| name | verify-before-claim |
| description | Iron rule — no completion claims without fresh verification evidence. Use whenever about to claim work is done, fixed, working, or passing. Run verification commands and show output before making any success statement. |
| version | 1.2 |
| updated | 2026-05-23 |
| assumes | A verifiable artifact, command, inspection, or evidence source exists for the claim. |
| conflicts_with | Do not bypass because another skill produced a score, plan, or confidence statement. |
Verify Before Claim
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.
Usage Template
Prompt
Use verify-before-claim. Before saying this is done, identify the proof command, run it fresh, read the output, and state the actual status with evidence.
Use Case
- Preventing unsupported claims that code, docs, tests, or workflows are fixed, passing, complete, or working.
Expected Result
- The agent reports command output, exit code, pass/fail count, and any remaining unverified risk.
Output Example
Command: npm test, Exit code: 0, Result: 42 passed, 0 failed, plus residual risks.
Verification Case
- No completion language appears unless fresh evidence is shown in the same response.
Verified Effect
- The agent shifts from confidence-based status claims to evidence-based status reports.
Success Metrics
- A fresh verification command or inspection is run in the current session.
- Output includes command, exit code or observable evidence, result, and residual risk.
- No completion claim is made when evidence is missing, stale, or failing.
When to Use
- Before saying "done", "fixed", "complete", "passing", "working"
- Before committing or creating a PR
- Before expressing satisfaction with results
- When the user asks "is it working?"
- Any time the agent feels the urge to say "it should work"
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying.
Common Failures
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|
| Tests pass | Test output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check |
| Build succeeds | Build exit code 0 | "Looks good" |
| Bug fixed | Reproduce original symptom: passes | "I changed the code" |
| Tests added | New tests exist + old tests still pass | "Tests should work" |
| Vendor/product claim | Official docs, changelog, or independent source; otherwise mark single-source | Keynote/demo statement alone |
| Agent can act for user | Mandate, tool log, preview/confirmation, receipt, rollback path | "User asked generally" |
| Generated media is safe/provenanced | Source/prompt/edit record and disclosure or watermark path | "Looks AI-generated" |
Red Flags — STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to" about completion
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports without independent check
- Relying on partial verification
Expected Value Thinking (From Poker Psychology)
"The biggest bluff is convincing yourself you have control when you don't." — Maria Konnikova
Apply to verification:
| Poker Concept | Verification Application |
|---|
| Expected Value (EV) | Don't just check if it works now; check if it will work reliably |
| Controllable vs Uncontrollable | Focus on what you can verify; acknowledge what you can't |
| Tilt Control | Don't let excitement about "it works!" skip verification |
| Process over Results | Good verification process > lucky outcome |
The verification mindset:
1. Separate what you CAN verify from what you CAN'T
- CAN: Code compiles, tests pass, output matches expected
- CAN'T: Edge cases, production behavior, user experience
2. Focus on EXPECTED VALUE, not single results
- "Tests pass once" ≠ "Tests will pass reliably"
- "Works in my environment" ≠ "Works in all environments"
3. Be skeptical of success
- Good decisions can have bad outcomes
- Bad decisions can have good outcomes
- KEY: Evaluate the PROCESS, not just the result
Single-Source Product Claims
Keynotes, launch posts, demos, and roadmap statements can be useful evidence, but they are not enough for operational guidance. When the only source is a vendor statement:
Status: single-source
Source type: keynote / launch post / docs / independent test
Operational risk:
What must be verified next:
Do not turn a demo into a guarantee. Treat availability, scale numbers, benchmark claims, payment protocols, security properties, and adoption figures as unverified until checked.
The Biggest Lesson from Poker:
"Knowing when to fold is more important than knowing when to play."
In verification: Knowing when to say "I'm not sure" is better than claiming "it works" without evidence.
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Different context so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
SOP TDD Context
This skill is the verification component of the TDD-for-SOPs approach. Before writing a new SOP:
- Define failure: What will the agent do wrong without the SOP?
- Watch it fail: Verify the baseline error exists (RED)
- Write the SOP: Address those specific failure modes
- Watch it pass: Verify the agent now complies (GREEN)
- Refactor: Close loopholes while maintaining compliance
Quality Gates
