Install
$ agentstack add skill-mark393295827-third-brain-v5-skills-verify-before-claim ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README — it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming — see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps — measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Verify Before Claim
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.
Usage Template
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
- Preventing unsupported claims that code, docs, tests, or workflows are fixed, passing, complete, or working.
Expected Result
- The agent reports command output, exit code, pass/fail count, and any remaining unverified risk.
Output Example
Command: npm test,Exit code: 0,Result: 42 passed, 0 failed, plus residual risks.
Verification Case
- No completion language appears unless fresh evidence is shown in the same response.
Verified Effect
- The agent shifts from confidence-based status claims to evidence-based status reports.
Success Metrics
- A fresh verification command or inspection is run in the current session.
- Output includes command, exit code or observable evidence, result, and residual risk.
- No completion claim is made when evidence is missing, stale, or failing.
When to Use
- Before saying "done", "fixed", "complete", "passing", "working"
- Before committing or creating a PR
- Before expressing satisfaction with results
- When the user asks "is it working?"
- Any time the agent feels the urge to say "it should work"
The Gate Function
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 claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying.
Common Failures
| 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" |
Red Flags — STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to" about completion
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports without independent check
- Relying on partial verification
Expected Value Thinking (From Poker Psychology)
> "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 result
Single-Source Product Claims
Keynotes, 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.
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Rationalization Prevention
| 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 |
SOP TDD Context
This skill is the verification component of the TDD-for-SOPs approach. Before writing a new SOP:
- Define failure: What will the agent do wrong without the SOP?
- Watch it fail: Verify the baseline error exists (RED)
- Write the SOP: Address those specific failure modes
- Watch it pass: Verify the agent now complies (GREEN)
- Refactor: Close loopholes while maintaining compliance
Quality Gates
- [ ] Verification command identified and run
- [ ] Full output shown (exit code, failure count)
- [ ] Claim only made WITH evidence
- [ ] No "should", "probably", "I think" on completion status
- [ ] Vendor/demo/product claims are marked single-source unless independently verified
- [ ] Delegated user actions have mandate, receipt, and rollback evidence
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Mark393295827
- Source: Mark393295827/third-brain-v5-skills
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://github.com/Mark393295827/third-brain-v5-skills/tree/master
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.