Skip to content
Back to skills

Validator Workflow

ASecurity

Phase-level validation workflow for validator agents. Handles loading project rules, reading phase files, running /code-review, conditional verification (unit tests + typecheck + E2E/DB tests based on phase type), determining verdict, and reporting to the orchestrator. Invoke this skill as your first action — not user-invocable.

  • 57 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added May 31, 2026
testinggobashreacttestingcode-reviewfrontend

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 31, 2026

npx -y skills add diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill --skill validator-workflow --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Validator Workflow?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Validator Workflow
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/diegosouzapw-validator-workflow/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/diegosouzapw-validator-workflow)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: validator-workflow
description: "Phase-level validation workflow for validator agents. Handles loading project rules, reading phase files, running /code-review, conditional verification (unit tests + typecheck + E2E/DB tests based on phase type), determining verdict, and reporting to the orchestrator. Invoke this skill as your first action — not user-invocable."
user-invocable: false
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
---

# Validator Phase Workflow

You have been assigned a **phase to validate** after a builder reports completion. Your spawn prompt contains the phase file path and plan folder. This skill teaches you how to handle validation end-to-end.

## Why This Workflow Exists

The user experienced validators that ran shallow checks, missed pattern deviations, and didn't catch issues introduced by auto-fixes. Each step below prevents a specific failure:

| Step | Prevents |
|------|----------|
| Load project rules | Reviewing without knowing coding conventions (teammates don't inherit parent rules) |
| Read phase completely | Reviewing against wrong acceptance criteria |
| Run /code-review | Self-review blind spots — builder never reviews its own code |
| Conditional verification | Frontend bugs missed without E2E, DB bugs missed without PgTAP |
| Actionable FAIL reports | Fix builders guessing at what's broken, producing more failures |

## Step 0: Load Project Rules

Teammates don't inherit all parent rules — only `alwaysApply` rules load natively. File-scoped rules (coding conventions, patterns) must be read explicitly.

Read these two files (they contain universal conventions for all code):

```
Read ~/.claude/rules/coding-style.md
Read ~/.claude/rules/patterns.md
```

If either file doesn't exist, skip it — the project may not have those rules configured.

These rules inform what you flag during review — import ordering, error handling, service patterns, data fetching conventions.

## Step 1: Read the Phase

Read the phase file from your spawn prompt. Extract:

- **`skill:` field** from frontmatter — determines which extra tests to run (Step 3)
- **Acceptance criteria** — your success metrics for the verdict
- **Implementation steps** — what was supposed to be built
- **Files created/modified** — scope of your review

## Step 2: Run Code Review

Invoke the code review skill against the phase:

```
Skill({ skill: "code-review", args: "[phase-file-path]" })
```

This forks a sub-agent that:
- Reads the phase document and extracts all implementation steps
- Finds reference implementations from the codebase (ground truth)
- Reviews each file against phase spec AND codebase patterns
- Auto-fixes Critical/High/Medium issues directly in source files
- Writes a review file to `{plan-folder}/reviews/code/phase-{NN}.md`
- Returns a verdict with issue counts and what was fixed

## Step 3: Run Verification

**Skip verification entirely** if the code review verdict is "Ready" with zero auto-fixes — the builder already passed tests + typecheck before reporting, and no source files changed since.

**Run verification** if the code review auto-fixed any issues (files were modified):

### Always Run

```bash
pnpm run typecheck
pnpm test
```

Both must pass. If auto-fixes introduced issues, fix them.

### Conditional Testing by Phase Type

The phase's `skill:` frontmatter field determines which additional tests to run:

| Phase Skill | Extra Test | Command |
|-------------|-----------|---------|
| `react-form-builder` | E2E tests | `pnpm test:e2e` (scoped) |
| `vercel-react-best-practices` | E2E tests | `pnpm test:e2e` (scoped) |
| `web-design-guidelines` | E2E tests | `pnpm test:e2e` (scoped) |
| `playwright-e2e` | E2E tests | `pnpm test:e2e` (scoped) |
| `postgres-expert` | DB tests | `pnpm test:db` |
| `server-action-builder` | Unit tests sufficient | — |
| `service-builder` | Unit tests sufficient | — |

### E2E Test Scoping

When running E2E tests, scope them to the feature being validated:

1. Extract keywords from the phase title/slug (e.g., `notes`, `billing`, `auth`)
2. Glob for `e2e/**/*{keyword}*.spec.ts`
3. If matches found: `pnpm test:e2e -- [matched spec files]`
4. If no matches: `pnpm test:e2e` (full suite)

### Graceful Skip

If a test command doesn't exist (exit code from missing script), skip it and note in the report:

```
E2E tests: skipped (pnpm test:e2e not configured)
```

This allows projects without E2E or DB tests to pass validation without false failures.

## Step 4: Determine Verdict

Based on the code review results and verification (if it ran):

- **PASS**: Code review verdict is "Ready", no unfixed Critical/High issues, and all verification passed (or was skipped because no files changed)
- **FAIL**: Any unfixed Critical/High issues, or (if verification ran) typecheck errors, test failures, E2E failures, or DB test failures

## Step 5: Report to Orchestrator

```
SendMessage({
  type: "message",
  recipient: "team-lead",
  content: "Phase [NN] validation: [PASS|FAIL]\n\nCode review: [verdict]\nReview file: [path]\nVerification: [pass|skipped (no changes)]\nE2E tests: [pass|fail|skipped|N/A]\nDB tests: [pass|fail|skipped|N/A]\n\n[If FAIL: specific issues with file:line references and exact fixes needed]",
  summary: "Phase NN: PASS|FAIL"
})
```

## Step 6: Go Idle

Wait for the next validation assignment or a shutdown request.

## FAIL Reports Must Be Actionable

When reporting FAIL, include enough detail for a fresh builder to fix the issues without guessing:

- **File:line references** for each issue
- **Which pattern was violated** (cite the reference file)
- **Exact fix needed** (not "consider improving" — state what must change)
- **Which test failed** (test name, assertion, expected vs actual)

Vague FAIL reports cause fix builders to guess, producing more failures. Specific reports enable one-shot fixes.

IMPORTANT: Before using the Write tool on any existing file, you MUST Read it first or the write will silently fail. Prefer Edit for modifying existing files.

## Resuming After Context Compact

If your context was compacted mid-validation:

1. `TaskList` → find the `in_progress` or first `pending` task
2. `TaskGet` on that task → read the self-contained description
3. Continue from that task — don't restart the validation
4. The task list is your source of truth, not your memory

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.