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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/verification-before-completionnpx skills add JeremyDev87/codingbuddy --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JeremyDev87/codingbuddyWrote 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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/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 | $0.00038 | $0.01692 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00846 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00338 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00169 |
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 today.
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 — 235 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming success without evidence is guessing. "It should work" is not verification.
Core principle: ALWAYS run verification commands and confirm output before claiming work is complete. Evidence before assertions.
Violating the letter of these checks is violating the spirit of quality.
The Iron Law
NO SUCCESS CLAIMS WITHOUT RUNNING VERIFICATION COMMANDS
If you haven't seen passing output with your own eyes, you cannot claim it works.
No exceptions:
- Don't say "tests should pass" — run them
- Don't say "build looks fine" — build it
- Don't say "no lint errors" — lint it
- Don't say "changes look good" — diff them
When to Use
Always, before:
- Claiming work is "done" or "complete"
- Committing code
- Creating pull requests
- Closing issues
- Reporting success to teammates
- Moving to the next task
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (rushing guarantees missed issues)
- Changes seem trivial ("just a typo" can break builds)
- You've made multiple changes across files
- Refactoring existing code
- Fixing bugs (verify the fix AND no regressions)
Don't skip when:
- Change seems too small to break anything (small changes break things)
- You're confident it works (confidence ≠ evidence)
- You "already tested manually" (manual ≠ systematic)
- CI will catch it (catch it NOW, not after push)
The Four Phases
You MUST complete all four phases before claiming completion. Order matters.
Phase 1: Test Execution
Run ALL relevant tests, not just the ones you think matter.
# Run tests for affected area
npm test -- --coverage path/to/affected/
# OR
yarn test path/to/affected/
# Run full test suite if changes are cross-cutting
npm test
Verify:
- All tests pass (zero failures)
- No test warnings or errors in output
- Coverage hasn't decreased
- New code has corresponding tests
- No skipped tests you forgot to unskip
Test fails? Fix it. Do NOT proceed to Phase 2.
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.
- today First seen · 235 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A e68e49eb9c9c
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository JeremyDev87/codingbuddy (31 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,692 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…
ring:exploring-codebases
Exploring a codebase across phases: scopes the target, detects architecture, components, and layers, deep-dives each discovered perspective, then synthesizes findings into actionable guidance with file:line evidence. Use to understand how a feature or system works before planning changes, or to orient on an unfamiliar…
ring:auditing-dependency-security
Auditing a dependency for supply-chain risk before install (pip/npm/go/cargo): checks typosquatting, maintainer/age risk, vulnerability DBs (OSV, GHSA, Socket), and lockfile hash pinning, then emits a risk score and approve/conditional/escalate/block decision. Use when adding or updating a dependency, reviewing a…
ring:checking-frontend-quality
Checking frontend quality against changed UI via ring:qa-frontend in accessibility, visual, e2e, or performance mode and aggregating pass/fail verdicts. Use when a frontend change needs standalone a11y, visual-snapshot, Playwright e2e, or Lighthouse/Core-Web-Vitals validation outside the dev cycle. Skip for…
bzdesignprompt
为前端或网页设计任务选择并下载合适的 DESIGN.md 模板。当用户需要网页设计模板、UI 风格参考、设计系统、落地页或前端界面设计时,浏览长亭百智云 UI 设计模板库,根据产品场景和视觉偏好匹配模板,并将完整 DESIGN.md 保存到项目中。.
verify-quality
Verify code quality including naming conventions, organization, documentation, and general best practices. Use when asked to "verify quality", "check code quality", or "review code organization".