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

---


# 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:**
1. **Report honestly** — state what's working and what isn't. No spin, no "almost there."
2. **Name the suspected root cause** — wrong approach, missing spec, wrong technology, incorrect core assumption
3. **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.