validation-gate

name	validation-gate
description	Pre-report gate — verifies all planned evidence artifacts exist before writing comparison/validation reports

Validation Gate Skill

When to use

Before writing ANY evidence report, comparison report, or validation summary that makes quantitative claims.

Protocol

Step 0: Intent alignment and compromise disclosure (MANDATORY)

Before executing ANY validation plan, the agent MUST present this to the user and wait for approval.

CRITICAL DEFAULT: Start with the ideal test as your actual plan. Do NOT start with the easiest/fastest approach and list what it can't prove. Instead, design the real test first, then only downgrade specific steps when you can name a concrete, non-hypothetical blocker. "It might be slow" or "it could use API budget" are NOT blockers — ask the user and let them decide.

Anti-pattern to avoid: LLMs have a training bias toward synthetic/safe experiments. They default to "run a command and capture metrics" when the right answer is often "create real test data and measure real operations." Always ask: "Can I just do the real thing?" before reaching for a synthetic substitute. Common real-test resources that are often available but overlooked:

• Test repos (e.g., mctrl_test) for creating dummy PRs
• Staging environments for real deployments
• ao spawn for creating real worker sessions
• Real CI triggers from real commits

## Validation Intent Check

**What you asked**: <restate the user's actual question in plain language>
**What this plan measures**: <what the experiment will actually test>
**Gap**: <if these differ, say so explicitly>

### Plan (default: the real test)
<describe the REAL test — real PRs, real CI, real sessions, real measurement>
<this should be your actual plan, not an aspirational ideal>

### Compromises (only if a specific blocker exists)
| Downgrade | Specific blocker | Impact on validity | User approved? |
|---|---|---|---|
| <only list if you MUST downgrade> | <name the exact blocker, not "might be slow"> | <what this loses> | <wait for yes> |

If the compromise table is empty, good — you're doing the real test.

### What the results CAN prove
<honest list>

### What the results CANNOT prove
<honest list — this is the most important section>

If the user sees the "CANNOT prove" list and says "that's not good enough", redesign the experiment before executing. Do not execute a plan the user hasn't explicitly approved after seeing the compromises.

Step 1: Find the plan

Locate the validation/test plan that specifies what artifacts should be produced. Common locations:

• roadmap/*.md (validation plans)
• /tmp/*/ (evidence directories)
• Conversation context (agreed-upon steps)

Step 2: Extract required artifacts

Parse the plan for every file path listed under "Evidence artifacts", "Output", or "Artifacts" sections. Build a checklist.

Step 3: Verify each artifact exists and has substance

For each required artifact:

# Check exists and has content
for f in <artifact_list>; do
  if [ ! -f "$f" ]; then
    echo "MISSING: $f"
  elif [ $(wc -c < "$f") -lt 50 ]; then
    echo "EMPTY/TRIVIAL: $f ($(wc -c < "$f") bytes)"
  else
    echo "OK: $f ($(wc -c < "$f") bytes)"
  fi
done

Step 4: Verify artifact content matches claim class

Claim class	Artifact must contain
Runtime measurement	Timestamps, process output, actual command invocations
Code analysis	Source file references, line numbers, function names
Integration test	Real I/O logs, API call evidence, timing data
Projection	Stated assumptions, formula, sensitivity analysis

If an artifact contains code analysis but the claim is "runtime measurement", flag it as MISMATCH.

Step 5: Gate decision

• All artifacts present + content matches claim class → Proceed with report
• Any artifact MISSING → STOP. List missing artifacts. Either produce them or downgrade the claim class.
• Content mismatch → STOP. Re-label the claim class to match what was actually measured.

Step 6: Consistency check

Before finalizing any report:

• Grep for all numeric assumptions (poll intervals, TTLs, session counts)
• Verify the same value is used consistently across all artifacts
• If values differ between artifacts, reconcile before publishing

Anti-patterns this skill prevents

1. Writing a plan with runtime steps, then substituting code analysis
2. Capturing rate-limit deltas from test suite runs and attributing them to lifecycle-worker behavior
3. Using different poll interval assumptions in different artifacts
4. Claiming "integration test" when only code was read
5. Presenting projections as findings