arc-verifying

name	arc-verifying
description	Gather fresh evidence that work is actually complete before a completion claim. Use when about to say 'done', 'fixed', or 'passing' — rerun the checks and read real output rather than trusting prior state.
category	discipline
status	promoted

arc-verifying

Core Principle

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

Boundary

arc-verifying owns producing fresh evidence for completion claims. It does not own authoring spec artifacts (that is arc-refining) and it does not own reconciling spec/code drift after implementation (that is the optional, separate, future arc-syncing-spec workflow — never folded into the SessionStart bootstrap or the arc-using router). Spec/code drift checks may quote verification evidence as input, but verification itself is not a spec-sync skill.

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

Skip any step = lying, not verifying

Common Failures

Claim	Requires	NOT Sufficient
Tests pass	Test command output: 0 failures	Previous run, "should pass"
Build succeeds	Build command: exit 0	Linter passing
Bug fixed	Test original symptom: passes	Code changed, assumed fixed
Agent completed	VCS diff shows changes	Agent reports "success"
Requirements met	Line-by-line checklist	Tests passing

Regression Tests (Red/Green)

If claiming a bug is fixed, require a true regression check:

1. Run failing test (RED)
2. Apply fix
3. Run test again (GREEN)

Skipping RED means you don't know the test proves anything.

Requirements Verification

If claiming requirements are met: re-read the requirements, make a checklist, verify each item with evidence, and report any gaps explicitly.

When Verification Cannot Run

Cannot verify ≠ skip verification. Inform the user immediately and choose an alternative with them.

Situation	Action
Build fails	Fix build first, then verify
Cannot run Simulator/Emulator	Ask user: fix blocker OR add debug print
Requires manual UI testing	Describe expected behavior, ask user to verify

Red Flags — STOP

• Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
• Expressing satisfaction BEFORE verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
• About to commit/push/PR without verification
• Trusting agent success reports
• Relying on partial verification
• Assuming linter success implies build/test success
• Cannot verify but don't inform user
• Feeling tired and wanting it over

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"Should work now"	RUN the verification
"I changed it, should be fine"	Changed ≠ verified
"I'm confident"	Confidence ≠ evidence
"Continue for now, verify later"	Cannot verify = stop here
"Just this once"	No exceptions
"Agent said success"	Verify independently
"Partial check is enough"	Partial proves nothing
"Too simple to verify"	Complexity irrelevant
"I already ran it earlier"	Run it again, now
"The logs look fine"	Logs ≠ verification

Integration

Discoverable from: arc-using when a task approaches a completion claim.

Also embedded in:

• arc-finishing (Step 0 discriminates on .arcforge-epic) — verify tests before offering merge options
• arc-tdd — Verify RED / Verify GREEN steps
• Spec reviewer / Quality reviewer — read actual code, run tests

Invoke this skill explicitly before finishing. Embedded verification in other skills is an additional layer, not a replacement.