
Verification Before Completion
- 13 installs
- 7 repo stars
- Updated August 2, 2026
- practicalswan/agent-skills
verification-before-completion is a Claude Code skill in the AI & Agent Building category.
Key points
- verification-before-completion
- AI & Agent Building
- AI-coding skill
Verification Before Completion by the numbers
- 13 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #11,409 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 4, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/practicalswan/agent-skills --skill verification-before-completionAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 13 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 7 |
| Last updated | August 2, 2026 |
| Repository | practicalswan/agent-skills ↗ |
How do I helps with ai & agent building tasks.?
Helps with ai & agent building tasks.
Who is it for?
Best when you're working on ai & agent building and need structured help with verification before completion.
Skip if: Teams with no ai & agent building needs, or anyone wanting a generic chat assistant without this specific workflow.
When should I use this skill?
When you need to helps with ai & agent building tasks., or when verification-before-completion is a claude code skill in the ai & agent building category.
What you get
Structured output aligned to verification-before-completion: verification-before-completion, AI & Agent Building.
Files
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.
- Leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCEIncrement patch on wording/clarity fixes. Increment minor when adding a new verification step, example, or anti-pattern. Major only on breaking changes to core workflow.
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 verifyingCommon 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 reportWhy 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
Use symptom -> action triggers: when one matches, apply this skill and verify with the protocol below.
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.
Anti-Patterns
- Starting work before the plan or gate is clear: Execution drifts when success criteria are implied instead of explicit.
- Treating verification as optional cleanup: The last mile is where regressions and missing updates are usually hiding.
- Mixing planning, implementation, and release work in one jump: You lose the causal chain that explains why a change is safe.
<!-- PORTABILITY:START -->
Verification Protocol
Before claiming "skill applied successfully":
1. Pass/fail: The Verification Before Completion workflow starts from explicit success criteria, constraints, and stop conditions. 2. Pass/fail: Required evidence is collected before any completion, approval, or readiness claim. 3. Pass/fail: The next action follows the documented gate order without skipping review or verification steps. 4. Pressure-test scenario: Apply the workflow under time pressure with one failing check and one tempting shortcut. 5. Success metric: Zero rationalizations; blocked, failed, or unverified work is reported as such.
Cross-Client Portability
This skill is written to stay usable across GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI.
- GitHub Copilot: keep the folder in a Copilot-visible skill or plugin path, or wrap the workflow as project instructions if the host does not support portable skill folders directly.
- Claude Code: keep the folder in a local skills directory or a compatible plugin or marketplace source.
- Codex: install or sync the folder into
$CODEX_HOME/skills/<skill-name>and restart Codex after major changes. - Gemini CLI: this repository generates a project command named
/skills:verification-before-completionfrom this skill. Rebuild commands withpython scripts/export-gemini-skill.py verification-before-completionand then run/commands reloadinside Gemini CLI.
<!-- PORTABILITY:END -->
<!-- MCP:START -->
MCP Availability And Fallback
Preferred MCP Server: None required
- Fallback prompt: "Use the Verification Before Completion skill without MCP. Rely on the local
SKILL.md, bundled references or scripts, and manual verification. Show the exact commands, evidence, and final checks you used before concluding." - If the current host does not expose a matching server, use the bundled references, scripts, native toolchain, and manual workflow already described in this skill.
- Treat direct local verification, rendered output, logs, tests, or screenshots as the fallback evidence path before completion.
<!-- MCP:END -->
Related Skills
- development-workflow: Use it when the workflow also needs planning, quality gates, and delivery tracking.
- code-quality: Use it when the workflow also needs two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality), maintainability, and refactoring guidance.
- systematic-debugging: Use it when the workflow also needs root-cause debugging before proposing fixes.
- test-driven-development: Use it when the workflow also needs test-first implementation and regression safety.
Changelog
[2026-04-25] - Version 1.2 Verification Protocol Refresh
Added
- Added a
Verification Protocolsection with skill-specific pass/fail checks, one pressure-test scenario, and a measurable success metric. - Added guidance to leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.
Changed
- Updated
SKILL.mdfrontmatter toversion: "1.2"andlast_updated: 2026-04-25. - Reframed activation guidance toward symptom -> action triggers and standardized two-stage review wording where applicable.
[2026-04-24] - Version 1.1 Refresh
Changed
- Updated the SKILL frontmatter version to
1.1for the 2026-04-24 catalog refresh.
All notable changes to this skill will be documented in this file.
[2026-04-24] - Skill Refresh
Changed
- Standardized the SKILL frontmatter with version metadata, last-updated date, tags, and a concise catalog description.
- Reformatted the portability and MCP guidance with a preferred server line, a copy-paste fallback prompt, and consistent bullet lists.
- Added a catalog-standard Anti-Patterns section and refreshed the Related Skills links at the end of the skill.
Related skills
FAQ
What does verification-before-completion do?
verification-before-completion is a Claude Code skill in the AI & Agent Building category.
When should I use verification-before-completion?
When you need to helps with ai & agent building tasks., or when verification-before-completion is a claude code skill in the ai & agent building category.
What are the main capabilities?
verification-before-completion; AI & Agent Building; AI-coding skill.