CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

peteski22/validate

Run all validators against recent code changes

50

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files
name:
validate
description:
Run all validators against recent code changes
allowed-tools:
Task, Bash

Validation Orchestrator

Run all applicable validators against recent code changes.

Step 1: Determine which validators to run

Check what files have changed. Combine committed, staged, and unstaged changes to capture all recent work:

{ git diff HEAD~1 --name-only --diff-filter=ACMRT 2>/dev/null; git diff --cached --name-only --diff-filter=ACMRT 2>/dev/null; git diff --name-only --diff-filter=ACMRT 2>/dev/null; } | sort -u

Based on file extensions, select validators:

  • .go files → run go-effective, go-proverbs
  • .py files → run python-style
  • .ts or .tsx files → run typescript-style
  • All files → run security
  • All files → run state-machine
  • All files → run error-handling

Step 2: Run validators in parallel

Use the Task tool to spawn validators in parallel. For each applicable validator, create a Task with:

  • subagent_type: "general-purpose"
  • prompt: Use the Skill tool to invoke the validator. The prompt must explicitly require skill invocation and verbatim JSON output.

Example Task prompt for each validator:

Invoke the `go-effective` skill using the Skill tool (skill: "go-effective"). Return its JSON output verbatim — do not summarize, reformat, or re-implement the validation logic.

Go files changed:

  1. Task: Invoke go-effective skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  2. Task: Invoke go-proverbs skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  3. Task: Invoke security skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  4. Task: Invoke state-machine skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  5. Task: Invoke error-handling skill and return JSON output verbatim.

Python files changed:

  1. Task: Invoke python-style skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  2. Task: Invoke security skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  3. Task: Invoke state-machine skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  4. Task: Invoke error-handling skill and return JSON output verbatim.

TypeScript files changed:

  1. Task: Invoke typescript-style skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  2. Task: Invoke security skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  3. Task: Invoke state-machine skill and return JSON output verbatim.
  4. Task: Invoke error-handling skill and return JSON output verbatim.

Mixed languages: Combine all applicable validators. Security, state-machine, and error-handling always run exactly once regardless of how many languages are detected.

Run all applicable Tasks in parallel (multiple Task calls in one response).

Step 3: Aggregate and present results

Collect all validator outputs and present a human-readable summary. Do NOT display raw validator JSON to the user — interpret and summarise the results.

# Validation Results

| Validator | Result | HARD | SHOULD | WARN |
|-----------|--------|------|--------|------|
| {validator} | {✓ pass / ✗ fail} | {count} | {count} | {count} |

## HARD violations (must fix)
- **{validator}** `{file}:{line}` — {rule description}

## SHOULD violations (fix or justify)
- **{validator}** `{file}:{line}` — {rule description}
  - *Accepted:* {reason — e.g., pre-existing code outside diff scope, justified trade-off}

## Warnings
- {count} advisory warnings from {validator} ({brief context})

## Verdict
**PASS / PASS with warnings / FAIL** — {1-2 sentence summary with reasoning}

Important formatting rules:

  • One line per validator in the summary table.
  • List HARD violations with file location and rule.
  • For each SHOULD violation, explain why it was accepted or flag it for fixing.
  • Group warnings concisely — don't list every warning individually unless actionable.
  • The verdict must explain the reasoning (e.g., "all violations are in pre-existing code outside the diff scope").
  • Omit empty sections (e.g., if no HARD violations, don't include the HARD violations heading).

Step 4: Verdict

If any HARD violations or unjustified SHOULD violations:

  • FAIL - list what must be fixed

If only warnings:

  • PASS with warnings - note them but don't block

If clean:

  • PASS - ready for commit
Workspace
peteski22
Visibility
Public
Created
Last updated
Publish Source
GitHub
Badge
peteski22/validate badge