How do I install the Foreman Verify skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add visionforge-ou/foreman-verify in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Foreman Verify safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Foreman Verify?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Foreman Verify free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Foreman Verify?

VisionForge-OU (@visionforge-ou) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Foreman Verify by visionforge-ou — Agent Skill

Name: Foreman Verify
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: VisionForge-OU

Foreman Verify

Headless self-verification gate a Foreman worker runs before it claims an issue is done. Re-run the real commands, read the actual output, and only then write the FOREMAN-SUMMARY — evidence before claims, always. Used inside a foreman-tdd build session; emits no summary of its own.

File contents

foreman-verify

(Adapted from obra/superpowers verification-before-completion (MIT) — see NOTICE. Made headless and wired to Foreman's trust boundary: the "claim" you are gating is the foreman-tdd FOREMAN-SUMMARY block and its evidence array, and the verification commands are the project's own, run through the foreman-test wrapper. Foreman re-runs every command itself regardless, so a dishonest claim is not just wrong — it is rejected and counts as a failed attempt.)

You are invoked inside a foreman-tdd build session, right before it would claim the slice is complete. Your job is to make that claim true and evidenced. You run headless and emit no FOREMAN-SUMMARY of your own — you populate the evidence the surrounding foreman-tdd run reports.

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIM WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If you have not run the verifying command in this session and read its output, you may not claim it passes. "Should pass", "I'm confident", "it worked earlier" are not evidence.

The gate function

For every claim the FOREMAN-SUMMARY will make (tests pass, lint clean, typecheck clean, the issue's acceptance_check passes, the behaviour works):

Identify the exact command that proves it.
Run it fresh and in full — the full foreman-test suite (not just --fast), then lint, then typecheck if configured, then the acceptance_check.
Read the whole output: exit status, failure count, the ERROR lines.
Save the output as an evidence artifact under the run's evidence directory Foreman gave you (the test log at minimum, plus each command's output tail, plus a screenshot for UI work via the configured e2e tooling).
Reconcile the claim with the output. If it does not pass, the honest result is not done — let foreman-tdd keep working or, for a real blocker, escalate. Never round a failure up to a pass.

What counts (and what doesn't)

Claim	Requires	Not sufficient
Tests pass	full `foreman-test`: 0 failures, saved log	a `--fast` subsample, a previous run
Lint / typecheck clean	the command's own output: 0 errors	"the diff looks clean"
Acceptance check passes	running the issue's `acceptance_check`	the unit tests passing
Bug fixed	the original failing symptom now passes	the code changed
Regression test real	red→green proven (it failed before the fix)	it passes once now

Output

You do not write the summary — you guarantee it can be written honestly. Hand back to foreman-tdd with: the verification commands run, their pass/fail and output tails, and the exact list of evidence artifacts you saved (which becomes the FOREMAN-SUMMARY evidence array). An empty or unbacked evidence array is rejected by Foreman — so if you could not produce real evidence, say so plainly rather than claiming done.

Red flags — stop

Any wording implying success ("done", "great", "should be good") before the command has actually run in this session.
Saving an empty evidence directory and reporting success anyway.
Trusting a sub-agent's or a prior session's "it passed".
Verifying a subset and extrapolating to the whole.

---name: foreman-verifydescription: Headless self-verification gate a Foreman worker runs before it claims an issue is done. Re-run the real commands, read the actual output, and only then write the FOREMAN-SUMMARY — evidence before claims, always. Used inside a foreman-tdd build session; emits no summary of its own.---# foreman-verify(Adapted from obra/superpowers `verification-before-completion` (MIT) — see NOTICE.Made headless and wired to Foreman's trust boundary: the "claim" you are gating is theforeman-tdd FOREMAN-SUMMARY block and its `evidence` array, and the verificationcommands are the project's own, run through the `foreman-test` wrapper. Foremanre-runs every command itself regardless, so a dishonest claim is not just wrong — itis rejected and counts as a failed attempt.)You are invoked **inside a foreman-tdd build session**, right before it would claimthe slice is complete. Your job is to make that claim *true and evidenced*. You run**headless** and emit **no FOREMAN-SUMMARY** of your own — you populate the evidencethe surrounding foreman-tdd run reports.## The Iron Law```NO COMPLETION CLAIM WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE```If you have not run the verifying command **in this session** and read its output,you may not claim it passes. "Should pass", "I'm confident", "it worked earlier" arenot evidence.## The gate functionFor **every** claim the FOREMAN-SUMMARY will make (tests pass, lint clean, typecheckclean, the issue's `acceptance_check` passes, the behaviour works):1. **Identify** the exact command that proves it.2. **Run** it fresh and in full — the full `foreman-test` suite (not just `--fast`), then `lint`, then `typecheck` if configured, then the `acceptance_check`.3. **Read** the whole output: exit status, failure count, the `ERROR` lines.4. **Save** the output as an evidence artifact under the run's evidence directory Foreman gave you (the test log at minimum, plus each command's output tail, plus a screenshot for UI work via the configured e2e tooling).5. **Reconcile** the claim with the output. If it does not pass, the honest result is *not done* — let foreman-tdd keep working or, for a real blocker, escalate. Never round a failure up to a pass.## What counts (and what doesn't)| Claim | Requires | Not sufficient ||-------|----------|----------------|| Tests pass | full `foreman-test`: 0 failures, saved log | a `--fast` subsample, a previous run || Lint / typecheck clean | the command's own output: 0 errors | "the diff looks clean" || Acceptance check passes | running the issue's `acceptance_check` | the unit tests passing || Bug fixed | the original failing symptom now passes | the code changed || Regression test real | red→green proven (it failed before the fix) | it passes once now |## OutputYou do not write the summary — you guarantee it can be written honestly. Hand back toforeman-tdd with: the verification commands run, their pass/fail and output tails, andthe exact list of evidence artifacts you saved (which becomes the FOREMAN-SUMMARY`evidence` array). An empty or unbacked evidence array is rejected by Foreman — so ifyou could not produce real evidence, say so plainly rather than claiming done.## Red flags — stop- Any wording implying success ("done", "great", "should be good") before the command has actually run in this session.- Saving an empty evidence directory and reporting success anyway.- Trusting a sub-agent's or a prior session's "it passed".- Verifying a subset and extrapolating to the whole.

Frequently asked questions