verify-completion
Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Gate every "it works / it's fixed / tests pass / done" claim behind fresh evidence. Run the actual verifying command, read its output, and only then state the result. Use before committing, opening a PR, marking a task complete, handing off to or trusting a subagent, or otherwise asserting that work succeeded.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nikhilw/structured-agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- joymin5655/Agenttheir own version, first seen Sep 28, 2026
- fernandoxavier02/Pipeline-Orchestratortheir own version, first seen Jun 29, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- nikhilw/structured-agentic-workflow★ 7same name
- joymin5655/Agent★ 2same name
- fernandoxavier02/Pipeline-Orchestrator★ 1same name
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 repository89 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- site/llms-full.txtllms.txt
- site/llms.txtllms.txt
- improveSkill
- academic-writingSkill
- benchmark-reportingSkill
- bibtex-managerSkill
- citation-graphSkill
- citation-verifierSkill
- design-science-methodologySkill
- docx-thesisSkill
- experiment-reproducibilitySkill
- latex-toolkitSkill
- literature-searchSkill
- lit-review-synthesisSkill
- paper-readerSkill
- proofread-academicSkill
- research-figuresSkill
- research-methodologySkill
- research-questionSkill
- statistics-advisorSkill
- supervisor-updateSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- thesis-proposalSkill
- coolify-image-appSkill
- coolify-vps-baselineSkill
- deploy-verificationSkill
- express-prisma-coolify-imageSkill
- ghcr-coolify-pipelineSkill
- live-domain-cutoverSkill
- nextjs-coolify-imageSkill
- proxy-client-addressSkill
- vps-ops-toolkitSkill
- adr-writingSkill
- openapi-specSkill
- readme-writingSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- adversarial-reviewerSkill
- api-design-reviewSkill
- code-review-responseSkill
- create-agentSkill
- create-commandSkill
- create-hookSkill
- create-skillSkill
- db-migration-safetySkill
- dependency-upgradeSkill
- dockerfile-best-practicesSkill
- error-handling-patternsSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- explain-codebaseSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- github-actions-pipelineSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- incident-postmortemSkill
- logging-and-observabilitySkill
- parallel-agentsSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- refactoring-recipesSkill
- solid-principlesSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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 10
No completion claim without fresh verification: If you haven't run the verifying command in this turn, you can't say it passes.
- Distinctive: line 14
Before stating any status, or even expressing satisfaction ("great", "perfect", "done"):
- Distinctive: line 51
Run the command. Read the output.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Don't claim work is done, fixed, or passing unless you've just run the thing that proves it and read the output. Saying it's complete when you haven't checked isn't optimism; it's reporting something you don't know to be true, and it breaks trust the moment it turns out wrong.
The one rule
No completion claim without fresh verification. If you haven't run the verifying command in this turn, you can't say it passes. "Should pass now", "I'm confident", "the logs looked fine" are not evidence; they're the feelings that precede unverified claims.
The gate
Before stating any status, or even expressing satisfaction ("great", "perfect", "done"):
- Identify the command that would prove the claim.
- Run it: the full command, fresh, start to finish. Not a partial check, not a remembered result from earlier.
- Read the whole output: exit code, failure count, warnings.
- Decide. Does the output actually confirm the claim? If not, state the real status with the evidence. If so, state the claim with the evidence.
Skipping any of these steps turns a verification into a guess.
What each claim actually requires
| Claim | What proves it | What does not |
| Tests pass | A fresh test run showing 0 failures | A previous run; "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output, 0 errors | A partial check; extrapolating |
| Build succeeds | Build command, exit 0 | Linter passing; logs "looking good" |
| Bug fixed | The original symptom retested and gone | The code changed, so it's "probably fixed" |
| Regression test works | Watched it fail before the fix, pass after | It passes once now |
| Requirements met | A line-by-line pass over the requirements | Tests passing |
| Subagent finished | The actual diff / output inspected | The subagent reporting "success" |
A linter passing doesn't mean it compiles. A subagent saying "done" doesn't mean it did the work, check the diff. A regression test that's only ever passed hasn't been shown to catch anything; verify it fails without the fix, then passes with it.
Red flags: stop before you claim
- Reaching for "should", "probably", "seems to."
- About to say "great" / "perfect" / "done" before running anything.
- About to commit, push, or open a PR without a fresh check.
- Taking a subagent's success report at face value.
- Leaning on a partial or earlier run.
- "Just this once" / "I'm tired, close enough."
- Any wording that implies success when you haven't run the proof.
Different phrasing doesn't exempt you: a paraphrase that implies the work is done is still a completion claim.
The bottom line
Run the command. Read the output. Then make the claim. There's no shortcut that preserves the honesty of the statement.
Attribution
Adapted from the verification-before-completion entry of superpowers by Jesse Vincent (MIT). The structure and the core rules are theirs; the wording, the examples, and the integration with this registry's other items are this repository's.
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.