Verify completion
Skill KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude/.claude-plugin/plugins/engineering/skills/verify-completion
Reusable Claude Code extension registry. skills, subagents, slash commands, and hooks for engineering, git, testing, and security workflows. Distributed as a shadcn GitHub registry and as installable plugins.
npx -y skills add KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill verify-completionAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 4 stars4 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Gate every "it works / it's fixed / tests pass / done" claim behind fresh evidence — run the actual verifying command, read its output, and only then state the result. Use before committing, opening a PR, marking a task complete, handing off to or trusting a subagent, or otherwise asserting that work succeeded.
SKILL.md
3.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Don't claim work is done, fixed, or passing unless you've just run the thing that proves it and read the output. Saying it's complete when you haven't checked isn't optimism — it's reporting something you don't know to be true, and it breaks trust the moment it turns out wrong.
The one rule
No completion claim without fresh verification. If you haven't run the verifying command in this turn, you can't say it passes. "Should pass now", "I'm confident", "the logs looked fine" are not evidence — they're the feelings that precede unverified claims.
The gate
Before stating any status, or even expressing satisfaction ("great", "perfect", "done"):
- Identify the command that would prove the claim.
- Run it — the full command, fresh, start to finish. Not a partial check, not a remembered result from earlier.
- Read the whole output: exit code, failure count, warnings.
- Decide. Does the output actually confirm the claim? If not, state the real status with the evidence. If so, state the claim with the evidence.
Skipping any of these steps turns a verification into a guess.
What each claim actually requires
| Claim | What proves it | What does not |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | A fresh test run showing 0 failures | A previous run; "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output, 0 errors | A partial check; extrapolating |
| Build succeeds | Build command, exit 0 | Linter passing; logs "looking good" |
| Bug fixed | The original symptom retested and gone | The code changed, so it's "probably fixed" |
| Regression test works | Watched it fail before the fix, pass after | It passes once now |
| Requirements met | A line-by-line pass over the requirements | Tests passing |
| Subagent finished | The actual diff / output inspected | The subagent reporting "success" |
A linter passing doesn't mean it compiles. A subagent saying "done" doesn't mean it did the work — check the diff. A regression test that's only ever passed hasn't been shown to catch anything; verify it fails without the fix, then passes with it.
Red flags — stop before you claim
- Reaching for "should", "probably", "seems to."
- About to say "great" / "perfect" / "done" before running anything.
- About to commit, push, or open a PR without a fresh check.
- Taking a subagent's success report at face value.
- Leaning on a partial or earlier run.
- "Just this once" / "I'm tired, close enough."
- Any wording that implies success when you haven't run the proof.
Different phrasing doesn't exempt you — a paraphrase that implies the work is done is still a completion claim.
The bottom line
Run the command. Read the output. Then make the claim. There's no shortcut that preserves the honesty of the statement.