Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
Verification is stronger when it's systematic:
QA-driven verification: For features with user-facing behavior, use qa-tester
to verify correctness instead of ad-hoc manual checks. The structured test tiers
(QUICK/STANDARD/EXHAUSTIVE) ensure nothing is missed.
Pre-flight gate: Before claiming completion, run pre-flight-review to:
Retro logging: After verification, log findings to session-retro:
learnings-keeper for compounding qualitySafety during verification: When verification involves running tests that
modify data or state, consider safety-guard to prevent side effects.
Evidence chain: Every verification should produce evidence that feeds into the ship-readiness report. This creates an audit trail from plan → implementation → verification → ship.
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
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
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
Tests:
✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):
✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
Build:
✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
Requirements:
✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
Agent delegation:
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report
From 24 failure memories:
ALWAYS before:
Rule applies to:
No shortcuts for verification.
Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. Use this skill to generate semantic ARIA for Web and accessibility traits for Web and Native platforms (iOS/Android).
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Whole site or product — a full web accessibility (a11y) audit against WCAG 2.2, following the WCAG-EM methodology. Defines scope, samples representative pages and flows, runs the automated tier (`accessibility-scan`) and the hands-on manual tier (`accessibility-inspect`), and produces one conformance report. Grades each finding by severity and evidence basis, and states per-criterion conformance as pass, fail, or undetermined (needs a human). Use it for 'audit my site for accessibility', 'is this product accessible', 'a11y audit', 'WCAG or Section 508 conformance report', or any multi-page assessment. Assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`) or diff (use `accessibility-diff`). For a single page use `accessibility-scan`; for hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Regression check — diff a live page's web accessibility (a11y) violations against a baseline. By default it compares your uncommitted changes (stash-based); pass `--branch [<name>]` to compare against a branch. Reports the new WCAG violations introduced, the ones fixed, and the count of pre-existing ones. Use it for 'did my change break accessibility', 'what a11y issues did this PR add', or as a CI gate. For a full scan of one page use `accessibility-scan`; for a whole site use `accessibility-audit`.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Remediation only — repair web accessibility (a11y) violations against WCAG 2.2 with a baseline, edit, and verify loop. Takes a target (URL, files, directory) or a findings worklist from `accessibility-scan`/`accessibility-inspect`/`accessibility-audit`, applies mechanical fixes as given, leaves TODOs for visual or contextual judgment, and verifies by re-running the baseline check. It only fixes. To find issues use `accessibility-scan` (one page, automated), `accessibility-inspect` (one page, manual), or `accessibility-audit` (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions use `accessibility-diff`. Use it for 'fix the a11y issues in X', 'make this accessible', 'add missing alt text and labels', 'apply these accessibility fixes', 'remediate these violations'.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
One page, hands-on manual tier — drive a live page through the web accessibility (a11y) checks a rule engine can't decide: keyboard operation and focus order, screen-reader names, roles and states from the accessibility tree, reflow and zoom, reduced motion, form errors, and target size. Grades each finding by evidence basis (verified / confirm-with-a-human / human-required) and severity, and closes every criterion in a ledger: verified, flagged, not exercised, or N/A. Locates and assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`). Use it for keyboard testing, focus-order checks, screen-reader or a11y-tree review, reflow and zoom at 200%, or 'is this operable, not just lint-clean'. The automated tier is `accessibility-scan`; `accessibility-audit` runs both across a sampled site.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
One page, automated tier — run the web accessibility (a11y) rule engine against a live page and locate every violation it can detect mechanically. Pass a URL, a config target name (e.g. `accesslint:accessibility-scan dev`), or nothing to use the default target from `accesslint.config.json`. Ensures a debuggable Chrome, runs the @accesslint/core engine over CDP, and returns a worklist of live-DOM WCAG 2.2 violations, each grounded to its DOM selector and source `file:line`. Locates; doesn't edit. Use it for 'is this page accessible', 'check a11y on this URL', 'find contrast and alt-text issues', or to verify a UI change. For hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`; for a whole site or product use `accessibility-audit`; to diff against uncommitted changes or a branch use `accessibility-diff`.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.