القائمة
Use before claiming work is complete — run verification commands and confirm output before assertions.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use when implementing real-time DSP algorithms, audio thread architecture, or offline spectral analysis in C++/Rust. Covers filters, STFT pipelines, lock-free concurrency, and RT safety. Not for JUCE plugin lifecycle wiring or ffmpeg.
Use for real-time audio code safety, determinism, and numeric hygiene. Required foundation for DSP, audio analysis, audio systems, and JUCE work. Not for game-audio middleware or ffmpeg/video tasks.
Use when programmatically processing video/audio with libffmpeg C API. Not for command-line ffmpeg operations.
Use for JUCE audio apps/plugins: AudioProcessor lifecycle, VST3/AU targets, parameter systems, and thread separation. Requires audio-engineering-principles. Not for game-audio middleware or non-JUCE frameworks.
Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code — covers workflow, essential patterns, and pre-commit checklist for modern C++17/20.
Use when writing or fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, or adding coverage/sanitizers.
| name | verification-before-completion |
| description | Use before claiming work is complete — run verification commands and confirm output before assertions. |
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.
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
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
| 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 |
| 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 |
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 report
From 24 failure memories:
ALWAYS before:
Rule applies to:
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.