verification-before-completion
Verification Before Completion is a Claude Code skill that enforces evidence-based completion claims by requiring users to run and examine actual verification command output before asserting any work is complete, fixed, or passing. Use this skill whenever about to commit code, create pull requests, or claim success on any task where objective verification is possible, ensuring claims are supported by fresh command execution results rather than assumptions or partial checks.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism /tmp/verification-before-completion && cp -r /tmp/verification-before-completion/superjawn/skills/verification-before-completion ~/.claude/skills/verification-before-completionSKILL.md
<!--
Adapted from obra/superpowers verification-before-completion skill
(v5.0.7), MIT-licensed, copyright 2025 Jesse Vincent. Modifications
copyright 2026 Joe Amditis. v0.3.0 ports as a consumer category, no
research phase per the v0.2.0 architecture. Verification is a gate
function: the verification command is determined by what was just
built, so external research adds no value here.
See CREDITS.md.
-->
# 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.Web accessibility patterns for news and academic sites. Use for WCAG audits, alt text, accessible data viz, and assistive tech.
Electron desktop apps with React, TypeScript, and Vite. Use for IPC, window/tray, PTY terminals, WebRTC, and packaging.
Remote JavaScript console and debugging on mobile. Use for phone/tablet console errors, responsive testing, Eruda, and vConsole.
Flags irreversible decisions before commit. Use for data models, infra, auth boundaries, API contracts, event schemas, CI/CD.
Python data pipelines with modular architecture. Use for content workflows, batch jobs, or Google Sheets/Drive integration.
Enforces a test-driven bug-fixing workflow. Use when a user reports a bug, failing code, an error, or asks to fix something.
AI-assisted coding with Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, Codex, Aider, or Windsurf. Use to build or debug generated code.
Authorized web scraping with fallback cascades and access-failure handling. Use for social media, yt-dlp, CAPTCHA or 403 blocks.