skill-verify
- Repo stars 3,406
- Author updated Live
- Author repo claude-octopus
- Domain
- Other
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @nyldn · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- macOS · Linux · Windows
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Shell exec
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: skill-verify
description: Evidence before claims — run verification commands before declaring work complete, fixed, or pas…
category: other
runtime: no special runtime
---
# skill-verify output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Evidence before claims — run verification commands before declaring work complete, fixed, or passing NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE If you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes. Before claiming any success or expressing satisfaction: Skip any step = the claim is unverified. runs entirely lo….
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “The Iron Law / The Gate / What Counts as Evidence” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Evidence before claims — run verification commands before declaring work complete, fixed, or passing NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE If you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes. Before claiming any success or expressing satisfaction: Skip any step = the claim is unverified. runs entirely lo…”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “The Iron Law / The Gate / What Counts as Evidence” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source mentions slash commands such as `/octo`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “The Iron Law / The Gate / What Counts as Evidence”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: skill-verify
description: Evidence before claims — run verification commands before declaring work complete, fixed, or pas…
category: other
source: nyldn/claude-octopus
---
# skill-verify
## When to use
- Evidence before claims — run verification commands before declaring work complete, fixed, or passing NO COMPLETION CLA…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “The Iron Law / The Gate / What Counts as Evidence” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "skill-verify" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> The Iron Law / The Gate / What Counts as Evidence
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files, run shell commands | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than
/octo:*slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
Verification Gate
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes.
The Gate
Before claiming any success or expressing satisfaction:
- IDENTIFY — What command proves this claim?
- RUN — Execute the full command (fresh, not cached)
- READ — Full output, check exit code, count failures
- VERIFY — Does output actually confirm the claim?
- ONLY THEN — State the claim WITH evidence
Skip any step = the claim is unverified.
What Counts as Evidence
| Claim | Requires | NOT Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output showing 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Build succeeds | Build command exit 0 | Linter passing |
| Bug fixed | Reproduce original symptom: now passes | "Code changed, should work" |
| Regression test works | Red (fail without fix) → Green (pass with fix) | Test passes once |
| Subagent completed task | git diff shows expected changes |
Subagent says "done" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist against spec | Tests passing |
| Provider dispatch worked | Output contains expected content | No error ≠ success |
Red Flags — STOP and Verify
If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP:
| Thought | What to do instead |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | Run the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "The linter passed" | Linter ≠ tests ≠ build |
| "The agent said it worked" | Verify independently |
| "It's a small change" | Small changes cause big bugs |
Multi-Provider Context
In Claude Octopus workflows, verification is especially critical because:
- Provider outputs can be hallucinated — Codex/Gemini/Copilot may claim success without evidence
- Consensus ≠ correctness — three models agreeing doesn't mean they're right
- Synthesis files may be stale — check timestamps, don't assume freshness
- orchestrate.sh exit code 0 ≠ quality — the script ran, but did it produce good output?
After any multi-provider workflow:
# Verify synthesis file exists and is recent
ls -la ~/.claude-octopus/results/*-synthesis-*.md | tail -1
# Verify it has content (not just headers)
wc -l ~/.claude-octopus/results/*-synthesis-*.md | tail -1
When to Apply
ALWAYS before:
- Committing code
- Creating PRs
- Marking tasks complete
- Moving to next workflow phase
- Reporting results to user
- Claiming a bug is fixed
In orchestrate.sh workflows:
- After
probe(discover) — verify synthesis file exists - After
grasp(define) — verify consensus score meets threshold - After
tangle(develop) — verify tests pass, not just that code was written - After
ink(deliver) — verify review actually ran, not just that it was dispatched
Examples
Correct: Evidence-Based Claim
$ npm test
✓ user.create() saves to database (45ms)
✓ user.create() validates email (12ms)
Tests: 2 passed, 2 total
All 2 tests pass. ← Claim backed by output.
Incorrect: Claim Without Evidence
I've implemented the feature. It should work now. The tests should pass.
← No test was run. "Should" is not evidence.
Correct: Regression Test Red-Green
1. Write test → run → FAIL (expected, proves test detects the bug)
2. Implement fix → run → PASS (proves fix works)
3. Revert fix → run → FAIL (proves test isn't false-positive)
4. Restore fix → run → PASS (final confirmation)
Integration with Other Skills
This skill is referenced by:
flow-develop.md— verification gate after implementationflow-deliver.md— verification gate before deliveryskill-code-review.md— verify review findings before reportingskill-tdd.md— red-green cycle requires evidence at each stepskill-factory.md— autonomous pipeline must verify at every phase
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review