git:20260329.4a8e1f5 to git:20260508.ae16bf3
12 added, 0 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: verification-before-completion
description: >
Invoke BEFORE saying "done", "tests pass", "ready to merge", or any
completion claim. Requires fresh command output as evidence — no
completion without proof. Also routed by using-superpowers at task end.
---
# Verification Before Completion
Do not claim success without fresh command evidence.
## Gate
Before any completion claim:
1. Identify the command that proves the claim.
2. Run the full command now.
3. Inspect exit code and output.
4. State results exactly as observed.
5. **If the change includes a condition or gate that determines when something applies: explicitly state what it does NOT cover. If the answer reveals a gap that should be covered, fix it before proceeding.**
## Applies To
- "Tests pass"
- "Bug is fixed"
- "Build succeeds"
- "Ready to merge"
- Any equivalent wording
## Not Acceptable
- "Should pass"
- "Looks good"
- Trusting old outputs
- Trusting subagent reports without verification
## Minimum Evidence Examples
- Tests: command output with zero failures
- Build: successful exit code
- Bugfix: reproduction case now passes
- Requirements: explicit checklist against plan
+ ## Stub Scan (Implementation Tasks)
+
+ When verifying completion of any task that created or modified production code, run a stub scan before claiming done:
+
+ ```bash
+ grep -rn "TODO\|FIXME\|placeholder\|NotImplementedError\|raise NotImplementedError" <src-dir> \
+ --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.go" --include="*.rs" \
+ | grep -v -i "test\|spec\|__tests__"
+ ```
+
+ Adjust `<src-dir>` and `--include` patterns to the project's language and source structure. If any match falls in a file this task created or modified: the task is not done. Remove the stub or confirm with the user it is intentional before claiming completion.
+
## Regression Test Verification (Red-Green Cycle)
When verifying a bugfix with a regression test, the test must prove it catches the bug:
```
✅ Write test → Run (PASS) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore fix → Run (PASS)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
```
A regression test that has never been seen failing proves nothing — it might pass for the wrong reason.
## Agent Delegation Verification
When a subagent reports success, verify independently:
```
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes match task → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report at face value
```
## Rule
If evidence is missing, report current status as unverified and run the command.
## Self-Consistency Verification
When the verification reasoning is non-trivial (multi-step inference, ambiguous evidence, or configuration changes), apply multi-path reasoning (see `self-consistency-reasoner`) before declaring the verdict:
1. Generate 3 **independent** reasoning paths evaluating: "Does this evidence actually prove the claim?"
2. Each path should approach the evaluation differently: one checks what the evidence proves, one checks what it *doesn't* prove, one considers alternative explanations for the output.
3. Take the majority-vote verdict:
- **All agree "verified"**: claim is proven.
- **Majority agrees but minority dissents**: flag what the dissenting path identified — it may reveal a gap in the evidence.
- **No majority**: evidence is insufficient. Do not claim completion. State what additional evidence is needed.
This prevents the most expensive verification failure: confidently declaring "done" based on evidence that doesn't actually prove what you think it proves.
## Configuration Change Verification
When a change affects provider selection, feature flags, environment variables, or credentials:
Do not claim success based on operation success alone. Verify the **outcome reflects the intended change**.
| Change | Insufficient | Required |
|--------|-------------|----------|
| Switch API/LLM provider | Status 200 | Response contains expected provider or model name |
| Enable feature flag | No errors | Feature behavior is actually active |
| Change environment | Deploy succeeds | Logs or env vars reference the new environment |
| Set credentials | Auth succeeds | Authenticated identity or context is correct |
**Gate:**
1. Identify: what should be *different* after this change?
2. Locate: where is that difference observable? (response field, log line, runtime behavior)
3. Run: a command that shows the observable difference.
4. Verify: output contains the expected difference — not just that the operation completed.