Verify Absence Claims
Type: Open-source — client-agnostic methodology, no project-specific detail.
Created by akbarsha — https://github.com/iamakbarsha1
Distilled from a case where delegated research reported "no independent
implementation of X exists" and the build then found several inline
duplicates — the negative claim was simply wrong.
Licence: Released under CC BY 4.0 — share and adapt for any purpose with
credit. Full text: LICENSE at the repository root.
Feedback & Support: If a rule here proves wrong or needs sharpening,
open an issue on the repository or contact the author at the profile link
above. If the problem is the agent not following a rule below rather than
the rule itself, that's an execution failure — acknowledge and correct it.
The core rule
A positive claim ("X is at file:line") carries its own proof — you can open
the file. A negative claim ("there is no X") carries none; it's only as strong
as the search that failed to find X, and a search that used the wrong term,
scope, or spelling produces a confident false "none". Never build on an
absence claim you didn't verify. Treat every "X doesn't exist" as "X was not
found by ", and re-run a broader search before you rely on it —
especially when the claim came from a delegated agent whose search you can't
see.
Checks
- Re-grep every load-bearing "none exists". Before you act on an absence
claim (build the thing that "doesn't exist yet", skip a case that "never
happens"), run your own search with SEVERAL phrasings — the canonical name,
likely synonyms, partial tokens, the inline pattern as well as a named
helper. Absence found by one narrow query is not absence. (Delegated
research concluded no shared implementation of a calculation existed;
grepping the operation instead of the function name found six inline copies.)
- Distinguish "not found" from "not present". A subagent or teammate can
only report what their search covered. Rephrase their "X does not exist" as
"X not found by " and check whether their scope even included
where X would live (other packages, generated code, inline copies, tests).
(Illustrative: A subagent reported no rate limiter existed after searching the
application code only; the limiter lived in a shared middleware package
outside its search path.)
- Label unverified absences as such. When you must pass an absence claim
onward without re-checking, mark it "verify: none found" rather than stating
it as fact, so the next reader knows it's a search result, not a guarantee.
(Illustrative: A handoff note stated "no retry logic exists" as settled fact instead of
as unverified; the next engineer wrapped calls in a new retry layer around
code that already retried internally, doubling the delay.)
Pre-flight check — before you build on "X doesn't exist"
If any box is unchecked, you have a failed search, not a proven absence — go
grep it yourself.
1---2name: verify-absence-claims3description: Use when you're about to act on a "there is no X / none exists / not found / nothing handles this" claim — especially one from a delegated subagent, research handoff, or a teammate's summary. Positive file:line claims are citable and checkable; absence claims are only as good as the search pattern that produced them. Re-grep every "X does not exist" before building on it. Triggers on "no existing", "none found", "there's no", "doesn't exist", "nothing does X", research/subagent handoffs, and any negative finding you didn't verify yourself.4---56# Verify Absence Claims78**Type:** Open-source — client-agnostic methodology, no project-specific detail.910**Created by akbarsha — https://github.com/iamakbarsha1**1112Distilled from a case where delegated research reported "no independent13implementation of X exists" and the build then found several inline14duplicates — the negative claim was simply wrong.1516**Licence:** Released under CC BY 4.0 — share and adapt for any purpose with17credit. Full text: `LICENSE` at the repository root.1819**Feedback & Support:** If a rule here proves wrong or needs sharpening,20open an issue on the repository or contact the author at the profile link21above. If the problem is the agent not following a rule below rather than22the rule itself, that's an execution failure — acknowledge and correct it.2324## The core rule2526A positive claim ("X is at file:line") carries its own proof — you can open27the file. A negative claim ("there is no X") carries none; it's only as strong28as the search that failed to find X, and a search that used the wrong term,29scope, or spelling produces a confident false "none". Never build on an30absence claim you didn't verify. Treat every "X doesn't exist" as "X was not31found by <specific search>", and re-run a broader search before you rely on it —32especially when the claim came from a delegated agent whose search you can't33see.3435## Checks3637- **Re-grep every load-bearing "none exists".** Before you act on an absence38 claim (build the thing that "doesn't exist yet", skip a case that "never39 happens"), run your own search with SEVERAL phrasings — the canonical name,40 likely synonyms, partial tokens, the inline pattern as well as a named41 helper. Absence found by one narrow query is not absence. *(Delegated42 research concluded no shared implementation of a calculation existed;43 grepping the operation instead of the function name found six inline copies.)*44- **Distinguish "not found" from "not present".** A subagent or teammate can45 only report what their search covered. Rephrase their "X does not exist" as46 "X not found by <their method>" and check whether their scope even included47 where X would live (other packages, generated code, inline copies, tests).48 *(Illustrative: A subagent reported no rate limiter existed after searching the49 application code only; the limiter lived in a shared middleware package50 outside its search path.)*51- **Label unverified absences as such.** When you must pass an absence claim52 onward without re-checking, mark it "verify: none found" rather than stating53 it as fact, so the next reader knows it's a search result, not a guarantee.54 *(Illustrative: A handoff note stated "no retry logic exists" as settled fact instead of55 as unverified; the next engineer wrapped calls in a new retry layer around56 code that already retried internally, doubling the delay.)*5758## Pre-flight check — before you build on "X doesn't exist"5960- [ ] You re-ran the search yourself with multiple phrasings (name, synonyms,61 inline pattern), not just trusted the report.62- [ ] The search scope actually covered where X would live (all packages,63 generated code, tests, inline copies).64- [ ] Any absence you pass onward unverified is labeled "verify: none found",65 not stated as fact.6667If any box is unchecked, you have a failed search, not a proven absence — go68grep it yourself.
iamakbarsha1