/verify-this
Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.
$ npx -y skills add cursor/plugins --skill verify-this --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/verify-this
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.
SKILL.md
verify-this.SKILL.mdname: verify-this
description: "Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE."
Verify This
Verification is not a recap. It proves or disproves a specific claim with repeatable evidence.
When To Use
- The user asks "verify this", "prove it works", "did this fix it", or "show me the evidence".
- A bug fix needs a before/after repro.
- A UI, CLI, API, performance, or memory claim needs measurement.
- A test passes but the user-visible behavior still needs confirmation.
Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner". Ask for a measurable claim first.
Workflow
1. Restate the claim in falsifiable form: condition, metric, and threshold. 2. Pick the smallest local surface that can disprove it. 3. Capture a baseline from the old state: merge base, parent commit, failing branch, or current broken repro. 4. Capture treatment from the changed state with the same command, data, warmup, and environment. 5. Compare raw artifacts: numbers, screenshots, terminal transcripts, HTTP responses, profiles, heap snapshots, or test output. 6. Return exactly one verdict: `VERIFIED`, `NOT VERIFIED`, or `INCONCLUSIVE`.
Local Surfaces
- Code behavior: focused unit/integration tests or a minimal repro script.
- CLI/TUI behavior: `control-cli`, terminal transcript, or demo recording.
- UI behavior: `control-ui`, screenshots, accessibility snapshots, or browser traces.
- API behavior: local HTTP/RPC request and response diff.
- Performance: same-machine baseline/treatment timings or CPU profiles.
- Memory: heap snapshots before and after the suspected operation.
Artifact Layout
When safe to write artifacts:
/tmp/verify-this/<claim-slug>/
├── claim.md
├── timeline.md
├── baseline/
├── treatment/
├── diff/
└── verdict.md
If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the user agrees to disk storage.
Verdict Rules
- `VERIFIED`: baseline and treatment differ in the predicted direction, by the claimed threshold, with no obvious confound.
- `NOT VERIFIED`: the behavior is unchanged, moves the wrong way, or misses the threshold.
- `INCONCLUSIVE`: no valid baseline, noisy signal, failed measurement, or an environment difference invalidates the comparison.
Output
Use this shape:
VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE
Claim: <falsifiable claim>
Evidence:
<metric/artifact>: baseline=<...>, treatment=<...>, delta=<...>, threshold=<...>
Reasoning:
<one tight paragraph naming the evidence and any confounds>
Do not soften a negative result. A clear `NOT VERIFIED` is useful.
Read more
name: verify-this description: "Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE."
Verify This
Verification is not a recap. It proves or disproves a specific claim with repeatable evidence.
When To Use
- The user asks "verify this", "prove it works", "did this fix it", or "show me the evidence".
- A bug fix needs a before/after repro.
- A UI, CLI, API, performance, or memory claim needs measurement.
- A test passes but the user-visible behavior still needs confirmation.
Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner". Ask for a measurable claim first.
Workflow
1. Restate the claim in falsifiable form: condition, metric, and threshold. 2. Pick the smallest local surface that can disprove it. 3. Capture a baseline from the old state: merge base, parent commit, failing branch, or current broken repro. 4. Capture treatment from the changed state with the same command, data, warmup, and environment. 5. Compare raw artifacts: numbers, screenshots, terminal transcripts, HTTP responses, profiles, heap snapshots, or test output. 6. Return exactly one verdict: `VERIFIED`, `NOT VERIFIED`, or `INCONCLUSIVE`.
Local Surfaces
- Code behavior: focused unit/integration tests or a minimal repro script.
- CLI/TUI behavior: `control-cli`, terminal transcript, or demo recording.
- UI behavior: `control-ui`, screenshots, accessibility snapshots, or browser traces.
- API behavior: local HTTP/RPC request and response diff.
- Performance: same-machine baseline/treatment timings or CPU profiles.
- Memory: heap snapshots before and after the suspected operation.
Artifact Layout
When safe to write artifacts:
/tmp/verify-this/<claim-slug>/ ├── claim.md ├── timeline.md ├── baseline/ ├── treatment/ ├── diff/ └── verdict.md
If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the user agrees to disk storage.
Verdict Rules
- `VERIFIED`: baseline and treatment differ in the predicted direction, by the claimed threshold, with no obvious confound.
- `NOT VERIFIED`: the behavior is unchanged, moves the wrong way, or misses the threshold.
- `INCONCLUSIVE`: no valid baseline, noisy signal, failed measurement, or an environment difference invalidates the comparison.
Output
Use this shape:
VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE Claim: <falsifiable claim> Evidence: <metric/artifact>: baseline=<...>, treatment=<...>, delta=<...>, threshold=<...> Reasoning: <one tight paragraph naming the evidence and any confounds>
Do not soften a negative result. A clear `NOT VERIFIED` is useful.
Official Cursor plugins for popular developer tools, frameworks, and SaaS products. Each plugin is a standalone directory at the repository root with its own .cursor-plugin/plugin.json manifest.
Repo: cursor/plugins
Other skills on cursor-plugins.
- /check-agent-compatibility
Run the full repository compatibility pass: scanner score, startup path, validation loop, and docs reliability.
Open skill - /cli-for-agents
Designs or reviews CLIs so coding agents can run them reliably: non-interactive flags, layered --help with examples, stdin/pipelines, fast actionable errors, idempotency, dry-run, and predictable structure. Use when building a CLI, adding commands, writing --help, or when the
Open skill - /continual-learning
Orchestrate continual learning by delegating transcript mining and AGENTS.md updates to `agents-memory-updater`.
Open skill - /create-plugin-scaffold
Create a new Cursor plugin scaffold with a valid manifest, component directories, and marketplace wiring. Use when starting a new plugin or adding a plugin to a multi-plugin repository.
Open skill - /review-plugin-submission
Audit a Cursor plugin for marketplace readiness. Use when validating manifests, component metadata, discovery paths, and submission quality before publishing.
Open skill - /cursor-sdk
Guide users building apps, scripts, CI pipelines, or automations on top of the Cursor TypeScript SDK (`@cursor/sdk`). Use this skill whenever the user mentions integrating, installing, or writing code against the Cursor SDK; whenever they say `Agent.create`, `Agent.prompt`,
Open skill

