Verify the engineer is ready to implement a feature — a teach-back conversation over a .TICKET-REVIEW.md where they explain the feature in their own words and the agent probes and corrects.
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add eai-org/agent-toolkit --skill verify-understanding --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Verify Understanding?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/eai-org-verify-understanding)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: verify-understanding
description: Verify the engineer is ready to implement a feature — a teach-back conversation over a .TICKET-REVIEW.md where they explain the feature in their own words and the agent probes and corrects.
disable-model-invocation: true
type: flow
license: MIT
metadata:
version: "1.0"
---
# Verify understanding
One goal, nothing more, nothing less: verify the engineer is ready to move to the implementation
phase. Exercise their understanding of a feature before they work on it — the pipeline's other
artifacts serve fresh agent sessions; this step serves the human. Active recall: the user produces
the feature in their own words, you only steer and fix. Re-runnable: right after the ticket
review, or days later just before implementation — every run starts fresh from the review file, no
state kept between runs.
## Input
A `.TICKET-REVIEW.md`. Read it and the ticket files and parent it links. A reference that exists
only as a tracker URL (no local file) may be fetched read-only at conversation time.
## The conversation
A conversation, not a test — the last sync between a dev and their PO before development starts.
1. Ask the user to explain the feature in their own words: who uses it, what they see and do, why
the feature exists, and what each ticket contributes.
2. Let them produce the narrative. Probe one weak spot at a time; correct and complete only from
the review file and the referenced materials — flag what those don't settle, never improvise
requirements.
3. Stay at that PO–dev depth: journey, actors, purpose, per-ticket contribution — not DTO,
field, or architecture detail.
When the product's user-facing language differs from the conversation's, name each page, text, or
element with its user-facing term in parentheses — "the client area (klantportaal)".
Done when the user has correctly produced — corrections absorbed — the journey, why the feature
exists, and every input ticket's contribution: enough to start implementing. Close with a short
wrap-up naming anything that stayed shaky, then point at `/refine-ticket <ticket-file>` per
ticket, in the set's suggested execution order.
## Boundaries
- The conversation is the product: write no files.
- Read-only on the tracker.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!