magnus919_agent-skills/verification-methodology/SKILL.md

name, description, license, compatibility, metadata

name	description	license	compatibility	metadata
verification-methodology	Verify work against explicit criteria using direct, source-faithful evidence, reproducible checks, and clear verdicts. Use before declaring an artifact, implementation, or claim complete; do not use for exploratory research without pass/fail criteria.	MIT	No runtime dependency.	source_repo source_commit https://github.com/magnus919/hermes-profiles 867a555

Verification Methodology

Pass/fail assessment against pre-defined criteria.

The Verification Protocol

1. Receive — restate the artifact, claim, or implementation being verified and the decision it will support.
2. Assess criteria — convert requirements into observable pass/fail conditions; identify what would disprove each claim.
3. Investigate — collect direct, reproducible evidence from the source named by the request and record commands, source locations, or source URLs. Own this collection when the source is accessible: do not ask the user to relay evidence you can retrieve yourself. Ask only for access you genuinely lack.
4. Decide — mark each criterion passed, failed, blocked, or not applicable. Do not convert missing evidence into a pass.
5. Report — use the verdict template to distinguish verified facts, assumptions, and remaining work.

Stop when every criterion has direct evidence or an explicit blocked/not-applicable verdict. Escalate when the criterion is ambiguous, evidence conflicts, or the required access is unavailable.

Source Fidelity

Treat the requested or configured local service as part of the verification criterion, not as an interchangeable topic label.

1. Load the matching skill and use its documented executable or service path before adjacent integrations, generic web search, or public project sources.
2. Use the path resolved by the skill itself. A missing global PATH entry does not prove that a bundled executable is unavailable.
3. If the direct source fails, report the attempted command or endpoint and its exact failure. Do not silently substitute evidence from another source.
4. Use a substitute only when the user requests broader context or explicitly accepts the fallback. Label substitute evidence as secondary and do not present it as the requested source's state.

Example: for “What’s new on Jellyfin?” in an environment with a configured Jellyfin skill and bundled CLI, query that server through the bundled CLI first. Home Assistant entities and public Jellyfin project activity answer different questions.

When not to use

Do not use this skill for open-ended exploration that has no artifact, claim, decision, or observable completion criterion. Use a research or discovery skill first, then return here when there is something falsifiable to verify.

Related Skills

• playwright — browser-based E2E checks as a verification instrument: authoring and running specs against the real UI boundary.
• documents — producing verification reports or evidence packets as PDF/Word/Excel/PowerPoint deliverables.

Reference Files

Reference	When to load
references/criteria-assessment.md	You need to evaluate whether work meets completion criteria
references/evidence-standards.md	You need to judge whether evidence supports the claims made
references/magnus919-refine-to-ship-gate.md	You are running the Magnus919 Refine-to-Ship verifier gate — 12 criteria, editorial change verification, output structure
references/verdict-template.md	You need to produce a structured pass/fail/hold verdict

Magnus919 Refine-to-Ship Gate Criteria

12 criteria for the verifier profile. Each criterion maps to an observable, reproducible check.

All 12 Criteria

#	Criterion	How to Verify
1	Dash scan — zero em dash (U+2014), en dash (U+2013), horizontal bar (U+2015), or visible prose double-hyphen	search_files for [\u2014\u2013\u2015] and \-\-. Double-hyphens in YAML frontmatter delimiters are OK.
2	Fact-check — all methodology claims map to source; no fabricated numbers, chronology, or universal claims	Cross-reference article claims to source document sections. Search for \d+%, percent, average of, illustrative. Search for research proves, studies demonstrate.
3	Voice-check — Magnus fingerprint: conversational first-person, contractions, "But" pivots (not formal transitions), colons over semicolons, no consultant cadence	Search for Furthermore, Moreover, Nevertheless, Consequently, Therefore, not only.*but also, triplet parallelism. Count colons vs semicolons (should skew heavily toward colons).
4	Oxford commas, spelling, grammar — American English, Oxford commas in series, no spelling errors	Manual read of series. Check for consistent formatting.
5	No formulaic AI closing — zero "In conclusion", "To summarize", "In this article", generic motivational advice	search_files for In conclusion, Ultimately,, To summarize, In this article, In this post.
6	Methodology-first — personal frame ≤ ~10% of article; rest is methodology	Count paragraphs in frame vs body.
7	Human stake integrated — cognitive burden, expertise formation, transferred work, anti-surveillance, accountable authority	Verify dedicated section or dispersed coverage of all dimensions.
8	Privacy/anonymization — zero company identifiers, role titles, named people, source filename, proprietary domain examples	search_files for company name, product names, domain-specific terminology from source.
9	Frontmatter — title, slug, date, byline correct and value-identical to specification	read_file lines 1–11.
10	Links resolve — each distinct URL appears once at first meaningful mention; all return 200	curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" each URL. Verify link text is at first meaningful mention.
11	Hugo build + routes — build exit 0; new route returns 200; old take-home-title route returns 404	hugo --quiet && echo EXIT:$?. curl both routes.
12	No duplicate source bundle — single directory, single index.md; no stale *take-home* directories	ls the page bundle directory. find in content/posts for duplicate slug patterns.

Parent-Requested Editorial Changes

When the parent profile specifies editorial changes during gate recovery, verify each one is present before proceeding with the full criteria scan:

Change Type	Verification Method
Fabricated illustrative numbers removed	search_files for \d+%, percent, PRs? per, average of → zero hits
Tense correction	search_files for the exact parent-specified phrase
Closing replacement	search_files for the first and last sentence of the parent-specified closing

Verdict Rules

• PASS: All 12 criteria met. Produce 00-index.md, 01-summary/verdict.md, 02-analysis/per-criteria-results.md.
• BLOCK: Any criterion fails. Produce gap-details.md with specific fix instructions. See verifier-gate-recovery skill for remediation patterns.

Output Structure

/private/tmp/verifier-gate/<slug>-refine/
  00-index.md              — verdict, links to artifacts
  01-summary/verdict.md    — per-criterion pass/fail table
  02-analysis/
    per-criteria-results.md  — detailed evidence per criterion
    gap-details.md           — only if BLOCK, with remediation instructions

Portability

This skill is intentionally host-neutral. Use your agent's normal mechanisms to load the references, templates, and scripts listed here. Do not assume a particular profile system, task orchestrator, memory service, or response-handoff format.