# Zero Context Validation

> Use when you need to validate documentation completeness and cannot objectively test it yourself because you have implementation context

- Skill: `whykusanagi/zero-context-validation` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add whykusanagi/zero-context-validation`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/whykusanagi/zero-context-validation/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: whykusanagi (https://skillmd.com/u/whykusanagi)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/whykusanagi/zero-context-validation

---


# Zero-Context Validation

## Overview

Test documentation completeness by spawning blind sub-agents to attempt implementation. They expose blindspots you can't see because you have context.

**You orchestrate, judge results, iterate. Blind agents test docs, report gaps.**

## When to Use

**Use:** Validating docs before publishing, testing API/setup guides, verifying docs after refactors.

**Don't use:** Code review, testing code functionality, proof-reading.

## Quick Reference

| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| Just wrote docs | Spawn blind agent with implementation task |
| Agent reports gaps | Judge if real → fix docs → re-test |
| Agent invents details | Strengthen "no assumptions" → re-test |
| Agent succeeds clean | Documentation ready ✅ |
| Multiple iterations | Normal - iterate until clean success |

## The Iron Law

**NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.** Test agent uses ONLY documentation. Missing info = report gap, not guess.

**Violating:** Fills gaps → incomplete docs → wasted time.

## Process

**1. Prepare:** Define implementation task for blind agent.

**2. Spawn:** Launch blind sub-agent using Task tool - ZERO context, ONLY docs, NO assumptions, REPORT gaps.

**3. Judge:** Succeeds clean → docs ready ✅ | Reports gaps → fix, re-test | Invents → strengthen rules, re-test

**4. Iterate:** Repeat until success. Multiple iterations normal.

## Common Rationalizations (FORBIDDEN)

| Rationalization | Why It Fails |
|----------------|--------------|
| "Docs approved by experts" | Approval ≠ tested |
| "Use your best judgment" | Assumptions hide gaps |
| "Common patterns apply" | Document patterns |
| "Implementation successful" (but invented 80%) | Invention ≠ validation |
| "Just a quick sanity check" | Review misses gaps |

**Re-run with no-assumptions enforced.**

## Red Flags - STOP Validation

- "Using common patterns" for undocumented details
- Creating base classes not in docs
- Inventing file structures/imports
- "Assuming X based on Y"
- Success but invented components
- Instructions include "use best judgment"

**Validation invalid. Restart with stricter rules.**

## Success Metrics

**Good:** Agent succeeds with zero assumptions OR reports gaps. **Bad:** Agent invents details. **Goal:** Find gaps before wasting developer time.

## Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| "Just review, don't implement" | Require implementation attempt |
| Including context in instructions | Fresh agent, docs only |
| Allowing "reasonable assumptions" | Forbid assumptions, require reports |
| Authority pressure ("approved by experts") | Neutral instructions |
| Treating blocked agents as failure | Blocked = found gaps |

## Impact

**Without:** Docs look complete → publish → blocked developers.
**With:** Test docs → find gaps → fix → ship complete.

1 hour validation saves 2-4 hours confusion.

## Example

Typical workflow: 3 iterations to find and fix gaps. See `examples.md` for detailed multi-iteration workflow.

## Related Skills

- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - Same principles, applied to docs
- **superpowers:writing-skills** - Testing skills uses same validation

## Technical Implementation

Uses the built-in Task tool to spawn blind sub-agents. No external dependencies required.