verification-before-completion
Skill19 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Evidence-before-claims discipline for implementation completion. Use before claiming any work is complete, fixed, or passing. Run verification commands and confirm output before making success claims.
189 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DemonDamon/AgenticXtheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- roundpilot/superpowers-antigravitytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- REPOZY/superpowers-optimizedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lingyired/status-triotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DJtx001/ai-coding-playbooktheir own version, 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 · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 189
- obra/superpowers★ 314ksame name
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6ksame name
- lingyired/status-trio★ 1.8ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3ksame name
- DemonDamon/AgenticX★ 1ksame name
- coco-research/coco★ 797same name
- pedronauck/skills★ 649same name
179 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.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- brainstormingSkill
- documenting-decisionsSkill
- finishing-workSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- implementing-plansSkill
- parallel-agentsSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- researching-codebaseSkill
- research-plan-implementSkill
- reviewing-codeSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- synthesizing-researchSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- writing-plansSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.
9
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 22
Every claim must be backed by evidence you just observed.
- Distinctive: line 27
Before any completion claim, complete these steps:
- Distinctive: line 59
Read the COMPLETE output.
- Distinctive: line 85
Only NOW make your completion claim.
- Distinctive: line 250
Wrong: Run only the test file you changed
- Distinctive: line 251
Right: Run full test suite to catch regressions
- Distinctive: line 256
Right: Run fresh each time before claiming
- Distinctive: line 261
Right: Verify anyway, confidence isn't evidence
- Distinctive: line 266
Right: Run tests yourself to verify
“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
Evidence before claims, always. No completion claims without fresh verification.
Purpose
Claiming work is done without verification breaks trust and wastes time. This skill enforces running verification commands and confirming output before any success claim. "It should work" is not verification.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.
Every claim must be backed by evidence you just observed. Not evidence from earlier. Not evidence you expect. Evidence you just saw.
The Five-Step Gate
Before any completion claim, complete these steps:
Step 1: Identify
What command proves your claim?
Claim: "Tests pass"
Command: npm test (or project's test command)
Claim: "Build succeeds"
Command: npm run build (or project's build command)
Claim: "Lint is clean"
Command: npm run lint (or project's lint command)
Claim: "Bug is fixed"
Command: The reproduction steps that previously failedStep 2: Run
Execute the command freshly. Not from cache. Not from memory.
Run the command NOW.
Wait for it to complete.
Do not proceed until finished.Step 3: Read
Read the COMPLETE output.
- Exit code (0 = success)
- All output lines, not just the last one
- Any warnings (not just errors)
- Summary statistics if providedStep 4: Verify
Confirm the output supports your claim.
Claim: "Tests pass"
Verify: Exit code 0, "X tests passed", no failures
Claim: "Build succeeds"
Verify: Exit code 0, output files created, no errors
Claim: "Bug is fixed"
Verify: Previous failure no longer occursStep 5: Claim
Only NOW make your completion claim.
"Tests pass" - after seeing test output showing success
"Build succeeds" - after seeing build complete without errors
"Implementation complete" - after all verifications passCommon Failure Modes
Tests
What to run: Project test command
What to verify:
- Exit code 0
- All tests pass (not just "some tests ran")
- No skipped tests (unless intentional)
- No test warningsLinting
What to run: Project lint command
What to verify:
- Exit code 0
- No errors
- No new warnings (compare to baseline)Builds
What to run: Project build command
What to verify:
- Exit code 0
- Output artifacts created
- No compilation errors
- No type errorsBug Fixes
What to run: Steps that reproduced the bug
What to verify:
- Bug no longer occurs
- Related functionality still works
- Regression test added and passesDelegated Work
What to run: Independent verification of agent's claim
What to verify:
- Agent's claimed output exists
- Output is correct (not just present)
- No silent failures maskedRationalization Red Flags
| Thought | Reality |
| "It should pass" | Run it and see |
| "I'm confident it works" | Confidence isn't evidence |
| "I already ran it earlier" | Run it again, freshly |
| "The change was small" | Small changes can break things |
| "I'll verify later" | Verify now or don't claim |
| "The agent said it passed" | Verify agent's claims independently |
| "It worked on my machine" | Run it in the target environment |
| "I'm tired of running tests" | Fatigue doesn't excuse skipping verification |
Integration with Implement Phase
This skill serves as the final gate before completion claims:
Plan step complete? → Run step verification → Claim step done
Phase complete? → Run phase verification → Claim phase done
Implementation complete? → Run all verifications → Claim doneNever mark a step complete without verification evidence.
Before Commits
Run before committing:
1. All tests pass
2. Lint is clean
3. Build succeeds
4. Type check passes (if applicable)Before PRs
Run before creating PR:
1. All verifications from "Before Commits"
2. Branch is up to date with base
3. No merge conflicts
4. CI would pass (simulate locally if possible)Before Claiming "Fixed"
Run before claiming bug is fixed:
1. Reproduction steps no longer trigger bug
2. Regression test added and passes
3. Related functionality still works
4. All other tests still passVerification Commands by Project Type
Node.js / JavaScript
Tests: npm test
Lint: npm run lint
Build: npm run build
Types: npm run typecheck (or tsc --noEmit)Python
Tests: pytest
Lint: ruff check . or flake8
Types: mypy .
Format: ruff format --check . or black --check .Ruby
Tests: bundle exec rspec
Lint: bundle exec rubocopGo
Tests: go test ./...
Lint: golangci-lint run
Build: go build ./...Rust
Tests: cargo test
Lint: cargo clippy
Build: cargo build
Format: cargo fmt --checkAnti-Patterns
Partial Verification
Wrong: Run only the test file you changed Right: Run full test suite to catch regressions
Cached Results
Wrong: Trust previous run results Right: Run fresh each time before claiming
Skipping on Confidence
Wrong: "I know this works, no need to verify" Right: Verify anyway, confidence isn't evidence
Trusting Agent Claims
Wrong: Agent said tests pass, so they pass Right: Run tests yourself to verify
Rushing at End
Wrong: Skip verification because you're almost done Right: Final verification is most important
Checklist Before Completion
- Identified verification command for the claim
- Ran command freshly (not cached)
- Read complete output
- Exit code confirms success
- Output matches expectations
- No warnings or errors ignored
- Evidence supports the specific claim being made
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.

