verification-before-completion
Skill166 starsChanged 5 months 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. 1 is common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
1
Common
Most of the 117 edited versions we read keep these.
1
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
- Common: line 22
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
- Distinctive: line 137
Run the command. Read the output.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 117 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
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:
✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):
✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)Build:
✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)Requirements:
✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"Agent delegation:
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ 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 versions225 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 97
- farm-fe/farm★ 5.6k100% same
- koaning/wigglystuff★ 437100% same
- haojing8312/WorkClaw★ 141100% same
- ARounder-183/HiFiShifter★ 93100% same
- coctostan/pi-superpowers★ 71100% same
- cooker/wxHm★ 70100% same
- walidboulanouar/maestro★ 62100% same
- roman01la/skills-agents★ 48100% same
- LeoKemp223/ai-light★ 39100% same
- VoDaiLocz/kilo-kit-mcp★ 28100% same
87 more not listed
Edited · 85
- obra/superpowers★ 305k98% same
- openai/plugins★ 7.4k98% same
- pcvelz/superpowers★ 1.3k98% same
- coco-research/coco★ 79797% same
- pedronauck/skills★ 64198% same
- derHaken/SuperAntigravity★ 43999% same
- Ibrahim-3d/conductor-orchestrator-superpowers★ 38196% same
- Ibrahim-3d/orchestrator-supaconductor★ 37896% same
- LayneChai/superpowers-dsh★ 13598% same
- jh941213/ADLC-harness★ 12598% same
75 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 43
- jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh★ 8.4ksame name
- GanyuanRan/Aegis★ 1.4ksame name
- KbWen/agentic-os★ 224same name
- TheGoat395/Codex-Skills★ 136same name
- shibit-net/xuanji-community★ 90same name
- withzombies/hyperpowers★ 80same name
- GEd520/legados★ 75same name
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 71same name
- ivyfan-toowell/IvyClaw★ 66same name
- KbWen/agent-virtual-office★ 65same name
33 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.
Used alongsideProjects 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.
GEd520Skillchinese-code-review
中文 review 沟通参考——话术模板、分级标注(必须修复/建议修改/仅供参考)、国内团队常见反模式应对。仅在用户显式 /chinese-code-review 时调用,不要根据上下文自动触发。
Also in 7 projects that use this
GEd520Skillchinese-commit-conventions
中文 commit 与 changelog 配置参考——Conventional Commits 中文适配、commitlint/husky/commitizen 中文模板、conventional-changelog 中文配置。仅在用户显式 /chinese-commit-conventions 时调用,不要根据上下文自动触发。
Also in 7 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 12 projects that use this
10CGSkillworkflow-runner
十步循环轻量编排器,协调 Phase Skills 执行,支持灵活组合。
Also in 7 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillroot-cause-tracing
Use when errors occur deep in execution and you need to trace back to find the original trigger - systematically traces bugs backward through call stack, adding instrumentation when needed, to identify source of invalid data or incorrect behavior
Also in 6 projects that use this
kntismSkillcondition-based-waiting
Use when tests have race conditions, timing dependencies, or inconsistent pass/fail behavior - replaces arbitrary timeouts with condition polling to wait for actual state changes, eliminating flaky tests from timing guesses
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +2 more from GEd520
In this repository35 other files it gives its agents.
- instructions/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- instructions/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- advpl-tlpp-compileSkill
- advpl-tlpp-sddSkill
- advpl-to-tlpp-migrationSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- context-mapSkill
- create-implementation-planSkill
- data-dictionary-lookupSkill
- documentation-writerSkill
- entry-point-designerSkill
- fwmsexcelxlsx-generatorSkill
- fwrest-client-generatorSkill
- mvc-generatorSkill
- query-builderSkill
- refactor-method-complexity-reduceSkill
- refactorSkill
- sql-code-reviewSkill
- sql-optimizationSkill
- tir-test-generatorSkill
- tlpp-rest-endpoint-generatorSkill
- utf8-to-cp1252-conversionSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- writing-skillsSkill
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.

