Loading
Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform. Use for /create-verification-skill, \"make a control skill for this repo\",
The skill file stays in the publisher's repository.
Paste the copied command in a terminal. It installs this SKILL.md into that agent.
npx skills add michael-denyer/pstack-claude --skill create-verification-skill -a cursor -y
Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform. Use for /create-verification-skill, \"make a control skill for this repo\", \"make a driver skill for this repo\", or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior.
Generate a project-local verification skill that drives your app the way a user does — any language, framework, or platform. Use for /create-verification-skill, \"make a control skill for this repo\", \"make a driver skill for this repo\", or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI/CLI/service behavior.
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.
Every serious project needs a scripted way to drive the real app and prove behavior: launch it, exercise a feature the way a user would, and capture evidence. This skill generates that as a project-local skill (.claude/skills/verify/) tailored to the repo. Name it verify. At the repo root a project skill by that name replaces Claude Code's bundled /verify, which only the user can invoke, so every playbook that names the driver skill can call the project one (Claude Code 2.1.200 or later). In a monorepo, write it in the touched package directory instead. You write the generator's output for the next agent, not for a human: it will be read cold, mid-task, by an agent that has never seen the app.
Answer these from the codebase and only ask the user what you cannot observe:
If the checkout doesn't build or start as-is, fix that first (or report it precisely) before generating; a skill written against a broken base teaches wrong steps. When an irrelevant missing asset blocks startup (a static dir the API never serves, a sample config), the generated skill may create it, clearly marked as verification scaffolding, and remove it in cleanup.
Write .claude/skills/verify/SKILL.md with YAML frontmatter (name: verify and a description that names the app, the surface, and when to reach for it — without frontmatter the skill never registers, and with disable-model-invocation the model cannot call it) and these sections, each grounded in what the interview actually found (no placeholders left):
Create .claude/skills/verify/features/README.md plus one file per user-facing feature you can identify (aim for the top 3-5 to start, from routes, commands, menus, or docs). Follow the shape in references/feature-map-example/, with a README index and one file per feature. Each file answers, from the user's point of view: what the feature is, how to reach it, how to drive it with the harness, and what observable end state proves it works. The four H2s are Sub-features, How to get to it (user POV), Driving it with <harness>, and Gotchas. If the seed data lacks a precondition that a journey needs, the journey reports a failure and the reason goes in that feature's Gotchas. Never weaken the journey to make it pass. The map is the repo's maintained verification source; a proof that drives one convenient entry point is incomplete when the map lists others.
Run its own instructions end to end once: launch, doctor, drive ONE mapped feature (one is enough; the map exists so later runs can cover the rest), capture evidence, clean up. After cleanup, confirm the evidence still exists at the named location — a cleanup that eats the proof fails this step. Fix what fails, and run the generated cleanup after every failed iteration too, so broken attempts don't strand processes and ports. A generated skill that was never executed is a draft, not a deliverable. If you proved it in a stand-in for the real target (a container in place of a fresh VM, a local stack in place of a remote one), list every setup step the stand-in did that the target will not. Those steps stay unverified until a run on the real target covers them.
Point the user at /maintain-verification-skill for keeping the map honest as the app changes. Suggest a cadence only if they ask.