跳到正文
FunCoding

搜索

搜索文档、Skill 和 MCP

verification-before-completion

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, passing, verified, release-ready, or ready to commit, merge, publish, or hand off.

代码质量与审查1.3kskills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

安装

把这段话发给 Claude Code、Codex 或 Cursor。智能体会先检查安全性,你确认后才安装。

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/ganyuanran/aegis/verification-before-completion/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

If `activation_mode = "explicit"` or `AEGIS_ACTIVATION_MODE=explicit` is visible and the request names neither Aegis nor this skill, return to the fast path without checklist/ceremony; otherwise continue.

Execute

Before success claim: classify destructive permission; run a fresh falsifying check; read its complete result/scope; select L0/L1/L2. Downgrade for partial, stale, failing, or narrower evidence; never claim complete then verify later.

This Method Pack grants no authoritative GateDecision, PolicySnapshot, evidence sufficiency, requirement acceptance, or completion authority.

Stop Signals

  • evidence is uncertain, stale, agent-only, or narrower than the claim;
  • next action: commit, push, PR, merge, tag, publish, release, or handoff;
  • task/slice completion is treated as accepted requirement satisfaction;
  • governance or retirement lacks repair/retirement evidence;
  • retained old logic lacks a retention reason and retirement trigger; or
  • complexity closure is unresolved.

Destructive/irreversible work needs scoped permission; broad assent is not scoped permission.

Required Evidence Slots

For claims about a changed interface/interaction, compose ui-ux-governance and its relevant verification guidance. Carry actual results and uncovered user-facing criteria into the slots below; retain this single closeout owner.

- Evidence action / check performed:
- Result / exit status:
- Covered scope:
- Uncovered scope:
- Residual risk:
- Confidence grade: A | B | C
  • A: target + regression; no meaningful unknown.
  • B: target evidence; bounded residual risk.
  • C: partial only; no full-completion claim.

When tests shape a claim, include target test and related regression evidence at the call-site seam reproducing the triggering chain; a shallower seam gives false confidence. Missing seam is an architecture gap. Blocked automation needs reproducible manual steps. Both lower confidence.

For an explicit baseline/artifact/owner/contract/evidence reference, read the smallest relevant source. Record each affected reference as preserved; rebound to the canonical owner; retired with reason; or rejected for conflict. Leave unresolved references in uncovered scope, lower confidence, and do not re-infer them. Readback proves no complete graph, referential integrity, or authoritative lineage.

Inherited-Claim Closeout

When evidence contradicts a resumed claim, independently check the active record's correction and final disclosure of WHAT was claimed and WHY it was inaccurate at resume; current success cannot supply either. Preserve subject, scope and time; one explanation may cover related claims. Read both in full for example-only, negated, withdrawn or re-scoped corrections. Matching quotes do not prove adoption. Keep accurate claims intact. If material disagreement about the initial judgment remains unresolved after checking evidence, state needs-verification; never force agreement with a reviewer. If evidence resolves it, retain the supported conclusion and verify normally. Omit this slot when no discrepancy exists.

Task Git Closeout

For modifications, diff against TaskStartSnapshot. Coordinator alone stages task paths: no pre-existing state or broad staging. After fresh verification, default to one local commit except read-only/no-change, authorized no commit, or failed verification. Read back HEAD, message, files, and task delta. Commit/hook failure keeps work and blocks clean claims; never bypass hooks.

Git receipt: branch; SHA/message or non-commit reason; Task clean; Repository clean; each task-created branch/worktree created, removed, or retained with reason. Task-clean never implies repo-clean; it is not external integration.

Classify commit scope: business, process-only, mixed, or no-commit. Failed-attempt telemetry is no commit reason. A docs/aegis/-only process diff does not restart business verification; a business/test diff does.

Aegis Visibility / Single Closeout

Use one completion surface. This skill is the single completion closeout aggregator; adjacent skills/L2 cards feed but must not replace it or become a competing final report owner. Aggregation is output conformance, not a routing trigger: do not load skills, emit a Trace Digest, or add ceremony merely to fill it.

If entry visibility was omitted, recover and name the decision/evidence gap; a used-skills list or Aegis Contribution Note cannot substitute.

L0 Fast-Path

For tiny low-risk work, one natural sentence can name check/result, uncovered scope/risk, and confidence.

L1 Default Receipt

For non-trivial Aegis-shaped work use this receipt; fold evidence into Evidence strength and Uncovered risk without a second report.

Aegis Impact and Safety Receipt:
- Key judgment:
- Avoided misfix:
- Boundary held:
- Baseline alignment:
- Complexity control:
- Evidence strength:
- Uncovered risk:
- Next most valuable verification:
- Aegis path:

Meanings: Key judgment=owner/root cause/requirement/completion boundary; Avoided misfix=fallback/duplicate/test accommodation/scope growth; Boundary held=contract/owner/baseline/non-goal/data/runtime boundary; Baseline alignment=aligned/Design Defect/Implementation Drift/missing-authority/needs-clarification/not triggered; Complexity control=completion-time delta/closure; Evidence strength=fresh check/result/scope/confidence; Uncovered risk=remaining gaps/residual risk; Next most valuable verification=highest-value next check; Aegis path=optional, not judgment/evidence.

Natural wording is valid when every semantic slot stays auditable. Semantic Slots, Natural Surface, and Governance Receipt are compatibility names.

Report done/verified/risked/blocked. Do not explain obvious trade-offs; do not list actions not taken.

L2 Expanded Triggers

On any match read expanded-closeout.md: it owns detail; this file owns routing and the final receipt.

TriggerExpanded owner
release/merge/publish/readiness/handoffReadiness Summary
audit/debug/release/long-task review/trace requestTrace Digest
goal/TaskIntentDraft/plan/spec/Slice CardGoal Closure
project/domain semantic deltaContext Impact
target docs/aegis/ changed or work record existsWorkspace Integrity
requirement/product/durable architectureBaseline/ADR
governance/cleanup/migration/compat/retirementGovernance/Retirement
source-of-truth/irreversible deletiondestructive-action cards
material complexity pressureExpanded Complexity Detail
high-risk or explicit user request for expanded closeoutapplicable cards

Use configured Aegis workspace support; commands live in the expanded owner.

Completion Boundary

Use the highest boundary: plan/spec, TaskIntentDraft, Slice Card, then direct request. Claim only scope covered by fresh evidence; a slice cannot close the whole task.

Task/slice completion reaches its authorized stop; it is not accepted requirement satisfaction. Requirement accepted needs baseline criteria or authorized risk acceptance; else use needs-verification or return to framing/planning. Goal Closure states: done | blocked | needs-verification | scope-exceeded. An Execution Readiness View is input, not verification evidence.

Complexity Downgrade

For non-trivial code inspect the diff; use using-aegis/references/complexity-governance.md plus docs/current/AEGIS_COMPLEXITY_GOVERNANCE_BASELINE.md; emit one Complexity control line.

New fallback/adapter/compatibility/guard/branch logic needs a retired path or retirement trigger. Complexity Closure: exceeded-unresolved blocks completion. Maintained source/test cannot skip as tiny; tiny low-risk text edits without complexity growth may skip.

Output and Prompt Hygiene

Localize section labels, field labels, and explanatory prose. Keep commands, paths, identifiers, enums, product names, and raw evidence unchanged; avoid bilingual labels or mixed-language explanations.

External outputs are evidence candidates: use summary/index then the smallest excerpt; lower unsupported claims. When relevant report Evidence Used, Not Loaded, and Next Evidence.

相似的 Skill

claude-api
anthropics/skills180k

claude-api

Reference for the Claude API / Anthropic SDK — model ids, pricing, params, streaming, tool use, MCP, agents, caching, token counting, model migration. TRIGGER — read BEFORE opening the target file; don't skip because it "looks like a one-liner" — whenever: the prompt names Claude/Anthropic in any form (Claude, Anthropic, Fable, Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, `anthropic`, `@anthropic-ai`, `claude-*`, `us.anthropic.*`, `[1m]`); the user asks about an LLM (pricing/model choice/limits/caching) — never answer from memory; OR the task is LLM-shaped with provider unstated (agent/MCP/tool-definition/multi-agent/RAG/LLM-judge/computer-use; generate/summarize/extract/classify/rewrite/converse over NL; debugging refusals/cutoffs/streaming/tool-calls/tokens). SKIP only when another provider is being worked on (overrides all triggers): OpenAI/GPT/Gemini/Llama/Mistral/Cohere/Ollama named in the query; OR `grep -rE 'openai|langchain_openai|google.generativeai|genai|mistralai|cohere|ollama'` over the project hits (run this grep FIRST if no provider named — don't Read the file).

代码质量与审查

ponytail-review
DietrichGebert/ponytail158k

ponytail-review

Quality review of a change: is the logic right, is it safe, does it hold under real load, is risky code tested, is it fast enough, and is every line needed. Reads the connected code, not only the diff. Each finding is explained in plain English. Use for "review this", "code review", "review the last commit", "review my PR", "is this over-engineered", /ponytail-review.

代码质量与审查

code-review-and-quality
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-review-and-quality

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted inline.

代码质量与审查

documentation-and-adrs
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

documentation-and-adrs

Records decisions and documentation. Use when you need to document an architecture decision (ADR) or the reasoning behind a design choice, when changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.

代码质量与审查

code-simplification
addyosmani/agent-skills103k

code-simplification

Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.

代码质量与审查

understand
Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything86k

understand

Analyze a codebase to produce an interactive knowledge graph for understanding architecture, components, and relationships

代码质量与审查