Trust But Verify

Trust but Verify

A subagent's report is a lead, not a fact. You trust it enough to investigate — never enough to act on unread.

When you delegate work to a subagent, what comes back is a claim about reality, filtered through a model that summarized, paraphrased, and sometimes hallucinated. The agent may be right. It may be confidently wrong. You cannot tell which from the report alone — the wrong ones look exactly as fluent as the right ones.

This skill is the discipline of closing that gap: before you build on, repeat, or report any claim an agent handed you, you re-open the primary source and confirm the claim against it. Every claim. With a citation.

The one rule everything else serves

No claim is verified until you have opened a primary source that confirms it and can quote where.

Two corollaries that do the real work:

• Inference is not verification. "That's how this library usually works", "the function name implies it returns null", "that lines up with what I'd expect" — these are guesses wearing a lab coat. They produce an UNVERIFIED, never a VERIFIED.
• The agent's own words are not a source. "The agent said the timeout is 30s" verifies nothing. The agent is the thing under audit. The source is the config file where 30s is written.

If you cannot find a source, the honest verdict is UNVERIFIED — and you say so out loud. Silently dropping an unsourced claim is worse than flagging it, because a clean report reads as "all confirmed."

The loop

For a returned report, work claim by claim:

1. Atomize. Break the report into discrete, individually-checkable assertions. "The retry logic is in cleanup.ts, runs 3 times, and was added in #493" is three claims (location, count, provenance), each with its own source and its own verdict. Bundled claims hide the false one inside the true ones.

2. Classify → pick the source. Each claim has a type, and each type has an authoritative source (see the ladder below). A claim about code is settled by the code, not by docs about the code. A claim about a library's behavior is settled by that library's docs or source, not by the codebase that calls it.

3. Open the source and check. Actually Read / Grep / query it. Confirm the claim matches — including the specifics. If the claim says line 42 and the source has it at line 88, that's not a pass with a footnote; the location claim is CONTRADICTED even if the underlying fact is true.

4. Missing source? Re-dispatch, then judge. If the obvious source doesn't settle it, run one targeted lookup before concluding (see Re-dispatch). Only after that returns empty does the claim become UNVERIFIED.

5. Record a verdict with a citation. Every row of the output names the exact source you opened.

6. Act only on what survived. Build on VERIFIED claims. Treat CONTRADICTED as the corrected truth. Treat UNVERIFIED as not-yet-true — surface it, don't silently rely on it.

The source ladder

The skill lives or dies on this mapping. For each claim, the authoritative source is the thing that defines the fact — not a description of it. Match the claim type, go there, quote it.

When a claim spans two types (a code fact and a library fact), it needs a source for each part.

The three verdicts

• VERIFIED — you opened a source, it confirms the claim including specifics, and you cite where. This is the only verdict that lets you act on the claim as fact.
• CONTRADICTED — you opened a source and it says something different. Record what the source actually says; that corrected fact is now the truth you carry forward.
• UNVERIFIED — no source settled it, including after a re-dispatch. Not "false" — unestablished. You must surface it; never let it pass as confirmed.

There is deliberately no "probably true" verdict. The whole point is to refuse the comfortable middle where inference masquerades as confirmation.

Re-dispatch: don't give up on the first miss

UNVERIFIED is a real outcome, but reach it honestly. If the first source you check doesn't settle a claim, run one targeted follow-up before concluding — the agent may have been right but pointed you to the wrong place:

• Wrong location for a code fact → Grep the symbol across the repo (or dispatch a focused search agent) to find where it really lives.
• Library/API behavior you can't find → resolve-library-id + query-docs on context7 for that exact library.
• A decision you can't locate → search docs/adr/ and CONTEXT.md for the topic.

If the re-dispatch surfaces the source, verdict accordingly (often CONTRADICTED on the specifics). If it comes back empty, now it's UNVERIFIED — and you've earned that verdict instead of assumed it.

Output: the verdict table

Lead with the table so the audit is scannable. One row per atomized claim:

## Verification — <what the agent was asked to find>

| # | Claim | Verdict | Source (opened) | Note |
|---|-------|---------|-----------------|------|
| 1 | retry logic lives in `cleanup.ts:88` | VERIFIED | tests/.../cleanup.ts:88 | matches exactly |
| 2 | it retries 3 times | CONTRADICTED | tests/.../cleanup.ts:91 — `maxRetries = 5` | agent said 3, source says 5 |
| 3 | added in PR #493 | UNVERIFIED | `git log`/blame inconclusive; re-dispatch found no link | provenance unconfirmed |

**Safe to act on:** claims 1. **Corrected:** claim 2 → retries 5×. **Open:** claim 3 — provenance unverified.

The closing line matters: it tells the reader (and future-you) exactly which claims earned the right to be built on, which were corrected, and which are still hanging. Never end with just the table and let the caller guess.

Anti-patterns that quietly defeat this

• Laundering plausibility into a verdict. "This matches how the codebase usually does it" → that's pattern-matching, which is inference. UNVERIFIED.
• Citing the agent as the source. The agent is the audit subject. Its confidence is not evidence.
• Passing the gist, failing the specifics. The fact is roughly right but the line number, count, or flag name is wrong. Specifics are where the bugs hide — CONTRADICTED on the wrong specific.
• Trusting stale memory. A memory file or an old CONTEXT entry can name a function that's since been renamed or deleted. Re-confirm against today's code before treating it as VERIFIED.
• Silent drops. Removing an unsourced claim so the report looks clean. If you drop, you say what and why. The default is to flag, not to hide.
• Stopping at the doc when the question is the code. Docs describe intent; code is what runs. For a behavior claim, the code wins over any doc that disagrees.
• Verifying the upstream default and stopping. A library's documented default is not how it behaves once this project has configured it. "The default is 100" can be true upstream and wrong here because a setup file sets it to 200. For any "how does it behave in our setup" claim, confirm the repo's actual configuration, not just the vendor docs.

Calibrate the effort

Verify the claims you're about to act on or repeat, in proportion to the cost of being wrong. A claim that decides an edit, a deletion, an API call, or something you'll tell the user deserves a fully-opened source. A passing aside that changes nothing doesn't need a forensic trail — but if you're unsure whether a claim is load-bearing, treat it as if it is. The failure mode this skill exists to prevent is acting on a fluent, confident, wrong report — so when in doubt, open the source.