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
version	2.0.0
license	LicenseRef-Proprietary
category	integrity
keywords	["verification","completion","testing","evidence-before-assertion","test-pass-claim","regression"]
allowed-tools	["Bash(*:*)","Read"]
compatibility	{"claude-code":">=2.1"}

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

Skip any step = lying, not verifying

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

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"
• 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
"The change is logically equivalent"	Prediction, not verification
"I've reviewed the code and it looks correct"	Review ≠ execution
"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

When verification cannot be run

If verification is not possible in the current environment (no test runner, no browser, no DB, no network), say so explicitly:

I cannot verify this claim in the current environment. Required: <command>. Expected output: <description>. Please run before merging.

Honest gaps beat invented confirmations. "I made the change but couldn't run the tests" is professionally acceptable. "Tests pass" without running them is not.

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

Troubleshooting

Failure mode	Corrective step
You wrote "tests pass" without running them	Stop. Run the tests. Update the claim with the real result.
The command failed; you described it as "a minor warning"	Quote the actual error. Decide whether to fix or report.
You ran a partial command (e.g., one test file) and claimed full coverage	Re-run the full suite. Adjust the claim.
The environment lacks the verifier	Say so. Don't claim verification anyway.

The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

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

This is non-negotiable.

Inspiration

Two lineages merged 2026-07-05 (ecosystem-audit reconciliation). The Iron Law / Gate Function / rationalization-table core is the household-consensus variant deployed at six locations (ken, manateecreeksheep, Romans, InTheWake, Family-History), itself derived from the superpowers pattern. The honest-gap template ("When verification cannot be run") and the troubleshooting table are this repo's original v1.0.0 contributions, preserved as the superset. The pattern shows up across the household: recipe transcription marks [UNCLEAR] rather than guessing, sermon evaluation runs the rubric rather than assuming the score, flock validation runs validate_flock.py rather than declaring the database consistent.