The body is largely lean (tables, checklists, command blocks, minimal prose) with no padding of concepts Claude knows, but the change-type table in Step 2 and the per-project checklists restate overlapping verification actions, so it could be tightened.

It provides real executable commands (npm run build, node -e require(...), curl endpoints, python script.py --test), a change-type-to-method decision table, and a copy-paste verification report template — concrete and runnable, well above pseudocode.

The 4-step protocol (Identify → Determine method → Execute → Report) is clearly sequenced, but Step 3 lacks an explicit run→fail→fix→re-verify feedback loop, and the rubric caps workflow clarity at 2 for verification/destructive contexts without that retry loop.

No bundle files exist and the body references no external files; the single-purpose content is cleanly sectioned (Core Principle, Protocol, Checklists, Anti-Patterns, Integration) and appropriately self-contained with no nested references.

The description names the domain (code verification) and method ("Verification through execution rather than inspection") but frames it as a principle rather than enumerating multiple concrete actions like "run builds, execute tests, hit endpoints".

It explicitly answers both what ("Prove code works by running it") and when ("Use after writing or modifying code"), with an explicit trigger clause rather than merely implied timing.

"Use after writing or modifying code" is a usable trigger, but the description field omits the natural user phrasings ("does this work?", "test this", "verify") that appear only in the separate when_to_use field.

The "not just checking it exists" framing carves a niche, but "verify code works" can plausibly overlap with testing-patterns skills (which the body itself integrates with).