Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

verification-before-completion(完成前的验证)

verification-before-completion 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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。

verification-before-completion 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 20,588。

总安装 218周安装 9GitHub Stars 16下载 71核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso
仓库路径:skills/verification-before-completion
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso --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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso --skill verification-before-completion

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

verification-before-completion 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息。适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理。

通过 npx skills add 命令从指定仓库安装并使用该技能。安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。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。

来源仓库内路径:skills/verification-before-completion

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso --skill verificat…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

verification-before-completion 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso --skill verification-before…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

verification-before-completion 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

verification-before-completion 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

verification-before-completion 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

verification-before-completion 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 218 次,近一周安装 9 次,下载 71 次,GitHub 16 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

verification-before-completion 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
verification-before-completion

完成前的验证 · 本页

21816需要联网未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Verification Before Completion

Discipline for proving work is done rather than asserting it. Every completion claim must be backed by captured output from verification commands executed in the current session. This skill exists because the most expensive bugs are not the ones that fail loudly — they are the ones that ship behind a confident "it works."

Iron Law

No "done" without evidence. Assertions are not evidence.

If you have not run a verification command and read its output in this session, you cannot claim the work passes. "Should work" is not a status. "I believe it's correct" is not a test result. The only acceptable proof is captured output from an executed command.

Why This Matters

False completion is more costly than incomplete work. Incomplete work is visible — someone will finish it. False completion is invisible — it passes review, merges, deploys, and fails in production. Every minute spent on proper verification saves hours of debugging, rollback, incident response, and trust repair. The cost of catching a defect multiplies by orders of magnitude at each stage: local development, code review, staging, production. Verify early, verify often, verify with evidence.

Core Principles

PrincipleMeaning
Evidence over assertionA claim is only as strong as the output backing it. No output, no claim.
Fresh over staleOnly verification run in the current session counts. Previous runs prove nothing about current state.
Complete over partialRunning one test file does not verify the suite. Running the linter does not verify the build. Each check covers its own surface.
Captured over rememberedPaste the output. Do not summarize from memory. Memory lies.
Exit code over log linesA command that prints "OK" but exits non-zero has failed. Always check the exit code.
Automated over manualA reproducible command beats "I checked it manually" every time.

Tiered Definition of Done

Work passes through multiple tiers before it is truly done. Each tier has its own evidence requirements. See done-definitions for the full breakdown.

TierWhat It MeansMinimum Evidence
Local doneWorks on the development machineTests pass, linter clean, type checker clean, build succeeds — all with captured output
Review-ready doneSafe for a peer to evaluateLocal done + changes committed, PR description matches actual changes, no untracked files
Merged doneAccepted into the main branchReview-ready done + CI pipeline green, reviewer approved, no merge conflicts
Deployed doneRunning in a target environmentMerged done + deployment command succeeded, health check returns expected status
Verified-in-production doneConfirmed working for real usersDeployed done + smoke tests pass against live environment, key metrics stable, no new errors in logs

The Verification Cycle

Run this cycle before every completion claim.

Phase 1: Identify Verification Surface

Determine what needs to be verified based on what changed.

  • List every file modified, added, or deleted
  • Map each change to its verification category (code, config, schema, docs, infra)
  • Identify the minimum set of commands that covers all changed surfaces
  • If unsure what to verify, verify everything — over-verification costs minutes, under-verification costs hours

Phase 2: Run Verification Commands

Execute every required command. Do not skip any.

  • Run commands in the project root unless they require a specific directory
  • Use the project's own scripts and configuration — do not invent custom verification
  • Run the full suite, not a subset, unless the full suite takes more than 5 minutes (then run targeted + note that full suite is deferred)
  • Capture both stdout and stderr

Phase 3: Capture Output

Record the raw output from every command.

  • Include the exact command that was run
  • Include the full output (or the summary section for large outputs)
  • Include the exit code
  • Timestamp is implicit in the current session — do not fabricate timestamps

Phase 4: Compare to Expected

Verify that the output matches success criteria.

  • All tests pass (zero failures, zero errors, zero skipped unless pre-existing)
  • Zero lint errors (zero warnings for strict projects)
  • Type checker reports zero errors
  • Build exits with code 0 and produces expected artifacts
  • If any check fails, the work is NOT done — fix the issue and restart from Phase 2

Phase 5: Cite Evidence in Claim

Reference the captured output when claiming completion.

  • State which commands were run
  • State the result of each (pass count, exit code, key output lines)
  • If any caveats exist (pre-existing failures, skipped checks, known issues), state them explicitly
  • Never use language that hides uncertainty — see Language to Avoid

What Counts as Evidence

See evidence-patterns for the complete reference.

Evidence (valid)Non-evidence (invalid)
Test runner output: 42 passed, 0 failed"Tests should pass"
Linter output: 0 errors, 0 warnings"I ran the linter" (no output shown)
Build log ending with exit code 0"The build looks fine"
HTTP response: 200 OK with expected body"The endpoint works"
Type checker: Found 0 errors"Types are correct"
Deployment log: Successfully deployed v2.3.1"I deployed it"
Diff showing expected file changes"I made the changes"
Screenshot of UI in expected state"The UI looks right"

Verification by Task Type

Different changes require different verification. See verification-checklist for complete checklists per task type.

Task TypeRequired Checks
Code changeTests, linter, type checker, build
Configuration changeValidation command, application startup, affected feature smoke test
Database/schema changeMigration runs forward, migration rolls back, application starts, affected queries work
Infrastructure changeDeployment succeeds, health checks pass, smoke tests pass, rollback tested
Documentation changeLinks resolve, code examples execute, formatting renders correctly
Dependency updateLock file updated, install succeeds, full test suite passes, build succeeds
Bug fixFailing test reproduced the bug BEFORE fix, test passes AFTER fix, regression suite clean

Common Fake-Completion Patterns

See failure-modes for the full catalog.

PatternWhy It Fools PeopleWhat Actually Happened
Compile-checked, not run"It compiles" feels like progressSyntax is valid but logic is wrong — runtime behavior untested
Partial test run"Tests pass" is technically true — for the 3 you ranThe other 200 tests might be broken by your change
Stale cacheOutput looks rightYou are seeing cached results from before your change
Mocked-out integrationUnit tests passThe real service returns a different format than your mock
Wrong environment"Works on my machine"Config, data, or dependencies differ in staging/production
Exit code ignoredLog output looks normalThe command actually returned non-zero — it failed
Self-reported success"I verified it"No output captured, no command shown, no evidence provided
Premature celebration"It works!" after the first positive signalOne passing test does not mean the feature is complete

Language to Avoid

Banned PhraseWhy It FailsPreferred Alternative
"Should work"Prediction, not evidence"Ran npm test, exit code 0, 47/47 passed"
"I believe it's correct"Belief is not verification"Type checker reports 0 errors"
"Looks good"Visual impression, not a test"Linter output: 0 errors, 0 warnings"
"I ran it"Claim without output"Ran pytest -v, output: 23 passed in 1.4s"
"It's working now"Status without proof"Health check returns 200, response body contains expected fields"
"I tested it"Vague, unverifiable"Ran go test./..., 156 tests passed, 0 failed"
"Everything passes"Unsubstantiated universal claim"CI pipeline green: lint, type-check, test, build — all exit 0"
"Fixed"Conclusion without evidence"Failing test now passes. Regression suite: 312/312 green."
"Done" (alone)Completion without criteria"All verification checks pass. See output above."

Quality Checklist

Before claiming any work is complete:

  • All modified files are identified
  • Verification commands are identified for each change type
  • Every verification command has been run (not recalled from memory — run fresh)
  • Output from every command is captured and visible
  • All tests pass with zero failures
  • Linter reports zero errors
  • Type checker reports zero errors (if applicable)
  • Build succeeds with exit code 0 (if applicable)
  • No untracked or uncommitted files that should be included
  • No language from the "Language to Avoid" table appears in the completion claim
  • Any caveats, known issues, or deferred checks are explicitly stated
  • Evidence is cited, not asserted

Critical Rules

  1. Run before you claim. Every verification command must be executed in the current session. Output from a previous session, a previous branch, or a previous version of the code is not evidence.
  2. Capture everything. Paste output, do not paraphrase it. "Tests pass" is a claim. "Ran cargo test, 89 passed, 0 failed" is evidence.
  3. Check exit codes. A command that prints friendly output but exits non-zero has failed. Always verify the exit code, not just the log output.
  4. Full suite, not cherry-picked. Run the complete test suite, not just the tests for the file you changed. Your change may break something elsewhere.
  5. No self-certification. "I verified it" without captured output is worth zero. The evidence must be visible to anyone reading the completion claim.
  6. Caveats are mandatory. If any check was skipped, any test was ignored, or any known issue remains, state it explicitly. Hidden caveats are lies by omission.
  7. Failures mean not done. If any verification command fails, the work is not complete. Fix the failure and re-run. There is no "done except for that one failing test."
  8. Fresh over stale. If you made any change after the last verification run — even a one-character fix — re-run all verification. The last change is the one that breaks things.
  9. Verification is not optional overhead. It is the work. Code without verification is a draft, not a delivery.
  10. When in doubt, verify more. Over-verification wastes minutes. Under-verification wastes days.

Reference Files

ReferenceContents
verification-checklistStep-by-step checklists by task type: code, config, schema, infra, docs, dependency updates
evidence-patternsWhat counts as evidence vs. what does not. Concrete examples across stacks.
failure-modesCatalog of fake-completion patterns: how agents and humans skip verification and get away with it (temporarily)
done-definitionsMulti-tiered definition of done from local to production-verified, with evidence requirements per tier

Integration with Other Skills

SituationRecommended Skill
Writing tests before implementationtesting
Systematic bug investigation before claiming fixdebugging
Reviewing code quality after verification passesrefactoring
Writing PR description after all checks passpr-message-writer
Ensuring CI pipeline covers all verification tierscicd
Checking security implications before marking donesecurity
Verifying performance impact of changesperformance

平台分布

Codex

35.25%
按下载量换算25

Claude

29.01%
按下载量换算21

Cursor

17.34%
按下载量换算12

Gemini CLI

9.2%
按下载量换算7

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

未通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills