---
name: verify-this
description: "Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE."
---
## OpenAI runtime contract

Read [the adapter contract](../../references/runtime-contract.md) before this workflow. It maps provider selection, agent calls, loops, persistent state, history, verification, and authorization. That contract supersedes Cursor-specific execution syntax and unverified model fallbacks below; the engineering steps remain required. Use native tools in the current host by default. Cloud uses its available OpenAI models. No remote laptop connection, server URL or MCP setup is permitted. Optional local CLI adapters require explicit environment-local selection. Do not claim cross-provider diversity for OpenAI-only review.


# Verify This

Verification is not a recap. It proves or disproves a specific claim with repeatable evidence.

## When To Use

- The user asks "verify this", "prove it works", "did this fix it", or "show me the evidence".
- A bug fix needs a before/after repro.
- A UI, CLI, API, performance, or memory claim needs measurement.
- A test passes but the user-visible behavior still needs confirmation.

Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner". Ask for a measurable claim first.

## Workflow

1. Restate the claim in falsifiable form: condition, metric, and threshold.
2. Pick the smallest local surface that can disprove it.
3. Capture a baseline from the old state: merge base, parent commit, failing branch, or current broken repro.
4. Capture treatment from the changed state with the same command, data, warmup, and environment.
5. Compare raw artifacts: numbers, screenshots, terminal transcripts, HTTP responses, profiles, heap snapshots, or test output.
6. Return exactly one verdict: `VERIFIED`, `NOT VERIFIED`, or `INCONCLUSIVE`.

## Local Surfaces

- Code behavior: focused unit/integration tests or a minimal repro script.
- CLI/TUI behavior: `control-cli`, terminal transcript, or demo recording.
- UI behavior: `control-ui`, screenshots, accessibility snapshots, or browser traces.
- API behavior: local HTTP/RPC request and response diff.
- Performance: same-machine baseline/treatment timings or CPU profiles.
- Memory: heap snapshots before and after the suspected operation.

## Artifact Layout

When safe to write artifacts:

```text
/tmp/verify-this/<claim-slug>/
├── claim.md
├── timeline.md
├── baseline/
├── treatment/
├── diff/
└── verdict.md
```

If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the user agrees to disk storage.

## Verdict Rules

- `VERIFIED`: baseline and treatment differ in the predicted direction, by the claimed threshold, with no obvious confound.
- `NOT VERIFIED`: the behavior is unchanged, moves the wrong way, or misses the threshold.
- `INCONCLUSIVE`: no valid baseline, noisy signal, failed measurement, or an environment difference invalidates the comparison.

## Output

Use this shape:

```text
VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE
Claim: <falsifiable claim>

Evidence:
<metric/artifact>: baseline=<...>, treatment=<...>, delta=<...>, threshold=<...>

Reasoning:
<one tight paragraph naming the evidence and any confounds>
```

Do not soften a negative result. A clear `NOT VERIFIED` is useful.