Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Asymmetric-al/core --skill verify-this --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Verify This?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/asymmetric-al-verify-this-51ea9e71)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: verify-this
description: "Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE."
---
# Verify This
Verification is not a recap. It proves or disproves a specific claim with repeatable evidence.
## When To Use
- The user asks "verify this", "prove it works", "did this fix it", or "show me the evidence".
- A bug fix needs a before/after repro.
- A UI, CLI, API, performance, or memory claim needs measurement.
- A test passes but the user-visible behavior still needs confirmation.
Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner". Ask for a measurable claim first.
## Workflow
1. Restate the claim in falsifiable form: condition, metric, and threshold.
2. Pick the smallest local surface that can disprove it.
3. Capture a baseline from the old state: merge base, parent commit, failing branch, or current broken repro.
4. Capture treatment from the changed state with the same command, data, warmup, and environment.
5. Compare raw artifacts: numbers, screenshots, terminal transcripts, HTTP responses, profiles, heap snapshots, or test output.
6. Return exactly one verdict: `VERIFIED`, `NOT VERIFIED`, or `INCONCLUSIVE`.
## Local Surfaces
- Code behavior: focused unit/integration tests or a minimal repro script.
- CLI/TUI behavior: `control-cli`, terminal transcript, or demo recording.
- UI behavior: `control-ui`, screenshots, accessibility snapshots, or browser traces.
- API behavior: local HTTP/RPC request and response diff.
- Performance: same-machine baseline/treatment timings or CPU profiles.
- Memory: heap snapshots before and after the suspected operation.
## Artifact Layout
When safe to write artifacts:
```text
/tmp/verify-this/<claim-slug>/
├── claim.md
├── timeline.md
├── baseline/
├── treatment/
├── diff/
└── verdict.md
```
If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the user agrees to disk storage.
## Verdict Rules
- `VERIFIED`: baseline and treatment differ in the predicted direction, by the claimed threshold, with no obvious confound.
- `NOT VERIFIED`: the behavior is unchanged, moves the wrong way, or misses the threshold.
- `INCONCLUSIVE`: no valid baseline, noisy signal, failed measurement, or an environment difference invalidates the comparison.
## Output
Use this shape:
```text
VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE
Claim: <falsifiable claim>
Evidence:
<metric/artifact>: baseline=<...>, treatment=<...>, delta=<...>, threshold=<...>
Reasoning:
<one tight paragraph naming the evidence and any confounds>
```
Do not soften a negative result. A clear `NOT VERIFIED` is useful.

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!