Skip to content
Back to skills

X Openai Verification 902777c

ASecurity

Full-story verification — infers what the user is building, then verifies the complete flow end-to-end: browser → API → data → response. Triggers on dev server start and ''why isn''t this working'' signals.

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added October 14, 2026
ai-agentsrustshellbashreactdebugginggitapidatabase

Works with

  • terminal
  • cli
  • api
  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 3 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned October 14, 2026

npx -y skills add Geruyang/agent-skills-library --skill x-openai-verification-902777c --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of X Openai Verification 902777c?

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

Security grade badge for X Openai Verification 902777c
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/geruyang-x-openai-verification-902777c/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/geruyang-x-openai-verification-902777c)

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: x-openai-verification-902777c
description: 'Full-story verification — infers what the user is building, then verifies the complete flow end-to-end: browser → API → data → response. Triggers on dev server start and ''why isn''t this working'' signals.'
metadata:
  priority: '7'
  docs: '[''https://vercel.com/docs/projects/project-configuration'']'
  sitemap: https://vercel.com/sitemap/docs.xml
  pathPatterns: '[]'
  bashPatterns: '[''\\bnext\\s+dev\\b'', ''\\bnpm\\s+run\\s+dev\\b'', ''\\bpnpm\\s+dev\\b'', ''\\bbun\\s+run\\s+dev\\b'', ''\\byarn\\s+dev\\b'', ''\\bvite\\s*(dev)?\\b'', ''\\bvercel\\s+dev\\b'', ''\\bastro\\s+dev\\b'']'
  importPatterns: '[]'
  promptSignals: '{''phrases'': [''verify the flow'', ''verify everything works'', ''test the whole thing'', ''does it actually work'', ''check end to end'', ''end to end test'', "why isn''t it working right", "why doesn''t it work", "it''s not working correctly", "something''s off", ''not quite right'', ''almost works but'', ''works locally but'', ''verify the feature'', ''make sure it works'', ''full verification''], ''allOf'': [[''verify'', ''flow''], [''verify'', ''works''], [''check'', ''everything''], [''test'', ''end'', ''end''], [''not'', ''working'', ''right''], [''something'', False], [''almost'', ''works''], [''make'', ''sure'', ''works'']], ''anyOf'': [''verify'', ''verification'', ''end-to-end'', ''full flow'', ''works'', ''working''], ''noneOf'': [''unit test'', ''jest'', ''vitest'', ''playwright test'', ''cypress test''], ''minScore'': 6}'
---

### 导出副本边界与技能别名

迁移、安装、修复和经验回写只作用于当前加载的目标宿主技能副本。原 Codex 技能/MCP、下载的源码和 `original-skills` 均为来源材料,不因执行本副本而写入;只有用户另行明确要求配置 Codex 产品本身时,才按该产品流程处理指定目标。脚本需要安装目录或状态目录时,显式提供目标路径;不得从 `CODEX_HOME` 隐式推断写入位置。

跨技能名称可能沿用源库别名。先查 [技能别名表](../../skill-aliases.json),优先选择同来源、同插件的条目,再使用其 `id` 调用或读取对应入口;不得假定旧 `$skill`、`superpowers:skill` 名称在新宿主直接注册。不能确定目标时先核对,不替换真实产品命令或 Shell 环境变量。

## 跨宿主使用约定

本副本供支持 Agent Skills 的客户端使用。先检查当前宿主实际提供的工具、权限和已连接服务,再执行正文工作流。原文中的宿主工具标识是能力参考;只有实际发现该工具时才可调用,其他宿主应使用经核验的等价 MCP、CLI 或 API。没有等价能力的步骤必须报告不可用,不能虚构调用或完成状态。

技能资源以本技能目录为基准;输出写入当前项目中用户指定的位置。通过技能名称或自然语言触发,具体快捷命令由宿主决定。涉及真实产品、模型 API、协议字段和官方网址的名称保持原意。授权、审批、隐私和工具范围限制在迁移后仍然有效;不得为兼容而扩大权限。具体依赖与迁移说明见同目录 `PORTABILITY.md`。

# Full-Story Verification

You are a verification orchestrator. Your job is not to run a single check — it is to **infer the complete user story** being built and verify every boundary in the flow with evidence.

This skill coordinates with `agent-browser-verify` (browser-side visual checks), `investigation-mode` (reactive debugging), and `observability` (logging/monitoring) — but your focus is the **end-to-end story**, not any single layer.

## When This Triggers

- A dev server just started and the user wants to know if things work
- The user says something "isn't quite right" or "almost works"
- The user asks you to verify a feature or check the full flow

## Step 1 — Infer the User Story

Before checking anything, determine **what is being built**:

1. Read recently edited files (check git diff or recent Write/Edit tool calls)
2. Identify the feature boundary: which routes, components, API endpoints, and data sources are involved
3. Scan `package.json` scripts, route structure (`app/` or `pages/`), and environment files (`.env*`)
4. State the story in one sentence: _"The user is building [X] which flows from [UI entry point] → [API route] → [data source] → [response rendering]"_

**Do not skip this step.** Every subsequent check must be anchored to the inferred story.

## Step 2 — Establish Evidence Baseline

Gather the current state across all layers:

| Layer | How to check | What to capture |
|-------|-------------|-----------------|
| **Browser** | Use `agent-browser` — open the relevant page, screenshot, check console | Visual state, console errors, network failures |
| **Server terminal** | Read the terminal output from the dev server process | Startup errors, request logs, compilation warnings |
| **Runtime logs** | Run `vercel logs` (if deployed) or check server stdout | API response codes, error traces, timing |
| **Environment** | Check `.env.local`, `vercel env ls`, compare expected vs actual | Missing vars, wrong values, production vs development mismatch |

Report what you find at each layer before proceeding. Use the investigation-mode reporting contract:

> **Checking**: [what you're looking at]
> **Evidence**: [what you found — quote actual output]
> **Next**: [what this means for the next step]

## Step 3 — Walk the Data Flow

Trace the feature's data path from trigger to completion:

1. **UI trigger** — What user action initiates the flow? (button click, page load, form submit)
2. **Client → Server** — What request is made? Check the fetch/action call, verify the URL, method, and payload match the API route
3. **API route handler** — Read the route file. Does it handle the method? Does it validate input? Does it call the right service/database?
4. **External dependencies** — If the route calls a database, third-party API, or Vercel service (KV, Blob, Postgres, AI SDK): verify the client is initialized, credentials are present, and the call shape matches the SDK docs
5. **Response → UI** — Does the response format match what the client expects? Is error handling present on both sides?

At each boundary, check for these common breaks:
- **Missing `await`** on async operations
- **Wrong HTTP method** (GET handler but POST fetch)
- **Env var absent** in runtime but present in `.env.local`
- **Import mismatch** (server module imported in client component or vice versa)
- **Type mismatch** between API response and client expectation
- **Missing error boundary** — unhandled rejection crashes the page silently

## Step 4 — Report With Evidence

Summarize findings in a structured report:

```
## Verification Report: [Feature Name]

**Story**: [one-sentence description of the user story]

### Flow Status
| Boundary | Status | Evidence |
|----------|--------|----------|
| UI renders | ✅/❌ | [screenshot or console output] |
| Client → API | ✅/❌ | [request/response or error] |
| API → Data | ✅/❌ | [log output or error trace] |
| Data → Response | ✅/❌ | [response shape or error] |
| Response → UI | ✅/❌ | [rendered output or error] |

### Issues Found
1. [Issue]: [evidence] → [fix]

### Verified Working
- [What was confirmed working with evidence]
```

## Stop Conditions

**Stop verifying when**:
- All boundaries in the flow are confirmed working with evidence — report success
- You find the **first broken boundary** — report it with evidence and a specific fix, do not continue past the break
- Two consecutive layers return no useful signal (e.g., no logs, no errors, no output) — flag the observability gap and recommend adding logging before continuing

**Do not**:
- Run the same check more than twice
- Continue past a confirmed broken boundary
- Verify unrelated features — stay on the inferred story
- Spend time on cosmetic issues (styling, spacing) unless the user specifically asked

## Suggest Verification After Implementation

When you finish building or implementing a feature (wrote code, created routes, set up a project), briefly let the user know they can ask you to verify everything works — e.g. browser verification or end-to-end flow check. One sentence is enough. Don't force it if only a small fix or question was involved.

## Coordination With Other Skills

- **`agent-browser-verify`** — Handles browser screenshots and console checks. Defer to it for visual verification. If it has already run and found issues, start from its findings rather than re-checking the browser.
- **`investigation-mode`** — Handles reactive debugging when things are stuck/hung. If the user is frustrated and nothing loads at all, investigation-mode takes the lead. Verification takes over when things _partially_ work.
- **`observability`** — Handles logging/monitoring setup. If you find an observability gap (no logs for a route, no error tracking), reference its guidance for adding structured logging.

Files in this skill

  • PORTABILITY.md1023 B
  • SKILL.md9 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml181 B

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.