Agent Verification

Models are optimists about their own work: they declare "task complete" with tests failing, edge cases unhandled, or the goal only half-met — and when asked to grade themselves, they mark up. Generation and evaluation must be separate. This skill is the check that makes an agent's "done" trustworthy: an independent evaluator (ideally a different model) verifies the claim against external done-conditions and can refuse, sending the work back. It's the brake that keeps [[autonomous-loops]] and [[long-running-agents]] from shipping confident-but-wrong output.

This is verification of an agent's completion claim, distinct from [[review-gate]] (human reviewing a finished diff for quality) and [[test-first]] (writing the tests). It composes both; it does not replace them.

When to Use

• An agent reports a task complete — before you trust, merge, or move on
• Inside an autonomous loop as the maker/checker split ([[autonomous-loops]])
• At restart/handoff boundaries in a long run — re-verify rather than assume prior "done" ([[long-running-agents]])
• A run is suspiciously fast or quiet — a likely early termination

Skip when a human has already verified the work against its acceptance criteria, or for trivial changes a typecheck/test already gates automatically.

Not a substitute for [[test-first]] (the tests themselves) or [[review-gate]] (human quality review). This skill checks the claim of completion; those produce and review the work.

Process

1. Verify against external done-conditions, not the agent's say-so

Take the written done-conditions (from the spec / plan / [[long-running-agents]] files) and check each one against reality. "I think it's done" is not evidence; a passing check against the stated criteria is. If no done-conditions were written, that's the first failure — define them before claiming completion.

2. Separate the evaluator from the generator

The checker must not be the agent that did the work. Use a fresh sub-agent, ideally a different model, with the done-conditions and the diff — not the maker's narrative. Independence is the whole point; a self-review re-imports the same blind spots.

3. Run the work, don't read it

Execute the tests, run the build, exercise the actual behavior ([[browser-checks]] / [[e2e-testing]] where relevant). Confirm acceptance criteria pass against the running system, not by assertion in prose.

4. Enforce the test ratchet — no gaming the check

Reject any "pass" achieved by deleting or skipping failing tests, weakening assertions, or hard-coding outputs. A test suite that shrank or got more permissive to go green is a red flag, not a success. Compare test count and coverage to the baseline.

5. Catch early termination

Walk the original task list: is every item actually done, or did the agent stop at the easy ones and declare victory? Unfinished sub-tasks, TODOs left in code, and "out of scope" hand-waving on in-scope work all fail verification.

6. Refuse and route back

If verification fails, the checker refuses the completion claim and returns specific, reproducible gaps — not vibes. In a loop, that sends the iteration back to the maker; for a human run, it blocks the merge until the gaps close.

7. Re-verify at boundaries

Don't trust a "done" inherited across a context reset or handoff. Re-run the check at restart so a premature completion from an earlier turn can't slip through ([[long-running-agents]]).

Common Rationalizations

• "The agent says the tests pass." — Then running them costs nothing and proves it; claims aren't evidence.
• "It reviewed its own work." — Self-grading is biased; an independent evaluator is the only trustworthy check.
• "Tests are green, ship it." — Green after deleting the failing test is gaming; ratchet the suite (step 4).
• "It's basically done." — "Basically" is early termination; walk every task-list item.
• "We verified it earlier in the run." — Long runs drift and re-introduce bugs; re-verify at the boundary.
• "Reading the diff is enough." — Read confirms intent; only running confirms behavior.

Red Flags

• "Done" claimed with no external done-conditions to check against
• The same agent/model both produced and graded the work
• Verification by reading/asserting instead of running the tests and the system
• Test count or coverage dropped, or assertions weakened, to reach green
• Task-list items silently dropped or re-labeled out-of-scope
• A completion claim inherited across a reset and never re-checked
• The checker returns "looks good" with no executed evidence

Verification

• Checked against written external done-conditions, not the agent's narrative
• Evaluator is independent of the generator (fresh agent, ideally a different model)
• Tests/build/behavior actually executed; acceptance criteria pass on the running system
• Test ratchet enforced — no deleted/skipped tests, weakened assertions, or hard-coded passes
• Every original task-list item confirmed done — no early termination
• On failure, the claim was refused with specific reproducible gaps and routed back
• "Done" re-verified at any reset/handoff boundary, not inherited