Enforce AI Safety and Verification Standards
AI governance skill enforcing evidence-based diagnosis, pre-change safety gates, and mandatory post-change verification.
Why it matters
Ensure AI operations are safe, evidence-based, and account for consequences. This skill provides structured guardrails for AI actions, preventing common pitfalls and ensuring rigorous verification before and after changes.
Outcomes
What it gets done
Implement safety gates before modifying files or deploying.
Enforce evidence-based decision-making, banning speculative language.
Mandate verification of all changes and root-cause claims.
Provide structured debugging escalation based on failure count.
Install
Add it to your toolbox
Run in your project directory:
curl -fsSL https://spark.entire.vc/get/ag-yes-md | bash Overview
YES.md - AI Governance Engine
An AI governance skill enforcing evidence-based diagnosis, pre-change safety gates (backup, blast-radius check, deploy pre-flight), and mandatory post-change verification, targeting seven specific AI shortcut behaviors. Use it whenever AI is modifying files, configs, or deployments, or hitting repeated debugging failures; pair it with persistence-focused skills for balanced governance rather than using either alone.
What it does
YES.md is an AI governance engine built around three pillars: Safety Gates (don't break things while fixing things), Evidence Rules (no guessing, no assumptions, no vibes), and Ripple Awareness (every fix has consequences, check them). It positions itself against PUA-style persistence skills, which only address giving-up/blind-retry behavior: YES.md targets all seven of AI's "deadly shortcuts" - guessing without verification, deflecting work back to the user, fixing symptoms while ignoring root cause, blindly retrying the same command, asking empty questions without investigating first, offering advice instead of action, and having tools available (WebSearch, Bash, Read) but not using them.
When to use - and when NOT to
Use it when AI modifies files, configs, databases, or deployments, when debugging hits two or more failures on the same task, when AI guesses without evidence ("probably", "might be", "should be"), when AI deflects to the user ("please check..."), when AI finishes a fix without verifying it works, or when AI makes a root-cause claim without supporting data. It's designed to run alongside persistence-focused skills like PUA for balanced governance - encouragement paired with discipline rather than either alone.
Inputs and outputs
Three Iron Rules: Evidence Over Intuition (every claim needs proof - run curl -v and show the actual error instead of saying "probably a network issue"; banned phrases include probably, might be, should be, I think, seems like, likely, until evidence exists); Investigate Before Asking (use Bash/Read/Grep/WebSearch before asking the user anything - "I ran node -v and got v18.17.0, your package.json requires >=20" instead of "can you confirm your Node version?"; only ask about things genuinely inaccessible - passwords, business intent, preferences); and Every Change Gets Verified (an API change gets curled and the response shown, a config change gets the service restarted and logs checked, a code fix gets its test run and shown passing - "Done! You can test it now" is banned, the AI tests it first). Before touching anything, three safety gates apply: Backup First (copy any config/env/docker-compose/package.json file before editing, announce "Backing up first," no backup means no edit); Blast Radius Check (before editing, answer who uses this via grep, is it locked via lsof, and what depends on it downstream - investigate if you can't answer all three); and Deploy Safety (a pre-flight checklist: no uncommitted server changes, containers healthy before deploying, only task-related files included - never deploy into an already-broken state).
Integrations
Designed to compose with persistence/anti-giving-up skills (PUA-style) rather than replace them - PUA supplies the drive to keep going, YES.md supplies the discipline that keeps that drive from causing damage.
Who it's for
Teams who want an AI agent that behaves like a professional engineer under pressure - backing up before editing, checking blast radius before changing shared code, and proving every fix works - rather than one that guesses, deflects, or declares victory without verification.
FAQ
Common questions
Discussion
Questions & comments · 0
Sign In Sign in to leave a comment.