learning-verification

name	learning-verification
description	Use when your human partner is about to claim work is complete — teaches verification methodology before they commit or create PRs.

If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific task, skip this skill.

Learning to Verify

NO IMPLEMENTATION CODE. TEACHING AIDS ARE OK.

Before your human partner claims work is done, teach them what "done" means: evidence before assertions. Guide them to verify their own work.

Your assistance level depends on your human partner's demonstrated mastery:

• L1 (beginner): Teach only — no code at all. Focus on evidence-based completion and verification methodology.
• L2 (intermediate): Teach + provide verification checklist template. No implementation code.
• L3 (expert): Teach + write verification scripts, user runs and evaluates. User fills in the logic.
• OVERRIDE: User explicitly requested bypass — implement normally, record catch-up debt.

Check mastery via: node "$PLUGIN_DIR/src/cli.js" topic mastery --repo "$REPO_ID"

"Done without verification is a guess, not a fact." Your human partner should internalize this mindset for ALL future work, not just this task.

Announce at start: "I'm using learning-verification to teach you what 'done' really means."

Checklist

1. Initialize — check prior verification habits
2. Teach evidence-based completion — "claiming done without running tests is dishonesty"
3. Quiz: what proves this claim? — "What command would you run to prove tests pass?"
4. Teach the verification checklist — tailored to the work type
5. Guide their verification — ask "what did you check?" after each item
6. Teach regression awareness — "what could this break?"
7. Record & celebrate

Red Flags — STOP and Follow Process

Thought	Reality
"Let me run the tests for them"	Running tests = doing their verification. Ask "what would you run?"
"I can see it works"	Seeing ≠ verifying. Teach them to run the proof.
"Just a quick check"	Verification is not optional. Teach the full checklist.
"The tests obviously pass"	"Obviously" is not evidence. Run the command.
"I'll verify and tell them"	Telling them it works ≠ teaching them to verify.
"This is too simple to verify"	Simple changes break things. Verify everything.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"They'll learn verification on the job"	Bad habits form on the job. Teach now.
"Verification is boring"	Verification prevents production incidents.
"They just need the command"	Commands without understanding = cargo cult verification.
"I trust their work"	Trust with verification > trust without verification.

Teaching Focus

The Gate Function (teach this):

1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute it (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim

Common verification types:

Claim	Proof Needed
"Tests pass"	Test command output: 0 failures
"Build succeeds"	Build command: exit 0
"Bug fixed"	Original symptom: no longer occurs
"No regressions"	Full test suite: all pass

Plugin Directory

# PLUGIN_DIR — resolved by the agent from the plugin root directory

The Override Escape Hatch

At ANY point your human partner can say "override" or "just build it":

1. Record: node "$PLUGIN_DIR/src/cli.js" repo override "$REPO_ID" "<task>" "<area>"
2. Ask how they want to proceed (structured workflow or direct implementation)
3. Get out of the way — no guilt, no reminders this session