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 HECer/yoke --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HECer/yokeWrote 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/hecer/yoke/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hecer/yoke/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/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/hecer/yoke/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/verification-before-completion.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00043 | $0.00974 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00390 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00097 |
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 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.
This is a copy
84% identical to verification-before-completion — 19 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 140 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.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you 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)
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 |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- Tired and wanting 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 |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 140 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A ea52d15aabaf
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository HECer/yoke (2 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 974 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to verification-before-completion, differing in 19 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-designing-guide
Provides test design methodology for Unity projects. Use this skill whenever designing test cases from requirements or specifications, including selecting test techniques, deriving test cases, and formatting them. Even for small features, load this skill to ensure test design rigor.
fix-bug
Diagnoses and fixes bugs using a test-first workflow (reproduce, diagnose, fix). Use this skill whenever the user reports a bug, describes unexpected behavior, or asks to investigate or fix a defect. Even if the user says "something's broken", "this isn't working", "fix this bug", or "why does X happen", load this…
plan-feature
Orchestrates the test-first implementation planning workflow for feature implementation and spec changes. Use this skill whenever plan mode is active and the task involves implementing or adding a new feature, or changing an existing specification. Even if the user only says "plan this" or "how should we implement…
refine-tests
Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the user wants to review or refine existing test code so it follows the project's test design and writing conventions. Typically invoked as /refine-tests .
test-writing-guide
Provides guidelines for writing test code for Unity projects. Make sure to use this skill whenever writing, creating, editing, or modifying test code files (files under Tests/). This includes implementing new tests, fixing test failures, adding test cases, or any task that results in test code changes. Even for small…
intuitive-tests
Audit or improve test-suite structure and signal when the user asks about redundancy, pruning, layout, fixtures, or parameterization.