verification

작성자: openai

전체 스토리 검증 — 사용자가 구축 중인 내용을 추론한 후, 브라우저 → API → 데이터 → 응답으로 이어지는 전체 흐름을 종단 간 검증합니다. 개발 서버에서 트리거됩니다…

npx skills add https://github.com/openai/plugins --skill verification

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:

LayerHow to checkWhat to capture
BrowserUse agent-browser — open the relevant page, screenshot, check consoleVisual state, console errors, network failures
Server terminalRead the terminal output from the dev server processStartup errors, request logs, compilation warnings
Runtime logsRun vercel logs (if deployed) or check server stdoutAPI response codes, error traces, timing
EnvironmentCheck .env.local, vercel env ls, compare expected vs actualMissing 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.

openai의 다른 스킬

user-context
openai
데이터 분석 플러그인의 지속적인 소스 라우팅 기본 설정, 온보딩 로직, 설정 진행 상황 및 의미 계층 레지스트리를 로드하거나 관리합니다.
official
notion-research-documentation
openai
Notion 콘텐츠를 조사하고 인용문과 함께 구조화된 브리핑, 보고서 또는 비교 자료로 종합합니다. 대상 질의를 사용해 Notion 페이지를 검색하고 가져온 후, 인라인 출처 인용과 참고 문헌 섹션을 포함해 주제별로 결과를 정리합니다. 범위와 사용자 목표에 따라 네 가지 출력 형식(빠른 브리핑, 연구 요약, 비교, 종합 보고서) 중에서 선택합니다. 내장 템플릿을 사용해 Notion 페이지를 생성 및 업데이트하고, 새 정보가 도착하면 출처를 직접 연결하고 변경 사항을 추적합니다...
official
rcsb-pdb-skill
openai
핵심 메타데이터, Search API 쿼리 및 FASTA 다운로드를 위한 간결한 RCSB PDB 요청을 제출합니다. 사용자가 간결한 RCSB 요약을 원할 때 사용하며, 원시 JSON 또는…을 저장합니다.
official
pdf
openai
PDF 읽기, 생성 및 검증 기능을 제공하며, 시각적 렌더링과 프로그래매틱 생성을 지원합니다. Poppler(pdftoppm)를 사용하여 PDF 페이지를 PNG로 렌더링하여 레이아웃, 간격, 타이포그래피를 시각적으로 검사할 수 있습니다. reportlab을 사용하여 프로그래매틱 방식으로 PDF를 생성하여 안정적인 포맷을 보장하며, pdfplumber 또는 pypdf를 통해 텍스트와 메타데이터를 추출합니다. 품질 기준을 준수합니다: 잘린 텍스트, 겹치는 요소, 깨진 표, 렌더링 아티팩트가 없어야 하며, ASCII 하이픈만 사용하고 사람이 읽을 수 있는 인용을 사용합니다.
official
test-coverage-improver
openai
Improve test coverage in the OpenAI Agents JS monorepo: run `pnpm test:coverage`, inspect coverage artifacts, identify low-coverage files and branches, propose…
official
playwright
openai
터미널 기반 브라우저 자동화로 요소 스냅샷 및 대화형 UI 워크플로우 지원. playwright-cli 래퍼 스크립트를 통해 작동하며(npx 필요), 헤드리스 및 헤드 모드 모두 지원하여 시각적 디버깅 가능. 핵심 워크플로우: 페이지 열기, 안정적인 요소 참조를 위한 스냅샷 생성, 참조를 사용한 상호작용, 탐색 또는 DOM 변경 후 재스냅샷. 양식 작성, 클릭, 타이핑, 다중 탭 관리, 스크린샷/PDF 캡처, 흐름 디버깅을 위한 트레이스 기록 포함. 요소 참조(예: e3, e15)...
official
ukb-topmed-phewas-skill
openai
단일 변이에 대한 간결한 UKB-TOPMed PheWAS 요약을 가져오며, rsID, GRCh37 또는 GRCh38 입력을 받아 필요한 GRCh38 쿼리로 변환합니다. 다음과 같은 경우에 사용하세요…
official
code-review-context
openai
모델 가시 컨텍스트
official