/auto-verify
This skill suggests using `/verify` for software engineering tasks that would benefit from systematic verification.
$ npx -y skills add vertti/se-cove-claude-plugin --skill auto-verify --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
/auto-verify
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
This skill suggests using `/verify` for software engineering tasks that would benefit from systematic verification.
SKILL.md
auto-verify.SKILL.mdAuto-Verify Skill (Software Engineering)
This skill suggests using `/verify` for software engineering tasks that would benefit from systematic verification.
Design Philosophy
**Be minimal and non-eager.** Users invoke `/verify` when they want it. This skill only suggests verification in specific high-value scenarios where the user might not realize verification would help.
When to Suggest Verification
Only suggest `/verify` when the user's question involves **ALL** of these: 1. **Significant complexity** - Not a trivial fix or simple question 2. **High risk of subtle bugs** - Async patterns, state management, security 3. **Verifiable claims** - There are specific behaviors that can be tested
Good Candidates
**Complex code patterns with known pitfalls:**
- React hooks with async behavior (useEffect, useCallback + async)
- Debouncing/throttling implementations
- Race condition scenarios
- Caching strategies
- Authentication/authorization flows
**Security-sensitive operations:**
- Input validation and sanitization
- Token handling and session management
- Password hashing and credential storage
- Encryption/decryption implementations
- Access control and permission checks
**Complex async patterns:**
- Promise chains with error handling
- Concurrent operations with shared state
- Retry logic with backoff strategies
- Streaming and chunked data processing
- WebSocket or real-time connection handling
**Financial and critical operations:**
- Payment processing logic
- Inventory or balance calculations
- Audit logging implementations
- Data migration scripts
- Rate limiting implementations
**Architectural decisions with significant tradeoffs:**
- State management approach (Redux vs alternatives)
- Microservices vs monolith
- Database schema design
- API design patterns
**Bug investigations where the cause is uncertain:**
- "I think the bug is X but not sure"
- Intermittent failures
- Production issues with incomplete information
When NOT to Suggest
**Do NOT suggest verification for:**
- Simple questions ("How do I center a div?")
- Trivial fixes (typos, simple renames)
- Documentation lookups
- Exploratory coding ("Let's experiment with this approach")
- Clear requirements with obvious implementation
- Time-sensitive requests
Suggested Response Format
When you do suggest verification, be brief and non-pushy:
This [type of task] has some subtle edge cases that `/verify` could catch.
Would you like me to use it, or should I proceed directly?
**Examples:**
- "Debouncing has some cleanup gotchas. `/verify` could catch those, or I can proceed directly."
- "Token refresh flows are tricky. Want `/verify` to double-check the implementation?"
- "This architectural decision has significant tradeoffs. `/verify` would evaluate them systematically."
Important Notes
- **Never auto-invoke** - Only suggest, let user decide
- **Acknowledge if declined** - "Got it, proceeding directly"
- **Don't repeat** - If user declines once, don't suggest again for similar questions
- **Trust the user** - They know when they want thorough verification vs quick answers
Read more
Auto-Verify Skill (Software Engineering)
This skill suggests using `/verify` for software engineering tasks that would benefit from systematic verification.
Design Philosophy
**Be minimal and non-eager.** Users invoke `/verify` when they want it. This skill only suggests verification in specific high-value scenarios where the user might not realize verification would help.
When to Suggest Verification
Only suggest `/verify` when the user's question involves **ALL** of these: 1. **Significant complexity** - Not a trivial fix or simple question 2. **High risk of subtle bugs** - Async patterns, state management, security 3. **Verifiable claims** - There are specific behaviors that can be tested
Good Candidates
**Complex code patterns with known pitfalls:**
- React hooks with async behavior (useEffect, useCallback + async)
- Debouncing/throttling implementations
- Race condition scenarios
- Caching strategies
- Authentication/authorization flows
**Security-sensitive operations:**
- Input validation and sanitization
- Token handling and session management
- Password hashing and credential storage
- Encryption/decryption implementations
- Access control and permission checks
**Complex async patterns:**
- Promise chains with error handling
- Concurrent operations with shared state
- Retry logic with backoff strategies
- Streaming and chunked data processing
- WebSocket or real-time connection handling
**Financial and critical operations:**
- Payment processing logic
- Inventory or balance calculations
- Audit logging implementations
- Data migration scripts
- Rate limiting implementations
**Architectural decisions with significant tradeoffs:**
- State management approach (Redux vs alternatives)
- Microservices vs monolith
- Database schema design
- API design patterns
**Bug investigations where the cause is uncertain:**
- "I think the bug is X but not sure"
- Intermittent failures
- Production issues with incomplete information
When NOT to Suggest
**Do NOT suggest verification for:**
- Simple questions ("How do I center a div?")
- Trivial fixes (typos, simple renames)
- Documentation lookups
- Exploratory coding ("Let's experiment with this approach")
- Clear requirements with obvious implementation
- Time-sensitive requests
Suggested Response Format
When you do suggest verification, be brief and non-pushy:
This [type of task] has some subtle edge cases that `/verify` could catch. Would you like me to use it, or should I proceed directly?
**Examples:**
- "Debouncing has some cleanup gotchas. `/verify` could catch those, or I can proceed directly."
- "Token refresh flows are tricky. Want `/verify` to double-check the implementation?"
- "This architectural decision has significant tradeoffs. `/verify` would evaluate them systematically."
Important Notes
- **Never auto-invoke** - Only suggest, let user decide
- **Acknowledge if declined** - "Got it, proceeding directly"
- **Don't repeat** - If user declines once, don't suggest again for similar questions
- **Trust the user** - They know when they want thorough verification vs quick answers
A Claude Code plugin that catches bugs in AI-generated code by verifying against requirements, not implementation.

