Use before reporting any task, batch, or fix as complete — requires fresh execution evidence for every completion claim.
Instalação
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
No completion claim is valid without fresh evidence from an actual command execution. "Should work," "probably fixed," and "looks correct" are not verification. Run the command, read the output, check the exit code, then state the result with evidence.
Verification contract. Every success criterion carries an evidence_channel (the surface where the observable result is captured) and an observable (a binary pass/fail statement declared before execution). Verification must go criterion-by-criterion — trust the list over memory. For behavior-shaped changes, tests alone never prove done: the evidence_channel must be a real execution surface (smoke-boot, http-probe, db-state-diff, cli-stdout, or browser), not a build artifact.
Re-arm rule. Any edit that lands after the most recent verification resets every criterion's status to re-armed. A completion claim is rejected while any criterion is re-armed. Re-verification must run after the edit, cite the observable result per criterion, and set each criterion to verified before the claim is accepted.
Frozen Criteria & Tamper Check
The success_criteria[] definitions (id, observable, evidence_channel) are frozen at Phase 2.5 approval. They are the goalposts; the run is not allowed to move them. The criteria are read-only ground truth during implementation — the same invariant F15 (Frozen-Replay / Non-Varying Evidence) names: editing what measures you to move the number defeats the gate.
Before accepting any completion claim, run the tamper check: confirm the frozen criteria block has not changed since approval. The spec sidecar is committed at Phase 2.5, so the cheapest check is a diff of the criteria block against the approved version:
# Tamper check: did success_criteria change since the spec was approved?
git diff --no-color <approval-ref>..HEAD -- docs/specs/<date>-<slug>.json \
| grep -E '"(id|observable|evidence_channel)"' || echo"criteria intact"
Intact → proceed with verification.
Changed → a goalpost moved. This is fail-closed: do NOT verify against the new definition. Re-open Phase 2.5 for explicit re-approval of the amended criteria (an unapproved criteria change is unapproved scope — failure_stop_gate territory if it slipped in to force a pass). Record the tamper finding; never silently accept the edited criterion.
A criterion the implementer rewrote to match what the code happens to do is not a verified criterion — it is a laundered one.
Approval-seal check (authoritative when a seal is recorded)
When the workflow artifact carries an approval_seal (recorded by the implement Phase 2.5 gate over the approved spec/plan bodies — the todo is progress state and is not sealed), run it before the criteria diff — it is a stronger, whole-artifact check the criteria-block diff cannot game:
exit 1 (STALE) → a sealed artifact (spec or plan) changed after approval. Fail-closed: do NOT accept the completion claim. The edit re-opens Phase 2.5 — the engineer re-approves and the gate re-seals (workflow-artifact.sh seal). Record the printed sealed=/current= hashes and the named changed file in the block finding.
exit 3 (no seal) → older workflow with no seal recorded; fall back to the criteria-block tamper check above.
The seal supersedes the git-diff tamper check because it binds the exact approved bytes of both scope artifacts (spec + plan), not just the criteria block — a laundered criterion or a quietly-edited plan breaks the hash. The todo is progress state and is intentionally not sealed, so ticking a completed batch off never trips it; a moved success-criterion goalpost is caught by the criteria diff below regardless.
When To Use
Before reporting a batch as complete
Before reporting a fix as verified
Before handing off to review
Before claiming tests pass
Before claiming a build succeeds
Any time you are about to say "done"
When NOT To Use
Mid-exploration, where the goal is understanding rather than completion
Evidence Channel Taxonomy
The evidence_channel field on each success criterion names the surface where the observable result is captured. Use the channel that corresponds to what the change actually does:
Channel
When to use
test-run
Automated test suite (unit, integration, end-to-end)
build-output
Compiler, type-checker, or linter output
http-probe
HTTP request/response against a running service
cli-stdout
Command-line tool output inspected manually
db-state-diff
Before/after query of a database or file store
browser
Visual or functional check in a browser — capture an artifact; see below
smoke-boot
The built artifact/service boots and responds to a live request — the strongest real execution surface
log-capture
Structured log entry captured at runtime
script-output
Shell script execution result
Rule: For behavior-shaped changes (new endpoint, changed handler, migration, state transition), test-run and build-output are insufficient on their own — the channel must include at least one real execution surface (smoke-boot, http-probe, db-state-diff, cli-stdout, or browser). Tests alone never prove behavior done. smoke-boot is the strongest: the thing actually starts and answers.
browser capture. The browser channel must persist what was seen, not just assert it. When Playwright MCP is available, capture browser_take_screenshot / browser_console_messages / browser_network_requests around the observable behavior and save them under docs/specs/<slug>.evidence/<criterion-id>/; when MCP is unavailable, fall back to an explicit textual description and say so in the completion table — never silently claim browser evidence with no artifact. Procedure: Read .claude/references/evidence-capture.md.
Workflow
Load the active success criteria. Read the spec JSON sidecar at docs/specs/<date>-<slug>.json (or use the sidecar named in the workflow artifact). Extract success_criteria[] — each entry has id, description, evidence_channel, and observable. These are the items you verify one by one. Trust the list over memory.
Identify the verification command for the current claim — read the active tech stack skill (.claude/skills/tech-stack-{stack}/SKILL.md, where {stack} comes from .claude/tech-stack) and pick from its ## Build & Test Commands section:
Build claim -> the stack's compile/type-check command (dotnet: dotnet build, python: mypy ., typescript: <pm> run build or tsc --noEmit)
Test claim -> the stack's test command (dotnet: dotnet test, python: pytest, typescript: <pm> test)
Fix claim -> the specific test or reproduction step
Deployment claim -> the relevant smoke test
Execute the command to completion. Do not stop at partial output.
Read the full output, including:
exit code
error messages
warning count
test pass/fail counts
Criterion-by-criterion check. For each success criterion in the list:
a. Run (or re-run) the verification step appropriate to its evidence_channel.
b. Confirm the result matches the criterion's observable (the binary pass/fail statement declared before execution).
c. Record the criterion status: verified if the observable is met, re-armed if any edit landed after this check, pending if not yet checked.
d. Do not advance past a criterion that remains re-armed or pending.
Confirm the output supports the specific claim being made.
Only then state the result as a completion evidence table — one row per criterion, three columns, no prose substitute:
criterion
verdict
evidence
SC1
verified
dotnet test --filter Batch2 → 14/14 pass
SC2
verified
curl :5080/health → 200, body {"status":"ok"}
verdict is binary (verified / not-verified) — there is no "mostly". A table with any not-verified row is not a completion. The table is less gameable than a prose summary: every claim is pinned to a re-runnable command and its observed output.
First-verified-output baseline. When a criterion has no automated regression test (e.g. a cli-stdout or db-state-diff observable checked by hand), persist the first verified output as a golden baseline under docs/specs/<slug>.baselines/<SCn>.txt and cite it in the evidence cell. Later runs diff against the baseline instead of re-judging from scratch — a cheap durable regression artifact for criteria the test suite does not cover.
Re-check freshness against the latest edit. MTK's hook state tracks the most
recent file edit and the latest verification command in the session; a
completion claim is stale when the verification event happened before the
latest code-change event, even if both landed in the same wall-clock second.
Re-arm check. If any edit landed after the most recent verification, all
criteria revert to re-armed. The hooks/verify-completion hook compares
last_edit_seq vs last_verification_seq and emits a re-arm notice when
stale. Do not claim completion while any criterion is re-armed — re-run
verification from step 1 after the edit.
Wiring check. For every skill, hook, agent, or reference touched in
this task, run:
The check verifies that each file is fully registered — skill name:
matches its directory and appears in manifest.json, hooks are
executable and referenced from settings.json / hooks/hooks.json,
agents appear in plugin.json, references appear in
.claude/references.index. Authoring without wiring is a hard fail:
the toolkit ships features by registration, not by file existence, so
an unwired file is dead code that produces nothing at runtime. The
touched-files list comes from git diff --name-only HEAD (or the
spec's change_manifest when running inside a workflow). If the file
list is empty (no toolkit artifacts touched), this step is a no-op.
When the work being verified came from a prior agent — a builder subagent, a reviewer, an integration verifier — do NOT trust their summary. Extract their factual claims and reconcile each one independently before stating completion.
Procedure:
List every factual claim from the upstream agent's output. A claim is any sentence asserting a fact the verifier can re-check: "tests pass", "no SQL injection found", "the migration is reversible", "all error paths log", "Batch 2 is complete". Quote each one verbatim with its source.
Mark each claim UNVERIFIED in your working notes.
Reconcile each claim to one of:
VERIFIED — you ran a command or read a file and the evidence supports the claim. Cite the evidence.
CONTRADICTED — evidence shows the claim is false. The work is not complete; do not advance the gate. Block.
UNVERIFIABLE — the claim cannot be checked from current state (no test exists, the codepath is not exercised, the assertion is opinion). Treat as a finding: ask the upstream agent for evidence or downgrade the verdict.
A claim that affects your verdict and remains UNVERIFIED is a stop condition. State explicitly that you cannot complete verification, list the unverified claims, and return control without claiming pass.
Why: Upstream agents have an incentive to declare success. A neutral readback that re-asserts their summary is not verification — it is laundering. The reconciliation step forces you to see the difference between "they said it" and "I checked it".
Example:
Builder claim: "All Batch 2 tests pass."
→ Run the same test command. Exit 0 with N/N → VERIFIED: dotnet test --filter Batch2 → 14/14 pass.
→ Exit 0 with 0/0 (no tests collected) → CONTRADICTED: 0 tests in Batch2 — claim is false.
→ Cannot run the test command in this environment → UNVERIFIABLE: no test runner available; downgrade verdict and surface to engineer.
Rules
Every completion claim must cite a specific command and its output.
Partial verification is not verification. Run the full command.
Cached results from earlier in the session do not count as fresh evidence.
Evidence is stale if the latest verification event in session state predates
the most recent file-write event to any file in the change set. MTK records
both timestamps and event order in the hook session file; completion claims
must use verification that happened after the last edit.
If the verification fails, the task is not complete. Do not report it as complete with caveats.
Re-verify after any fix-up, even a trivial one.
Verify criterion-by-criterion. Passing SC1 does not imply SC2–SCN. Each
criterion's evidence_channel and observable are the contract; confirm both.
Any edit after the last verification re-arms all criteria. While any criterion
is re-armed, the completion claim is rejected. Re-verification must cite
the observable result per criterion before the claim is accepted.
For behavior-shaped changes, tests alone never prove done. The evidence
channel must include at least one real execution surface.
Success criteria are frozen at approval. Run the tamper check before any
completion claim; a changed observable/evidence_channel/id is fail-closed
and re-opens Phase 2.5. Never verify against a goalpost the run moved.
When the workflow carries an approval_seal, verify-seal is the authoritative
pre-completion check. A STALE seal (exit 1) is fail-closed — the approved
spec/plan bytes changed after approval (the todo is progress state and is not
sealed); re-open Phase 2.5 and re-seal before any completion claim. Never
complete against a stale seal.
State completion as the criterion | verdict | evidence table. A prose
"all good" without the table is not a completion claim.
When re-verification keeps failing the same criterion, do not loop forever:
drive it through the remediation circuit-breaker
(scripts/workflow-artifact.sh remediation) and escalate to a human on
ESCALATE — iteration cap or plateau (see .claude/references/orchestration-gates.md).
Common Rationalizations
See .claude/skills/context-engineering/SKILL.md — the shared MTK rationalization table covers the universal shortcuts. Skill-specific traps to watch for here: running tests a few minutes ago (stale once you touched code), treating build success as test success (different claims, different evidence), and assuming compilation proves behavior (it proves syntax only).
Red Flags
"Should work" or "probably fixed" in a completion report
Completion reported without any command output cited
Partial test run used to claim full verification
Stale evidence from before the latest edit
Success claimed despite warnings or skipped tests in the output
New skill / hook / agent / reference authored but not wired (no manifest entry, hook not chmod +x or not referenced from settings, agent missing from plugin.json) — files exist on disk but nothing dispatches them
Claiming done while any criterion is re-armed (edit landed after verification)
Verifying at the batch level instead of criterion-by-criterion
Using test-run or build-output alone for a behavior-shaped change (missing real execution surface)
A success_criteriaobservable was edited mid-run to match the code (goalpost moved — tamper check skipped)
Completion claimed while the workflow's approval_seal is STALE (approved spec/plan edited after approval, gate not re-opened)
Completion stated as prose instead of the criterion | verdict | evidence table
Signal-Based Enforcement
This skill is enforced via hooks in settings.json:
Stop hook: When the agent finishes responding, a prompt hook checks whether completion claims cite specific command output. If not, the agent is reminded to run verification and cite evidence.
Freshness check:hooks/context-budget.sh records the latest edit time and
the latest verification command run in the session. hooks/verify-completion
compares those timestamps and warns with VERIFICATION GAP: when the evidence
is stale or missing.
Re-arm notice: When last_edit_seq > last_verification_seq, hooks/verify-completion
emits VERIFICATION GAP: criteria re-armed — all success criteria are reset to
re-armed and a completion claim is rejected until re-verification runs after
the edit.
The Stop hook is the enforcement mechanism. The skill documentation above is the contract; the hook is the guardrail.
Stuck Signal
If you are stuck — repeated failures, unclear root cause, or blocked by missing context — do not force a completion. Instead:
State clearly: "I am stuck."
Describe what you've tried and what is blocking progress.
Ask for help or escalate to the engineer.
Forcing past a stuck state produces garbage output. Admitting difficulty is always the right move.
Verification
A specific command was executed for the claim
The full output was read (not just the exit code)
The output directly supports the claim
The evidence is from after the most recent code change
No warnings or failures were silently ignored
Every success criterion was verified individually (criterion-by-criterion, citing the observable per criterion)
No criterion remains re-armed (no edit landed after the last verification)
Behavior-shaped changes cite a real execution surface (smoke-boot, http-probe, db-state-diff, cli-stdout, or browser), not only test-run / build-output
For a browser criterion, the docs/specs/<slug>.evidence/<criterion-id>/ evidence directory path is cited alongside the criterion in the completion table (or an explicit no-MCP fallback note; see .claude/references/evidence-capture.md)
If verifying upstream agent work, every factual claim was extracted and reconciled (VERIFIED, CONTRADICTED, or UNVERIFIABLE) — none left UNVERIFIED
Frozen-criteria tamper check ran (no success_criteriaid/observable/evidence_channel changed since Phase 2.5 approval)
When an approval_seal exists, verify-seal returned exit 0 (not STALE) before the completion claim
Completion stated as the criterion | verdict | evidence table, every verdict binary
