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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/verification-before-completionnpx skills add naimkatiman/continuous-improvement --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/naimkatiman/continuous-improvementWrote 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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/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 5.1 | $0.00043 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00427 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00085 |
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.
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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Overview
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.
- today Changed · -19 lines 2befe7fc55bc
- 3d ago First seen · 140 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A ea52d15aabaf
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository naimkatiman/continuous-improvement (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 854 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
ap-policies
Attach a completion policy gate (shell check or judge-agent rubric) to a session or fan-in group so turn-end only passes when the gate is green, then optionally auto-commit pending human ack. Use when the user says "gate this session on tests passing", "attach a policy", "commit only if tests are green", "judge…
ml-verify
Use when the user wants to verify code, config, or math before running — or proactively before any expensive training job or deployment.
verify
Run real verification — tests, type checks, and linting.
golang-testing
Go testing best practices including table-driven tests, test helpers, benchmarking, race detection, coverage analysis, and integration testing patterns. Use when writing or improving Go tests.
verification-loop
A comprehensive verification system for Claude Code sessions. Use when verifying a Claude Code session's work before claiming it is complete.
mem0-test-integration
Verify a Mem0 integration produced by /mem0-integrate. Runs in the same workspace on the same branch (loose coupling) — installs dependencies, runs the repo's native test suite, then exercises a real end-to-end smoke flow against the user's API key. Produces a scorecard. TRIGGER when: user has just run /mem0-integrate…