<< All versions

Skill v1.0.0

currentAutomated scan100/100
komluk/scaffolding/verification-before-completion
──Details
PublishedOctober 3, 2026 at 03:01 PM
Content Hashsha256:141808edc10749b7...
Git SHA
──Files
Files (1 file, 4.5 KB)
SKILL.md4.5 KBactive
SKILL.md · 75 lines · 4.5 KB

version: "1.0.0" name: verification-before-completion description: "Verify claims by executing, not asserting, before declaring work done. TRIGGER when: about to report a task complete, confirming a fix/build/deploy works, or delegating work to another agent or tool. SKIP: scoring research/plan quality pre-implementation (use quality-validation); deciding test coverage strategy (use testing-strategy)."


Verification Before Completion Skill

Purpose

A claim of "done" is only as good as the check that produced it. This skill encodes the rule that every completion claim, and every fact a claim depends on, must be backed by something actually executed and observed — not assumed, remembered, or guessed — before it is reported.

When to Apply

Apply this skill when:

  • About to report a task, fix, or feature as complete
  • Confirming that a build, test, deploy, or query actually succeeded
  • Stating a fact about a file, branch, or config that the response depends on
  • Delegating a task to another agent or tool

Do NOT apply this skill for:

  • Scoring a ResearchPack or Implementation Plan against quality gates before work starts — use quality-validation
  • Deciding what and how much to test — use testing-strategy

Verification Rules

RuleRequirement
Prove before claimingRun the actual command that demonstrates the outcome (test suite, build, the real query) and read its output. Exit code 0 alone is not proof of correctness — check the output content.
Verify against the authoritative sourceConfirm facts (file existence, path, branch content, config value) against the actual target (e.g. main, prod). A stale checkout, cached artifact, or side branch is not evidence about the target.
One failure = investigateAfter a failed attempt, diagnose the actual cause before trying again. Do not retry the same action with a blind variation.
Two guesses = stopIf a second consecutive guess is about to be made without new evidence, stop. Search the codebase for an existing pattern (grep) instead of guessing again.
Check capability before delegatingConfirm the executor (agent or tool) actually has the access/tools the task requires before handing it off.
Absence of error is not successNot seeing an error is not the same as confirming success. Only a positive, observed result counts as verification.
State the verificationReport what was verified and how (command run, output observed) so the claim is auditable by someone else.

Decision: Guess vs. Investigate vs. Search

SituationAction
First attempt failsRead the error, diagnose the actual cause
About to try a second unverified variationStop — grep the repo/docs for the existing pattern instead
Uncertain which transport/config/convention appliesSearch for how the codebase already does it before picking one
A fact is needed about main/productionRe-check it on that actual target, not a local/stale copy
Delegating a taskConfirm the recipient's tool/access list covers the task first

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternProblemInstead
Guessing a transport/config repeatedly (e.g. try HTTPS, then try SSH)Wastes turns on trial-and-error the repo already answersGrep the repo for the existing pattern already in use
Citing a file/path read from a stale checkout or different branchClaim doesn't hold on the actual target branchRe-read the fact from the actual target before stating it
Delegating to an agent/tool that lacks the needed capabilityFailure surfaces only after the delegate returnsConfirm required tools/access before handoff
Declaring "done" because no error appearedSilent failures pass unnoticedRun a command that positively demonstrates the result and read its output
Retrying an identical failed actionSame failure repeats, no progressDiagnose the cause before the next attempt

Quality Checklist

  • [ ] The command/query that proves completion was actually run, and its output read (not just its exit code)
  • [ ] Facts about files/branches/configs were checked against the authoritative target, not a stale or local copy
  • [ ] No two consecutive unverified guesses were made — the first failure triggered investigation, not a retry
  • [ ] The delegate's toolset/access was confirmed sufficient before handoff
  • [ ] The completion claim states what was verified and how (command + observed output)
All versions