| name | verify-larp-a |
| type | action |
| description | Fake code detection — performative implementations, test theater, misleading patterns, red flags |
| user-invocable | false |
Action skill — Fake code detection procedures: performative code, test theater, red flags, output format.
LARP Detection
How to identify code that lies — performative implementations that look correct but don't actually work.
Categories
Performative implementation — Stubs returning hardcoded values. Validation that always returns true. Error handling that swallows (catch (e) {}). Retry logic that doesn't retry. Async without await. Functions under 5 lines that should be complex.
Test theater — Mocking the thing being tested. Assertions that assert nothing (assert(true)). Tests changed to match broken behavior. Skipped tests with eternal TODOs. 100% coverage achieved by testing trivial paths only.
Misleading patterns — Comments that contradict the code. Function names that lie. "Temporary" hacks with no removal plan. Happy path only — works for the demo, crashes on real input.
Red Flags
Automatic suspicion: TODO, FIXME, pass, ..., NotImplementedError. Functions under 5 lines that should be complex. Empty catch blocks. Promise chains that drop errors. Timeouts set to unreasonably large values.
Severity
Critical — will fail in production with user-visible impact. Stubs, missing error handling.
Warning — works but is deceptive. Tests that don't verify real behavior, incomplete validation.
Suggestion — technically correct but suspiciously simple. Under-implemented functions, unconsidered edge cases.
Output Format
### [CRITICAL|WARNING] {title}
FILE: {path}:{line}
THE LIE: What the code pretends to do
THE TRUTH: What actually happens
EVIDENCE: The actual code snippet
IMPACT: What breaks when this lie is discovered in production
Finding no fake code is valid — report "No fake code detected" and stop.
