---

name: skill-verification-gate description: "Use when about to declare work complete, fixed, passing, or done" disable-model-invocation: true

Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than /octo:* slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, see skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.

Verification Gate

Portable feature evidence

Load the selected feature's policy provenance and open-marker count through the existing boundary adapter. Cite the exact policy passage and conflicting plan action for any verified policy violation. Report unresolved decisions and which tasks depend on them. Stable task completion needs parent verification tied to the current task-contract digest; a checkbox, model claim or historical manifest alone cannot prove completion. Retain result-to-task mappings through correction, cancellation and resume.

The Iron Law

If you haven't run the verification command in this turn, you cannot claim it passes.

The Gate

Before claiming any success or expressing satisfaction:

1. IDENTIFY — What command proves this claim?
2. RUN — Execute the full command (fresh, not cached)
3. READ — Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY — Does output actually confirm the claim?
5. ONLY THEN — State the claim WITH evidence

Skip any step = the claim is unverified.

Rationalization Table

Excuse	Reality
"I ran the tests earlier this session"	Earlier is not fresh. Code changed since. Run again.
"The edit was trivial, it can't break anything"	Trivial edits break builds daily. The gate has no size exemption.
"The subagent reported success"	Agent reports are claims, not evidence. Verify independently.
"CI will catch it anyway"	CI is the safety net, not the verification. Verify before push.
"I'm confident this works"	Confidence is not evidence. Run the command.
"Running the full suite is slow"	Then run the targeted suite — but run something, fresh.

What Counts as Evidence

Claim	Requires	NOT Sufficient
Tests pass	Test command output showing 0 failures	Previous run, "should pass"
Build succeeds	Build command exit 0	Linter passing
Bug fixed	Reproduce original symptom: now passes	"Code changed, should work"
Regression test works	Red (fail without fix) → Green (pass with fix)	Test passes once
Subagent completed task	git diff shows expected changes	Subagent says "done"
Requirements met	Line-by-line checklist against spec	Tests passing
Provider dispatch worked	Output contains expected content	No error ≠ success

Red Flags — STOP and Verify

If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP:

Thought	What to do instead
"Should work now"	Run the verification
"I'm confident"	Confidence ≠ evidence
"Just this once"	No exceptions
"The linter passed"	Linter ≠ tests ≠ build
"The agent said it worked"	Verify independently
"It's a small change"	Small changes cause big bugs

Multi-Provider Context

In Claude Octopus workflows, verification is especially critical because:

• Provider outputs can be hallucinated — Codex, Antigravity, Copilot, and other providers may claim success without evidence
• Consensus ≠ correctness — three models agreeing doesn't mean they're right
• Synthesis files may be stale — check timestamps, don't assume freshness
• orchestrate.sh exit code 0 ≠ quality — the script ran, but did it produce good output?

After any multi-provider workflow:

# Verify synthesis file exists and is recent
ls -la ~/.claude-octopus/results/*-synthesis-*.md | tail -1

# Verify it has content (not just headers)
wc -l ~/.claude-octopus/results/*-synthesis-*.md | tail -1

When to Apply

ALWAYS before:

• Committing code
• Creating PRs
• Marking tasks complete
• Moving to next workflow phase
• Reporting results to user
• Claiming a bug is fixed

In orchestrate.sh workflows:

• After probe (discover) — verify synthesis file exists
• After grasp (define) — verify consensus score meets threshold
• After tangle (develop) — verify tests pass, not just that code was written
• After ink (deliver) — verify review actually ran, not just that it was dispatched

Examples

Correct: Evidence-Based Claim

$ npm test
  ✓ user.create() saves to database (45ms)
  ✓ user.create() validates email (12ms)
  Tests: 2 passed, 2 total

All 2 tests pass. ← Claim backed by output.

Incorrect: Claim Without Evidence

I've implemented the feature. It should work now. The tests should pass.
← No test was run. "Should" is not evidence.

Correct: Regression Test Red-Green

1. Write test → run → FAIL (expected, proves test detects the bug)
2. Implement fix → run → PASS (proves fix works)
3. Revert fix → run → FAIL (proves test isn't false-positive)
4. Restore fix → run → PASS (final confirmation)

Integration with Other Skills

This skill is referenced by:

• flow-develop.md — verification gate after implementation
• flow-deliver.md — verification gate before delivery
• skill-code-review.md — verify review findings before reporting
• skill-tdd.md — red-green cycle requires evidence at each step
• skill-factory.md — autonomous pipeline must verify at every phase