Use when claiming 'done', suggesting a commit, push, or PR — runs the evidence gate so completion claims come from fresh output in this message, not memory or earlier runs.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add event4u-app/agent-config --skill verify-completion-evidence --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Verify Completion Evidence?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/event4u-app-verify-completion-evidence-agent-config)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
model_tier: medium
name: verify-completion-evidence
description: "Use when claiming 'done', suggesting a commit, push, or PR — runs the evidence gate so completion claims come from fresh output in this message, not memory or earlier runs."
personas:
- production-validator
domain: quality
workspaces:
- engineering
packs:
- engineering-base
---
# verify-completion-evidence
## When to use
* Just before claiming a task, feature, fix, or refactor is complete
* Just before proposing `/commit`, `/create-pr`, or pushing
* Before answering "is it ready?", "can I merge?", "does it work?"
* After a sequence of edits, when next step would be reporting to the user
* Whenever the wording "should work", "looks good", "probably fine" is
about to appear in a reply
Do NOT use when:
* Still actively editing — run targeted tests, not the full gate
* Pure documentation changes with no executable impact
* The user explicitly asks for a draft / exploration, not a final answer
## Goal
Make every completion claim **traceable to captured output from this
message**. No claim survives unless the command that proves it was run
and its output was read inside the current turn.
## The Iron Law
```
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH EVIDENCE IN THIS MESSAGE.
```
"I already ran it earlier in the conversation" does not count. Earlier
runs are stale the moment another edit lands.
## Procedure
### 1. Identify the claim you are about to make
Examples: *"all tests pass"*, *"this is ready for PR"*, *"the refactor
is done"*, *"the bug is fixed"*.
Each claim maps to a specific verification command. Write down the
mapping before running anything:
| Claim | Evidence command |
|---|---|
| "tests pass" | full or targeted test suite |
| "no static errors" | project's type-checker on changed scope (PHPStan, `tsc --noEmit`, mypy / pyright, `go vet`, `cargo check`) |
| "style is clean" | project's linter + formatter (ECS / Prettier / ESLint / Ruff / Black / gofmt / rustfmt) |
| "no automated refactor pending" | project's auto-refactor dry-run if one exists (Rector for PHP — otherwise skip this row) |
| "endpoint works" | curl / Postman / integration test output |
| "UI renders" | Playwright snapshot or manual browser check |
| "bug is fixed" | regression test passes |
### 2. Run the command fresh
* Run against the current working tree, not a cached summary.
* If the project runs commands inside a container or VM (Docker, Devcontainer, Vagrant), run them there — not on the host. See [`docker`](../docker/SKILL.md) and [`/tests:execute`](../../domains/engineering-base/tests/execute/command.md).
* Use targeted runs during iteration (`--filter=`, `--testNamePattern`).
Run the full suite only in the final verification pass.
### 3. Read the full output
* Check the exit code.
* Count failures, errors, warnings.
* Do not rely on the last line — scroll through the output for
deprecations, skipped tests, silent retries.
### 4. Match output against the claim
Ask: *"Does this output actually support what I am about to say?"*
* 248/250 tests passed with 2 skipped → do not say "all green"; name the skips.
* Type-checker exit 0 but only analyzed one file → do not say "no static
errors"; name the scope that was checked.
* `curl` returned 200 → check the body, not just the status.
### 5. Only then make the claim
Reference the evidence: *"Tests: 250/250 passed. Type-checker: 0 errors
on the changed scope."* — not *"everything looks good"*.
## The end-of-work sequence
**Gate zero:** when `quality.local_auto_run` is `false` or missing (the
default), steps 2–3 below do NOT run — the user runs quality tools
manually and remote CI is the authoritative gate (see
[`quality-tools` § Execution policy](../quality-tools/SKILL.md)). Run
only the narrowest probe the claim needs (step 1, a `curl`, a syntax
check on the edited file) and close with *"quality gates delegated to
remote CI"* — never a pass claim for tools that did not run. The full
sequence applies when `local_auto_run: true`:
1. **Targeted tests** — the test(s) covering the changed code pass.
2. **Full test suite** — only after targeted pass is green.
3. **Static analysis pipeline** — run the project's type-checker → auto-refactor dry-run (if any) → linter / formatter → type-checker (second pass catches issues the refactor / formatter may have introduced).
4. Fix any output from steps 1–3 and restart the sequence.
5. Only then: claim completion or suggest `/commit`, push, or PR.
Do not run the full quality pipeline between intermediate edits — it burns time and tokens. Use it once, at the end.
→ For the **exact PHP commands** (PHPStan → Rector → ECS → PHPStan): see [`quality-tools`](../quality-tools/SKILL.md).
→ For TS / JS, Python, Go, Rust pipelines: the project's `Taskfile.yml` / `package.json scripts` / `Makefile` is the source of truth — read it before improvising.
## Minimum evidence per task type
| Task type | Required evidence |
|---|---|
| Code change (logic) | Targeted tests + project's type-checker on changed scope |
| New feature | Tests (new + suite) + type-checker + smoke check (curl / UI / integration probe) |
| Bug fix | Regression test (RED → GREEN) + full suite |
| Refactoring | Full suite + type-checker + auto-refactor dry-run if available |
| Config / env change | Relevant command or service output (not just file diff) |
| Migration | Migration run output + rollback dry-run + tests |
| API endpoint | HTTP response body + status + content-type |
| Frontend component | Rendered state (Playwright or manual) + unit tests |
| Documentation only | No verification needed |
**Never accept** as proof: "should work", "looks correct", "the logic
is sound", "compiles" (unless compilation itself is the contract).
## Output format
When reporting completion to the user:
1. **What was changed** — one line summary per changed file / component
2. **Verification run** — the exact command and its exit code
3. **Result** — numeric breakdown (tests passed/failed/skipped, errors,
warnings)
4. **Caveats** — anything the output flagged but you chose to accept
5. **Untracked files** — if `git status --short` shows any untracked
files in the working tree, list them verbatim in the report. This
prevents silently-shipped artefacts (logs, scratch scripts, ad-hoc
notes) from disappearing into a future commit. Empty list means
omit the section.
6. **Next step** — e.g. "Ready for `/commit`" or "Awaiting review"
## Gotchas
* A "no output" result from a linter is not proof it ran — check the
exit code and the analyzed-file count.
* Silencing a warning with `@phpstan-ignore-next-line`, `// @ts-expect-error`, `# type: ignore`, or `//nolint`
without a reason code passes the linter but defers the real problem.
* Running tests with `--stop-on-failure` then reporting "passed" — it
only ran until the first failure; the green streak after it is
unexamined.
* Cached static-analysis results (`--cache` directories) can report
clean after you have broken something; clear the cache when the
change is large.
* Running the test suite on the wrong branch (forgot to switch or
rebase) — verify `git status` and `git log -1` before the final gate.
* A previously green static-analysis run in the same conversation is stale as
soon as any edit lands. Run it again.
## Red flags — STOP and run the gate
* About to write "done", "ready", "works", "passes" without a
command-output reference in the same message
* About to suggest `/commit` / push / PR without a verification block
* Relying on an earlier-in-conversation test run
* Partial evidence (tests green, type-checker / linter not run — or vice versa)
* "The failing test is unrelated, let me skip it" — verify first, then
decide
* Reporting a green run by paraphrasing instead of quoting exit code
and counts
## Do NOT
* Do NOT claim completion without running the mapping command in this
message
* Do NOT trust a summary written earlier in the conversation
* Do NOT suppress warnings or skip tests to pass the gate
* Do NOT report only the last line of output — read the whole thing
* Do NOT run the full quality pipeline between intermediate edits —
and under `quality.local_auto_run: false` (the default) do NOT run
it at the end either; remote CI is the gate
## When to hand over to another skill
* Exact PHP quality commands (PHPStan / Rector / ECS) → [`quality-tools`](../quality-tools/SKILL.md)
* Running tests inside a container / VM → [`/tests:execute`](../../domains/engineering-base/tests/execute/command.md)
* Writing the regression test that the gate requires →
[`test-driven-development`](../test-driven-development/SKILL.md)
* Diagnosing why the gate failed → [`systematic-debugging`](../systematic-debugging/SKILL.md)
* Committing once the gate is green → [`git-workflow`](../git-workflow/SKILL.md)
## Validation checklist
Before sending a completion message:
* [ ] Every claim in the message maps to a command run in this turn
* [ ] Exit code of each command is read and matches the claim
* [ ] Output is quoted with numeric counts, not paraphrased
* [ ] No warnings or skips are hidden
* [ ] Targeted tests green → full suite green → quality pipeline clean
(`local_auto_run: true` only; under the default `false` state
"quality gates delegated to remote CI" instead)
* [ ] `git status` reflects only the intended change set
* [ ] If `git status --short` shows untracked files, the report lists
them verbatim under "Untracked files"
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!