Verification Before Completion

Related Skills

• tuist-local-verification when local Tuist/Xcode verification fails due tooling/auth/lock contention noise.
• code-simplifier before completion for non-trivial code changes; default to invoking it unless the diff is already obviously minimal.

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: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
   - If YES: Run a code-shape pass on touched code
5. SIMPLIFY: Remove avoidable complexity; invoke `code-simplifier` for non-trivial code changes unless the diff is already trivially minimal
6. STRUCTURE: Refactor if code sits in the wrong file/layer/module or violates KISS, DRY, clean-code expectations
7. FALLBACK CHECK: Confirm diff does not introduce compatibility bridges, migration shims, silent fallbacks, dual-path behavior, or old-state glue unless explicitly requested and justified
8. ONLY THEN: Make the claim

Skip any step = lying, not verifying

Exit-Code Integrity (Required)

For commands wrapped by runners (just, tuist, xcodebuild) or piped through tee/rg/sed, report the real command exit and avoid mixed signals like "error code 65 + EXIT:0".

Use this pattern:

LOG=/tmp/verify-$(date +%s).log
<exact-command> > >(tee "$LOG") 2>&1
CMD_EXIT=$?
echo "EXIT:$CMD_EXIT"

Rules:

• When using an actual pipeline, enable set -o pipefail before execution.
• Never report wrapper text and a contradictory final EXIT.
• When failure is noisy, include first actionable error line(s) plus log path.
• For xcodebuild/simulator failures, separate:
  • infra/runtime failures (bootstrapping, entitlement, simulator crash)
  • test assertion failures

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 → 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 plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"

Code shape:

✅ Build/test passes → run `code-simplifier` on non-trivial touched code → relocate/refactor misplaced logic → then claim completion
❌ "Tests are green" while leaving duplication, wrong ownership, or obvious structural drift

Hard-cut policy check:

✅ Verify one canonical current-state path; fail-fast diagnostics + explicit recovery steps
✅ If temporary compatibility path exists: verify same diff documents why needed, why canonical path is insufficient, exact deletion criteria, and tracking reference
❌ Silent fallback chains, migration glue, or dual behavior carried "for safety"

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
• Cases where tests pass but touched code is still overly complex, duplicated, or misplaced

The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

Run the command. Read the output. Simplify/refactor if needed. THEN claim the result.

This is non-negotiable.