verify
Skill12 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 168 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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 26
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
- Distinctive: line 149
Run the command. Read the output.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 168 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
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Part of the superskills quality standard ("Tests must actually run" — written up as
ENGINEERING_STANDARDS.mdin the superskills install, not in your project). This skill is how "done" gets proven — fresh evidence, not assertion.
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 message, you cannot claim it passes.
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
Skip any step = lying, not verifyingCommon Failures
| Claim | Requires | 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 | 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" |
| Task list complete | List contains a verification item, and it ran (fresh) | All items checked off |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- Tired and wanting work over
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
Key Patterns
Tests:
✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):
✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)Build:
✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)Requirements:
✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"Agent delegation:
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent reportTask lists (the completion nudge):
✅ All todos done → the list carries a verify item AND it ran in this session → claim
✅ 3+ items all done, none mentions verifying → name the gap, add the item, run it
❌ "Every todo is checked off, so the work is verified"Why This Matters
From 24 failure memories:
- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
When To Apply
ALWAYS before:
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
Rule applies to:
- Exact phrases
- Paraphrases and synonyms
- Implications of success
- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
The Bottom Line
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.
Other versions188 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 188
- react/react★ 252ksame name
- facebook/react★ 252ksame name
- garrytan/gstack★ 139ksame name
- oven-sh/bun★ 96ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services-plugins★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 40ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 40ksame name
- anthropics/claude-quickstarts★ 19ksame name
- NVIDIA-NeMo/Speech★ 19ksame name
178 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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use external-context, instinct-export 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.
Jurel89Skillexternal-context
Invoke parallel document-specialist agents for external web searches and documentation lookup
Also in 3 projects that use this
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-export
Export instincts from project/global scope to a file
Also in 3 projects that use this
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-import
Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope
Also in 3 projects that use this
diego-tobalinaSkillbuild-fix
Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.
Also in 5 projects that use this
AviadPSkillrisk-assess
Assess the risk and blast radius of a proposed code change before implementing it. Evaluates CI impact, framework-wide vs localized scope, rollback path, and identifies blindspots. Use when user says "what's the risk", "is this safe", "assess the impact", "risk assess", "blast radius", or before applying framework-wide or CI-affecting changes. Do NOT use for code quality review (use code-quality) or plan validation (use design-validator).
Also in 3 projects that use this
AaravChadhaSkillsecure
Security review with a confidence gate - a finding exists only with a concrete exploit scenario and a high/medium/low confidence rating; everything else goes to a worth-hardening list, never inflated. Sweeps five surfaces: auth gates, secrets hygiene, injection and unsafe sinks, unsafe deserialization/crypto/transport, and LLM tool-use trust boundaries. Reports only, never fixes. Use when the user asks for a security review or to check vulnerabilities, secrets, or auth.
Also in 3 projects that use this
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- a11ySkill
- articleSkill
- basic-reviewSkill
- cache-strategySkill
- clean-codeSkill
- cli-for-agentSkill
- content-writerSkill
- daily-qaSkill
- dbmap-auto-offSkill
- dbmapSkill
- db-optimizeSkill
- debugSkill
- defenseSkill
- diff-walkthroughSkill
- evalSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- finish-branchSkill
- fuzzSkill
- handoffSkill
- humanizeSkill
- iac-scanSkill
- kb-advisorSkill
- minimalist-reviewSkill
- pentestSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playwrightSkill
- pricingSkill
- qa-fullSkill
- quota-resilienceSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- superskills-doctorSkill
- superskills-upgradeSkill
- tapestrySkill
- tddSkill
- test-coverageSkill
- validate-ideaSkill
- web-perfSkill
- worktreesSkill
- write-planSkill
- youtubeSkill
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.

