home / skills / lerianstudio / ring / verification-before-completion
/default/skills/verification-before-completion
This skill enforces evidence-first completion by running and presenting verification outputs before claiming success, guiding agents to verified results.
npx playbooks add skill lerianstudio/ring --skill verification-before-completionReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: ring:verification-before-completion
description: |
Evidence-first completion gate - requires running verification commands and
confirming output before making any success claims.
trigger: |
- About to claim "work is complete"
- About to claim "tests pass"
- About to claim "bug is fixed"
- Before committing or creating PRs
skip_when: |
- Just ran verification command with passing output → proceed
- Still in development (not claiming completion) → continue working
sequence:
before: [finishing-a-development-branch, ring:requesting-code-review]
---
# 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
```
## The Command-First Rule
**EVERY completion message structure:**
1. FIRST: Run verification command
2. SECOND: Paste complete output
3. THIRD: State what output proves
4. ONLY THEN: Make your claim
**Example structure:**
```
Let me verify the implementation:
$ npm test
[PASTE FULL OUTPUT]
The tests show 15/15 passing. Implementation is complete.
```
**Wrong structure (violation):**
```
Implementation is complete! Let me verify:
[This is backwards - claimed before 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**
## Banned Phrases (Automatic Violation)
**NEVER use these without evidence:**
- "appears to" / "seems to" / "looks like"
- "should be working" / "is now working"
- "implementation complete" (without test output)
- "successfully" (without command output)
- "properly" / "correctly" (without verification)
- "all good" / "works great" (without evidence)
- ANY positive adjective before verification
**Using these = lying, not verifying**
## The False Positive Trap
**About to say "all tests pass"?**
Check:
- Did you run tests THIS message? (Not last message)
- Did you paste the output? (Not just claim)
- Does output show 0 failures? (Not assumed)
**No to any = you're lying**
"I ran them earlier" = NOT verification
"They should pass now" = NOT verification
"The previous output showed" = NOT verification
**Run. Paste. Then claim.**
## 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
| Type | ✅ CORRECT | ❌ WRONG |
|------|-----------|---------|
| Tests | Run command, see "34/34 pass", then claim | "Should pass now" |
| Regression (TDD) | Write → pass → revert → MUST FAIL → restore → pass | "Written regression test" (no red-green) |
| Build | Run build, see exit 0, then claim | "Linter passed" (linter ≠ compiler) |
| Requirements | Re-read plan → checklist → verify each | "Tests pass, phase complete" |
| Agent delegation | Check VCS diff → verify changes | Trust agent report |
## Required Patterns
This skill uses these universal patterns:
- **State Tracking:** See `skills/shared-patterns/state-tracking.md`
- **Failure Recovery:** See `skills/shared-patterns/failure-recovery.md`
- **Exit Criteria:** See `skills/shared-patterns/exit-criteria.md`
- **TodoWrite:** See `skills/shared-patterns/todowrite-integration.md`
Apply ALL patterns when using this skill.
---
## Violation Recovery
| Violation | Detection | Recovery |
|-----------|-----------|----------|
| Claimed complete without verification | "complete" with no command output, "should work" | Run verification → paste output → then claim |
| Ran command but didn't paste | Mentioned running tests, no output shown | Re-run → copy FULL output → paste → then claim |
| Used banned phrases | "appears to work", "Great!", "Done!" before evidence | Stop → run verification → paste output → evidence-based claim |
**Why recovery matters:** Claims without evidence = false confidence. Silent failures go undetected until production.
---
## 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.
This skill enforces an evidence-first completion gate: you must run verification commands and paste their full output before making any success claims. It prevents premature or dishonest assertions by requiring fresh, observable proof (command, output, exit code) prior to stating completion. Use it to make verification a mandatory part of agent workflows.
Before any claim of success, the skill requires identifying a concrete verification command, executing it in this message, and pasting the complete output. The output and exit code must be inspected and interpreted; only after that interpretation can a claim be made. If verification fails or is absent, the skill forces a clear, evidence-backed status statement instead of a success claim.
What counts as valid verification evidence?
A fresh full command run in the same message, complete pasted output, and the exit code or failure count that directly supports the stated claim.
Can I reference previous test runs?
No. Only verification executed and pasted in the current message satisfies the rule.
What if the command produces large output?
Paste the full output. If impractical, explain why, store the artifact in a verifiable location, and include a direct link plus the command run and exit code; still avoid claiming success until evidence is visible.