verification-before-completion
Skill1 starsChanged 17 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use before claiming a task is complete, fixed, tested, deployed, or working. Requires fresh command output and concrete evidence for every completion claim, and forbids "should work" or "probably fixed" statements.
189 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXtheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravitytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-triotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DJtx001/ai-coding-playbooktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AxlZero21/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-code-review
中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈
Also in 8 projects that use this
Leodorareluctant259Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化
Also in 8 projects that use this
obraSkilldiagnosing-superpowers
Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.
Also in 20 projects that use this
jh941213Skilldocs-ci
문서 CI(링크·OpenAPI lint·breaking 게이트·mermaid 검증)나 문서 드리프트 감지(docs.yaml 신선도 검사)를 설치하거나 돌릴 때 사용. 문서 내용 작성은 docs-architecture·docs-interfaces·docs-manuals.
Also in 3 projects that use this
jh941213Skilldocs-interfaces
API·이벤트 인터페이스 문서(OpenAPI·swagger·AsyncAPI 명세, 엔드포인트 레퍼런스, API 구성도·시퀀스, API CHANGELOG)를 만들거나 코드와 맞출 때 사용. 시스템 구성도는 docs-architecture, API 설계 원칙은 api-design-principles.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +3 more from Leodorareluctant259
- +4 more from jh941213
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 189
- obra/superpowers★ 314ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6ksame name
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3ksame name
- DemonDamon/AgenticX★ 1ksame name
- coco-research/coco★ 797same name
- pedronauck/skills★ 649same name
179 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- rules/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- harness-controlSkill
- harness-handoffSkill
- harness-recallSkill
- harness-reflectorSkill
- harness-skill-authorSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 19
Write down each claim you plan to make.
- Distinctive: line 21
Run that check now, in this workspace.
- Distinctive: line 22
Read the full output and the exit status.
- Distinctive: line 65
If the task is complete and verified, record the recovery with Harness².
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Verification Before Completion
The rule
Claims need evidence. "Done" is a factual statement, and the proof is output from a command you just ran. What happened earlier, or what the code looks like, is not proof.
Steps
- Write down each claim you plan to make.
- For each one, name the command or observation that proves it.
- Run that check now, in this workspace.
- Read the full output and the exit status.
- Report the claim next to its evidence. If a check could not run, say that plainly instead of implying success.
What counts as proof
| Claim | Minimum evidence |
| Tests pass | Test command, summary line, zero exit status |
| Build succeeds | Build command and the produced artifact |
| Bug is fixed | Regression test that failed before and passes now |
| Lint or typecheck is clean | The command and its clean output |
| API contract works | Request/response or contract test output |
| UI works | Manual steps with a screenshot or recording, or an E2E test |
| Dependency is installed | Install from a clean environment, then an import check |
| Migration is safe | Run against a representative database and check rollback |
| Deployment is healthy | Health endpoint, logs, and version or commit confirmation |
| Performance improved | Before and after measurements on the same workload |
How to phrase results
Use:
- "
python -m pytestpassed: 42 passed in 3.1s." - "Build succeeded; artifact at
dist/app.js." - "I could not run the browser test because X, so the UI is unverified."
Avoid:
- "Should work now."
- "Probably fixed."
- "Tests likely pass."
- "I believe the build is clean."
- Any claim based only on reading code.
When a check cannot run
Name the blocker, what you tried, and what remains unverified. Offer the smallest next check the user can run. Never turn an unverified change into a learned rule or a success message.
Finish
If the task is complete and verified, record the recovery with Harness². If it is not verified, leave it as a candidate observation, not a rule.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

