check-completion
Skill0 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Verification guardrail for auditing claimed-done work, classifying incomplete tasks with evidence, and driving the remainder to terminal status.
In this repository57 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-app-integrationSkill
- anti-llm-frontend-designSkill
- aspnet-core-web-developmentSkill
- async-python-patternsSkill
- browser-game-foundationsSkill
- browser-local-qaSkill
- build-mcp-server-sdk-v2Skill
- canva-design-opsSkill
- cli-tool-creatorSkill
- cloudflare-agents-mcpSkill
- cloudflare-durable-objectsSkill
- cloudflare-workers-platformSkill
- deployment-preview-workflowsSkill
- docx-document-artifactsSkill
- durable-workflow-orchestrationSkill
- dynamic-og-imagesSkill
- eval-auditSkill
- evaluate-ragSkill
- figma-design-to-code-rulesSkill
- fine-tuningSkill
- frontend-product-builderSkill
- game-asset-pipeline-expansionSkill
- game-ui-playtestSkill
- generate-synthetic-dataSkill
- github-pr-ci-opsSkill
- gmail-inbox-opsSkill
- golden-datasetSkill
- huggingface-llm-trainerSkill
- javascript-monorepo-buildsSkill
- linear-issue-managementSkill
- media-generation-transcriptionSkill
- millrace-rs-contract-paritySkill
- minecraft-mod-qa-automationSkill
- notion-workspace-flowsSkill
- openai-docsSkill
- optimize-agentic-cliSkill
- pdf-artifact-workflowSkill
- phaser-2d-game-developmentSkill
- postgres-query-performanceSkill
- product-ui-polish-reviewSkill
- pydantic-v2-patternsSkill
- python-repo-refactoring-hygieneSkill
- rag-corpus-hygieneSkill
- react-next-performance-reviewSkill
- rust-best-practicesSkill
- shadcn-ui-compositionSkill
- skill-evaluation-harnessSkill
- tauri-desktopSkill
- tauri-mcp-cliSkill
- tauri-ptySkill
- tile-pixel-art-transitionsSkill
- train-sentence-transformersSkill
- typer-cli-patternsSkill
- using-dbt-for-analytics-engineeringSkill
- validate-evaluatorSkill
- visual-asset-pipelineSkill
- watchdog-file-watcher-patternsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 42
If remediation is requested or implied, work blockers, broken items, missing items, and untested items in that order.
- Very specific: line 47
Do not default uncertain rows to Implemented.
- Distinctive: line 48
Use one status per task, not blended status prose.
- Distinctive: line 49
Every non-implemented row needs a concrete action, owner, or next command.
- Distinctive: line 50
Do not quietly remediate while enumerating.
- Distinctive: line 51
Do not stop at the first blocker if other independent rows can still be completed.
- Very specific: line 63
Use statuses from this controlled set: Implemented, Partially Implemented, Implemented but Untested, Implemented but Broken, Implemented …
- Distinctive: line 64
If remediation occurs, provide a completion report with starting status, ending status, and evidence.
- Distinctive: line 73
Write the audit table before making fixes.
- Distinctive: line 88
Start with the narrowest finite scope that matches the user's question.
≈ “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.
Files
Check Completion
Purpose
Help agents answer "are we done?" with evidence instead of confidence. This skill audits a session, plan, branch, PR, or custom task list, classifies each item, and remediates the non-terminal rows when the user wants completion rather than just a report.
Use When
- the user asks whether work is complete, what remains, or why something is still unfinished
- a plan or todo list may have drifted from reality
- a branch, PR, queue, or session needs a completion audit before handoff
- previous work crashed, timed out, paused, or was assumed complete
Do Not Use When
- the user asks for a single quick verification command
- the task is ordinary code review, runtime debugging, or future planning
- the user explicitly wants a narrow status answer with no remediation
Quick Start
- Declare the audit scope: session, plan, branch, PR, queue, or explicit custom list.
- Enumerate tasks from the available sources instead of trusting a single todo list.
- Assign each task exactly one status based on evidence.
- Produce a discrete audit table before remediation.
- If remediation is requested or implied, work blockers, broken items, missing items, and untested items in that order.
- Finish with a completion report where every row is terminal or has a concrete external next step.
Operating Constraints
- Evidence comes before status; no task is complete because an agent said it was.
- Do not default uncertain rows to
Implemented. - Use one status per task, not blended status prose.
- Every non-implemented row needs a concrete action, owner, or next command.
- Do not quietly remediate while enumerating; the audit table is its own artifact.
- Do not stop at the first blocker if other independent rows can still be completed.
- Terminal non-implemented outcomes must be deliberate: deferred, cancelled, out of scope, superseded with replacement verified, or blocked with an external next step.
Inputs This Skill Expects
- The scope to audit, or enough context to choose a finite scope.
- Access to one or more evidence sources: conversation, plan/todo state, git diff/log, test output, CI, terminal history, queue state, or runtime artifacts.
- The user's expectation: audit only, audit plus remediation, or final readiness check.
- Any constraints on what may be changed during remediation.
Output Contract
- State the audit scope and sources scanned.
- Provide an audit table with task, status, evidence, blocking flag, and action required.
- Use statuses from this controlled set:
Implemented,Partially Implemented,Implemented but Untested,Implemented but Broken,Implemented but Outdated,Assumed Complete,Incorrectly Implemented,Stalled,Timed Out,Crashed,Skipped,Forgotten,Blocked,Deferred to Human,Deprioritized,Superseded,Cancelled,Ambiguous,Duplicate,Planned / Queued,Not Planned,Out of Scope. - If remediation occurs, provide a completion report with starting status, ending status, and evidence.
- End with zero non-terminal rows unless the user requested audit-only output.
Procedure
- Define scope in one sentence before scanning.
- Extract tasks from all relevant sources available in the environment.
- Deduplicate tasks while preserving source evidence.
- For each candidate
Implementedrow, identify the proof needed, run or locate that proof, and read the output. - For any row without proof, choose the most pessimistic applicable non-implemented status.
- Write the audit table before making fixes.
- Remediate in priority order: blockers, broken/outdated, incorrect, stalled/crashed/timed out, partial, missing/queued, untested/assumed, skipped, ambiguous, duplicate/superseded.
- Re-verify each remediated row with the specific proof required for its task.
- Produce the completion report and state any external blocker precisely.
Pitfalls And Gotchas
- Treating "looks done" as evidence.
- Letting a todo list status override failing tests or missing files.
- Inventing a custom status that hides whether action remains.
- Marking
Supersededwithout verifying the replacement. - Leaving
Assumed Completerows untested. - Halting remediation because one row needs human input even though unrelated rows remain.
- Calling the audit complete before reading the verification output.
Progressive Disclosure
Start with the narrowest finite scope that matches the user's question. Expand source scanning only when the answer would otherwise be misleading. For large scopes, split the audit into named batches, but keep the same status taxonomy and evidence rules.
Verification Pattern
- Confirm the audit table exists before remediation notes.
- Confirm each row has exactly one allowed status.
- Confirm every
Implementedrow cites concrete evidence. - Confirm every non-implemented row has an action required.
- Confirm blockers do not halt unrelated remediation.
- Confirm the completion report ends every row in a terminal state, or explicitly says audit-only was requested.
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.

