VerifySAFE

Teams-first Multi-agent orchestration for Claude Code

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: verify
description: Verify that a change really works before you claim completion
---

# Verify

Use this skill when the user wants confidence that a feature, fix, or refactor actually works.

## Goal
Turn vague “it should work” claims into concrete evidence.

## Workflow
1. Identify the exact behavior that must be proven.
2. Prefer existing tests first.
3. If coverage is missing, run the narrowest direct verification commands available.
4. If direct automation is not enough, describe the manual validation steps and gather concrete observable evidence.
5. Report only what was actually verified.

## Verification order
1. Existing tests
2. Typecheck / build
3. Narrow direct command checks
4. Manual or interactive validation

## Rules
- Do not say a change is complete without evidence.
- If a check fails, include the failure clearly.
- If no realistic verification path exists, say that explicitly instead of bluffing.
- Prefer concise evidence summaries over noisy logs.

## Output
- What was verified
- Which commands/tests were run
- What passed
- What failed or remains unverified

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.