agentleFS
Runtime-3rr0rRuntime-3rr0r/canvas-scanner/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

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

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

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
  1. Common:

    If you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes.

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    Before committing, pushing, or opening a PR

    line 34
  3. Distinctive:

    After running a test, build, or linter — before declaring the result

    line 35
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't use for: brainstorming, design discussion, exploration (no completion claim to verify).

    line 38
  5. Distinctive:

    Run it fresh, in full: No caching mentally, no assuming.

    line 83
  6. Very specific:

    Every "done" claim you make is backed by a terminal(command=...) you ran in this turn whose output you actually read.

    line 106

“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

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 EVIDENCE

If 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 claim

Skipping any step is lying, not verifying.

Common Failures

ClaimRequires (sufficient)NOT sufficient
Tests passTest command output: 0 failuresPrevious run, "should pass"
Linter cleanLinter output: 0 errorsPartial check, extrapolation
Build succeedsBuild command exit 0Linter passing, logs look good
Bug fixedRe-test original symptom: passesCode changed, assumed fixed
Regression test worksRed-green cycle verifiedTest passes once
Agent completedVCS diff shows changesAgent reports "success"
Requirements metLine-by-line checklistTests 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

  1. Identify the claim you're about to make (tests pass / build ok / bug fixed).
  2. Choose the exact command that would falsify the claim if it failed.
  3. Run it fresh, in full. No caching mentally, no assuming.
  4. Read the raw output: exit code, stderr, failure count.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 done masks 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.

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.