adversarial-reviewer
Review code through three hostile personas - the Saboteur, the New Hire, and the Security Auditor - each required to find at least one issue. Use when a…
Gate every "it works / it's fixed / tests pass / done" claim behind fresh evidence — run the actual verifying command, read its output, and only then state the result. Use before committing, opening a PR, marking a task complete, handing off to or trusting a subagent, or
$ npx -y skills add KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill verify-completion --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/verify-completionContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Gate every "it works / it's fixed / tests pass / done" claim behind fresh evidence — run the actual verifying command, read its output, and only then state the result. Use before committing, opening a PR, marking a task complete, handing off to or trusting a subagent, or
name: verify-completion description: Gate every "it works / it's fixed / tests pass / done" claim behind fresh evidence — run the actual verifying command, read its output, and only then state the result. Use before committing, opening a PR, marking a task complete, handing off to or trusting a subagent, or otherwise asserting that work succeeded.
Don't claim work is done, fixed, or passing unless you've just run the thing that proves it and read the output. Saying it's complete when you haven't checked isn't optimism — it's reporting something you don't know to be true, and it breaks trust the moment it turns out wrong.
**No completion claim without fresh verification.** If you haven't run the verifying command in this turn, you can't say it passes. "Should pass now", "I'm confident", "the logs looked fine" are not evidence — they're the feelings that precede unverified claims.
Before stating any status, or even expressing satisfaction ("great", "perfect", "done"):
1. **Identify** the command that would prove the claim. 2. **Run** it — the full command, fresh, start to finish. Not a partial check, not a remembered result from earlier. 3. **Read** the whole output: exit code, failure count, warnings. 4. **Decide.** Does the output actually confirm the claim? If not, state the real status with the evidence. If so, state the claim *with* the evidence.
Skipping any of these steps turns a verification into a guess.
| Claim | What proves it | What does *not* | |---|---|---| | Tests pass | A fresh test run showing 0 failures | A previous run; "should pass" | | Linter clean | Linter output, 0 errors | A partial check; extrapolating | | Build succeeds | Build command, exit 0 | Linter passing; logs "looking good" | | Bug fixed | The original symptom retested and gone | The code changed, so it's "probably fixed" | | Regression test works | Watched it fail before the fix, pass after | It passes once now | | Requirements met | A line-by-line pass over the requirements | Tests passing | | Subagent finished | The actual diff / output inspected | The subagent reporting "success" |
A linter passing doesn't mean it compiles. A subagent saying "done" doesn't mean it did the work — check the diff. A regression test that's only ever passed hasn't been shown to catch anything; verify it fails without the fix, then passes with it.
Different phrasing doesn't exempt you — a paraphrase that implies the work is done is still a completion claim.
Run the command. Read the output. *Then* make the claim. There's no shortcut that preserves the honesty of the statement.
Reusable Claude Code extension registry. skills, subagents, slash commands, and hooks for engineering, git, testing, and security workflows. Distributed as a shadcn GitHub registry and as installable plugins.
Repo: KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude
Review code through three hostile personas - the Saboteur, the New Hire, and the Security Auditor - each required to find at least one issue. Use when a…
Review an API contract (REST or GraphQL) before or while it is implemented, checking resource naming, HTTP semantics, status codes, error shape, pagination,…
Process code-review feedback with technical rigour — understand each point, check it against the actual codebase, and respond with reasoning or implementation…
Author a new subagent for this repository end to end by scaffolding it with pnpm new, curating its tool allowlist, setting model, color, and memory in…
Author a new slash command for this repository end to end by scaffolding it with pnpm new, writing the frontmatter and argument handling, drafting the prompt…
Author a new Claude Code hook for this repository end to end by scaffolding it with pnpm new, writing the hook script and its settings.json wiring, documenting…