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 jamditis/claude-skills-journalism --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jamditis/claude-skills-journalismWrote 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/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/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/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/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 | $0.00026 | $0.01061 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00531 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00212 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00106 |
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 5d 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
81% identical to verification-before-completion — 30 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 — 149 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
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 5d ago First seen · 149 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A bf8d6f615a6a
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository jamditis/claude-skills-journalism (389 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,061 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to verification-before-completion, differing in 30 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ieee-experiments
Design and audit IEEE communications simulation and numerical-results sections for JSAC, TWC, TCOM, WCL, and CL. Covers benchmark schemes, Monte-Carlo protocol, BER/SER/outage/rate/EE metrics, SNR/antenna/user sweeps, analysis-vs-simulation validation, convergence and complexity, learning-based evaluation, ISAC…
java-code-review
Review Java code for bugs, duplicate code, correctness risks, maintainability improvements, and missing tests. By default review files modified in git; when the user explicitly names files, classes, packages, or a diff, review that scope instead. Generate a detailed review.md report with actionable comments and fixes.
incremental-python-programmer
Takes a Python repository and natural language feature description as input, implements the feature with proper code placement, generates comprehensive tests, and ensures all tests pass. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Add new features to existing Python projects, (2) Implement functions, classes, or modules based on…
behavior-preservation-checker
Compare runtime behavior between original and migrated repositories to detect behavioral differences, regressions, and semantic changes. Use when validating code migrations, refactorings, language ports, framework upgrades, or any transformation that should preserve behavior. Automatically compares test results…
specification-driven-generation
Generate implementation code and tests from written specifications. Use when the user provides specifications (natural language descriptions, formal specs, requirements documents, API specs) and asks Claude to implement the described functionality. Supports data structures, algorithms, classes, functions, and includes…
lsp-refactoring
Intelligent code refactoring using IDE-level tools (rename, find-references, go-to-definition), AST-aware pattern matching, and TDD verification. Use for safe, large-scale refactoring with precision.