本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

verification-before-completion

Use before claiming work is complete, fixed, or passing — before committing, opening a PR, or handing off. Requires running the verification command in THIS turn and reading its output before any success claim.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Verification Before Completion

Claiming work done without fresh verification is dishonesty, not efficiency. adversarial-verify is the what; this skill is the when — the gate you pass through right before any completion claim.

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If you have not run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes. Not "should", not "probably", not "based on the diff".

The gate function

Before writing "done" / "fixed" / "green" / "ready to merge" — even in your own head:

  1. Identify — what exact command proves this claim?
  2. Run — execute it fresh, complete, in this turn.
  3. Read — full output, check exit code, count failures.
  4. Verify — does the output actually confirm the claim?
  5. Only then — make the claim, with the evidence attached.

Skip any step = you are lying to the user, not verifying.

Common false claims → what they actually need

ClaimRequiresNot sufficient
Tests passFresh test run, exit 0, 0 failures"should pass", previous run, "logic looks right"
Linter cleanLinter output, 0 errorsPartial check, extrapolating from unrelated files
Build succeedsBuild command, exit 0Linter passing, editor squiggles gone
Bug fixedReproduce original symptom, watch it not happenCode changed, "assumed" fixed
Regression test worksRed → green cycle verified (revert fix, watch test fail, restore, watch pass)Test passes once
Agent/subagent completedRead the VCS diff, verify claimed changes existAgent's own "success" report
Spec satisfiedLine-by-line checklist against the plan"Tests pass, phase complete"

Red flags — you are about to claim without verifying

  • Words like "should", "probably", "seems to", "looks good"
  • Satisfaction language ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!") before running the command
  • About to commit / push / open PR without a verification block in this turn
  • Trusting a subagent's own success report
  • "Just this once" thinking, or "I'm tired, close enough"
  • Partial verification (linter passed, so build must)

Rationalization prevention

ExcuseReality
"Should work now"RUN it.
"I'm confident"Confidence ≠ evidence.
"Linter passed"Linter ≠ compiler ≠ tests.
"The agent said success"Read the diff yourself.
"Partial check is enough"Partial proves nothing about the whole.
"Different words, so rule doesn't apply"Spirit over letter.

Patterns

Tests

  • Run the test command. See 34/34 pass. Then say "all tests pass".
  • Never: "should pass now".

Regression tests (real red-green)

  • Write test → run (pass) → revert fix → run (MUST FAIL) → restore fix → run (pass).
  • Never: "I've added a regression test" without the red-green cycle.

Build

  • Run the build. See exit 0. Then say "build passes".
  • Never: "linter passed, build should too".

Agent delegation

  • Subagent reports success → check the VCS diff → verify the claimed change is actually there → report actual state.
  • Never: paste the agent's report and treat it as truth.

When this fires

Always, before:

  • Any variation of success / completion / fixed / passing / green
  • Committing, opening a PR, marking a task done, handing off
  • Moving to the next task
  • Any positive statement about the work's state

Pair with

  • adversarial-verify — the 11 shortcuts agents take to fake "done"; run through the list, then run through this gate.
  • clean-commits — clean commits require verified content.
  • The verifier subagent — dispatch it; then verify its report against the diff (per the "Agent delegation" pattern above).

The bottom line

Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result. Non-negotiable.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

a11y-pass

無料

Catch the accessibility failures that ship in almost every AI-built UI. Use after building any interactive component.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Archive228/loopkit7552026年7月15日 更新

Before compaction Loopkit extracts decisions into claude-decisions.json (machine-readable). Read it alongside claude-progress.txt at session start — prose is for humans, JSON is for the loop.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Archive228/loopkit7552026年7月15日 更新

Review a diff against the goal spec assuming the code is BROKEN. The reviewer that lives in the maker's head always agrees with itself — this pulls review into a hostile, separate pass. Invoke after every code change before marking work done.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Archive228/loopkit7552026年7月15日 更新

Verify that an endpoint checks ownership, not just authentication. Use on any handler that reads or mutates user data.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Archive228/loopkit7552026年7月15日 更新

Find the exact commit that introduced a bug. Use when something worked before and broke, and you don't know which change did it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Archive228/loopkit7552026年7月15日 更新

Before picking new work, smoke-test the last "completed" feature. If it's broken, revert and re-open it before touching anything else. Kills the "looks shipped, isn't shipped" bug across sessions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Archive228/loopkit7552026年7月15日 更新

Archive228 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する