Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索执行命令github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

verification-before-completion完成前的验证

Agent Skill

verification-before-completion 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

696

周安装

29

GitHub Stars

1

下载量

232
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:verification-before-completion(完成前的验证)
来源仓库:https://github.com/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents
仓库路径:skills/verification-before-completion
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents --skill verification-before-completion
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents --skill verification-before-completion

简介

verification-before-completion 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。

  • 适用于完成前验证相关的信息搜集与筛选,可结合来源仓库和原始 README 核验具体用法。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需确认权限范围和维护状态。
  • 安装前建议确认是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写等操作边界。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

Overview

The verification-before-completion skill is the terminal checkpoint for every task in the toolkit. It enforces a strict 5-step protocol that requires running fresh verification commands, reading their full output, and confirming results match the completion claim. Without this skill, agents make unverified claims that lead to broken code in production — with it, every completion claim is backed by evidence.


Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.

You cannot say "it works," "it's done," "the bug is fixed," or "the feature is complete" without running verification commands and reading their output in this session. Cached results, previous runs, and assumptions do not count.


Phase 1: Identify Verification Commands

Before running anything, explicitly list what needs to pass for this specific task:

Verification TypeExample CommandsWhen Required
Unit testsnpm test, pytest, go test./..., cargo test, php artisan testAlways
Integration testsnpm run test:integration, pytest tests/integration/When applicable
Type checkingtsc --noEmit, mypy., pyright, phpstan analyseWhen project uses type checking
Lintingeslint., ruff check., golint./..., php-cs-fixer fix --dry-runAlways
Buildnpm run build, cargo build, go build./...Always
Format checkprettier --check., black --check., gofmt -l., pint --testWhen project uses formatters

Action: List which of these apply to the current project. Not all projects have all types. Be explicit about what you will run and why.

STOP: Do NOT proceed to running commands until you have identified ALL applicable verification types.

Phase 2: Run Commands Fresh

Execute every verification command identified in Phase 1.

RuleRationale
Run AFTER the latest code changePre-change results are stale
Run the FULL suite, not a subsetSubset runs miss regressions
Do NOT rely on cached resultsCode changed since last run
Do NOT skip commands because "they passed earlier"Earlier is not now
If a command takes >5 minutes, note itExplain what was run instead
STOP: All commands must complete before proceeding to Phase 3.

Phase 3: Read Full Output

Read the entire output of each verification command. Pay attention to:

Output ElementWhat to Look ForWhy It Matters
Exit codeNon-zero = failureEven if output looks ok, non-zero means something failed
Test countExpected number of tests ran? Any skipped?Skipped tests = untested code
Warning messagesNew warnings not present beforeWarnings become errors; they indicate degradation
Deprecation noticesDeprecated API usageFuture breakage risk
Performance indicatorsUnusually slow testsMay indicate performance regression
Error messagesAny error, even if tests "pass"Some frameworks report errors alongside passing tests
STOP: Do NOT proceed if you have not read the full output of every command.

Phase 4: Verify Output Matches Claim

Ask yourself these questions. ALL must be "yes" to proceed:

QuestionIf "No" or "Unsure"
Do ALL tests pass (not just the ones I wrote)?Fix failing tests before claiming done
Does the build succeed without errors?Fix build errors
Does the type checker find no errors?Fix type errors
Does the linter pass?Fix lint errors
Are there any NEW warnings that were not there before?Investigate and fix or explicitly justify
Did the full suite run (not just a subset)?Run the full suite
Is the test count what I expected?Investigate skipped or missing tests
STOP: If ANY answer is "no" or "unsure", go back to fix and restart from Phase 1. Do NOT proceed to Phase 5.

Phase 5: Claim Completion with Evidence

Only now may you say the task is complete. Include this evidence:

VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
=====================
Task: [what was being done]
Date: [timestamp]

Commands Run:
  [x] Tests:      [command] -> [result: X passed, Y failed, Z skipped]
  [x] Build:      [command] -> [result: success/failure]
  [x] Lint:       [command] -> [result: X errors, Y warnings]
  [x] Type-check: [command] -> [result: X errors]
  [x] Format:     [command] -> [result: clean/X files to format]

All Green?  [x] YES  [ ] NO
New warnings introduced?  [ ] YES  [x] NO

Completion claim: [specific claim, e.g., "Feature X is implemented and all tests pass"]
STOP: This is the end of the verification protocol. Only claims with this evidence are valid.

Decision Table: What Counts as "Fresh" Evidence

Counts as FreshDoes NOT Count as Fresh
Ran command after the latest code changeRan before the latest code change
Full test suite executedSubset of tests executed
Output read and analyzedOutput skimmed or ignored
All verification types runOnly tests run (no lint, no build)
Command run in current sessionRecalled from memory of a previous session
Actual command output available"I remember it passed"

Decision Table: Edge Cases

SituationProtocol
Full suite takes >5 minutesRun related tests + smoke suite. Note that full suite was not run. Recommend CI run before merge.
No automated tests existNote as significant risk. Perform manual verification with documented steps. Recommend adding tests as follow-up. At minimum, verify code compiles/runs.
Tests are flakyRe-run failing test in isolation. If it passes alone, note flakiness. Verify your changes did not introduce it. Do NOT use flakiness as excuse to skip.
Only config changeConfig changes are #1 cause of outages. Full verification required.
Single line changeOne-line changes cause production outages. Full verification required.
Refactoring onlyExisting tests must still pass. Run full suite.

Common Failure Patterns

PatternWhat HappensWhy It Is Dangerous
Tests pass but lint failsCode works but has quality issuesLint failures often indicate real problems (unused vars, unreachable code)
Tests pass but build failsTest environment differs from buildProduction deployments will fail
Tests pass but type-check failsRuntime works but types are wrongBugs hiding behind any types, wrong interfaces
Tests pass in isolation but fail togetherShared state between testsFlaky CI, unreliable test suite
Manual testing passes but automated failsManual test missed edge casesThe automated test is right
Tests pass but new warnings appearedSomething degradedWarnings become errors over time
Subset of tests passOnly ran related testsRegression in unrelated area possible
Tests pass but coverage decreasedNew code is not testedUntested code is unverified code
Old test run used as evidenceResults are staleCode changed since that run
"It compiled, so it works"Compilation is necessary but not sufficientCompiled code can still be wrong

Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes

What NOT to DoWhy It FailsWhat to Do Instead
Claim done without running testsUnverified code breaks in productionRun all verification commands fresh
Use "it passed earlier" as evidenceCode changed since thenRun fresh after every change
Skip lint because "it is just warnings"Warnings indicate real problemsFix warnings or explicitly justify each one
Run only the tests you wroteMisses regressions in other areasRun the full suite
Read test output partiallyMissed failures hidden in outputRead every line of output
Use manual testing as sole evidenceManual testing is incomplete and unrepeatableRun automated verification
Verify once, then make "small" additional changesThose changes are unverifiedRe-verify after every change
Suppress warnings without commentHides real issuesIf truly false positive, add suppression comment explaining why

Anti-Rationalization Guards

ExcuseReality
"I only changed one line"One-line changes cause production outages. Verify.
"The tests passed 5 minutes ago"You made changes since then. Run them again.
"I have tested this pattern before"This is a different instance. Verify this specific one.
"The change is obviously correct"Obvious changes fail more often because they are not verified.
"Running tests takes too long"Not running tests takes longer when the bug reaches production.
"I will verify after I submit"You will not. And if verification fails, you will undo and redo.
"It is just a config change"Config changes are the #1 cause of outages. Verify.
"The linter warnings are false positives"Review each one. Suppress with comment if truly false.
"The type errors are in unrelated code"They might interact. Run the full check.
"I tested it manually"Manual testing is incomplete and unrepeatable. Run automated verification.
Do NOT claim completion without Phase 5 evidence. There are zero exceptions.

Integration Points

SkillWhen Verification Is Required
test-driven-developmentAfter completing RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle for a feature
systematic-debuggingAfter applying a bug fix
executing-plansAfter each task and after each batch
subagent-driven-developmentAfter implementer delivers (via Agent tool), after reviewers approve
code-reviewBefore approving any code review
resilient-executionBefore marking any task as complete
autonomous-loopBefore setting EXIT_SIGNAL to true
finishing-a-development-branchBefore merge or PR creation

Integration Flow

[Do the work using other skills]
    |
    v
[Think you are done?]
    |
    v
[Invoke verification-before-completion]
    |
    +-- All checks pass -> Claim completion with Phase 5 evidence
    |
    +-- Any check fails -> Fix and re-verify (do NOT claim completion)

Enforcement by Other Skills

This skill is invoked by ALL other skills at completion time. It is not optional. It is a terminal checkpoint — called at the end of work, never at the beginning.


Skill Type

RIGID — The 5-step protocol is a HARD-GATE. Every step must be executed in order. No step may be skipped. No completion claim is valid without Phase 5 evidence. Do not relax these requirements for any reason.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

38.35%
按下载量换算89

Claude

30.03%
按下载量换算70

Cursor

17.97%
按下载量换算42

Gemini CLI

9.3%
按下载量换算22

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 npx skills add https://github.com/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents --skill verification-before-completion 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills