verification-before-completion
Loaded by ALL agents before completion claims in cc10x-router workflows. DO NOT invoke directly - loaded automatically via agent frontmatter.Requires running verification commands and confirming output with evidence before any success claims. Iron Law: EVIDENCE BEFORE CLAIMS.Agents are invoked through cc10x-router workflows (BUILD/REVIEW/DEBUG/PLAN) - do not invoke agents or this skill directly.
When & Why to Use This Skill
The 'Verification Before Completion' skill is a rigorous quality-control guardrail designed for AI agents to eliminate 'hallucinated' success and false progress reports. It enforces a strict 'Evidence Before Claims' protocol, requiring agents to execute and verify fresh command-line output (tests, builds, linters) before claiming any task is finished. By acting as a mandatory gate function, it ensures that all software development activities are backed by verifiable data, significantly increasing the reliability and honesty of agentic workflows.
Use Cases
- Automated Testing & QA: Ensuring all unit and integration tests pass with zero failures and providing the raw output as evidence before marking a bug as fixed.
- Build & Deployment Integrity: Verifying successful compilation and build exit codes in CI/CD pipelines to prevent broken code from being merged.
- Regression Prevention: Implementing a mandatory Red-Green-Refactor cycle where agents must prove a test fails before the fix and passes after the fix.
- Agentic Workflow Supervision: Serving as an internal protocol in multi-agent systems (like cc10x-router) to prevent downstream errors caused by premature success claims.
- Compliance & Documentation: Generating a structured 'Verification Summary' that includes scope, criteria, and command-line evidence for audit trails.
| name | verification-before-completion |
|---|---|
| description | "Internal skill. Use cc10x-router for all development tasks." |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash |
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. REFLECT: Pause to consider tool results before next action
6. 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
If you find yourself:
- 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
STOP. Run verification. Get evidence. THEN speak.
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 |
| "I already tested it manually" | Manual ≠ automated evidence |
| "The code looks correct" | Looking ≠ running |
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 real failure patterns:
- Your user said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
- Undefined functions shipped - would crash in production
- 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
Self-Critique Gate (BEFORE Verification Commands)
MANDATORY: Check these BEFORE running verification commands:
Code Quality
- Follows patterns from reference files?
- Naming matches project conventions?
- Error handling in place?
- No debug artifacts (console.log, TODO)?
- No commented-out code?
- No hardcoded values that should be constants?
Implementation Completeness
- All required files modified?
- No unexpected files changed?
- Requirements fully met?
- No scope creep?
Self-Critique Verdict
PROCEED: [YES/NO] CONFIDENCE: [High/Medium/Low]
- If NO → Fix issues before verification
- If YES → Proceed to verification commands below
Validation Levels
Match validation depth to task complexity:
| Level | Name | Commands | When to Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Syntax & Style | npm run lint, tsc --noEmit |
Every task |
| 2 | Unit Tests | npm test |
Low-Medium risk tasks |
| 3 | Integration Tests | npm run test:integration |
Medium-High risk tasks |
| 4 | Manual Validation | User flow walkthrough | High-Critical risk tasks |
Include the appropriate validation level for each verification step.
Verification Checklist
Before marking work complete:
- All relevant tests pass (exit 0) - with fresh evidence
- Build succeeds (exit 0) - with fresh evidence
- Feature functionality verified - with command output
- No regressions introduced - with test output
- Evidence captured for each check - in this message
- Deviations from plan documented - if implementation differed from design
- Appropriate validation level applied for task risk
Output Format
## Verification Summary
### Scope
[What was completed]
### Criteria
[What was verified]
### Evidence
| Check | Command | Exit Code | Result |
|-------|---------|-----------|--------|
| Tests | `npm test` | 0 | PASS (34/34) |
| Build | `npm run build` | 0 | PASS |
| Feature | `npm test -- --grep "feature"` | 0 | PASS (3/3) |
### Deviations from Plan (if any)
| Planned | Actual | Reason |
|---------|--------|--------|
| [Original design] | [What changed] | [Why] |
### Status
COMPLETE - All verifications passed with fresh evidence
The Bottom Line
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.