hashgraph-online Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than
/octo:*slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
Verification Gate
The Iron Law
If you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes.
The Gate
Before claiming any success or expressing satisfaction:
- IDENTIFY — What command proves this claim?
- RUN — Execute the full command (fresh, not cached)
- READ — Full output, check exit code, count failures
- VERIFY — Does output actually confirm the claim?
- ONLY THEN — State the claim WITH evidence
Skip any step = the claim is unverified.
Rationalization Table
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "I ran the tests earlier this session" | Earlier is not fresh. Code changed since. Run again. |
| "The edit was trivial, it can't break anything" | Trivial edits break builds daily. The gate has no size exemption. |
| "The subagent reported success" | Agent reports are claims, not evidence. Verify independently. |
| "CI will catch it anyway" | CI is the safety net, not the verification. Verify before push. |
| "I'm confident this works" | Confidence is not evidence. Run the command. |
| "Running the full suite is slow" | Then run the targeted suite — but run something, fresh. |
What Counts as Evidence
| Claim | Requires | NOT Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output showing 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Build succeeds | Build command exit 0 | Linter passing |
| Bug fixed | Reproduce original symptom: now passes | "Code changed, should work" |
| Regression test works | Red (fail without fix) → Green (pass with fix) | Test passes once |
| Subagent completed task | git diff shows expected changes |
Subagent says "done" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist against spec | Tests passing |
| Provider dispatch worked | Output contains expected content | No error ≠ success |
Red Flags — STOP and Verify
If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP:
| Thought | What to do instead |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | Run the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "The linter passed" | Linter ≠ tests ≠ build |
| "The agent said it worked" | Verify independently |
| "It's a small change" | Small changes cause big bugs |
Multi-Provider Context
In Claude Octopus workflows, verification is especially critical because:
- Provider outputs can be hallucinated — Codex, Gemini, Antigravity, Copilot, and other providers may claim success without evidence
- Consensus ≠ correctness — three models agreeing doesn't mean they're right
- Synthesis files may be stale — check timestamps, don't assume freshness
- orchestrate.sh exit code 0 ≠ quality — the script ran, but did it produce good output?
After any multi-provider workflow:
# Verify synthesis file exists and is recent
ls -la ~/.claude-octopus/results/*-synthesis-*.md | tail -1
# Verify it has content (not just headers)
wc -l ~/.claude-octopus/results/*-synthesis-*.md | tail -1
When to Apply
ALWAYS before:
- Committing code
- Creating PRs
- Marking tasks complete
- Moving to next workflow phase
- Reporting results to user
- Claiming a bug is fixed
In orchestrate.sh workflows:
- After
probe(discover) — verify synthesis file exists - After
grasp(define) — verify consensus score meets threshold - After
tangle(develop) — verify tests pass, not just that code was written - After
ink(deliver) — verify review actually ran, not just that it was dispatched
Examples
Correct: Evidence-Based Claim
$ npm test
✓ user.create() saves to database (45ms)
✓ user.create() validates email (12ms)
Tests: 2 passed, 2 total
All 2 tests pass. ← Claim backed by output.
Incorrect: Claim Without Evidence
I've implemented the feature. It should work now. The tests should pass.
← No test was run. "Should" is not evidence.
Correct: Regression Test Red-Green
1. Write test → run → FAIL (expected, proves test detects the bug)
2. Implement fix → run → PASS (proves fix works)
3. Revert fix → run → FAIL (proves test isn't false-positive)
4. Restore fix → run → PASS (final confirmation)
Integration with Other Skills
This skill is referenced by:
flow-develop.md— verification gate after implementationflow-deliver.md— verification gate before deliveryskill-code-review.md— verify review findings before reportingskill-tdd.md— red-green cycle requires evidence at each stepskill-factory.md— autonomous pipeline must verify at every phase
Source: hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins → plugins/nyldn/claude-octopus/skills/skill-verification-gate/SKILL.md