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 griffinwork40/agent-afk --skill false-completion-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/griffinwork40/agent-afkWrote 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/griffinwork40/agent-afk/false-completion-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/griffinwork40/agent-afk/false-completion-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/griffinwork40/agent-afk/false-completion-gate/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/griffinwork40/agent-afk/false-completion-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/griffinwork40/agent-afk/false-completion-gate.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00211 | $0.01268 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00084 | $0.00507 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
false-completion-gate 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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- false-completion-gate — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 29 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Sub-agent contract
/contract
This skill fires when a session (or a returning sub-agent) is about to declare a state-mutating task complete — a Done terminal state, a success summary, or a passing completion verdict. The core invariant: a completion claim must be backed by execution receipts and a fresh artifact read-back, never by the assertive language of the claim itself. Claim and evidence must be structurally separated — the base agent fuses them, narrating "done" straight from in-context memory of a tool result it never re-observed. That fusion is exactly how "silent success" propagates a false Done into downstream steps that then compound on a foundation that was never real.
Phase 1 — Claim decomposition. Before emitting the Done, decompose the pending completion into a checklist of concrete, receipt-checkable assertions. Each assertion names: (a) the deliverable ("feature X implemented", "tests green", "branch pushed"), (b) the producing action that must have fired to make it true (an Edit/Write to a specific path, a specific test command, a git push), and (c) the durable location that would prove it (file path + expected content, test-output line, commit SHA). Add a goal-substitution assertion: if the original goal was diagnostic (interrogative — "why does X", "what causes Y") but the deliverables are all implementation, the diagnostic answer is itself a required assertion — its absence is an UNBACKED completion, because the question was silently swapped for a patch.
Phase 2 — Receipts reconciliation. Dispatch one read-only reconciliation auditor (subagent_type: "awa-private:research-agent" — locked to Read/Grep/Glob; add a Bash-capable type with isolation: "worktree" only if a postcondition needs a command rerun, e.g. re-running the test). It receives ONLY the assertion checklist + the user's original goal — never the orchestrator's success narrative. For each assertion it independently establishes: ledger_match — did the producing action actually appear in this session's tool-call history? postcondition — read the durable artifact from source now (file content, fresh test output, git log/git status) and check it matches the claim. durable_location — confirm evidence is a real location, never transcript-only. The orchestrator hands the auditor this session's tool-call history as the ledger; if that history is unavailable or truncated (a hand-off, a compacted context), the auditor marks the assertion UNVERIFIABLE rather than assuming the action fired — the gate fails closed, never open. Returns a receipts table: {assertion, ledger_match: yes|no, postcondition: pass|fail|unverifiable, durable_location, verdict: BACKED|UNBACKED|UNVERIFIABLE}.
Gate verdict (merge):
- All assertions BACKED →
VERIFIED: emit the Done, attaching the receipts table as the evidence block (durable locations, not prose). - Any UNBACKED (no producing action in the ledger, or read-back contradicts the claim) →
FALSE-COMPLETION: do not emit Done. Surface the exact unbacked assertion(s) and what the read-back actually showed. - Any UNVERIFIABLE (external side-effect with no fetchable receipt) → never pass as a confident Done; surface tagged
[needs-human-review].
Phase 3 — Bounded repair. On FALSE-COMPLETION, route only the unbacked assertions to a targeted repair pass — re-execute the missing producing action or fix the failing postcondition — then re-run Phase 2 on just those assertions. Cap at 2 repair cycles. If an assertion is still UNBACKED after 2 cycles, emit a Blocked terminal state naming the exact unbacked assertion and the missing receipt — never a Done. The asymmetry is safe by construction: the gate can only ever downgrade a false Done to an honest Blocked/needs-review; it cannot manufacture a completion that wasn't real.
When to invoke: before any Done / success summary / completion verdict in state-mutating work (implementation, bug fix, refactor, migration, multi-file write, deployment) — especially when the belief that it worked rests on in-context memory of a tool result rather than a fresh read-back, or when the run spanned many steps and the early "success" was never re-observed.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 29 lines · 211 tokens per session scan A 9b0d90e150a9
false-completion-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository griffinwork40/agent-afk (61 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 211 tokens to every session and 1,268 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
verify-work
Prove that code, a script or a page you just produced actually runs — execute it, read the real output, and fix what breaks before reporting. Use after writing or changing anything executable, and whenever you are about to say something is done, working, or fixed.
agent-eval
Use when measuring whether an LLM or agent system actually got better and gating merges on it: golden sets, fixing an inflated LLM-as-judge, scoring RAG (faithfulness, contextual recall) or agent trajectories (tool correctness, completion), or picking an eval framework. NOT building the agent loop, tools or RAG…
agent-browser
Use the host-side agent-browser CLI for local browser smoke tests, screenshots, snapshots, and simple UI validation against forwarded localhost URLs.
browser-qa
Testing web apps through a real browser: reconnaissance before acting, selector discovery, state capture, console errors and screenshot evidence. Use on a web surface end to end, or to reproduce a front-end bug.
test-driven-development
Writing code with tests first: RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, reproduce bugs as failing tests before fixing, and avoid testing anti-patterns. Use when implementing behaviour, fixing a defect, or asked to add tests.
verification-before-completion
Proving work works before claiming it does: exercise the real path, read the actual output, gather fresh evidence per claim, and say what remains unverified. Use before reporting done, handing off, or posting results.