verification-loop
by affaan-mverification-loop is a Claude Code verification workflow for checking builds, types, lint, tests, security, and diffs after code changes. This verification-loop skill is useful before PRs and after refactors when you want a structured post-change guide instead of a generic prompt.
This skill scores 78/100. It is worth listing because it gives agents a concrete verification workflow with explicit trigger points and runnable checks, which is more actionable than a generic prompt. For directory users, that means a usable install candidate for post-change validation, though it is still somewhat broad and would benefit from tighter adoption guidance.
- Explicit when-to-use guidance for post-feature, pre-PR, refactor, and quality-gate checks.
- Concrete phase-by-phase workflow with command examples for build, type check, lint, tests, security scan, and diff review.
- Good operational clarity from code fences and structured phases, which reduces guesswork for an agent.
- Only one file and no supporting scripts/references, so the workflow is generic rather than deeply repo-integrated.
- No install command or repo/file references, which makes setup and exact triggering less discoverable for users.
Overview of verification-loop skill
What verification-loop is for
The verification-loop skill is a verification workflow for Claude Code sessions. It helps you check a change after implementation by running build, type, lint, test, security, and diff-review steps in a deliberate order instead of relying on a single generic “looks good” prompt. If you need a verification-loop skill for Verification, this is aimed at catching regressions before a PR, not planning the feature itself.
Who should install it
Use verification-loop if you regularly finish code changes and want a repeatable quality gate for JavaScript, TypeScript, or Python projects. It is most useful for agents and developers who want a structured post-change check with clear stop conditions, especially when build failures or type errors should block later steps.
What makes it different
The main value of verification-loop is its phased approach: build first, then types, then lint, then tests, then security checks, then diff review. That order matters because it reduces wasted effort and makes failures easier to isolate. The skill is also opinionated about reporting, with explicit output expectations like test counts and coverage, which makes it more decision-friendly than a vague verification prompt.
How to Use verification-loop skill
verification-loop install and setup
Install the verification-loop skill in your Claude Code environment, then open SKILL.md as the starting point. The repository is minimal, so there are no helper scripts or support folders to depend on; the skill itself is the source of truth. For verification-loop install, the practical goal is not just adding the skill, but making sure your current project has the matching build and test commands that the workflow expects.
Give the skill a concrete change context
verification-loop usage works best when you describe the exact change, the stack, and the verification commands that apply. A weak input is: “verify my code.” A stronger input is: “Verify the login refactor in this TypeScript app. Run build, tsc --noEmit, lint, and tests, then summarize failures with file names and whether the change is safe to merge.” That level of specificity helps the skill know what to check and what counts as a blocker.
Follow the phase order and stop rules
Use the phases in order and do not skip ahead when an early gate fails. If build fails, fix that before type checking; if types fail, resolve the critical errors before lint or test review. This is the core operational idea behind the verification-loop guide: it is a narrowing workflow, not a parallel checklist.
Read these files first
Start with skills/verification-loop/SKILL.md. If you are adapting the skill to a real codebase, compare its commands with your project’s package scripts and existing toolchain. Because the repo has no extra references, your next read should be the project’s own build, lint, and test definitions so you can map the skill to real commands instead of assuming npm, pnpm, ruff, or pyright are all available.
verification-loop skill FAQ
Is verification-loop only for Claude Code?
It is written for Claude Code sessions, but the underlying verification logic is broadly useful as a post-change checklist. If you are outside that ecosystem, you can still use the same sequence manually. The main reason to install verification-loop is convenience and consistency inside the Claude workflow.
Do I need a JavaScript or Python project?
No, but those are the stacks the skill names explicitly. The verification-loop skill is strongest when your project has clear commands for build, type check, lint, and tests. If your stack uses different tools, you can still use the workflow, but you will need to translate the commands yourself.
When is verification-loop not a good fit?
Skip it if you only need a one-off prompt for a tiny change, or if your repository has no meaningful build/test gates. It is also a poor fit when your codebase is too bespoke for standard verification commands and you do not want to adapt the workflow. In those cases, a custom prompt may be faster than installing a full verification-loop skill.
How does it compare with a normal prompt?
A normal prompt can ask for “run tests,” but verification-loop gives you an ordered verification loop with explicit stopping logic and reporting targets. That reduces ambiguity and makes it easier to decide whether a change is ready. The tradeoff is that you still need to supply the right project-specific commands and constraints.
How to Improve verification-loop skill
Feed it project-specific commands
The biggest quality gain comes from replacing generic commands with the ones your repo actually uses. If your project uses pnpm build, npm test, pytest, or custom scripts, tell the agent that up front. Better inputs remove guesswork and make verification-loop more reliable than a default command sequence.
Ask for failure summaries, not just pass/fail
The skill is more useful when you request a concise report with the failing step, file names, and whether the issue blocks merge. For example: “After running the loop, list build errors first, then type issues, then test failures, and mark which ones are critical.” That makes the output actionable instead of binary.
Watch for common failure modes
The most common problems are missing project commands, incomplete type-check coverage, and security scans that are too shallow for the repository. Another failure mode is asking the skill to verify a change before the code is in a stable state. verification-loop works best after implementation, when the diff is ready to be judged.
Iterate after the first run
If the first verification pass surfaces noise, tighten the scope for the next run: point to the changed files, specify the package or app directory, and clarify acceptable warnings. If the first run passes but you still distrust the change, ask for a diff review focused on risky files, edge cases, or coverage gaps. That is how verification-loop becomes a repeatable verification routine instead of a one-time checklist.