattern, test naming, and assertions across all stacks (.NET, TypeScript, Python).

    138 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Doc Maintenance

    macalbert/envilder

    Workflow for maintaining changelogs, READMEs, and documentation files.

    138 GitHub stars~904 tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Doc Sync

    macalbert/envilder

    Audit and synchronize documentation across website, READMEs, and docs/.

    138 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Common Verification First

What does Common Verification First do?

Normative verification-first policy for all change intents. An agent skill from macalbert/envilder. Common Verification First is an agent skill from macalbert/envilder. Normative verification-first policy for all change intents.

When should I use Common Verification First?

Common Verification First fits situations like: devOps & Cloud work in your project.

How do I install Common Verification First in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add macalbert/envilder --skill common-verification-first -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.github/skills/common-verification-first in macalbert/envilder) into .claude/skills/common-verification-first in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Common Verification First in Codex?

Run `npx skills add macalbert/envilder --skill common-verification-first -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.github/skills/common-verification-first in macalbert/envilder) into .agents/skills/common-verification-first in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Common Verification First in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add macalbert/envilder --skill common-verification-first -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/common-verification-first, .gemini/skills/common-verification-first, .github/skills/common-verification-first and .opencode/skills/common-verification-first in your project.

What does Common Verification First need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Common Verification First is instructions for the agent only.

Does Common Verification First access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Common Verification First safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Common Verification First use?

Common Verification First is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Common Verification First use?

About 4.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 19k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Common Verification First?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Common Verification First: Monitor CI (nrwl/nx, 29k stars), Terraform and OpenTofu Guide (agentscope-ai/QwenPaw, 35k stars), Vercel Optimize Audit (vercel-labs/agent-skills, 32k stars) and Analyze GitHub Action Logs (withastro/astro, 63k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Common Verification First?

macalbert (a GitHub user) maintains it in macalbert/envilder, which has 138 GitHub stars. The repository holds 30 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 5, 2026.

Source: macalbert/envilder on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.