| name | arc-verifying |
| description | Gather fresh evidence that work is actually complete before a completion claim. Use when about to say 'done', 'fixed', or 'passing' — rerun the checks and read real output rather than trusting prior state. |
| category | discipline |
| status | promoted |
arc-verifying
Core Principle
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Boundary
arc-verifying owns producing fresh evidence for completion claims. It does not own authoring spec artifacts (that is arc-refining) and it does not own reconciling spec/code drift after implementation (that is the optional, separate, future arc-syncing-spec workflow — never folded into the SessionStart bootstrap or the arc-using router). Spec/code drift checks may quote verification evidence as input, but verification itself is not a spec-sync skill.
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:
- IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
- RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
- READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
- VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
- ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
Common Failures
| Claim | Requires | NOT Sufficient |
|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Regression Tests (Red/Green)
If claiming a bug is fixed, require a true regression check:
1. Run failing test (RED)
2. Apply fix
3. Run test again (GREEN)
Skipping RED means you don't know the test proves anything.
Requirements Verification
If claiming requirements are met: re-read the requirements, make a checklist, verify each item with evidence, and report any gaps explicitly.
When Verification Cannot Run
Cannot verify ≠ skip verification. Inform the user immediately and choose an alternative with them.
| Situation | Action |
|---|
| Build fails | Fix build first, then verify |
| Cannot run Simulator/Emulator | Ask user: fix blocker OR add debug print |
| Requires manual UI testing | Describe expected behavior, ask user to verify |
Red Flags — STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction BEFORE verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Assuming linter success implies build/test success
- Cannot verify but don't inform user
- Feeling tired and wanting it over
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I changed it, should be fine" | Changed ≠ verified |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Continue for now, verify later" | Cannot verify = stop here |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Too simple to verify" | Complexity irrelevant |
| "I already ran it earlier" | Run it again, now |
| "The logs look fine" | Logs ≠ verification |
Integration
Discoverable from: arc-using when a task approaches a completion claim.
Also embedded in:
- arc-finishing (Step 0 discriminates on
.arcforge-epic) — verify tests before offering merge options
- arc-tdd — Verify RED / Verify GREEN steps
- Spec reviewer / Quality reviewer — read actual code, run tests
Invoke this skill explicitly before finishing. Embedded verification in other skills is an additional layer, not a replacement.
