verification-before-completion
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. read_file: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
Common Failures
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- Tired and wanting work over
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
Key Patterns
Tests:
✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):
✅ write_file → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
Build:
✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
Requirements:
✅ Re-read_file plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
Agent delegation:
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report
Why This Matters
From 24 failure memories:
- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
When To Apply
ALWAYS before:
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
Rule applies to:
- Exact phrases
- Paraphrases and synonyms
- Implications of success
- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
The Bottom Line
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. read_file the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.
More from ibrahim-3d/conductor-orchestrator-superpowers
board-of-directors
Simulate a 5-member expert board deliberation for major decisions. Use when evaluating plans, architecture choices, feature designs, or any decision requiring multi-perspective expert analysis. Triggers: 'board review', 'get expert opinions', 'board meeting', 'director evaluation', 'consensus review'.
9conductor-orchestrator
Master coordinator for the Evaluate-Loop workflow v3. Supports GOAL-DRIVEN entry, PARALLEL execution via worker agents, BOARD OF DIRECTORS deliberation, and message bus coordination. Dispatches specialized workers dynamically, monitors via message bus, aggregates results. Uses metadata.json v3 for parallel state tracking. Use when: '/go <goal>', '/conductor implement', 'start track', 'run the loop', 'orchestrate', 'automate track'.
8eval-business-logic
Specialized business logic evaluator for the Evaluate-Loop. Use this for evaluating tracks that implement core product logic — pipelines, dependency resolution, state machines, pricing/tier enforcement, packaging. Checks feature correctness against product rules, edge cases, state transitions, data flow, and user journey completeness. Dispatched by loop-execution-evaluator when track type is 'business-logic', 'generator', or 'core-feature'. Triggered by: 'evaluate logic', 'test business rules', 'verify business rules', 'check feature'.
8executing-plans
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
7eval-integration
Specialized integration evaluator for the Evaluate-Loop. Use this for evaluating tracks that integrate external services — Supabase auth/DB, Stripe payments, Gemini API, third-party APIs. Checks API contracts, auth flows, data persistence, error recovery, environment config, and end-to-end flow integrity. Dispatched by loop-execution-evaluator when track type is 'integration', 'auth', 'payments', or 'api'. Triggered by: 'evaluate integration', 'test auth flow', 'check API', 'verify payments'.
7agent-factory
Creates specialized worker agents dynamically from templates. Use when orchestrator needs to spawn task-specific workers for parallel execution. Handles agent lifecycle: create -> execute -> cleanup.
7