verification-before-completion

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; evidence before assertions always

Verification Before Completion

Overview

Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.

Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.

The Gate Function

BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:

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
6. CLOSE: If this verification gates a bead closure, run `bd close <id> --reason "description with evidence from step 4"`

Skip any step = lying, not verifying

Agent-Filed Bead Discipline

When a skill files a bead for discovered/follow-up work (not planned work), stamp it so a human can triage risk at a glance.

• Title: prefix [spec] ONLY if speculative. Confirmed beads keep clean titles.
• Body/notes — always include this 3-field stamp:

  Severity: Critical | Important | Minor
  Confidence: Confirmed | Speculative
  Evidence: <file:line / failing test / repro>   (or: none)
  

• Mechanical rule: evidence cited → Confidence: Confirmed; no evidence → Confidence: Speculative. Applies at all severities. Never blocks filing (surface-and-mark — Production-Grade Doctrine).
• What counts as evidence (claim-substantiating AND checkable, not "a string exists"):
  • ✅ parser.ts:142 — returns null on empty input (fails t_parse_empty)
  • ❌ parser.ts — looks wrong
• High-severity nudge: a Critical/Important bead filed without evidence MUST add one line: Why this severity w/o evidence: <reason>.
• Priority (-p) stays human-owned — do not infer priority from severity.
• Honest limit: this disciplines the instruction surface, not every runtime bead. Confidence: Confirmed is a falsifiable triage hint that lowers verification cost, not proof. The convention is forward-only — pre-existing beads stay unstamped.

Common Failures

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, logs look good
Bug fixed	Test original symptom: passes	Code changed, assumed fixed
Regression test works	Red-green cycle verified	Test passes once
Agent completed	VCS diff shows changes	Agent reports "success"
Requirements met	Line-by-line checklist	Tests passing
No security regression	SAST/audit tool if one exists (semgrep, bandit, npm/pip audit) → 0 new findings, AND diff review: no control weakened/removed/bypassed, no new sink. No tool? Use the "If Verification Cannot Run" path: record the manual diff-review as evidence, note no SAST available.	Tests pass (tests rarely cover security)

If Verification Cannot Run

When no verification command exists (no test suite, CI down, external dependency unavailable):

1. Record the gap: bd note <id> "verification blocked: <reason>"
2. Create a blocker: bd create "Set up verification for <feature>" -t task and bd dep add <current-task> <new-task>
3. Document partial verification: Note what WAS verifiable (e.g., "linter passes, manual smoke test done, but no automated test suite exists")
4. Never silently skip: A bead closed without verification evidence AND without a documented gap is worse than a bead left open

Red Flags - STOP

• Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
• Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
• About to commit/push/PR without verification
• Trusting agent success reports
• Relying on partial verification
• Thinking "just this once"
• About to claim done while a requirement was quietly dropped, or a security regression remains unverified (tests passing ≠ security verified)
• Tired and wanting work over
• 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
"Linter passed"	Linter ≠ compiler
"Agent said success"	Verify independently
"I'm tired"	Exhaustion ≠ excuse
"Partial check is enough"	Partial proves nothing
"It's good enough to ship"	Production system, real users — no shortcut, no dropped requirement, no accepted security regression
"Different words so rule doesn't apply"	Spirit over letter

Key Patterns

Tests:

✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"

Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):

✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)

Build:

✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)

Requirements:

✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"

Agent delegation:

✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report

Why This Matters

From 24 failure memories:

• your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
• Undefined functions shipped - would crash
• Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
• Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
• Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."

When To Apply

ALWAYS before:

• ANY variation of success/completion claims
• ANY expression of satisfaction
• ANY positive statement about work state
• Committing, PR creation, task completion
• Moving to next task
• Delegating to agents

Rule applies to:

• Exact phrases
• Paraphrases and synonyms
• Implications of success
• ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness

Beads Completion

bd close without fresh verification evidence is lying. Before closing any bead:

1. Run the verification command that proves the work is done
2. Annotate the bead with evidence: bd note <id> "test output: 14 passed, 0 failed"
3. Include the summary in the --reason flag
4. Only then execute bd close

Use bd note to attach detailed evidence (test output, diff stats, verification logs) to the bead before closing. The --reason flag is the summary; bd note is the full evidence trail.

A bead closed without evidence is worse than a bead left open — it corrupts the ledger.

Capture what you learned. At close, record durable, evidence-backed insights (still true next month, tied to a file, test, or command). Never record guesses, one-offs, or secrets (tokens, keys, PII — every memory is injected into all future sessions). Update in place (bd remember --key <key>) rather than adding a near-duplicate.

bd remember "<kind>: <durable, evidence-backed insight>"   # kind: lesson / pattern / design / root-cause / research

The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.

This is non-negotiable.

Integration

Invoked by: Any task claiming completion — mandatory before bd close, commits, or PRs.

Pairs with:

• systematic-debugging — verify the fix worked before claiming success.
• document-release — docs audit is part of completion evidence.
• write-documentation — prose quality checks are completion evidence.
• stress-test — stress-test validates designs; this skill validates implementations.