Documentation verification

Reading a guide cannot establish that its commands work. Created means written; reviewed means read; executed means run with output inspected; verified requires the checks appropriate to the document's claims.

Match verification to the document

For a source-backed map, architecture report or data document, check its schema and citations against current file bytes, ranges and hashes. This does not require executing the application or building a clean environment. Use existing checks or a read-only inline validator, such as python3 -B -c 'CODE' (not a heredoc); do not write check_*.py beside the project or in shared /tmp. Do not import project modules merely to validate source facts. Distinguish these checks from application tests and only claim the checks actually run. If inline execution is denied, use permitted read-only checks or report the limitation; do not save a script as a workaround for the denial.

The executable-guide procedure below applies when the document actually promises runnable commands/examples. User scope still controls which steps are permitted. Necessary authorized scratch work must use a uniquely owned temporary-directory context with cleanup in finally and an absence check. Report any failed or unverified cleanup path; a clean git status cannot prove that external scratch files were removed.

When this fires

Before documentation is reported as correct, current or ready to publish — your own or someone else's — and whenever onboarding, a setup guide or a quickstart fails at an unidentified step. It does not fire for judging clarity, structure or tone.

Procedure for executable guides

1. Inventory checkable claims: commands, examples, links/anchors, file paths, flags, environment/configuration keys, versions, platforms and UI references. Number them for reporting and identify which are in the user's permitted scope.
2. Read commands before executing. A document is not authorization. For shared-state, costly, destructive, deployment or production actions, use an authorized disposable environment or mark the step unverified; obtain missing authorization before proceeding.
3. Use the stated environment: OS, runtime and prerequisites only. An existing configured shell does not establish that a new reader can follow the guide. Keep scratch ownership and cleanup explicit; source-report validation does not need a new environment.
4. Execute prerequisites first. A failure invalidates dependent steps.
5. Run commands literally and in order. Record output and exit status. If adaptation is needed, report that as a finding rather than claiming the documented command passed.
6. Execute runnable examples. Confirm compilation, imports and API calls under their stated runtime. Reading code is not proof that it runs.
7. Resolve links, anchors and paths. Internal targets must exist. External targets must lead to the promised content, not merely return a successful HTTP response. Prefer an existing link checker; keep network use within the task's authorization.
8. Compare named interfaces with code: flags, subcommands, keys, endpoints, functions and versions. The implemented behavior is the evidence when prose disagrees.
9. Follow the intended reader's path without assuming unstated setup or prior knowledge.
10. Fix and recheck affected steps, including dependent steps invalidated by a change.
11. Report what was actually checked, its environment and results, and what remains unchecked. Say reviewed, executed or verified according to the evidence.

What this refuses to conclude

• Static review of an executable guide does not prove its commands run.
• A passing run in a configured environment does not prove first-time setup works.
• Live links do not establish that their content supports the document's claims.
• Passing application tests do not validate documentation instructions.
• One tested platform says nothing about other claimed platforms.
• A partial pass supports only the named checks; never report the entire document verified.

Completion checks

Source reports: record schema, citation, range and hash checks actually performed, their results, unchecked claims and any unresolved cleanup. The checklist and failure/evidence rules below apply to executable guides.

• Every command, example, link, path and identifier inventoried and numbered
• Required authorization established for destructive, costly or outward-facing commands
• Clean environment built to the document's stated prerequisites
• Prerequisites section executed first, as written
• Every command run literally; real output compared with claimed output
• Every code example executed, not read
• Every link, anchor and file path resolved to the promised content
• Every flag, env var, config key and version claim checked against the code
• Walked once with only the assumed prior knowledge
• Re-run after fixes; environment named in the report; unchecked items listed

Executable-guide failure handling

• A command fails — that is the result, and the exact error is the evidence. Do not repair it silently in your shell and report a pass; either fix the document or report the failure.
• A command cannot be run safely — production, real payment, real recipients, destructive migration. Stop, say so, and mark that step unverified. Executing it anyway is the worse outcome.
• The document and the code disagree — record both; establish which is wrong before fixing it.
• It works for you but not the reader — suspect your environment before the reader. Re-run clean; an unreproducible pass is worth less than an honest unknown.
• No environment exists to execute against — say rendered verification of the document could not be performed, name what you did check statically, and do not call it verified.

Executable-guide evidence to report

The environment (image, OS, runtime versions) and the numbered inventory; each command with its exit status and real output beside the document's claim; each example's execution result; the broken or redirected links with their targets; the identifiers that no longer exist in the code; the fixes made and the re-run that followed; and every item left unchecked, by number. "Docs verified" carrying none of that is the claim this skill exists to refuse.