Awesome-omni-skills verification-before-completion

Verification Before Completion workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency. Use when ANY variation of success/completion claims, ANY expression of satisfaction, or ANY positive statement about work state and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skills
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/verification-before-completion" ~/.claude/skills/diegosouzapw-awesome-omni-skills-verification-before-completion && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md
source content

Verification Before Completion

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/verification-before-completion
from
https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json
plus
ORIGIN.md
as the provenance anchor for review.

Verification Before Completion

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: The Iron Law, The Gate Function, Red Flags - STOP, Rationalization Prevention, Key Patterns, Why This Matters.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

  • 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

Operating Table

SituationStart hereWhy it matters
First-time use
metadata.json
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path before touching the copied workflow
Provenance review
ORIGIN.md
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source
Workflow execution
SKILL.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
SKILL.md
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package
Handoff decision
## Related Skills
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

  1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
  2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
  3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
  4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
  5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
  6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
  7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: 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.

Imported: 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.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @verification-before-completion to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @verification-before-completion against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @verification-before-completion for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @verification-before-completion using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

  • Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
  • Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
  • Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
  • Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
  • Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
  • Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/verification-before-completion
, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open
metadata.json
,
ORIGIN.md
, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Load only the files that materially change the answer, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md
, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Imported Troubleshooting Notes

Imported: Common Failures

ClaimRequiresNot Sufficient
Tests passTest command output: 0 failuresPrevious run, "should pass"
Linter cleanLinter output: 0 errorsPartial check, extrapolation
Build succeedsBuild command: exit 0Linter passing, logs look good
Bug fixedTest original symptom: passesCode changed, assumed fixed
Regression test worksRed-green cycle verifiedTest passes once
Agent completedVCS diff shows changesAgent reports "success"
Requirements metLine-by-line checklistTests passing

Related Skills

  • @trpc-fullstack
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
  • @trust-calibrator
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
  • @turborepo-caching
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
  • @tutorial-engineer
    - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Resource familyWhat it gives the reviewerExample path
references
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream
references/n/a
examples
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream
examples/n/a
scripts
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation
scripts/n/a
agents
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package
agents/n/a
assets
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package
assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: 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: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim

Skip any step = lying, not verifying

Imported: 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

Imported: Rationalization Prevention

ExcuseReality
"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

Imported: 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"

Agent delegation:

✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report

Imported: 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."

Imported: The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.

This is non-negotiable.

Imported: Limitations

  • Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
  • Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
  • Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.