gate

name	gate
description	Verification before completion claims. Use when about to say "done", "fixed", or "complete". Runs checklist by workflow type with evidence requirements.
model	haiku
allowed-tools	Read

gate

Verify before claiming completion.

Trigger

Before claiming: "done", "fixed", "complete", "working", "ready"

---

Pre-Work Gate (Before Starting)

Run before substantial work begins. Blocks execution if missing.

□ Verification method locked (not "assumption")
  → What type: execution output / observation / measurement?
  → What evidence will you show?

□ At least 2 "must NOT" criteria exist
  → What should this NOT do?
  → What scope should NOT expand?

□ Fit score determined workflow shape
  → <25: BLOCKED - clarify first
  → 25-29: Colleague-shaped (iterate each step)
  → 30-39: Tool-with-review (checkpoint major steps)
  → 40+: Tool-shaped (milestones only)

If any missing: STOP. Complete before proceeding.

---

Post-Work Gate (Before Claiming Done)

Workflow A: Build

□ Feature executes without errors (show output)
□ Edge cases tested (empty, null, boundary)
□ Rollback tested if Type 2B/1
□ Dependencies verified

Workflow B: Debug

□ Root cause identified with evidence
□ Fix tested and resolves symptom
□ Prevention added (test/automation/guard)
□ Related bugs checked (same class)

Workflow C: Refactor

□ Existing tests pass unchanged
□ Behavior identical (output comparison)
□ Deletion complete (no orphans)
□ No new abstraction without justification

Verification Types

Type	Description	Sufficient for SHIP?
execution output	Ran command, showed result	✓ Yes
observation	Screenshot, debugger session	✓ Yes
measurement	Metrics, benchmark data	✓ Yes
reasoned inference	Logic-based conclusion	⚠️ Flag, don't block
code review	Inspection only	⚠️ Weak
assumption	Not verified	⚠️ Flag with warning

Default: Require execution output, observation, or measurement before completion claims.

Boundary

Gates advise, never prevent. User owns their work.

• If user says "I'm confident" → flag concern, proceed
• If user says "skip gates" → proceed without verification demands
• Never invalidate user's assessment of their own work

Gate exists to surface risk, not to block legitimate intuition.

Verification Plan

Before claiming completion, define how you'll verify:

Verification Type	Evidence Required	Time Cost
Execution output	Command output, test results	< 1 min
Observation	Screenshot, debugger inspection	1-5 min
Measurement	Metrics, benchmarks, profiling	5-15 min
Code review	Manual inspection only	Variable
Assumption	No verification	0 (blocks SHIP)

Verification Requirements by Stakes

Stakes	Minimum Verification
High	Execution output + Observation
Medium	Execution output
Low	Code review acceptable

Anti-Footgun Rules

• Never claim "done" with only assumptions
• "It compiles" is not verification
• "Tests pass" requires showing test output
• If verification would take > 15 min, that's a smell (task too big)

Anti-Patterns

Claim	Problem	Required
"Should work"	Speculation	Actual output
"Looks good"	No verification	Test results
"Fixed the issue"	No proof	Before/after
"I think this resolves it"	No confidence %	X-Y% + basis

Incomplete Work

When blocked, state:

• What's done (with evidence)
• What's blocking (specific)
• What's remaining

Type 2A Exception

Trivial changes (< 1 min rollback): completion allowed without full gate. Document undo command.

Common Rationalizations (All Wrong)

Thought	Reality
"The tests passed"	Tests ≠ verification. Did you run the ACTUAL command?
"It should work"	"Should" = assumption. Show evidence.
"I already checked"	When? Show the output.
"The user is waiting"	Rushed verification = rework later.
"It's a simple change"	Simple changes break production too.
"I'm pretty sure it works"	Pretty sure ≠ evidence. Run it.