verification-before-completion
Skill2 starsChanged 56 days agoMITView on GitHub
Back completion claims with fresh verification evidence.
189 other projects use a version of this, 140 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXedited, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravityedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-trioedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DJtx001/ai-coding-playbookedited, 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
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 · 140
- obra/superpowers★ 314k41% same
- openai/plugins★ 7.8k41% same
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6k35% same
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8k41% same
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3k41% same
- DemonDamon/AgenticX★ 1k35% same
- coco-research/coco★ 79734% same
- pedronauck/skills★ 64941% same
- koaning/wigglystuff★ 45535% same
- derHaken/SuperAntigravity★ 43935% same
130 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 49
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- KbWen/agentic-os★ 229same name
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimized★ 146same name
- TheGoat395/Codex-Skills★ 136same name
- shibit-net/xuanji-community★ 90same name
- withzombies/hyperpowers★ 80same name
- GEd520/legados★ 75same name
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 71same name
- ivyfan-toowell/IvyClaw★ 66same name
39 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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- canvas-course-syncSkill
- categorizerSkill
- course-knowledge-baseSkill
- course-study-sessionSkill
- email-draftingSkill
- exam-prepSkill
- grade-calculatorSkill
- homework-checklistSkill
- meetings-and-clubsSkill
- note-formatting-rulesSkill
- photos-to-pdfSkill
- roadmapSkill
- school-advisorSkill
- study-notes-workflowSkill
- suite-updateSkill
- writing-for-agentsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 1 is common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
1
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 28
If you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes.
- Distinctive: line 34
Before committing, pushing, or opening a PR
- Distinctive: line 35
After running a test, build, or linter — before declaring the result
- Distinctive: line 38
Don't use for: brainstorming, design discussion, exploration (no completion claim to verify).
- Distinctive: line 83
Run it fresh, in full: No caching mentally, no assuming.
- Very specific: line 106
Every "done" claim you make is backed by a terminal(command=...) you ran in this turn whose output you actually read.
“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
Overview
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCEIf you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes.
When to Use
- About to claim work is "complete", "fixed", or "passing"
- Before committing, pushing, or opening a PR
- After running a test, build, or linter — before declaring the result
- Any time you're tempted to write "done", "all good", "should be fine"
Don't use for: brainstorming, design discussion, exploration (no completion claim to verify).
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claimSkipping any step is lying, not verifying.
Common Failures
| Claim | Requires (sufficient) | NOT sufficient |
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Re-test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags — STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting another agent's "success" report — run it yourself
- Relying on a partial check (only some lines of a test run)
- Thinking "just this once"
- Any wording implying success without having run the verification
Procedure
- Identify the claim you're about to make (tests pass / build ok / bug fixed).
- Choose the exact command that would falsify the claim if it failed.
- Run it fresh, in full. No caching mentally, no assuming.
- Read the raw output: exit code, stderr, failure count.
- Decide honestly: does this confirm the claim?
- Yes → state the outcome with the evidence (e.g. "pytest: 42 passed").
- No → state the actual status with evidence; don't paper over it.
- Confirm. Your narration states claims only after step 5.
In Hermes tools: the verification command is terminal(command=...). Run the
command bare — never pipe its output into a truncating filter (that can mask the
real exit code) and don't wrap it with success-echo hacks that swallow failures.
Pitfalls
- Reporting a success from memory — evidence must be from this turn's run.
- Truncating output that hides a failure — run the full command, read the real exit code.
cmd || echo donemasks failure — the pipeline reports the pipeline's last command exit code; run bare.- Trusting a subagent's "success" — require raw evidence from it, else re-run.
- "Should pass" — not a verification.
Verification
Every "done" claim you make is backed by a terminal(command=...) you ran in
this turn whose output you actually read.
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.

