agentleFS
buildpad-aibuildpad-ai/skills/buildpad-verify-completion/SKILL.md

buildpad-verify-completion

Skill1 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub

Verify completion and success claims with fresh evidence. Use before claiming a task is complete, a fix works, tests pass, or a feature is ready for GO.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

15 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈12

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before saying a task is complete

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Before saying a bug is fixed

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Before saying tests pass

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    Before moving to the next task in autonomous execution

    line 19
  5. Very specific:

    Before reporting GO from feature-level validation

    line 20
  6. Distinctive:

    Before trusting another subagent's success report

    line 21
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not use this skill for early planning or speculative status updates.

    line 23
  8. Very specific:

    Use the language specified in spec.json.

    line 55
  9. Distinctive:

    Check exit code, failure count, skipped scope, and missing coverage.

    line 62
  10. Very specific:

    If mandatory validation cannot be completed, return MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED.

    line 64
  11. Distinctive:

    Only then allow the claim.

    line 65
  12. Distinctive:

    no unresolved blocking findings from review

    line 72
  13. Distinctive:

    no broader regressions in the relevant verification scope

    line 78
  14. Distinctive:

    no inference from unrelated checks

    line 84
  15. Distinctive:

    No canonical validation command is known

    line 100

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

buildpad-verify-completion

Overview

This skill prevents false completion claims. A task, fix, or feature is only complete when supported by fresh evidence that matches the scope of the claim.

When to Use

  • Before saying a task is complete
  • Before saying a bug is fixed
  • Before saying tests pass
  • Before moving to the next task in autonomous execution
  • Before reporting GO from feature-level validation
  • Before trusting another subagent's success report

Do not use this skill for early planning or speculative status updates.

Inputs

Provide:

  • The exact claim to verify
  • Claim type:
    • TASK
    • FIX
    • TEST_OR_BUILD
    • FEATURE_GO
  • Validation commands discovered by the controller
  • Fresh command output and exit codes
  • Relevant task IDs, requirement IDs, and design refs where applicable
  • For feature-level claims:
    • requirements coverage status
    • design alignment status
    • integration status
    • blocked task status

Outputs

Return one of:

  • VERIFIED
  • NOT_VERIFIED
  • MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED

Also return:

  • Claim reviewed
  • Evidence used
  • Scope/evidence mismatch, if any

Use the language specified in spec.json.

Gate Function

  1. Identify the exact claim.
  2. Identify the exact command or checklist that proves that claim.
  3. Require fresh evidence from the current code state.
  4. Check exit code, failure count, skipped scope, and missing coverage.
  5. Reject claims that are broader than the evidence.
  6. If mandatory validation cannot be completed, return MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED.
  7. Only then allow the claim.

Claim-Specific Rules

TASK

Require:

  • task-local verification evidence
  • no unresolved blocking findings from review
  • evidence aligned with the task boundary

FIX

Require:

  • evidence that the original symptom is resolved
  • no broader regressions in the relevant verification scope

TEST_OR_BUILD

Require:

  • actual command output
  • exit code
  • no inference from unrelated checks

FEATURE_GO

Require:

  • full test suite result
  • runtime smoke boot result showing the built artifact reaches its first usable state
  • requirements coverage assessment
  • cross-task integration assessment
  • design end-to-end alignment assessment
  • blocked tasks assessment

A passing test suite alone is not enough for FEATURE_GO.

Stop / Escalate

Return MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED when:

  • No canonical validation command is known
  • The required environment is unavailable
  • A mandatory manual verification step cannot be executed

Return NOT_VERIFIED when:

  • The command failed
  • Evidence is stale
  • Evidence is partial
  • The claim exceeds the evidence
  • The feature still has unresolved blocked tasks or uncovered requirements

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
“The subagent said it succeeded”Reported success is not verification evidence.
“Tests passed earlier”Fresh evidence only.
“Build should be fine because lint passed”Lint does not prove build success.
“Tests passed and build succeeded, so it must run”Type erasure, module loading, native ABI, and boot-time config issues can still fail at runtime.
“The feature is done because all tasks are checked off”FEATURE_GO also requires coverage, integration, and design alignment.

Output Format

## Verification Result
- STATUS: VERIFIED | NOT_VERIFIED | MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- CLAIM_TYPE: TASK | FIX | TEST_OR_BUILD | FEATURE_GO
- CLAIM: <exact claim>
- EVIDENCE: <command/checklist and result>
- GAPS: <scope/evidence mismatch or missing validation>
- NOTES: <next action if not verified>

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.