---

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

CopyNO 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

CopyBEFORE 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

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

Key Patterns

Tests:

Copy✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"

Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):

Copy✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)

Build:

Copy✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)

Requirements:

Copy✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"

Agent delegation:

Copy✅ 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:

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

Copy## 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

Goal-Backward Lens (GSD-Inspired)

After standard verification passes, apply this additional check:

Three Questions

1. Truths: What must be OBSERVABLE? (user-facing behaviors)
2. Artifacts: What must EXIST? (files, endpoints, tests)
3. Wiring: What must be CONNECTED? (component → API → database)

Why This Catches Stubs

A component can:

• Exist ✓
• Pass lint ✓
• Have tests ✓
• But NOT be wired to the system ✗

Goal-backward asks: "Does the GOAL work?" not "Did the TASK complete?"

Quick Check Template

CopyGOAL: [What user wants to achieve]

TRUTHS (observable):
- [ ] [User-facing behavior 1]
- [ ] [User-facing behavior 2]

ARTIFACTS (exist):
- [ ] [Required file/endpoint 1]
- [ ] [Required file/endpoint 2]

WIRING (connected):
- [ ] [Component] → [calls] → [API]
- [ ] [API] → [queries] → [Database]

Standard verification: exit code 0 ✓
Goal check: All boxes checked?

When to Apply

• After integration-verifier runs
• After any "feature complete" claim
• Before marking BUILD workflow as done

Iron Law unchanged: Exit code 0 still required. This is an additional verification lens, not a replacement.

The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.

This is non-negotiable.