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 agentmods add skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-verification-before-completionnpx skills add christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix --skill superpowers-verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonixWrote 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/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-verification-before-completion.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00027 | $0.00866 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00433 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
superpowers-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 6d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work complete without verification = dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Break the letter = break the spirit.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
Haven't run the verification command in this message? 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) via bash
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 |
| Subagent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Subagent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags - STOP
- "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR unverified
- Trusting subagent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- "just this once"
- Tired, want 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 |
| "Subagent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words, rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 127 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 405a237c21d6
superpowers-verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix (96 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 866 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
cherry-pr-test
Test Cherry Studio PRs by resolving and checking out a PR, statically inspecting its changes, running interactive UI tests against a safely tracked Electron instance through CDP, producing a structured report, cleaning up only the owned test instance, and restoring the original branch.
springboot-tdd
Test-driven development for Spring Boot using JUnit 5, Mockito, MockMvc, Testcontainers, and JaCoCo. Use when adding features, fixing bugs, or refactoring.
e2e-testing
Playwright E2E testing patterns, Page Object Model, configuration, CI/CD integration, artifact management, and flaky test strategies.
django-tdd
Django testing strategies with pytest-django, TDD methodology, factoryboy, mocking, coverage, and testing Django REST Framework APIs.
golang-testing
Go testing patterns including table-driven tests, subtests, benchmarks, fuzzing, and test coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Go practices.
eval-harness
Formal evaluation framework for Claude Code sessions implementing eval-driven development (EDD) principles.