verification-before-completion
This skill should be used when claiming a task is "done", "complete", "finished", "fixed", "passing", or before committing. Requires running verification commands before making success claims.
安装与使用
请根据来源仓库和你的 AI 工具说明安装此技能。先阅读技能文件和依赖要求,再添加到工作流。
查看来源 ↗使用指南技能说明
Verification Before Completion
Announce at start: "I'm using the verification-before-completion skill to verify this work."
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 EVIDENCE
If 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 verifying
When to Apply
ALWAYS before:
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
Rule applies to:
- Exact phrases ("tests pass", "done", "fixed")
- Paraphrases and synonyms ("looks good", "ready", "complete")
- Implications of success ("moving on to...")
- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
Agent Report Verification
CRITICAL: Do not trust agent success reports.
Agent reports "success" → Verify independently
1. Check VCS diff: git diff HEAD~1
2. Verify changes exist and match expectations
3. Run verification commands yourself
4. THEN report actual state
Agents may:
- Report partial completion as full
- Claim tests pass without running them
- Miss requirements they don't understand
- Be optimistic about their work
Always verify, never trust.
Verification Patterns
| 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 |
Regression Test Verification (TDD Red-Green)
✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Done!")
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- 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 ≠ tests ≠ build |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
Examples
✅ [Run npm test] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now"
✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build succeeds"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't verify build)
✅ Re-read plan → Checklist each item → "Requirements met"
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete" (tests ≠ requirements)
Why This Matters
From real failure patterns:
- "I don't believe you" - trust broken with human partner
- Undefined functions shipped - would crash in production
- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features delivered
- Time wasted: false completion → redirect → rework
Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
Real-World Impact
| Approach | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Claim without verification | 60% rework rate, broken trust |
| Verify then claim | 5% rework rate, high confidence |
| Time to verify | 30 seconds |
| Time to fix false claims | Hours of debugging + trust repair |
The math is clear: 30 seconds verification beats hours of rework.
The Bottom Line
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.
Integration
This principle applies at every claim point:
- TDD - Verify RED, verify GREEN
- finishing-a-development-branch - Verify tests before merge options
- execute-plan - Each task verified before marking complete
- code review - Verify issues fixed before claiming addressed
Triggers independently when making claims outside formal workflows.
使用示例
查看来源仓库中的使用示例与配置说明。
查看来源 ↗来源历史
- 收录时间
- 2026-01-20
- 索引更新时间
- 2026-01-26
- Branch
- main
收录与同步日期属于本站记录。源码修改历史请查看来源仓库。
GitHub ↗chat Comments (0)
Sign in to join the discussion and leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!