verification-before-completion▌
davila7/claude-code-templates · updated Apr 8, 2026
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
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. 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
- 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 report
Why 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
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.
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.6★★★★★45 reviews- ★★★★★Sophia Thomas· Dec 16, 2024
I recommend verification-before-completion for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Dec 8, 2024
verification-before-completion has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 4, 2024
verification-before-completion is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Ira Kim· Dec 4, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: verification-before-completion is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Oshnikdeep· Nov 27, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: verification-before-completion is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Omar Jackson· Nov 23, 2024
verification-before-completion has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Mia Reddy· Nov 7, 2024
Keeps context tight: verification-before-completion is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Hana Farah· Oct 26, 2024
Registry listing for verification-before-completion matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Ganesh Mohane· Oct 18, 2024
We added verification-before-completion from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Lucas Chen· Oct 14, 2024
Useful defaults in verification-before-completion — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
showing 1-10 of 45