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 tranhieutt/software_development_department --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_departmentWrote 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/tranhieutt/software_development_department/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/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/tranhieutt/software_development_department/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/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 | $0.00048 | $0.01530 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00765 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00153 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Purpose
Prevent false completion claims. A task is not done because the code looks right, an agent reported success, or a previous command passed. A task is done only when fresh evidence verifies the exact claim being made.
This is a completion gate, not an implementation workflow. It runs after the relevant work and before any statement that implies success.
Iron Law
No completion claim without fresh verification evidence.
Do not say the work is done, fixed, passing, safe, ready, merged, clean, or complete unless the current turn contains evidence from the relevant command, file check, diff review, or manual verification note.
Trigger Phrases
Use this skill before saying or implying:
- "done", "complete", "finished"
- "fixed", "resolved", "working"
- "tests pass", "build passes", "lint is clean"
- "ready", "safe", "clean", "merge-ready"
- "implemented", "task complete", "all set"
- "the agent completed it"
- "I can commit", "I opened the PR", "ready to merge"
If the wording suggests success, this gate applies.
Workflow
1. Identify the Claim
Write the claim as a concrete sentence:
Claim: <specific completion or success statement>
Examples:
Claim: Task 2 satisfies all approved acceptance criteria.Claim: The regression test proves the checkout hydration bug is fixed.Claim: The skill metadata validates with zero required failures.
2. Choose the Proof
Map the claim to the smallest sufficient proof:
| Claim type | Required proof |
|---|---|
| Tests pass | Fresh test command output and exit status |
| Build passes | Fresh build or typecheck output and exit status |
| Lint clean | Fresh lint output and exit status |
| Bug fixed | Reproduction or regression test proving the original symptom no longer occurs |
| Regression test valid | RED/GREEN evidence, or equivalent proof that the test fails without the fix |
| Requirements met | Checklist against the approved spec/plan, with any gaps called out |
| Agent completed work | Inspect changed files or diff, then run the plan's verification |
| Merge/PR ready | Tests/build required by project plus review of changed-file scope |
| Documentation updated | File exists, relevant sections changed, links or generated indexes verified |
| Prose quality verified | Fresh style-review scorecard, or an explicit statement that style review was skipped |
| Manual/visual outcome | Exact manual check, environment, viewport/artifact, and observed result |
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 · 173 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 67cb37b1f064
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository tranhieutt/software_development_department (72 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,530 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
playwright-cli
Automates browser interactions for testing and validating your own web applications using playwright-cli. Use when you need terminal-first browser control for navigation, form filling, screenshots, tracing, bound browser sessions, debugging, or generating Playwright test code. Only use against applications you own or…
execute
Dispatch and execute implementation plans with TDD and checkpoints. Use when plan is ready. Parallel by default for independent tasks.
tdd
Strict test-driven development for behavior changes. Requires verified RED before production code, minimal GREEN, and refactor only after passing tests.
verify
Fresh verification gate before claiming done, fixed, passing, ready, or before commit/PR. Evidence before claims, always.
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
integration
Run integration and e2e tests after unit tests pass. Use after /supergraph:fix when unit tests are green.