Nm Imbue Proof Of Work

SKILL.md

---
name: proof-of-work
description: |
  Enforces validation and evidence before claiming work complete. Use before declaring implementation done, creating a PR, or submitting deliverables for review
version: 1.9.8
triggers:
  - validation
  - testing
  - proof
  - definition-of-done
  - acceptance-criteria
metadata: {"openclaw": {"homepage": "https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/imbue", "emoji": "\ud83e\udd9e"}}
source: claude-night-market
source_plugin: imbue
---

> **Night Market Skill** — ported from [claude-night-market/imbue](https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/imbue). For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.


> Claims without evidence fail the people who depend on
> your work. Proof-of-work is humility in practice:
> "it looks correct" is not "I verified it works."

# Proof of Work

## Table of Contents

- [Overview](#overview)
- [The Iron Law](#the-iron-law)
- [Usage Standards](#usage-standards)
- [Validation Protocol](#validation-protocol)
- [Integration](#integration)
- [Validation Checklist](#validation-checklist-before-claiming-done)
- [Red Flag Self-Check](#red-flag-self-check)
- [Exit Criteria](#exit-criteria)

## Overview

The "Proof of Work" methodology prevents premature completion claims by
requiring technical verification before stating that a task is
finished. For example, instead of assuming an LSP configuration
functions after a restart, we verify that the server starts and that
tools respond to queries. This approach confirms the solution works
before the user attempts validation.

Before claiming completion, provide reproducible evidence of the
solution's performance and address edge cases. All claims must be
backed by actual command output captured in the current environment.

## The Iron Law

**NO IMPLEMENTATION WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST**
**NO COMPLETION CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE FIRST**
**NO CODE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING FIRST**

The Iron Law prevents testing from becoming a perfunctory exercise. If
an implementation is planned before tests are written, the RED phase
fails to drive the design. Understand the technical rationale for an
approach and its limitations before declaring it done. Before writing
code, document evidence of the failure being addressed and confirm
that tests are driving the implementation.

### Verification and TDD Workflow

Verify the fundamentals of the implementation and the reasons for
choosing it over alternatives. Identify where a solution might fail
rather than stating it should always work. The TDD cycle follows these
mandatory steps:

1. **RED**: Write a failing test before implementation.
2. **GREEN**: Create a minimal implementation that passes the test.
3. **REFACTOR**: Improve the code without changing its behavior.

### Iron Law Self-Check

| Self-Check Question | If Answer Is Wrong | Action |
|---------------------|-------------------|--------|
| Do I have documented evidence of failure/need? | No | STOP, document failure first |
| Am I testing pre-conceived implementation? | Yes | STOP, let test DRIVE design |
| Am I feeling design uncertainty? | No | STOP - uncertainty is GOOD |
| Did test drive implementation? | No | STOP - doing it backwards |

### Iron Law Progress Tracking

- `proof:iron-law-red`: Failing test written before implementation.
- `proof:iron-law-green`: Minimal implementation passes test.
- `proof:iron-law-refactor`: Code improved without behavior change.
- `proof:iron-law-coverage`: Coverage gates passed (line, branch, and mutation).

Confirm that work passes all line, branch, and mutation coverage
gates. For detailed enforcement patterns, see
[iron-law-enforcement.md](modules/iron-law-enforcement.md).

## Usage Standards

Apply this skill before stating that work is "done," "finished," or
"ready." Use it before recommending solutions or stating that a
configuration "should work." Stop if you find yourself assuming a
configuration is correct without testing it or recommending a fix
without first reproducing the problem. Red flags include thinking
"this looks correct" without actual verification. If you cannot
explain each line of a configuration or why a specific practice
applies to the current context, the necessary validation steps have
been skipped.

## Validation Protocol

### Step 1: Reproduce the Problem (`proof:problem-reproduced`)

Before proposing a solution, verify the current state. Use tools like
`ps`, `echo`, and `cat` to check running processes, environment
variables, and configuration files. Document the failure with command
output and error logs.

### Step 2: Test the Solution (`proof:solution-tested`)

Before claiming a solution works, execute it in the current
environment. Capture the actual output and confirm that it matches
expected behavior. Do not rely on assumed output.

### Step 3: Check for Known Issues (`proof:edge-cases-checked`)

Research known bugs and limitations related to the approach. Check
GitHub issues, version compatibility, and official documentation to
identify potential blockers or common pitfalls.

### Step 4: Capture Evidence (`proof:evidence-captured`)

Use `imbue:proof-of-work` to document the commands executed, their
output, timestamps, and the conclusions drawn from each step.

### Step 5: Prove Completion (`proof:completion-proven`)

Define acceptance criteria and validate each item. If a blocker is
identified, document the diagnosis with evidence and provide
workaround options instead of claiming completion.

## Integration

### With Improvement Workflows

Use proof-of-work to validate improvement opportunities identified by
`/update-plugins` or `/fix-workflow`. Document the baseline metrics
(step count, failure rate, duration), test the proposed changes, and
capture the improved metrics to demonstrate quantitative impact.

## Validation Checklist (Before Claiming "Done")

Verify that the problem was reproduced with evidence and the solution
was tested in the actual environment. Research known issues and
consider edge cases. Capture evidence in a reproducible format and
confirm that all acceptance criteria are met. The completion statement
must detail the specific tests run and their results, citing evidence
for each claim.

## Red Flag Self-Check

Before sending a completion message, confirm that you have run the
recommended commands and captured their output. Verify that you have
researched known issues and that the validation steps are reproducible
by the user. Ensure you are proving rather than assuming.

## Supporting Modules

- [TodoWrite naming patterns](modules/todowrite-patterns.md): naming
  conventions and safe deletion rules for imbue TodoWrite items
- [Evidence logging](modules/evidence-logging.md): structured
  evidence capture, audit trails, and reproducibility patterns

## Related Skills

- `imbue:karpathy-principles`: the "Goal-Driven Execution" principle
  wraps the Iron Law in a four-principle synthesis useful as a
  pre-flight gate
- See `docs/quality-gates.md#skill-level-quality-gate-composition` for
  the full gate-skill federation graph

## Exit Criteria

Complete all progress tracking items. Create an evidence log with
reproducible proofs. Define and validate acceptance criteria, and
document any identified blockers.