verify-before-implement

name	verify-before-implement
description	Analyze and implement code changes with strict verification protocol. Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, or modifying existing code. Enforces reality-checking against actual codebase, contracts, and specs before making changes. Prevents assumption-based development and invented parameters/entities.
license	MIT

VERIFY-BEFORE-IMPLEMENT.md — Reality-First Implementation Skill

Purpose: this is the operational rulebook an AI agent (or a human) follows before and while writing code, to prevent the most common AI failure mode in software engineering — inventing parameters, endpoints, fields, types, status values, config keys, or library APIs that sound plausible but don't exist in the actual codebase, contract, or dependency being used.

This file is self-contained by design. It doesn't assume the codebase has any particular language, framework, or stack — the verification method below applies the same way to a Python Django service, a Go microservice, a React frontend, or a bash script. Where a project has its own stricter standards (an API-contract skill, an architecture skill, a commit-message skill), those win on their specific topic — this file is the general-purpose verification discipline underneath all of them, not a replacement for any of them.

---

0. How to use this file

1. Before writing any code, identify what you're about to touch — an API contract, a database model, a type/interface, a config value, a third-party library call, a CLI flag, a UI component — and pick the matching checklist in §6. Every category has the same shape: find the actual definition, copy it verbatim, verify against it, don't proceed on a guess.
2. While reading, follow the source-of-truth hierarchy in §3 and the pre-implementation sequence in §4. If you hit something you can't verify, don't push through it — follow the decision tree in §5.
3. While implementing, keep running notes per §7 (verified facts, explicit assumptions, gaps found) — this is what makes §9's conflict-resolution and §12's escalation possible instead of silent guessing.
4. Before calling anything "done", run the checklist in §11 and the self-review questions under it. §10 is a list of failure modes already known to happen — check the change doesn't repeat one of them.
5. If something is genuinely ambiguous even after following §3–§6, stop and ask (§5 step 4, §12) — don't resolve the ambiguity by picking the answer that lets you keep typing.

---

1. Non-negotiables (would make an implementation wrong, not just imperfect)

• Never write a field, parameter, endpoint, status value, or config key into code without having read its actual definition first. "It should have a status field" is not verification; opening the model file and finding status (or not) is.
• Never invent a library/API call signature from memory. If you haven't checked the installed version's actual signature (via its source, its type stubs, or its docs matching the installed version), you don't know it — memory of a different major version is a common, silent source of bugs.
• Never let a stale document win over the code it's supposed to describe, and never let the code win over a document when the document is what defines the contract (an OpenAPI spec, a public API contract, a schema migration source of truth) — §3 gives the priority order; when in doubt, that a discrepancy exists is itself something to report, not silently resolve either way.
• Never silently patch over a gap or a conflict. If the user's request doesn't match reality, that mismatch gets surfaced (§9), not quietly "fixed" by picking whichever interpretation is easiest to implement.
• Never claim something was verified, tested, or checked when it wasn't actually done. "Tests pass" means they were run and their output was read, not that the code looks like it should pass.
• Never carry an assumption forward as if it were a verified fact. An assumption is allowed (§5 step 3) but it must stay labeled as one in the notes (§7) until it's actually confirmed.
• Never resolve a user/reality conflict by silently picking the interpretation that's least work. Present the conflict and the options (§9); let the user decide when the decision has product or architectural consequences.

---

2. Core principle

VERIFY REALITY BEFORE IMPLEMENTING

Never assume. Never invent. Never guess.

• If you haven't read the file, you don't know what's in it.
• If you haven't checked the contract, you don't know the actual API shape.
• If you haven't inspected the model, you don't know the actual fields.
• If you haven't traced the code path, you don't know the actual behavior.
• If you haven't checked the installed version, you don't know the actual library API.

Every rule in this file is a specific application of that one sentence to a specific kind of claim.

---

3. Source-of-truth hierarchy (when something isn't covered, or two sources disagree)

Different sources of truth carry different weight, and they can disagree with each other. Use this order to resolve a conflict; if the order itself doesn't resolve it, that's a genuine gap — go to §5.

1. The actual running/compiled code, read directly. A model file, a handler, a component — the thing that will actually execute. This beats any description of it.
2. The actual, currently-installed dependency's source or type definitions — not a cached mental model of "what that library's API looks like," which may be stale by one or more major versions.
3. A machine-checked contract that gates the code (an OpenAPI/JSON-Schema/GraphQL schema wired into CI, a database migration history, a generated type from a schema). These are authoritative for shape even when the current code hasn't caught up yet — a mismatch here is a bug to flag, not a license to follow the code instead.
4. Project-level documentation (README, architecture doc, ADR, a project-specific skill like an API-standards or architecture skill in this same skills directory). Authoritative for intent and convention — read these first (§4.1) because they tell you where to look, but verify what they claim against #1–#3 before relying on specifics.
5. Tests. Authoritative for documented expected behavior, with a caveat: a test can itself be wrong or stale. Treat a test as strong evidence, not as an unquestionable oracle — if a test and the actual running code disagree, that's a conflict to surface, not a tiebreaker to trust blindly.
6. The user's description of the system. Useful for intent and priorities, but the least reliable for exact shape — people misremember field names, conflate two similar endpoints, or describe how something should work rather than how it does. Verify before implementing on top of it.
7. Your own memory/training knowledge of "how this kind of system usually works." The weakest source of all for anything specific (a field name, a status value, a library's function signature) — fine for guessing where to look, never sufficient as the basis for what to write.

When two sources at different levels disagree, the higher one wins and the disagreement itself is worth reporting — a stale README, an out-of-date test, or a contract the code no longer matches are all real findings, not just noise to route around.

---

4. Pre-Implementation verification sequence

Before writing ANY code, complete this sequence.

4.1 Read source-of-truth documents (MANDATORY)

Always read these first — they tell you where to look, not what to write:

• Repository root README.md
• Module-specific README.md (if it exists)
• Contract/spec files referenced in scope
• Related plan/design doc, if this work is part of one
• Any project-specific skill in scope for this area (API standards, architecture conventions, commit conventions) — these define stricter rules than this file's defaults

For backend/API work, also read:

• The API contract spec (OpenAPI/GraphQL schema, or a docs/specs file)
• The service's own README or architecture note
• Database schema/model documentation

For frontend work, also read:

• Component documentation
• API integration specs / generated client types
• The design system or style guide, if one exists

4.2 Inspect actual code (MANDATORY)

Before touching any file:

• Read the target file(s) completely — not just the function you expect to change
• Trace imports and dependencies
• Check existing function/method signatures
• Verify actual model fields/types
• Review existing error-handling patterns
• Check test files for currently expected behavior (and run them — don't just read them, see §10)

Search for:

• Existing implementations of similar features (don't duplicate what's already there)
• Utility functions you might reuse
• Naming conventions already in use
• Validation patterns already established

4.3 Verify specific claims and assumptions

Every category below has the same shape: find the actual source, copy the actual shape, verify against it — never fill in from memory or from what "sounds right."

If the user says "the endpoint returns X":

• Find the actual endpoint code
• Read the actual response serializer/handler
• Verify the actual return type
• Check whether X actually exists or is invented

If the user says "the model has field Y":

• Open the actual model file
• Verify field Y exists
• Check its actual type and constraints
• Confirm it's not a misremembered field name (e.g. is_active vs. status)

If the user mentions "status can be Z":

• Find the status enum/choices
• List ALL valid values
• Verify Z is actually valid
• Don't invent new status values to make the request fit

If the change calls a library/framework function:

• Confirm the installed version (lockfile / go.mod / requirements.txt, not a guess)
• Read the actual signature for that version — a function's arguments, return shape, and defaults commonly change across major versions, and memory doesn't carry a version number with it
• Don't assume an argument name, default value, or return shape from a different, more-familiar version of the same library

If the change reads or writes a config value / environment variable:

• Find where it's actually declared/loaded (.env.example, config schema, settings module)
• Verify the exact key name, casing, and expected type
• Don't invent a plausible-sounding key name — a silently-undefined/None config read is a classic way to ship a feature that appears to work in code review and does nothing at runtime

If the change relies on a CLI tool's flags:

• Check the installed tool's actual --help output or version-pinned docs
• Don't assume a flag exists or behaves the same way across major versions of the tool

---

5. Reality-check decision tree

When you encounter unknown information

STOP and follow this decision tree, in order:

1. Can I verify this by reading existing code (or running it)?

   • YES → Read/run it and verify.
   • NO → Continue to 2.

2. Is this documented in a contract/spec/README, or checkable in an installed dependency's actual source/types?

   • YES → Read it and verify.
   • NO → Continue to 3.

3. Is this a reasonable inference from facts I've already verified?

   • YES → Document the inference explicitly as an assumption (§7) and continue, flagged for confirmation.
   • NO → Continue to 4.

4. ASK THE USER.

   • State what you know.
   • State what you don't know.
   • Ask specific questions — not "what should I do?" but "the model has is_active (boolean), not status — should I map it, or add a new field?"
   • Propose options if applicable (§9's template).

Never proceed when

• You haven't read the contract but are implementing an API.
• You haven't checked the model but are adding fields.
• You haven't inspected the file but are "fixing" it.
• You haven't checked the installed dependency's version but are calling one of its functions.
• The user's description conflicts with actual code and the conflict hasn't been surfaced.
• A required field/endpoint/entity/config key doesn't exist in reality and you're about to write code that assumes it does.

---

6. Verification templates by change category

Each of these is a short checklist to fill in before writing the corresponding code — not documentation to write after the fact. If a field in a template can't be filled from something you actually read, that's the signal to stop and go verify it, not to write "presumably" and move on.

6.1 Contract Alignment (APIs)

Before implementing any API change:

## Contract Verification Checklist

- [ ] Endpoint path matches contract exactly
- [ ] HTTP method matches contract
- [ ] Request payload fields match contract (name, type, required/optional)
- [ ] Response payload fields match contract (name, type, presence)
- [ ] Status codes match contract
- [ ] Error response format matches contract
- [ ] Authentication requirements match contract
- [ ] No invented fields added to request/response
- [ ] No contract-breaking changes introduced

**Contract Reference**: [exact section/endpoint ID]
**Deviations**: [none | list specific deviations with justification]

If contract doesn't exist:

• Document the gap in implementation notes (§7).
• Propose contract addition with explicit user approval.
• Don't proceed without a design decision.

6.2 Model/Schema Verification (Database)

Before modifying any model:

## Model Verification

**File**: [actual file path]
**Model**: [actual class name]

**Existing Fields Verified**:

- field_name: type, constraints
- [list ALL relevant existing fields]

**New Fields Proposed**:

- field_name: type, constraints, justification
- [list ONLY new fields with reasoning]

**Field Name Conflicts Checked**: [yes/no - explain if no]
**Migration Impact**: [describe or mark as none]

Common mistakes to avoid:

• Inventing field names that don't exist.
• Assuming a field exists because it "should."
• Modifying fields without checking dependencies.
• Adding fields without a migration plan.

6.3 Type/Interface Safety (all languages)

Before using any type/interface:

## Type Verification

**Source**: [actual file/package defining the type]
**Type Name**: [exact name as defined]

**Actual Structure**:

```typescript
// Copy EXACT definition from source
interface User {
  id: string;
  email: string;
  // ... actual fields only
}
```

**Usage Validation**:

- [ ] All accessed fields exist in actual type
- [ ] All required fields are provided
- [ ] No assumed fields that don't exist
- [ ] Type annotations match actual definitions

6.4 Endpoint Integration (Frontend calling Backend)

Before calling any API endpoint:

## Endpoint Integration Checklist

**Endpoint**: [actual path from backend]
**Method**: [actual HTTP method]

**Request Shape** (from actual backend code):

```json
{
  "field1": "type verified from serializer",
  "field2": "type verified from serializer"
}
```

**Response Shape** (from actual backend code):

```json
{
  "field1": "type verified from serializer",
  "field2": "type verified from serializer"
}
```

**Error Codes** (from actual backend):

- 400: [actual error format]
- 401: [actual error format]
- [list actual error responses]

**Verified Against**: [backend file path and line numbers]

6.5 State/Enum Verification

Before implementing state transitions:

## State Verification

**Source**: [file defining valid states]

**Valid States** (from actual code):

- STATE_1
- STATE_2
- [list ONLY actual valid values]

**Valid Transitions** (from actual code):

- STATE_1 → STATE_2 (under condition X)
- [list ONLY actual allowed transitions]

**Invented States**: [none | would need to add: STATE_X]
**Requires Spec Update**: [yes/no]

6.6 Config / Environment Variable Verification

Before reading or writing a config value:

## Config Verification

**Key**: [exact name, exact casing]
**Declared In**: [.env.example / config schema / settings module — actual file path]
**Type & Default**: [actual type, actual default if any — "none found" is a valid, important answer]
**Consumed By**: [file(s) that actually read this key today, if any]

**Invented Key**: [no | yes — requires adding to config schema + .env.example + deployment config]

A config key that exists only in the code you just wrote, with no corresponding entry in the actual config loader, will silently read as unset in every environment — this is a common way for a feature to look complete in the diff and do nothing at runtime.

6.7 Third-Party / Library API Verification

Before calling a dependency's function:

## Library API Verification

**Package & Installed Version**: [name + exact version from the lockfile/manifest]
**Function/Method**: [exact name]
**Signature Verified From**: [actual installed source / type stubs / version-matched docs]

**Actual Signature**:
​`
def actual_signature(arg1: Type, arg2: Type = default) -> ReturnType: ...
​`

**Deviations From Memory/Assumption**: [none | list what you expected vs. what it actually is]

This category exists because library-API hallucination is one of the most common and hardest-to-spot AI mistakes: the invented signature is plausible, compiles in dynamically-typed languages, and often only fails at runtime with an obscure error.

6.8 CLI / Tool Flag Verification

Before relying on a command-line tool's behavior:

## CLI Verification

**Tool & Version**: [name + version actually installed/pinned]
**Flag(s) Used**: [exact flags]
**Verified Against**: [--help output actually run, or version-matched changelog/docs]

**Behavior Assumption**: [what you're relying on the flag to do, and how you confirmed it]

---

7. Documentation during implementation

Implementation Notes Template

Keep running notes in the appropriate place (a plan's notes file, inline comments where genuinely warranted, or a dedicated scratch note) as you go — not reconstructed from memory afterward:

## Implementation Notes: [Feature/Fix Name]

### Verified Facts

- [Fact 1 verified by reading file X]
- [Fact 2 verified by reading contract section Y]
- [Fact 3 verified by testing code path Z]

### Assumptions Made (Explicit)

- [Assumption 1]: Based on [evidence], assuming [thing]
- Confidence: [high/medium/low]
- Validated by: [method or pending]

### Gaps Found

- [Gap 1]: Contract doesn't specify [X], implemented as [Y]
- [Gap 2]: No existing pattern for [Z], created new pattern
- [Action needed]: [document in contract / get approval / etc]

### Deviations from Plan/Request

- [Deviation 1]: User asked for X, but actual code does Y
- [Reason]: [explanation]
- [User notified]: [yes/no]

### Files Modified

- path/to/file.py: [what changed and why]
- path/to/test.py: [tests added]

### Testing Performed

- [ ] Unit tests pass (actually run, output read)
- [ ] Integration tests pass (actually run, output read)
- [ ] Manual testing: [describe]
- [ ] Edge cases verified: [list]

An assumption that's never revisited quietly becomes a fact nobody actually checked — if confidence is "medium" or "low," that item belongs in §9 or §12 before the work is called done, not left in the notes indefinitely.

---

8. Anti-Patterns to Prevent

❌ Assumption-Based Development

WRONG:

# User says "add status field to response"
# AI invents field without checking

def get_user(user_id):
    user = User.objects.get(id=user_id)
    return {
        'id': user.id,
        'email': user.email,
        'status': user.status  # ❌ Didn't verify User model has 'status'
    }

RIGHT:

# First: read the User model, confirm fields.
# Found: User has 'is_active' boolean, not 'status'.
# Ask user: "User model has 'is_active' (boolean), not 'status'.
#           Should I map is_active to status, or add a new status field?"

# After user clarifies:
def get_user(user_id):
    user = User.objects.get(id=user_id)
    return {
        'id': user.id,
        'email': user.email,
        'status': 'active' if user.is_active else 'inactive'  # ✅ Verified approach
    }

❌ Contract Invention

WRONG:

// Contract says: GET /api/users/{id} returns {id, email}
// AI adds fields not in contract

async function getUser(id) {
  const response = await fetch(`/api/users/${id}`);
  const user = await response.json();

  // ❌ Assuming fields that don't exist in contract
  displayName(user.firstName, user.lastName);
  showAvatar(user.avatarUrl);
  updateStatus(user.accountStatus);
}

RIGHT:

// First: read the contract - only {id, email} are returned.
// Document the gap.

async function getUser(id) {
  const response = await fetch(`/api/users/${id}`);
  const user = await response.json();

  // ✅ Use only verified fields
  displayEmail(user.email);

  // Document: "Contract doesn't include name/avatar.
  //            Need to either: 1) Update contract to add fields
  //                           2) Call separate endpoints
  //                           3) Use different approach"
  // Ask user for direction.
}

❌ Type Hallucination

WRONG:

// AI invents an interface without checking the actual API

interface UserResponse {
  id: string;
  email: string;
  profile: {
    // ❌ Invented nested object
    firstName: string;
    lastName: string;
  };
  preferences: {
    // ❌ Invented nested object
    theme: string;
    language: string;
  };
}

RIGHT:

// First: check the actual backend serializer.
// Found: only a flat structure with {id, email, created_at}.

interface UserResponse {
  id: string;
  email: string;
  created_at: string; // ✅ Actual field from backend
}

// Document: "Backend only returns id, email, created_at.
//            Profile and preferences would require separate endpoints
//            or backend changes. Which approach should we take?"

❌ Status/Enum Invention

WRONG:

# AI invents status values without checking the enum

def update_order(order_id, status):
    # ❌ Assumes these are valid without verification
    if status in ['pending', 'processing', 'shipped', 'delivered', 'cancelled']:
        order.status = status
        order.save()

RIGHT:

# First: check the Order model for actual status choices.
# Found: class OrderStatus(models.TextChoices):
#           DRAFT = 'draft'
#           SUBMITTED = 'submitted'
#           APPROVED = 'approved'
#           REJECTED = 'rejected'

def update_order(order_id, status):
    # ✅ Use actual enum values
    if status not in [choice.value for choice in OrderStatus]:
        raise ValueError(f"Invalid status. Valid: {[c.value for c in OrderStatus]}")

    order.status = status
    order.save()

# Document: "Current statuses: draft, submitted, approved, rejected.
#            User requested: pending, processing, shipped, delivered, cancelled
#            These don't match. Need to either:
#            1) Map user's terms to existing statuses
#            2) Extend OrderStatus enum (requires migration)
#            Which approach?"

❌ Library API Hallucination

WRONG:

# AI remembers a different major version of the library's signature

import redis
r = redis.Redis()
r.set('key', 'value', expire=60)  # ❌ Invented kwarg name from memory

RIGHT:

# First: check the installed redis-py version's actual Redis.set signature.
# Found: the keyword is `ex`, not `expire` — `ex: Optional[ExpiryT] = None`.

import redis
r = redis.Redis()
r.set('key', 'value', ex=60)  # ✅ Verified against installed version's actual signature

❌ Config Key Invention

WRONG:

// AI guesses a plausible-sounding env var name instead of checking the loader

const timeout = process.env.API_TIMEOUT_MS ?? 5000; // ❌ Never verified this key exists anywhere

RIGHT:

// First: grep the config loader / .env.example.
// Found: the existing convention is REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS, already declared and documented.

const timeout = Number(process.env.REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS) || 5000; // ✅ Matches the actual declared key

---

9. Conflict Resolution Protocol

When User Request Conflicts with Reality

Template:

## Conflict Detected

**User Request**: [what user asked for]

**Actual Reality**: [what exists in code/contract]

**Conflict**: [specific mismatch]

**Options**:

1. **Adapt request to reality**: [how to implement using what exists]
   - Pros: [list]
   - Cons: [list]

2. **Extend reality to match request**: [what would need to change]
   - Requires: [contract update / model change / etc]
   - Impact: [migration / breaking change / etc]
   - Pros: [list]
   - Cons: [list]

3. **Alternative approach**: [different solution]
   - Pros: [list]
   - Cons: [list]

**Recommendation**: [your suggestion with reasoning]

**Awaiting user direction before proceeding.**

Word the conflict as something for the user to decide, not as a rhetorical setup for the option you've already picked — if the trade-offs are genuinely lopsided, say so plainly in the recommendation, but still lay out what was actually considered.

---

10. Common pitfalls already seen (learn from these, don't repeat them)

These are generalized, recurring AI-implementation failure modes — treat each as a check to run proactively while implementing, not a historical curiosity.

1. Library API hallucination. Calling a dependency function with an argument name, default, or return shape from a different (often older, more commonly-documented) major version than what's actually installed. Always check the installed version's real signature (§6.7).
2. Plausible-sounding config key invented instead of looked up. The code reads process.env.API_KEY when the project actually declares EXTERNAL_API_KEY; nothing errors, the value is just always undefined/None, and the bug only surfaces at runtime, often in production.
3. A field name misremembered as a close synonym (status vs. is_active, userId vs. id, createdAt vs. created_at) — because the synonym is common elsewhere, it reads as correct on a skim and passes casual review.
4. Trusting a test file as current behavior without running it. A test can be stale, skipped, or already failing on main — reading its assertions tells you what someone intended, not what the code does now. Run it.
5. Treating "the README says X" as settled when the code has since diverged. Documentation drifts from implementation constantly; always cross-check the specific claim against the code path it describes before relying on it for something exact (an endpoint shape, a default value).
6. Silently picking the interpretation that's least implementation work when a request is ambiguous or conflicts with reality, instead of surfacing the ambiguity (§9). This looks like progress but ships something nobody actually asked for.
7. Reusing a type/interface from a similar-but-different part of the codebase without checking it actually matches the target — e.g. assuming two services' User types are identical because they share a name.
8. Declaring an implementation "done" based on the code compiling/type-checking, without actually running it or its tests — a type checker verifies internal consistency, not that the code does what was asked or that a called API actually behaves the way the types claim.
9. Inventing a new status/enum value to make a request "work" instead of reporting that the requested value doesn't exist in the actual enum and asking whether to extend it or map to an existing one.
10. Copy-pasting a pattern from one file into a new file without checking it still fits — the original file's imports, error-handling convention, or framework version may not match the new file's context, producing code that looks idiomatic but silently breaks an assumption the original relied on.
11. Treating a schema/type migration as complete once it compiles, with no consumer actually exercised end-to-end against the new shape — track "no real caller has verified this yet" as an explicit, visible gap (§7), not an implicit assumption that it's fine.
12. Format claims not matching what the code actually produces — e.g. documentation or a comment stating an ID "is a UUID" when the implementation actually emits something else. Either fix the code or fix the claim; never leave the mismatch unstated once noticed.

---

11. Quality Gates

Before marking implementation complete:

Verification Checklist

• All modified files were read before modification.
• All referenced contracts/specs were verified.
• No invented fields/endpoints/entities/config keys/library arguments.
• All library/dependency calls were checked against the actually-installed version.
• All assumptions are explicitly documented (§7), none left silently un-flagged.
• All conflicts were resolved with user input (§9), not silently picked.
• Implementation matches actual codebase patterns.
• Tests cover verified behavior, and were actually run (not just read).
• Documentation reflects the actual implementation, not the original request if they diverged.
• None of §10's known pitfalls are present in this change.

Self-Review Questions

1. Did I read every file I modified?
2. Did I verify every field/parameter I used?
3. Did I check contracts before implementing APIs?
4. Did I check the installed version before calling a library function?
5. Did I ask when uncertain instead of assuming?
6. Can I trace every decision to a verified source?
7. Did I document gaps between request and reality?
8. Would another developer understand my reasoning?
9. Did I actually run what I'm claiming passes, or am I inferring that it would?

---

12. Escalation Triggers

STOP and ask the user when:

• The contract doesn't cover the requested feature.
• The user's request conflicts with an existing contract.
• A required field/entity/config key doesn't exist in the codebase.
• Multiple valid implementation approaches exist with real trade-offs.
• A significant deviation from the plan/request is needed.
• A breaking change would be required.
• There's genuine uncertainty about business logic.
• Security/permission implications are unclear.
• A dependency's actual behavior, once verified, contradicts what the task assumed it does.

---

13. Review process shape (running the verification pass)

§4–§11 cover what to verify. This section covers how to run the pass without either rushing past real gaps or stalling on trivial ones.

13.1 Time-boxed pass structure

For anything beyond a one-line change, work in explicit passes rather than verifying opportunistically while typing:

1. Scope first. Identify every category from §6 this change actually touches (contract? model? config? a library call?) before reading a single line of implementation code.
2. Verification pass. Work through each relevant §6 checklist, filling it from actual sources — not from memory, not from what "should" be true.
3. Implementation pass. Write the code against what was just verified, keeping §7's notes updated as you go, not reconstructed afterward.
4. Closing pass. Run §11's checklist. Anything still marked "assumption" with medium/low confidence gets resolved via §9/§12 before the work is called done — it doesn't get carried forward silently as "probably fine."

13.2 How to report a gap or conflict

Being right that something doesn't match isn't enough — it has to be reported usefully:

• Specific and actionable, not vague: state exactly what was expected, what was found, and where (file/line or contract section) — not just that "something doesn't match."
• Every finding gets reported. There's no "minor, not worth mentioning" tier for a verification gap — a small mismatch today (a wrong default value) is a production bug tomorrow. If it's worth noticing, it's worth stating, even if the recommendation is "this is probably fine, confirm?"
• Show the actual evidence, not just the conclusion — the copied field list, the actual function signature, the actual enum values — so the user (or a reviewer) can verify the verification instead of just trusting it.

---

14. Relationship to other skills, and known gaps

• This file is the general-purpose verification discipline; it does not replace a project's own stricter, stack-specific standards. If a project has an API-contract skill, an architecture skill, or a commit-message skill available, those win on their specific topic — use this file's method (read the real source, verify before writing, surface conflicts) to apply them correctly, not as a competing set of rules.
• This file does not cover UI/visual verification (whether a rendered component actually looks right) — that requires actually running the app and looking at it, which is a distinct skill from source verification. Don't treat "the props match the verified type" as equivalent to "I confirmed it renders correctly."
• This file does not cover performance or security review in depth — those need their own dedicated passes; this file only ensures the facts the implementation is built on (fields, contracts, library behavior) are real, not that the resulting design is optimal or safe.

If something in day-to-day use genuinely isn't covered here and can't be resolved with available context: stop and flag it explicitly rather than guessing or building around the gap silently — the same rule this file applies to code applies to itself.

---

15. Where these rules come from (for maintainers of this file)

This file distills a single recurring failure pattern seen across many AI-assisted implementations: plausible-sounding, unverified detail (a field name, a library argument, a config key, a status value) written with the same confidence as verified fact, discovered only much later — at review time, at runtime, or in production. Every section above exists to catch one specific shape of that mistake before it ships.

• When a new recurring hallucination pattern is discovered in real review, add it to §10 and, if it needs its own checklist, add a category to §6.
• If this file and a project's own stricter skill genuinely disagree, the project's skill wins on its topic (§14) — update this file only if the disagreement reveals this file's general guidance was wrong, not just that the project has a stricter local rule.
• Keep this file honest: when a rule here turns out to be incomplete or superseded, fix it in the same change that surfaces the gap.

---

"The fastest way to ship bugs is to implement based on assumptions. The fastest way to ship quality is to verify first."

When in doubt, verify. When uncertain, ask. Never invent.