team-shinchan:verification-before-completion

Verification-Before-Completion Gate

Never claim a task is complete without running a verification command and reading its output. "I believe it works" is not evidence.

Verification Checkpoints

You MUST verify at each of these triggers:

1. Before commits -- run tests/linter, confirm pass
2. Before PR creation -- run full validation suite, confirm zero errors
3. Before task completion -- run the specific success criteria commands from the task plan
4. Before moving to next task -- confirm current task's tests still pass after any late edits

Required Evidence

Every completion claim must include:

• Command: The exact command you ran (copy-paste, not paraphrased)
• Output: The actual output (or relevant excerpt for long output)
• Verdict: PASS or FAIL based on the output

If you cannot provide all three, you have NOT verified. Go back and run the command.

Red Flags List

If your completion report contains ANY of these phrases, you have NOT verified -- STOP and actually run a command:

Red Flag Phrase	What To Do Instead
"should work"	Run the test and show it passes
"probably fine"	Run the linter/build and show zero errors
"seems to"	Read the actual output and report what it says
"looks correct"	Run a validator or test that proves correctness
"I believe"	Replace belief with evidence -- run a command
"likely"	Remove doubt -- execute and observe
"I think"	Verify instead of thinking
"no issues expected"	Prove it -- run the check

Verification Template

Use this format in your completion report:

### Verification
- **Command**: `node tests/validate/index.js`
- **Expected**: All validators pass, 0 errors
- **Actual**: 23 validators passed, 0 errors, 0 warnings
- **Verdict**: PASS

If the verdict is FAIL, fix the issue before claiming completion. Do not report a task as done with a FAIL verdict.

Gate-enforced (glucofit / main-075 adoption). At Stage 4, this ## Verification section (in IMPLEMENTATION.md, or a standalone VERIFICATION.md) carrying a Verdict: PASS is now a hard prerequisite for status: completed — hooks/transition-gate.sh blocks completion without it. One row per REQUESTS.md acceptance criterion, exercised against REAL behavior (the built-in verify/run skill for runnable surfaces; the AC check command for non-runnable ones). An UNVERIFIED AC blocks completion. This closes the "구현 다 하고 QA하면 엉망" hole where self-graded checklists passed as done.

Fierce-review as code-review evidence

At the before-PR and before-completion checkpoints, an APPROVED fierce-review artifact satisfies the code-review evidence requirement (it is a schema-validated, adversarially-verified rubric pass — stronger than a single read-through). If .shinchan-docs/reviews/REVIEW-{NNN}.json exists for the current scope with verdict.verdict == "APPROVED" and an empty must_fix, cite it:

• Command: /team-shinchan:fierce-review <scope>
• Artifact: .shinchan-docs/reviews/REVIEW-{NNN}.json
• Verdict: APPROVED (rubric {total}/{max_total}, 0 must_fix)

A REJECTED artifact, a non-empty must_fix, or a stale one (scope no longer matches the current diff) is NOT evidence — re-run the review. This does not replace the test/build evidence above; it adds the review dimension.

Typed Evidence Receipts (main-075 benchmark adoption)

Completion/verification MAY additionally require a typed evidence receipt — a machine-rejectable record proving the right kind of evidence exists for the surface that changed. This is a conceptual port (MIT↔MIT) of an ultragoal-style completion gate: prose claims ("it works", "looks correct") are insufficient; the receipt is validated by src/evidence-receipt.js. This is additive guidance, not a hard mandatory gate — the existing exit-0 verify gate (src/dag-executor.js) keeps working unchanged. Adopt receipts where stronger, surface-specific proof is warranted (e.g. GUI work where an exit code alone proves little).

Carrier: the natural carrier is the same .shinchan-docs/reviews/REVIEW-{NNN}.json artifact used above — embed the receipt object under a receipt key.

Surface taxonomy (WS-06) — each surface demands a different machine-checkable evidence shape (validateEvidenceReceipt rejects with a specific reason per failed rule):

surface	Required surfaceEvidence / refs
gui	{ automationTranscript, screenshotRef }
cli	{ replaySafe: true, command, recordedStdout }
native	{ ptyCaptureRef } or { screenshotRef }
api	at least one artifactRefs[] entry
math	at least one artifactRefs[] entry

A complete receipt also needs contractCoverage (a number in [0,1]) and a non-empty adversarialCases array (at least one adversarial/red-team case) — a "complete" verdict requires proof the work survives hostile input, not just the happy path.

Freshness-scoping: receipts carry a scope hash. isReceiptFresh(receipt, currentScopeHash) returns false when the goal/spec changed (receipt.scope !== currentScopeHash) — stale evidence is NOT evidence. Re-capture the receipt when scope moves.

Integration point: a gate that wants this stronger proof can call validateEvidenceReceipt(receipt) and isReceiptFresh(receipt, scopeHash) and treat { valid:false } or a stale receipt the same way it treats a REJECTED review — block until re-captured. Wiring this into src/dag-executor.js's completion gate is OPTIONAL and must remain backward-compatible (receipt absent ⇒ fall back to the existing exit-0 verify gate).