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
- automagik-si/omniword for word, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- mahsumaktas/agent-evolution-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- wannanbigpig/ai-engineering-collaborationtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- sentimony/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- kopp0510/claude-ddtheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
- 58254727-blip/codex-task-control-towertheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- automagik-si/omni★ 70100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- LearnPrompt/cc-harness-skills★ 236same name
- kopp0510/claude-dd★ 12same name
- sentimony/skills★ 7same name
- HanksChen0110/skills★ 2same name
- mahsumaktas/agent-evolution-kit★ 2same name
- nacif-software/skills★ 2same name
- wannanbigpig/ai-engineering-collaboration★ 2same name
- yuanJewel/skills★ 2same name
- 58254727-blip/codex-task-control-tower★ 1same name
- tarikhamilton/claude-skills★ 0same name
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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- automagik-brandSkill
- debugSkill
- frontend-designSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 20
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
- Distinctive: line 92
After implementation, before claiming self-review passes:
- Distinctive: line 95
Only then claim READY for review
- Very specific: line 100
Run make check fresh (don't trust forge)
- Distinctive: line 102
Only then assign verdict
- Distinctive: line 109
Only then mark pass/fail
- Distinctive: line 122
Run the command. Read the output.
“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.
Files
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 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 | make test output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | make lint output: 0 errors | Partial check |
| Build succeeds | make check exit 0 | Linter passing |
| Bug fixed | Test for bug passes | Code changed |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
| Integration works | Live 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 testoutput - "Build succeeds" → Show
make checkoutput - "Linter clean" → Show
make lintoutput - "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:
- Run
make check - Show output
- Only then claim READY for review
In /review
Before any verdict:
- Run
make checkfresh (don't trust forge) - Show output
- Only then assign verdict
In /qa
After each test:
- Show actual output
- Compare to expected
- 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.
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.

