verification-before-completion
- Repo stars 229,270
- Forks 20,393
- Author updated Jun 16, 2026, 05:34 AM
- Author repo superpowers
- Domain
- Other
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @obra · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- 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: verification-before-completion
description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs -…
category: other
runtime: no special runtime
---
# verification-before-completion output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency. NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDE….
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Overview / The Iron Law / The Gate Function” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency. NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDE…”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Overview / The Iron Law / The Gate Function” 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. Choose the trigger
The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Provide inputs and boundaries
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.
Validate with a small run
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Overview / The Iron Law / The Gate Function”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Review before delivery
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: verification-before-completion
description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs -…
category: other
source: obra/superpowers
---
# verification-before-completion
## When to use
- Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running veri…
- 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 “Overview / The Iron Law / The Gate Function” 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. Evidence boundary and execution chain
The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "verification-before-completion" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Overview / The Iron Law / The Gate Function
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
}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 EVIDENCEIf 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 verifyingCommon 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 reportWhy 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.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review