agentleFS
automagik-devautomagik-dev/omni/.claude/skills/verification-gate/SKILL.md

verification-gate

Skill70 starsChanged 5 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use before claiming any work is complete, fixed, or passing - requires running verification commands and showing output before making success claims

11 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    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. Distinctive:

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

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    After implementation, before claiming self-review passes:

    line 92
  3. Distinctive:

    Only then claim READY for review

    line 95
  4. Very specific:

    Run make check fresh (don't trust forge)

    line 100
  5. Distinctive:

    Only then assign verdict

    line 102
  6. Distinctive:

    Only then mark pass/fail

    line 109
  7. Distinctive:

    Run the command. Read the output.

    line 122

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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 Gate

Overview

Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.

Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If 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 verifying

Common Failures

ClaimRequiresNot Sufficient
Tests passmake test output: 0 failuresPrevious run, "should pass"
Linter cleanmake lint output: 0 errorsPartial check
Build succeedsmake check exit 0Linter passing
Bug fixedTest for bug passesCode changed
Requirements metLine-by-line checklistTests passing
Integration worksLive system test (API + downstream logs)Unit tests with mocked boundaries

Red Flags - STOP

  • Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
  • Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Done!")
  • About to commit/push/PR without verification
  • Relying on previous verification
  • Thinking "just this once"

Forbidden Phrases Without Evidence

These phrases require showing command output first:

  • "Tests pass" → Show make test output
  • "Build succeeds" → Show make check output
  • "Linter clean" → Show make lint output
  • "Should work now" → Run verification first
  • "Looks correct" → Run verification first
  • "I'm confident" → Confidence ≠ evidence

Key Patterns

Tests:

✅ [Run make test] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"

Build:

✅ [Run make check] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)

Requirements:

✅ Re-read wish → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"

Integration with Workflow

In /forge

After implementation, before claiming self-review passes:

  1. Run make check
  2. Show output
  3. Only then claim READY for review

In /review

Before any verdict:

  1. Run make check fresh (don't trust forge)
  2. Show output
  3. Only then assign verdict

In /qa

After each test:

  1. Show actual output
  2. Compare to expected
  3. Only then mark pass/fail

Why This Matters

  • Trust is lost when claims don't match reality
  • "It worked when I tried it" ≠ verification
  • Users need confidence that PASS means PASS
  • Verification is faster than debugging false positives

The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.

This is non-negotiable.

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.