false-completion-gate

A completion check for tasks that change files or other state. It breaks a claim that work is finished into specific assertions and checks each one against an observable result.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it before declaring an implementation complete to verify the changed files, test output, commits, or other required evidence.
Why use it?
It catches cases where an agent says a change is done even though the file edit, test run, or other required action did not actually happen.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/griffinwork40/agent-framework/false-completion-gate
Any agent
npx skills add griffinwork40/agent-framework --skill false-completion-gate
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/griffinwork40/agent-framework

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 211 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,268 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 100% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00211 $0.01268
Opus 5 $0.00105 $0.00634
Sonnet 5 $0.00042 $0.00254
Haiku 4.5 $0.00021 $0.00127

Measured 2d ago against content hash 9b0d90e150a9, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 2d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

100% identical to false-completion-gate — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

skills/false-completion-gate/SKILL.md · 29 lines

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 BACKEDVERIFIED: 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.

Read the full file on GitHub · 29 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 29 lines · 211 tokens per session scan A 9b0d90e150a9

Subscribe to this mod's changes

false-completion-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository griffinwork40/agent-framework (23 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 211 tokens to every session and 1,268 once invoked, about $0.0011 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to false-completion-gate, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

brainstorming

You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.

obra/superpowers · 37 tokens

auto-perf-optimize

Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.

microsoft/vscode · 62 tokens

chat-perf

Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.

microsoft/vscode · 51 tokens

chat-pet-sprite-creation

Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.

microsoft/vscode · 53 tokens

cpu-profile-analysis

Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…

microsoft/vscode · 71 tokens