version: "1.0.0" name: verify description: Verify outputs after pipeline steps, implementations, or any multi-step work. Catches missing data, stale references, broken assumptions. Use after completing significant work, before declaring done. user-invocable: true disable-model-invocation: false argument-hint: [target — what to verify]

Verify

Run after any significant output to catch what was missed. The goal is to prevent the class of error where work appears complete but isn't — unfetched data, stale counts, broken assumptions, missing files.

Input

Target to verify: $ARGUMENTS

If no arguments, verify the most recent significant output or pipeline step.

Process

Step 1: Identify What to Verify

Determine the verification type from context:

Step 2: Run Checks

Read the relevant files and run checks appropriate to the type. See ~/.claude/skills/verify/check-types.md for the four composable check categories (data, completeness, consistency, assumption). A single verification usually draws from multiple categories — e.g., a data pipeline verification runs data + completeness + consistency.

Step 3: Report

Format findings as:

VERIFICATION — [target]
 
PASSED:
- [check]: [result]
 
FAILED:
- [check]: [what's wrong] → [suggested fix]
 
WARNINGS:
- [check]: [not broken but suspicious]
 
COVERAGE: [X/Y checks passed]

If everything passes, say so concisely. Don't pad the report.

Step 4: When Verification Fails — Debug Protocol

If Step 3 reports FAILED items, do not jump to fixing. See ~/.claude/skills/verify/debug-protocol.md for the full 4-phase protocol.

Red Flag Language (from Superpowers)

If you catch yourself or a subagent using any of these phrases, STOP and re-verify:

• "Done!", "should work", "probably fine", "seems to", "I believe this handles"
• "Great!", "Perfect!" (sycophantic completion signals)

These indicate a completion claim without fresh evidence. Run the actual checks.

Three-Fix Escalation Rule (from Superpowers)

If a verification failure has been "fixed" 3 times and still fails, STOP. Don't try a fourth fix. The architecture is probably wrong. Escalate to the user: "This has failed 3 fixes. The approach itself may need rethinking."

Gotchas

• The most dangerous failures are silent ones — things that LOOK complete but aren't. Prioritize checking those.
• Don't just verify what was done. Verify what SHOULD have been done but might have been skipped.
• When verifying data pipelines, always check the enrichment chain: raw → enriched → categorized → indexed. A break at any stage propagates silently.
• Stale counts in COMP files are the most common consistency failure after batch operations.
• After writing to MEMORY.md or project docs, verify the information is actually findable by future agent sessions (discoverability check).