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 mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex --skill verification-before-completion-codexgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codexWrote 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/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex/verification-before-completion-codex)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex/verification-before-completion-codex"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex/verification-before-completion-codex.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 5.1 | $0.00046 | $0.01053 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00526 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
verification-before-completion-codex 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 7d 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
86% identical to verification-before-completion — 26 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 — 145 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 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.
- 7d ago First seen · 145 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 8bbda695b565
verification-before-completion-codex is a skill published in the GitHub repository mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex (7 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,053 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to verification-before-completion, differing in 26 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-gates
Runs the mechanical quality gates that the arcgentic state machine requires for state transitions. Invoked indirectly by transition.sh OR directly by orchestrator agent before declaring a state transition. Use when about to call transition.sh OR when manually verifying that a round artifact meets the gate criteria.…
auto-loop
TDD-based autonomous development loop with checkpoint recovery and observability changelog.
workflow
Run the complete 5-step development workflow: focus problem → prevent over-development → test-first (TDD) → document → smart commit. Use when starting a new feature, or when the user runs /workflow or asks for the full development flow.
test-runner
Test execution reference: framework detection (pytest/jest/vitest/go/cargo/junit) and correct run/coverage commands, plus failure-analysis steps. Use when running tests, analyzing test failures, or verifying coverage after code changes.
test-first
Drive one feature through a strict TDD Red-Green-Refactor cycle with checklists for each phase. Use when implementing new functionality test-first, or when the user runs /test-first.
linked-intent-dev
Guide for linked-intent development (LID). Consult for ALL code changes. Walks changes through a mode-aware six-phase workflow (HLD → LLD → EARS → intent-narrowing edge audit → tests-first → code) with mandatory stops between each phase. Bugs walk the arrow like any other change — no short-circuit. Enforces cascade…