verify-before-claim
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when an agent is about to claim completion, correctness, safety, publication, deployment, or any consequential external fact.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- hushh-labs/hushh-researchtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- liushikuan63/Qoder-Optimizationtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- vectaosporley/failstoptheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- hushh-labs/hushh-research★ 40same name
- liushikuan63/Qoder-Optimization★ 2same name
- vectaosporley/failstop★ 0same 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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agentic-engineeringSkill
- agent-teams-commandSkill
- context-managerSkill
- graph-engineeringSkill
- harness-engineeringSkill
- loop-engineeringSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 20
No evidence, no claim. Match the check to the exact claim, use fresh evidence, and keep execution authority separate from approval …
- Very specific: line 39
If the artifact, expected behavior, or verification method is missing, return NEEDS_INPUT.
- Distinctive: line 45
Run the selected check after the final material change.
- Very specific: line 89
Every Graph node is green but the reduce join lacks one declared input: withhold graph completion and return VERIFY_FAILED.
- Distinctive: line 95
Every material completion claim has a fresh, scope-matched receipt.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Verify Before Claim
<skill_contract>
<input>One falsifiable claim, its artifact or system, risk, expected result, permissions, and available checks.</input>
<output>A scoped claim decision with fresh evidence, residual risk, approval, and rollback status.</output>
<done>The cheapest direct check after the final material change supports the exact allowed wording.</done>
<non_goals>Producing the artifact, inferring success from effort, or widening a claim beyond checked evidence.</non_goals>
No evidence, no claim. Match the check to the exact claim, use fresh evidence, and keep execution authority separate from approval authority for consequential actions.
Usage Template
Provide: proposed claim, artifact or system, risk level, available checks, expected result, permissions, and rollback path.
Workflow
<intake>- Rewrite the proposed statement as one falsifiable claim.
- Classify risk: low, material, or consequential.
- Select the cheapest check that directly tests the claim.
- Record expected signal, time boundary, and acceptable evidence.
</intake><unknowns_gate>
If the artifact, expected behavior, or verification method is missing, return NEEDS_INPUT. If only indirect evidence exists, return INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE or narrow the claim; never fill the gap with confidence language.
</unknowns_gate>
<execute>Run the selected check after the final material change. Examples: targeted test, lint, build, link check, read-after-write, diff inspection, source comparison, dashboard query, or deployment health check. Capture command/query, timestamp, scope, exit status, and key output.
For material or consequential claims, obtain independent verification from a separate check, reviewer, or evidence source. Require human approval before irreversible publication, deployment, spending, deletion, credential use, or policy change. Confirm the rollback path before execution.
For Graph claims, verify static contract integrity, every required node and join receipt, terminal acceptance, budgets, permission/compensation state, and checkpoint identity. Passing nodes do not prove the end-to-end graph.
</execute><evaluate>Compare observed versus expected result. Decide supported, partially_supported, unsupported, or blocked. Check scope: passing one test cannot prove the full suite; a successful write cannot prove link integrity. State residual risk and evidence age.
</evaluate><retry_policy>
max_attempts: 2. Retry only after diagnosing the failure and changing input, tool, scope, or strategy. Stop on repeated signature or NO_PROGRESS; never rerun an unchanged check to manufacture confidence.
</retry_policy>
<state_contract>
Persist {run_id, status, attempt, budget, evidence, unknowns, last_error, next_action} plus claim, risk, check specification, expected/observed results, approval receipt, and rollback readiness. Append verification events so evidence age remains visible.
</state_contract>
Failure Protocol
NEEDS_INPUT: the claim or expected result is ambiguous; ask one discriminating probe.INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: no direct check supports the requested scope; narrow or withhold the claim.BLOCKED_PERMISSION: approval or access is absent; do not perform the action.VERIFY_FAILED: observed evidence contradicts the claim; report failure and recovery.NO_PROGRESS: the same verification signature fails twice; stop and escalate.BUDGET_STOP: verification budget is exhausted; preserve evidence and do not claim completion.max_attempts: 2.
Output Contract
Return status, result (claim decision and allowed wording), evidence (fresh receipts), unknowns (including residual risk), and next_action (repair, approval, rollback, or stop).
Edge Cases
- Tests passed before a final edit: evidence is stale; rerun the relevant checks after the edit.
- Every Graph node is green but the reduce join lacks one declared input:
withhold graph completion and return
VERIFY_FAILED. - An authoritative page is unavailable: report
INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE; do not substitute an uncited recollection for the external fact.
Success Metrics
- Every material completion claim has a fresh, scope-matched receipt.
- Consequential actions have independent verification, approval, and rollback readiness.
- Failed checks change the claim or execution state immediately.
Quality Gates
- Claim, expected result, and check scope match.
- Evidence was produced after the last material change.
- Partial checks lead to partial wording.
- Approval and rollback controls match risk.
</skill_contract>
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.

