quick-brown-foxxx Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
For coding-related work, load engineering-principles before this skill. It
defines the engineering standards; this skill requires fresh evidence before
claiming those standards are satisfied.
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
Common Failures
| 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 |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- 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
- Bug count not shrinking between iterations but pushing forward anyway
- 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 |
| "One more fix will get it" | If bugs aren't shrinking, another fix might not help. The approach may be wrong. |
| "Almost there, just need to polish" | Make sure bugs are actually shrinking, not hiding under new ones. |
Key Patterns
Tests:
✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):
✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "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:
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report
Why This Matters
From 24 failure memories:
- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
When To Apply
ALWAYS before:
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
Rule applies to:
- Exact phrases
- Paraphrases and synonyms
- Implications of success
- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
When Verification Fails Repeatedly
Verification usually finds real issues. The normal flow is to fix and re-verify. This is expected — most bugs shrink or resolve within a few iterations.
But when they don't, stop.
YOU BUILD → VERIFY → FIND ISSUES → FIX → RE-VERIFY
Normal loop (converging):
Iteration 1: 5 bugs found → fixed
Iteration 2: 2 bugs found → fixed
Iteration 3: 0 bugs found → done ✓
→ Bugs shrink every cycle. Keep going.
Bad loop (diverging):
Iteration 1: 5 bugs found → fixed 3, introduced 2 new
Iteration 2: 4 bugs found → fixed 2, introduced 3 new
Iteration 3: 5 bugs found → none seem fixable without redesign
→ Bugs are not shrinking. The approach is wrong. STOP.
Stop and escalate when:
- Bug count doesn't decrease after 2-3 iterations
- Each fix creates new bugs in different places
- Fixes are getting more complex, not simpler
- You're making the same class of mistake repeatedly
- You can no longer see how to reach a clean state within reasonable effort
What stopping looks like:
- Report honestly — state what's working and what isn't. No spin, no "almost there."
- Name the suspected root cause — wrong approach, missing spec, wrong technology, incorrect core assumption
- Escalate to a human or higher level AIorchestrator with your findings
Honest failure reporting is not punishable. It's the alternative to shipping broken work.
If unsure whether the approach is salvageable:
- Consider loading
doubt-early— it's designed for exactly this: fresh-context adversarial review when you suspect XY or a wrong core assumption - A fresh reviewer may see whether the approach is fixable or needs replacement
Don't use this as an excuse to skip normal verification. The gate function is still mandatory. This section only applies when the gate function has been followed honestly and still leads to persistent failure.
The Bottom Line
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.