agentleFS
RBraga01RBraga01/a-team/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

verification-before-completion

Skill24 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use before claiming ANY task is complete. Requires you to run actual verification commands, read real output, and confirm it matches expectations — before stating the task is done. Blocks "should work" rationalizations.

189 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-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

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-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

  • jh941213Skill

    docs-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

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 12

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill before saying ANY of these:

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    If you have not run the verification command and read its output in this session, you cannot make the claim.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Before claiming completion, state the exact command that proves the claim:

    line 32
  4. Distinctive:

    Run it NOW, in this session.

    line 46
  5. Distinctive:

    Fresh means: After the last code change, run the command again.

    line 48
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not skim. Do not assume.

    line 52
  7. Distinctive:

    Only if the output actually confirms the claim, state completion.

    line 59
  8. Distinctive:

    If the output contradicts the claim → fix the issue, then re-verify from Step 2.

    line 61
  9. Distinctive:

    After verification succeeds, before reporting done, clean up all diagnostic debris produced during this task:

    line 65
  10. Distinctive:

    Every one of these is a lie told to avoid the discomfort of possibly seeing a failure.

    line 99
  11. Distinctive:

    When you have verified, state completion like this:

    line 104
  12. Distinctive:

    Never omit the verification output.

    line 116

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Verification Before Completion

The Law

YOU CANNOT CLAIM SUCCESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
"It should work" is not evidence.
"I believe it works" is not evidence.
Running the command and reading the output IS evidence.

When to Use

Use this skill before saying ANY of these:

  • "Done" / "Complete" / "Finished"
  • "The tests pass"
  • "The build succeeds"
  • "The feature works"
  • "The bug is fixed"

If you have not run the verification command and read its output in this session, you cannot make the claim.

The Verification Process

Step 1: Identify the Verification Command

Before claiming completion, state the exact command that proves the claim:

ClaimVerification Command
"Tests pass"npm test / pytest / go test ./... / cargo test
"Build succeeds"npm run build / go build ./... / cargo build --release
"Type checking passes"npx tsc --noEmit / mypy .
"Bug is fixed"Run the exact steps that reproduced the bug
"Feature works"Run the specific user flow end-to-end
"Coverage is 80%+"npm run test:coverage / pytest --cov
"No security issues"npm audit / cargo audit / bandit -r .

Step 2: Run the Command Fresh

Run it NOW, in this session. Not "I ran it earlier." Not "it was passing before I made changes."

Fresh means: After the last code change, run the command again.

Step 3: Read the Actual Output

Do not skim. Do not assume. Read:

  • The exit code (0 = success)
  • The test count (N passing, 0 failing)
  • The exact error messages if any

Step 4: Confirm the Output Matches the Claim

Only if the output actually confirms the claim, state completion.

If the output contradicts the claim → fix the issue, then re-verify from Step 2.

Step 5: Prune Workspace Artifacts (Mandatory)

After verification succeeds, before reporting done, clean up all diagnostic debris produced during this task:

# Delete temporary logs and stack traces generated in this session
rm -f *.log *.tmp build-output.txt error-dump.txt
rm -f *-stack-trace.txt *-stderr.txt *-debug.txt
# Truncate test output files that were created locally (keep test results, not raw stdout dumps)

What to clean:

  • Stack traces saved to local files (*.log, *-error.txt, *-trace.txt)
  • Build output dumps that were written to the workspace during debugging
  • Temporary debugging files created to capture stdout/stderr
  • Any file whose sole purpose was to hold error output during this session

What NOT to clean:

  • Source files, test files, configuration files
  • Official test result files (JUnit XML, coverage reports) that the project intentionally persists
  • Any file tracked by git (git ls-files — don't delete those)

Why this matters: Stack traces and log dumps left in the workspace are silently read by Claude Code in subsequent iterations, inflating context with noise that was only relevant during the error state. Pruning keeps the next agent's context focused.

Rationalization Red Flags

These thoughts mean you have NOT verified — stop and verify:

  • "The tests were passing before I made this change"
  • "This is a small change, it definitely didn't break anything"
  • "I can see from the code that it's correct"
  • "The logic looks right"
  • "It should work based on how the library works"
  • "I'll verify after I report back"
  • "The previous run passed so it's fine"

Every one of these is a lie told to avoid the discomfort of possibly seeing a failure. Run the command. Read the output. Then report.

Completion Statement Format

When you have verified, state completion like this:

Verification run: `npm test`
Output:
  ✓ 42 tests passing
  0 failing
  Coverage: 84%

Task complete. ✓

Never omit the verification output. It is the proof.

Why This Matters

LLMs are optimistic by default. They report what should be true, not what is true. A test suite that "should pass" fails 30% of the time after non-trivial changes. The only way to know is to run it.

One unverified claim compounds into three broken downstream tasks. Five minutes of verification saves two hours of debugging later.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.