verification-before-completion
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Gate every completion claim behind executed evidence. Use before saying "done", "fixed", "works", "passing", "delivered", or "merge-ready" — for any code change, bug fix, refactor, or configuration change. Requires running the relevant command and observing the output in this session; code inspection alone never counts as verification.
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
- Ai-assistant-KIRA/antigravity-harnesstheir 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
- Leodorareluctant259Skill
chinese-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
- jh941213Skill
docs-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 repository40 other files it gives its agents.
- address-pr-feedbackSkill
- architectureSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-structureSkill
- competitive-briefSkill
- contract-guardSkill
- debugSkill
- deep-workSkill
- dependency-upgradeSkill
- deploy-checklistSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- documentationSkill
- explain-pr-step-by-stepSkill
- feedback-checkpointSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- incident-responseSkill
- memory-managementSkill
- observabilitySkill
- plan-criticSkill
- plan-from-rfcSkill
- pr-babysitterSkill
- prototypeSkill
- queue-checkSkill
- rebase-onto-mainSkill
- releaseSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- setup-engineering-skillsSkill
- squash-and-pushSkill
- synthesize-researchSkill
- system-designSkill
- tddSkill
- tech-debtSkill
- testing-strategySkill
- to-issuesSkill
- to-prdSkill
- triageSkill
- zoom-outSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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 17
Before any completion claim:
- Distinctive: line 31
Do not soften to "should work" — the status is *unverified*, not *probably fine*.
“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 code looks right" is not a result. A completion claim is a claim about behavior, and behavior is only known by executing something and reading the output.
The rule
Before any completion claim:
- Name the claim precisely. "Fixed the timeout bug" / "feature X delivered" / "refactor is behavior-preserving" — a vague claim can't be verified.
- Run the verifying command in this session. The relevant test suite, the failing repro, the build, the endpoint call, the UI flow. Prefer the project's own package scripts. Stale results from earlier in the session don't count if the code changed since.
- Read the output, don't pattern-match it. Exit code 0 with skipped tests is not a pass. A green suite that doesn't exercise the changed behavior is not evidence for the claim.
- Match evidence to claim. Bug fix → the original repro no longer fails and a regression test passes. Feature → the user-visible behavior was exercised, not just unit internals. Refactor → the pre-existing suite passes unchanged.
- Report command + outcome verbatim. State exactly what ran and what it showed. If something was skipped, say so.
When verification cannot run
Environment broken, credentials missing, suite requires services that are down:
- Say the claim is unverified and why.
- State the exact command someone must run to complete verification.
- Do not soften to "should work" — the status is unverified, not probably fine.
Common self-deceptions (reject all of these)
| Deception | Reality |
| "The change is simple, no need to run it" | Simple changes break builds daily |
| "Tests passed before my last small edit" | The last edit is the one that breaks |
| "The type checker is happy" | Types don't verify behavior |
| "I ran the unit tests" (for a user-visible bug) | The user's flow was never exercised |
| "Lint + build succeeded" | Neither executes the changed code path |
| "The logs look like it worked" | Find the assertion, not the vibe |
Verification
- Claim stated precisely
- Verifying command executed after the final code change
- Output actually read; skips/warnings accounted for
- Evidence type matches claim type (repro for bugs, behavior for features, suite for refactors)
- Report includes command + observed result, or an explicit UNVERIFIED status
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.