verifying-before-completion
Skill15 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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 23
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
- Distinctive: line 138
Run the command. Read the output.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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.
Files
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
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 | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- Tired and wanting work over
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
Key Patterns
Tests:
RIGHT: [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
WRONG: "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):
RIGHT: Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
WRONG: "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)Build:
RIGHT: [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
WRONG: "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)Requirements:
RIGHT: Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
WRONG: "Tests pass, phase complete"Agent delegation:
RIGHT: Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
WRONG: Trust agent reportWhy This Matters
From 24 failure memories:
- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
When To Apply
ALWAYS before:
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
Rule applies to:
- Exact phrases
- Paraphrases and synonyms
- Implications of success
- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
The Bottom Line
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- jjsizemore/jjskills★ 1same 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 repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- applying-themesSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- building-accessible-interfacesSkill
- building-finetuning-datasetsSkill
- building-mcp-serversSkill
- building-web-artifactsSkill
- coauthoring-docsSkill
- creating-algorithmic-artSkill
- creating-skillsSkill
- designing-canvas-artSkill
- designing-frontend-interfacesSkill
- designing-user-experienceSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- evolving-apis-and-schemasSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- investigating-performanceSkill
- processing-pdfSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- reviewing-interface-qualitySkill
- reviewing-securitySkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- testing-skillsSkill
- testing-webappsSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- writing-internal-commsSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- writing-release-notesSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

