CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

verification-before-completion

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

78

1.22x
Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

92%

1.22x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-structured behavioral skill that clearly communicates a verification-before-claiming workflow with good use of tables and examples. Its main weakness is that it's somewhat repetitive across sections (Red Flags, Rationalization Prevention, and Common Failures overlap) and the examples use placeholder commands rather than concrete executable ones. The philosophical framing, while motivating, adds token cost without proportional instructional value.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'Red Flags', 'Rationalization Prevention', and 'Common Failures' sections into a single reference table to reduce redundancy and save tokens.

Replace placeholder commands in Key Patterns (e.g., '[Run test command]') with concrete examples like 'pytest tests/ -v' or 'npm test' to improve actionability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy — the 'Rationalization Prevention' table largely restates the 'Red Flags' section, and the 'Common Failures' table overlaps with 'Key Patterns'. The motivational framing ('dishonesty, not efficiency', 'lying, not verifying') adds emphasis but also tokens. Some tightening is possible.

2 / 3

Actionability

The Gate Function provides a clear 5-step process, and the Key Patterns section shows good/bad examples. However, the examples use placeholder commands rather than executable ones (e.g., '[Run test command]' instead of actual commands), and the guidance is more behavioral/philosophical than concrete. It tells Claude what to do conceptually but lacks copy-paste-ready verification snippets.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Gate Function is a clear, sequenced workflow with an explicit validation checkpoint (step 4's if/then branching). The regression test pattern includes a proper red-green feedback loop. The 'When To Apply' section clearly defines trigger conditions. The workflow handles error recovery (state actual status with evidence if verification fails).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

For a standalone skill with no bundle files, the content is well-organized with clear section headers, tables for quick scanning, and a logical flow from principle → process → examples → application triggers. The length is appropriate for inline content without needing external references.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description effectively communicates a behavioral guardrail skill — verify before claiming success. Its strongest aspect is completeness, with clear 'what' and 'when' clauses. However, it lacks specific concrete actions (what verification commands?) and the trigger terms are more oriented toward Claude's internal decision-making than natural user language, which limits its effectiveness for skill selection in a large pool.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete verification actions such as 'run tests, check linting, build the project, run type checks' to improve specificity.

Include more natural user-facing trigger terms like 'tests passing', 'build succeeds', 'ready to merge', 'ship', 'deploy' to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a domain (verification before claiming completion) and some actions ('running verification commands and confirming output'), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'run tests', 'check linting', 'build project', or 'run type checks'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (requires running verification commands and confirming output before making success claims) and 'when' (when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs). The 'Use when' clause is explicit and well-defined.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant terms like 'complete', 'fixed', 'passing', 'committing', 'creating PRs', and 'verification commands', but misses common natural user phrases like 'tests', 'CI', 'build', 'lint', 'deploy', or 'ship it'. The terms are more about Claude's internal behavior than user-facing trigger words.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The concept of 'verification before completion' is somewhat distinct, but 'running verification commands' and 'before committing or creating PRs' could overlap with git workflow skills, CI/CD skills, or testing skills. The behavioral/meta nature helps distinguish it somewhat, but the boundaries aren't crisp.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
lucianghinda/superpowers-ruby
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.