Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skills --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skills/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skills/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skills/verification-before-completion/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skills/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skills/verification-before-completion.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 34 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 104 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00014 | $0.00978 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00489 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
verification-before-completion scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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.
This skill enforces mandatory verification before ANY completion claim, preventing false positives, broken builds, and trust violations.
When to Use This Skill
Activate ALWAYS before claiming:
- Success, completion, or satisfaction ("Done!", "Fixed!", "Great!")
- Tests pass, linter clean, build succeeds
- Committing, pushing, creating PRs
- Marking tasks complete or delegating to agents
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure or tired
- "Quick fix" seems obvious or confidence is high
- Agent reports success or tests "should" pass
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
Without running the verification command in this message, claiming success is not allowed.
Core Principles
- Evidence Required: Every claim needs supporting evidence
- Fresh Verification: Must verify now, not rely on previous runs
- Complete Verification: Full command, not partial checks
- Honest Reporting: Report actual state, not hoped-for state
Quick Start
The five-step gate function:
- IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
- RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
- READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
- VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
- ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying.
Key Patterns
Correct Pattern:
✅ [Run pytest] [Output: 34/34 passed] "All tests pass"
Incorrect Patterns:
❌ "Should pass now"
❌ "Looks correct"
❌ "Tests were passing"
❌ "I'm confident it works"
Red Flags - STOP Immediately
STOP when:
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 134 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A d4192e849787
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository bobmatnyc/claude-mpm-skills (75 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 978 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
verification-before-completion
Run verification commands and confirm output before claiming success.
verification-before-completion
Run verification commands and confirm output before claiming success.
Verification & Quality Assurance
Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.
Verification & Quality Assurance
Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.
PlanGate TDD Evidence Review
A checker for TDD evidence. TDD, or test-driven development, means writing a failing test before the implementation, making it pass, and then improving the code; this checker verifies records of those stages.
mk:qa
Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing, then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "test and fix", or "fix what's broken". Proactively suggest when the user says a…