bundles/dev-workflow/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md
Enforce evidence-based completion: no success, done, fixed, or passing claim may be made without first running the verification command and reading its full output. Use when about to claim work is complete, a bug is fixed, tests pass, a build succeeds, or before committing, pushing, or opening a PR.
npx skillsauth add shipshitdev/library verification-before-completionInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
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.
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If the verification command has not been run in the current action, no completion claim may be made.
Before claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
Skipping any step = lying, not verifying.
| 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 | Reproduce original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed | | Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once | | Subagent completed | VCS diff shows actual changes | Subagent reports "success" | | Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist verified | Tests passing |
Stop before proceeding if any of these are true:
| Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "Should work now" | Run the verification | | "I'm confident" | Confidence is not evidence | | "Just this once" | No exceptions | | "Linter passed" | Linter is not the compiler | | "Subagent said success" | Verify independently | | "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing | | "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
Tests:
CORRECT: [Run test command] → see "34/34 pass" → state "All tests pass"
INCORRECT: "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
Regression tests (red-green-refactor):
CORRECT: Write test → Run (must PASS) → Revert fix → Run (must FAIL) → Restore fix → Run (must PASS)
INCORRECT: "I've written a regression test" without running the red-green cycle
Build:
CORRECT: [Run build command] → see exit 0 → state "Build passes"
INCORRECT: "Linter passed" (linter does not check compilation)
Requirements checklist:
CORRECT: Re-read the original requirements → create a line-by-line checklist → verify each item → report gaps or completion
INCORRECT: "Tests pass, phase complete"
Subagent delegation:
CORRECT: Subagent reports success → inspect VCS diff → run verification → report actual state
INCORRECT: Trust the subagent's self-report and propagate it as fact
Apply always before:
The rule applies to exact phrases, paraphrases, synonyms, and any implication of success — not just the literal word "done."
Run the command. Read the output. Then make the claim.
No shortcuts. No exceptions.
development
Coordinates a weekly engineering review of board accuracy, recent code changes, operational health, and scoped cleanup. Use for a recurring repository health review or a review of the last several days.
testing
Audits project board configuration and prepares explicitly requested setup, copy, or normalization changes while preserving the existing workflow and provider boundaries. Use when inspecting a board's fields, columns, scope, or configuration.
testing
Reconciles a project board with current work and delivery evidence, reports incomplete coverage and metadata gaps, and applies only approved provider-supported field changes. Use when auditing board drift, reviewing blocked work, or assessing upcoming delivery.
development
Walk through how a subsystem works. Use for "how does X work", code walkthroughs before changing something, and placement or ownership questions. Explains architecture, runtime flow, and onboarding mental models. Can critique architecture. Use why for motivation.