agentleFS
mnzraleemnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/.claude/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

verification-before-completion

Skill8 starsChanged 43 days agoMITView on GitHub

Comprehensive five-level validation checklist that every agent must pass before declaring any task or work package complete.

189 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-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

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-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

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-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

  • jh941213Skill

    docs-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

  • jh941213Skill

    docs-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

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Before marking any work package as COMPLETE

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Before committing code changes

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Before reporting success to a supervisor or orchestrator agent

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    Before moving to the next task

    line 16
  5. Distinctive:

    When reporting to a supervisor agent:

    line 139
  6. Distinctive:

    If any verification level fails:

    line 162
  7. Distinctive:

    Run full verification for every change

    line 227
  8. Distinctive:

    Update tests when behavior changes

    line 230

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Verification Before Completion Skill

Never mark a task as complete without thorough verification. This skill ensures quality gates are passed before any agent reports success upward. The commands below assume a TypeScript/Node monorepo with Vitest or Jest; the discipline is stack-agnostic and every level maps cleanly onto any compiled language or test runner.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill:

  • Before marking any work package as COMPLETE
  • Before committing code changes
  • Before reporting success to a supervisor or orchestrator agent
  • Before moving to the next task

The Verification Protocol

Level 1: Compilation Verification

# TypeScript compilation
npx tsc --noEmit

# Schema tool generation (if the data model changed)
# [CUSTOMIZE: replace with your ORM or codegen command, e.g. prisma generate, drizzle-kit generate, graphql-codegen]
<your-schema-tool> generate

# Service-specific build
npm run build --workspace=apps/<service-name>

Pass Criteria:

  • Zero TypeScript errors (or zero compiler errors in your language)
  • Zero schema-generation errors
  • Build completes successfully

Level 2: Static Analysis

# Linting
npm run lint

# Type coverage (if configured)
npm run type-coverage

Pass Criteria:

  • No new linting errors introduced
  • Type coverage maintained or improved

Level 3: Unit Tests

# Run unit tests for affected files
npm test -- --testPathPattern="<affected_file>"

# Run full service tests
npm test -- --projects=<service-name>

Pass Criteria:

  • All existing tests pass
  • New tests added for new functionality
  • No test regressions

Level 4: Integration Verification

# Start service locally
npm run start:dev --workspace=apps/<service-name>

# Health check
curl http://localhost:<PORT>/health

Pass Criteria:

  • Service starts without errors
  • Health check returns 200 OK
  • No runtime errors in logs

Level 5: Functional Verification

For specific changes, verify the actual functionality:

## Functional Test Checklist

### Change: [description of change]

- [ ] Primary functionality works
- [ ] Edge cases handled
- [ ] Error scenarios handled
- [ ] Related functionality not broken

Verification Matrix

Change TypeL1L2L3L4L5
Schema change✓✓✓✓✓
Service code✓✓✓✓✓
Utility function✓✓✓--
Type definition✓✓---
Comment/docs✓----

Pre-Commit Checklist

Before running /commit:

## Pre-Commit Verification

### Code Quality
- [ ] No TODO/FIXME added without a tracked ticket
- [ ] No console.log in production code
- [ ] No hardcoded secrets
- [ ] No commented-out code blocks

### TypeScript
- [ ] `npx tsc --noEmit` passes
- [ ] No `any` types introduced
- [ ] All new functions have return types

### Tests
- [ ] Unit tests pass
- [ ] New tests for new code
- [ ] No test files skipped

### Documentation
- [ ] Work record updated
- [ ] API changes documented
- [ ] Breaking changes noted

Verification Report Format

When reporting to a supervisor agent:

{
  "workPackage": "WP-XX",
  "status": "VERIFIED | FAILED",
  "levels": {
    "L1_compilation": "PASS",
    "L2_static": "PASS",
    "L3_unit": "PASS",
    "L4_integration": "PASS",
    "L5_functional": "PASS"
  },
  "issues": [],
  "filesModified": ["path/to/file.ts"],
  "testsRun": 15,
  "testsPassed": 15,
  "coverageChange": "+2%"
}

Failure Handling

If any verification level fails:

## Verification Failure Report

### Level Failed: L3 - Unit Tests

### Error Details
[test output]

### Analysis
[What caused the failure]

### Next Steps
- [ ] Fix the issue
- [ ] Re-run verification from L1
- [ ] Do not proceed until all levels pass

Integration with Multi-Agent System

The tester agent uses this skill for every work package:

supervisor -> tester: "Verify WP-03 completion"

tester -> [runs all verification levels]

tester -> supervisor: {
  "workPackage": "WP-03",
  "status": "VERIFIED",
  "levels": { ... },
  "recommendation": "PROCEED | FIX_REQUIRED"
}

Quick Verification Commands

# Full verification suite (if a verify script is configured)
npm run verify

# Or manually:
# [CUSTOMIZE: replace the schema-tool line with your own codegen command]
<your-schema-tool> generate && \
npx tsc --noEmit && \
npm run lint && \
npm test

# For a specific service:
cd apps/<service-name> && \
npx tsc --noEmit && \
npm test

Anti-Patterns

DON'T:

  • Skip verification "because the change is small"
  • Ignore failing tests
  • Suppress linting errors
  • Mark as complete before verification
  • Assume it works without testing

DO:

  • Run full verification for every change
  • Fix failures before proceeding
  • Document verification results
  • Update tests when behavior changes
  • Report honest status

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.