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
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-10
- Stars
- ★ 0
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- verification-before-completion
- description
- 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
02 资源文件 33
- 参考文档DEVELOPMENT.md33.0 KB
- 参考文档README.md4.3 KB
- 参考文档references/wiring.md58.0 KB
- 脚本scripts/aggregate-needs5.8 KB
- 脚本scripts/change-class80.8 KB
- 脚本scripts/harness-only26.9 KB
- 脚本scripts/lib/change-class.sh24.9 KB
- 脚本scripts/lib/ci-lanes.sh3.6 KB
- 参考文档templates/ci.yml12.0 KB
- 脚本tests/aggregate-needs.test.sh11.3 KB
- 脚本tests/change-class.test.sh142.1 KB
- 脚本tests/ci-template.test.sh44.8 KB
- 脚本tests/docs-only.test.sh4.4 KB
- 脚本tests/documentation-subsystem.test.sh7.0 KB
- 脚本tests/event-ranges.test.sh4.0 KB
- 脚本tests/fail-closed.test.sh7.3 KB
- 脚本tests/in-place.test.sh848 B
- 脚本tests/lanes-output.test.sh19.5 KB
- 脚本tests/lib/gh-eval.py7.3 KB
- 脚本tests/lib/kendex-engine.sh1.1 KB
- 脚本tests/lib/sandbox.sh5.8 KB
- 脚本tests/lib/workflow.sh8.3 KB
- 脚本tests/lock-verifier.test.sh8.6 KB
- 脚本tests/manifest-schema.test.sh7.8 KB
- 脚本tests/narrow-boundary.test.sh19.8 KB
- 脚本tests/narrow-change.test.sh33.3 KB
- 脚本tests/path-set.test.sh6.0 KB
- 脚本tests/queue-selector.test.sh7.4 KB
- 脚本tests/rename-into-render.test.sh1.9 KB
- 脚本tests/render-candidate.test.sh5.1 KB
- 脚本tests/render-claims.test.sh12.0 KB
- 脚本tests/wiring-errors.test.sh8.1 KB
- 脚本tests/wiring-shapes.test.sh12.3 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
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
- 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 |
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
The Bottom Line
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
zapier-make-patterns
No-code automation democratizes workflow building. Zapier and Make (formerly Integromat) let non-developers automate business processes without writing code. But no-code doesn't mean no-complexity - these platforms have their own patterns, pitfalls, and breaking points. This skill covers when to use which platform, how to build reliable automations, and when to graduate to code-based solutions. Key insight: Zapier optimizes for simplicity and integrations (7000+ apps), Make optimizes for power
Cross-Site Scripting and HTML Injection Testing
This skill should be used when the user asks to "test for XSS vulnerabilities", "perform cross-site scripting attacks", "identify HTML injection flaws", "exploit client-side injection vulnerabilities", "steal cookies via XSS", or "bypass content security policies". It provides comprehensive techniques for detecting, exploiting, and understanding XSS and HTML injection attack vectors in web applications.
writing-skills
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
writing-plans
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
workflow-automation
Workflow automation is the infrastructure that makes AI agents reliable. Without durable execution, a network hiccup during a 10-step payment flow means lost money and angry customers. With it, workflows resume exactly where they left off. This skill covers the platforms (n8n, Temporal, Inngest) and patterns (sequential, parallel, orchestrator-worker) that turn brittle scripts into production-grade automation. Key insight: The platforms make different tradeoffs. n8n optimizes for accessibility
WordPress Penetration Testing
This skill should be used when the user asks to "pentest WordPress sites", "scan WordPress for vulnerabilities", "enumerate WordPress users, themes, or plugins", "exploit WordPress vulnerabilities", or "use WPScan". It provides comprehensive WordPress security assessment methodologies.