dotclaude

Skill in engineering

verify-completion

Gate every "it works / it's fixed / tests pass / done" claim behind fresh evidence. Run the actual verifying command, read its output, and only then state the result. Use before committing, opening a PR, marking a task complete, handing off to or trusting a subagent, or otherwise asserting that work succeeded.

Install

As a plugin

Bundled in the engineering plugin. Add the marketplace once, then install the bundle; it updates with the marketplace.

/plugin marketplace add KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude
/plugin install engineering@dotclaude

As a single item

Run from the project root; the skill lands under .claude/. Copy it to ~/.claude/ to make it global.

npx shadcn@latest add KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude/verify-completion

Files installed

  • .claude/skills/verify-completion/SKILL.md

What it does

Don't claim work is done, fixed, or passing unless you've just run the thing that proves it and read the output. Saying it's complete when you haven't checked isn't optimism; it's reporting something you don't know to be true, and it breaks trust the moment it turns out wrong.

The one rule

No completion claim without fresh verification. If you haven't run the verifying command in this turn, you can't say it passes. "Should pass now", "I'm confident", "the logs looked fine" are not evidence; they're the feelings that precede unverified claims.

The gate

Before stating any status, or even expressing satisfaction ("great", "perfect", "done"):

  1. Identify the command that would prove the claim.
  2. Run it: the full command, fresh, start to finish. Not a partial check, not a remembered result from earlier.
  3. Read the whole output: exit code, failure count, warnings.
  4. Decide. Does the output actually confirm the claim? If not, state the real status with the evidence. If so, state the claim with the evidence.

Skipping any of these steps turns a verification into a guess.

What each claim actually requires

Claim What proves it What does not
Tests pass A fresh test run showing 0 failures A previous run; "should pass"
Linter clean Linter output, 0 errors A partial check; extrapolating
Build succeeds Build command, exit 0 Linter passing; logs "looking good"
Bug fixed The original symptom retested and gone The code changed, so it's "probably fixed"
Regression test works Watched it fail before the fix, pass after It passes once now
Requirements met A line-by-line pass over the requirements Tests passing
Subagent finished The actual diff / output inspected The subagent reporting "success"

A linter passing doesn't mean it compiles. A subagent saying "done" doesn't mean it did the work, check the diff. A regression test that's only ever passed hasn't been shown to catch anything; verify it fails without the fix, then passes with it.

Red flags: stop before you claim

  • Reaching for "should", "probably", "seems to."
  • About to say "great" / "perfect" / "done" before running anything.
  • About to commit, push, or open a PR without a fresh check.
  • Taking a subagent's success report at face value.
  • Leaning on a partial or earlier run.
  • "Just this once" / "I'm tired, close enough."
  • Any wording that implies success when you haven't run the proof.

Different phrasing doesn't exempt you: a paraphrase that implies the work is done is still a completion claim.

The bottom line

Run the command. Read the output. Then make the claim. There's no shortcut that preserves the honesty of the statement.

Attribution

Adapted from the verification-before-completion entry of superpowers by Jesse Vincent (MIT). The structure and the core rules are theirs; the wording, the examples, and the integration with this registry's other items are this repository's.

This is the skill as installed, rendered from its source on GitHub. Read it as Markdown.

  • adversarial-reviewerReview code through three hostile personas - the Saboteur, the New Hire, and the Security Auditor - each required to find at least one issue. Use when a...
  • api-design-reviewReview an API contract (REST or GraphQL) before or while it is implemented, checking resource naming, HTTP semantics, status codes, error shape...
  • code-review-responseProcess code-review feedback with technical rigour. Understand each point, check it against the actual codebase, and respond with reasoning or...
  • create-agentAuthor a new subagent for this repository end to end by scaffolding it with pnpm new, curating its tool allowlist, setting model, color, and memory in...
  • create-commandAuthor a new slash command for this repository end to end by scaffolding it with pnpm new, writing the frontmatter and argument handling, drafting the...
  • create-hookAuthor a new Claude Code hook for this repository end to end by scaffolding it with pnpm new, writing the hook script and its settings.json wiring...