verify

name	verify
description	Use before declaring a task complete, after code/content/config changes, or when the user asks to verify, QA, smoke test, validate, or inspect whether something really works. Inspect the changed scope, run the right checks, verify runtime behavior when needed, and report evidence without inventing results.
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Grep","Glob","Task","AskUserQuestion"]

verify

Use this skill when the work looks done but needs proof.

The job is not to celebrate completion. The job is to decide whether the change can be accepted, based on evidence.

This skill is the single source of truth for how to judge done. It is used two ways:

• As the completion gate of implement: once implement finishes building, it spawns an independent verifier that follows this skill to judge the acceptance criteria.
• As a separate standalone pass after implement, when the user wants additional confidence, runtime QA, or an independent completion audit on any diff.

Either way the job and the rules are the same: judge from evidence, do not fix.

Who renders the verdict

The context that wrote the change is the worst judge of it. Do not self-declare a verdict here. Instead, spawn the change-reviewer subagent (Task tool, subagent_type: change-reviewer) and let it execute the workflow below fresh — it reads this file itself, establishes its own ground truth of the diff, and additionally runs the .claude/rules/*.md checklist and an out-of-scope-file check that this document does not repeat (see .claude/agents/change-reviewer.md). Give it: what was actually requested, and any evidence already collected. Report its verdict as-is; do not overwrite it.

The rest of this document describes what change-reviewer (or you, if you are that subagent) actually does.

What This Skill Does

verify answers four questions:

1. What changed?
2. What could have broken?
3. What did we actually check?
4. What risk remains?

Do not modify code, content, or config while using this skill. verify is read-only: it reports evidence and a verdict, it does not fix what it finds. If verification surfaces a bug, describe it precisely (file, line, failing case) and hand it back to implement or the user to fix.

Verification Levels

Use the smallest level that covers the real risk. Move wider only when needed.

Level 1. Static Checks

Use when the change could break syntax, types, lint rules, content parsing, or the build.

Examples:

• npm run lint
• npm run typecheck
• npm test
• npm run build
• project-specific validators such as verify:content

Level 2. Behavior Checks

Use when the change has expected behavior that can be tested or inspected without relying only on human taste.

Examples:

• unit tests for pure logic
• integration tests for data loading or API behavior
• smoke scripts
• migration or seed verification
• checking generated output files

Level 3. Runtime QA

Use when the result depends on the real app, browser, API, database, logs, or external service configuration.

Examples:

• open the local or deployed route
• click the changed flow
• check visible text and state
• inspect console or network errors
• call the API endpoint
• verify database rows or counts
• capture screenshot, DOM, log, or command evidence

Use playwright-cli for browser QA. If it is not installed, install it first (see https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-cli) or fall back to the project's configured browser tooling.

Level 4. Adversarial Subagent Review

Use when the same context that produced the change cannot be trusted to judge it, because the change is large or the risk of a confident-but-wrong "Pass" is high. The goal is to defeat self-verification bias: a fresh agent that did not write the change, and does not share its assumptions, is harder to fool.

Trigger Level 4 only when at least one is true:

• the diff is large or spans many files (rough rule: 5+ files or 200+ changed lines)
• the change touches security, auth, money, data migration, or destructive operations
• Level 1-3 passed but the result still feels fragile, or a single judgment would carry a lot of weight
• the user explicitly asks for a deep, independent, or adversarial review

Do not trigger Level 4 for small, low-risk changes (a one-line fix, a copy tweak, a lint cleanup). A council of skeptics on a trivial diff is waste.

How to run it:

1. Frame each thing you are about to call "Pass" as an explicit claim, e.g. "the new auth guard rejects expired tokens" or "the migration is reversible".
2. For each high-stakes claim, spawn independent skeptic subagents with the Task tool. Give each one the claim, the relevant files/diff, and the evidence you already collected, then instruct it to try to refute the claim, not to confirm it. Run skeptics for separate claims in parallel (multiple Task calls in one message).
3. Each skeptic returns: refuted or not_refuted, plus a concrete reason. A refutation only counts if it names a specific failing case, file, line, or reproduction. "Might be risky" with no concrete case does not count as a refutation.
4. Decide by majority. For a claim, run an odd number of skeptics (1, 3) and take a claim as holding only if a majority returns not_refuted with no concrete counterexample surfaced. Any concrete, reproducible refutation flips that claim to Fail regardless of vote count.

Subagents inherit the Evidence Rules below. Tell each skeptic that it may only report a refutation it actually demonstrated (ran the case, read the line), never one it imagined. A subagent's unverified claim is not evidence, the same way yours is not.

Guard against endless skepticism: instruct skeptics that absent a concrete counterexample the default verdict is not_refuted. The job is to find a real break, not to withhold approval on vague doubt.

Workflow

1. Run git status --short and identify the changed files.
2. Read the relevant diff or files. Do not rely on memory.
3. State the intended behavior in one or two sentences.
4. List the main risks introduced by the change.
5. Choose Level 1, 2, and/or 3 checks that cover those risks.
6. Run the checks. Prefer focused checks first.
7. If a check fails, decide whether it is caused by this change, pre-existing, or unrelated.
8. If UI/runtime changed, inspect the real route or runtime target.
9. If the change is large or high-stakes (see Level 4 triggers), spawn adversarial skeptic subagents on the key claims before settling the verdict.
10. Report only evidence you actually collected.
11. Say what remains unchecked.

Evidence Rules

• A command is evidence only if it actually ran.
• A browser check is evidence only if the route, state, and observed result are named.
• A database check is evidence only if the target environment and query/result are named.
• A screenshot is evidence only if the path or captured view is named.
• "Looks good" is not evidence by itself.
• Do not hide skipped checks. Explain why they were not run.

Failure Handling

When a check fails:

• quote or summarize the important error line
• say whether it appears related to the current change
• if unrelated, name the file/command that proves it is outside scope
• if related, report it as a Fail with the failing file/line/case so implement or the user can fix it; do not fix it here
• if blocked, stop and report the blocker clearly

Do not keep rerunning broad checks when a narrower failure already explains the problem.

Output Format

change-reviewer reports the extended version of this format (it adds Requested Scope, Scope Check, and Rules Checklist sections — see .claude/agents/change-reviewer.md). The shape below is the shared core:

## Verdict

Pass | Partial | Fail | Blocked

## Checked

- ...

## Evidence

- Command:
- Result:
- Runtime:
- Result:

## Adversarial Review

(Include only when Level 4 ran. Omit otherwise.)

- Claim:
- Skeptics: N run, M refuted
- Outcome: held | broken (with the concrete counterexample)

## Failed Or Blocked

- ...

## Not Checked

- ...

## Remaining Risk

- ...