Verify before done

Verify Before Claiming Done

Evidence before claims. If the verification didn't run in this turn, the claim can't be made.

The gate

1. Name the command that would prove the claim.
2. Run it fresh and completely — not a remembered earlier run, not a partial subset.
3. Read the full output and the exit code.
4. Only then state the result — with the evidence, or with the actual failing state.

What each claim requires

Claim	Proof required
Tests pass	Fresh full test run with 0 failures — lint or build passing is not it
Build succeeds	Build command exits 0 — lint passing is not it
Bug fixed	The original symptom re-tested and gone
Regression test works	Red-green verified once: revert fix → test fails; restore fix → test passes
Subagent finished	Inspect the actual diff — never trust the agent's own "success" report
Requirements met	Re-read the spec/plan and check items line by line — tests passing ≠ spec met

Check the criterion, not just the run

A green check only proves what it measured. Before trusting it, ask: does passing this actually mean the work is right? A test that asserts "ran without error" passes on output that silently dropped half its input. The gate above stops you skipping verification; this stops you trusting a verification that checks the wrong thing.

The trap is loudest when a library or default does the work for you — vad_filter, pagination limits, truncation, sampling, auto-retry-then-give-up. The call "succeeds" while quietly discarding part of the result. So when the output is a transformation of an input (transcribe, scrape, convert, migrate, extract), assert on coverage, not just liveness:

• Not "got N segments" but "the N segments cover the input" — duration, word count, row count, page count in vs out.
• Diff the risky default against its alternative once (e.g. filter on vs off) to see what it actually costs you — don't assume, measure.
• If you can't state what complete output would look like, you can't yet claim the run proved anything.

Red flags

"Should work now", "probably passes", expressing satisfaction before running anything, committing without a fresh run. Asserting the pipeline ran without asserting the output is complete. Blaming a component (a filter, a default) for dropping data before reproducing it — name the cause from evidence, not a hunch. If verification fails, report the real state with the output — never optimism.