verify-before-claim — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited verify-before-claim (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.
Prompt
Use verify-before-claim. Before saying this is done, identify the proof command, run it fresh, read the output, and state the actual status with evidence.Use Case
Expected Result
Output Example
Command: npm test, Exit code: 0, Result: 42 passed, 0 failed, plus residual risks.Verification Case
Verified Effect
BEFORE claiming any status:
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 claimSkip any step = lying, not verifying.
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check |
| Build succeeds | Build exit code 0 | "Looks good" |
| Bug fixed | Reproduce original symptom: passes | "I changed the code" |
| Tests added | New tests exist + old tests still pass | "Tests should work" |
| Vendor/product claim | Official docs, changelog, or independent source; otherwise mark single-source | Keynote/demo statement alone |
| Agent can act for user | Mandate, tool log, preview/confirmation, receipt, rollback path | "User asked generally" |
| Generated media is safe/provenanced | Source/prompt/edit record and disclosure or watermark path | "Looks AI-generated" |
"The biggest bluff is convincing yourself you have control when you don't." — Maria Konnikova
Apply to verification:
| Poker Concept | Verification Application |
|---|---|
| Expected Value (EV) | Don't just check if it works now; check if it will work reliably |
| Controllable vs Uncontrollable | Focus on what you can verify; acknowledge what you can't |
| Tilt Control | Don't let excitement about "it works!" skip verification |
| Process over Results | Good verification process > lucky outcome |
The verification mindset:
1. Separate what you CAN verify from what you CAN'T
- CAN: Code compiles, tests pass, output matches expected
- CAN'T: Edge cases, production behavior, user experience
2. Focus on EXPECTED VALUE, not single results
- "Tests pass once" ≠ "Tests will pass reliably"
- "Works in my environment" ≠ "Works in all environments"
3. Be skeptical of success
- Good decisions can have bad outcomes
- Bad decisions can have good outcomes
- KEY: Evaluate the PROCESS, not just the resultKeynotes, launch posts, demos, and roadmap statements can be useful evidence, but they are not enough for operational guidance. When the only source is a vendor statement:
Status: single-source
Source type: keynote / launch post / docs / independent test
Operational risk:
What must be verified next:Do not turn a demo into a guarantee. Treat availability, scale numbers, benchmark claims, payment protocols, security properties, and adoption figures as unverified until checked.
The Biggest Lesson from Poker:
"Knowing when to fold is more important than knowing when to play."
In verification: Knowing when to say "I'm not sure" is better than claiming "it works" without evidence.
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Different context so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
This skill is the verification component of the TDD-for-SOPs approach. Before writing a new SOP:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.