Sandbox File Discovery and Validation

Use this skill when working in constrained or sandboxed shell environments where common folders like ~/Desktop, ~/Documents, or ~/Downloads may not exist, may be inaccessible, or may not be where task files are stored.

The goal is to:

1. discover files from actual accessible roots,
2. avoid brittle path assumptions,
3. generate outputs in known locations, and
4. explicitly validate that outputs were created and match expectations.

Core principles

• Do not assume GUI-era user folders exist.
• Start from the current working directory and other confirmed workspace roots.
• Use recursive search from known roots, not from / unless necessary.
• Prefer deterministic output paths you control.
• After creating an artifact, verify it exists, is readable, and matches the requested form.

When to use this

Use this pattern when:

• you need to locate input files in an unfamiliar sandbox,
• the environment may be ephemeral or nonstandard,
• you are producing files for the user,
• success depends on the actual contents or structure of the output.

Recommended workflow

1) Establish your real working roots

Begin by identifying where you are and what directories are actually available.

Example: pwd ls -la find . -maxdepth 2 -type d | sort

If needed, inspect nearby likely roots: ls -la /tmp ls -la /workspace 2>/dev/null || true ls -la /workspaces 2>/dev/null || true ls -la /mnt/data 2>/dev/null || true

Treat only confirmed, readable directories as search roots.

2) Avoid assumed folders

Do not begin with paths like:

• ~/Desktop
• ~/Documents
• ~/Downloads

unless you have already confirmed they exist and are relevant.

Bad: find ~/Desktop -name "*.xlsx"

Better: find . -type f -name "*.xlsx" or, if a root is confirmed: find /workspace -type f -name "*.xlsx" 2>/dev/null

3) Search from known roots with bounded, focused queries

Prefer targeted searches over broad filesystem scans.

Useful patterns: find . -type f | sort find . -type f -iname "*report*" find . -type f \( -iname "*.csv" -o -iname "*.xlsx" -o -iname "*.json" \)

If multiple roots are known: find . /workspace /mnt/data -type f 2>/dev/null | sort

Guidelines:

• suppress permission noise with 2>/dev/null when appropriate,
• filter by extension or name fragment,
• sort output for stable inspection,
• keep searches bounded to known roots.

4) Choose a deterministic output location

When generating a file, write it somewhere explicit and easy to re-check.

Good patterns:

• current directory,
• a task-specific subdirectory like ./output,
• a confirmed writable workspace directory.

Example: mkdir -p output python make_result.py --out output/final.xlsx

Avoid writing to guessed locations that may not exist.

5) Immediately validate the output artifact

Never assume generation succeeded just because a command exited successfully.

At minimum, confirm:

• the file exists,
• the path is the one you intended,
• the file is non-empty when applicable,
• the format or structure matches the task.

Basic checks: ls -l output/final.xlsx test -f output/final.xlsx && echo "exists" test -s output/final.xlsx && echo "non-empty" file output/final.xlsx

For text-like outputs: head -n 20 output/result.csv wc -l output/result.csv

For structured outputs, inspect with the relevant tool:

• CSV: preview headers and row counts
• JSON: parse and inspect keys
• ZIP-like formats such as .xlsx: verify internal structure or open with a library
• generated code/config: run syntax or schema checks if available

6) Validate against task requirements, not just file existence

A file existing is necessary but not sufficient.

Check the artifact against the requested deliverable:

• expected filename or location,
• expected sheet names, tabs, columns, or keys,
• expected formulas, calculations, or derived values,
• expected number of records,
• expected transformations or formatting.

Examples:

• If a workbook was requested, verify the workbook contains the required sheets.
• If formulas were required, verify formulas are present, not just pasted values.
• If a filtered dataset was requested, verify row counts and selected columns.
• If a renamed file was requested, verify the actual output name.

7) Report with evidence

When you finish, cite the exact artifact path and the validation you performed.

Good completion style:

• “Created output/final.xlsx.”
• “Verified it exists and is non-empty.”
• “Confirmed workbook contains sheets Summary and Data.”
• “Checked that computed totals are present in column F.”

This reduces false positives where an output was produced but not actually checked.

Shell patterns to reuse

Minimal discovery sequence

pwd ls -la find . -maxdepth 3 -type f | sort

Targeted file search

find . -type f \( -iname "*.xlsx" -o -iname "*.csv" -o -iname "*.tsv" \) | sort

Multi-root search with graceful fallback

find . /workspace /mnt/data -type f 2>/dev/null | sort

Output creation and validation

mkdir -p output some_command > output/result.txt test -f output/result.txt && test -s output/result.txt && echo "validated"

Practical decision rules

Prefer this

• pwd to anchor yourself
• find from . or other verified roots
• explicit output directories
• post-generation checks tied to the requested deliverable

Avoid this

• guessing user-centric folders
• searching the entire filesystem first
• declaring success after creation without inspection
• reporting only the command you ran instead of what you verified

Example end-to-end pattern

1. Discover roots: pwd && ls -la

2. Find candidate inputs: find . -type f \( -iname "*.xlsx" -o -iname "*.csv" \) | sort

3. Create controlled output location: mkdir -p output

4. Generate artifact: python transform.py input/source.csv output/final.csv

5. Validate artifact exists and inspect content: ls -l output/final.csv test -s output/final.csv head -n 5 output/final.csv

6. Validate requirement-specific properties:

   • expected headers present,
   • row count reasonable,
   • transformations applied.

Success criteria

This pattern is applied correctly when:

• file discovery starts from confirmed accessible roots,
• no critical step depends on unverified assumed directories,
• generated artifacts are written to known locations,
• outputs are explicitly inspected or checked,
• final reporting includes evidence of validation.