| 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
- Initialize — check prior verification habits
- Teach evidence-based completion — "claiming done without running tests is dishonesty"
- Quiz: what proves this claim? — "What command would you run to prove tests pass?"
- Teach the verification checklist — tailored to the work type
- Guide their verification — ask "what did you check?" after each item
- Teach regression awareness — "what could this break?"
- 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):
- IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
- RUN: Execute it (fresh, complete)
- READ: Full output, check exit code
- VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- 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":
- Record:
node "$PLUGIN_DIR/src/cli.js" repo override "$REPO_ID" "<task>" "<area>"
- Ask how they want to proceed (structured workflow or direct implementation)
- Get out of the way — no guilt, no reminders this session
