Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

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

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。

verification-before-completion 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为执行命令;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 48,319。

总安装 696周安装 29GitHub Stars 1下载 232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/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

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

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。

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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents --skill verif…;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

    它需要执行命令,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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents --skill verification-be…。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。

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 696 次,近一周安装 29 次,下载 232 次,GitHub 1 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?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

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。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要执行命令,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 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。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 不能接受 Skill 在你机器上执行命令的人。
  • 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。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
verification-before-completion

完成前的验证 · 本页

6961执行命令未明确通过

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

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.

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。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