# Verification Before Completion

> 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

- Skill: `oleg494/verification-before-completion` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add oleg494/verification-before-completion`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/oleg494/verification-before-completion/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: MIT
- Author: oleg494 (https://skillmd.com/u/oleg494)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/oleg494/verification-before-completion

---


# Verification Before Completion

## Overview

**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
```

Evidence is keyed to the checked state: revision/snapshot, exact command,
scope, environment, and run timestamp. Reuse existing evidence until an
invalidation condition occurs (code change, failure, or unresolved concern);
report that provenance instead of treating the chat turn as a clock.
If no valid evidence exists for the current checked state, you cannot claim it passes.
## The Gate Function

```
BEFORE claiming a verified result:

1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute that command fresh and completely when no valid evidence
   exists for the current checked state — "FULL" means no truncated or
   partial run of the check that proves THIS claim, not every check the
   repo happens to have
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. Reusing evidence that is still valid
for the checked state (same revision, no invalidating change/failure/concern)
is not skipping — but claiming without either is lying.
```

**Scope is part of honesty, in both directions.** Claiming a suite-wide
green you did not run is a lie; re-running an unchanged check with no new
changes, failures, or unresolved concerns is ceremony, not verification.
Broaden when scope warrants: shared code touched, or a failure the targeted
check exposed.

## Common Failures

| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|-------|----------|----------------|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures on checked state | Unchecked assumption, "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 | Inspect changed artifacts and exercise the claimed behavior | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |

## Red Flags - Investigate Before Claiming Success

- Presenting "should", "probably" or "seems to" as proof, rather than explicitly labeled uncertainty
- 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):**
```
PASS: Observe the bug fail in isolation before the fix; apply the fix; observe the same check pass. If the fix already exists, demonstrate the failure in a disposable pre-fix copy, not by reverting the user's working tree.
❌ "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:**
```
PASS: Agent reports success -> inspect the changed artifacts -> verify the claimed behavior -> report actual state
❌ Trust agent report
```

## When To Apply

Apply before a completion or correctness claim, commit, PR or integration.
Planning, delegation and a task transition do not themselves require running
unrelated checks. Reuse evidence only while it covers the checked state;
an independent judge may rerun it to establish independent observation.
Calibrated uncertainty is valid reporting, never a substitute for proof.

---

> Source: obra/superpowers (MIT). Adapted for coding-kit: cross-references made local.