メニュー
Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
The skill for "is this AI-written?" or "make this sound more human." Use whenever a specific text sample is in question and the core concern is AI authenticity — student submissions suspected of AI authorship, blog/wiki drafts that feel off, PR commit messages that smell like boilerplate, cover letters that sound robotic, paragraphs an editor flagged. Detects copula avoidance, ChatGPT vocabulary, significance inflation, and 30+ other documented AI tells. Also rewrites flagged sections. Not for grammar checks, summarization, or style edits where AI detection is not the concern.
Chain extract-research-questions into objective-codebase-research. Convenience wrapper for the Q+R phases of QRSPI.
Draft a structured design discussion from research findings. Interactive — presents understanding for corrections before finalizing.
Create a structure outline with vertical slices from a design discussion document. Enforces vertical decomposition over horizontal layers.
Extract 5-10 codebase research questions from a ticket or description. Questions only — no answers or opinions.
Conduct problem-aware, solution-blind codebase research. Outputs factual findings only — no opinions or suggestions.
| name | verification-before-completion |
| description | Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims |
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Before claiming any status (complete, fixed, passing, done):
npm test: 34/34 pass, exit 0")Skip any step = unverified claim. This includes satisfaction language ("Great!", "Done!", "Perfect!") and implications of success — not just explicit completion statements.
| 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, "looks good" |
| Bug fixed | Reproduce original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist verified | Tests passing alone |
Write test -> Run (pass) -> Revert fix -> Run (MUST FAIL) -> Restore -> Run (pass)
A regression test that was never seen to fail proves nothing.
When delegating to sub-agents: verify via VCS diff + running commands yourself. Agent success reports are claims, not evidence.
Run the command. Read the output. Then claim the result. No shortcuts.