Verify the work before a human reviews it

Check behavior, rules, risks, and evidence—not merely whether the test command exited green.

Last updated August 2026Copy a starter prompt ↓

Match verification to the change

Brief should choose a proof loop that matches the claim. A UI change needs rendered evidence; a migration needs rollback proof; an auth change needs boundary and negative-path tests.

See the complete workflow through evidence-backed handoff →

Ask your coding agent

Before handoff, use Brief to build the verification loop for this change. List the claims the diff makes, choose the narrowest test or runtime evidence for each, run what is available, and mark anything unproven. Then review the diff against repo rules, the original mission, secrets, privacy boundaries, and reuse guidance.

Return proof a reviewer can trust

Exact commands and whether they passed, failed, or were skipped.
Visual or runtime evidence when static tests cannot prove the behavior.
Changed files, remaining risk, and decisions still needing a human.
No claim of completeness when a layer was not checked.

Save the handoff

Ask your coding agent

Save a Brief handoff for this mission. Include the outcome, root cause, changed files, validation that actually ran, review result, remaining risk, and the next action. Verify the receipts before you tell me it is ready.

Was this guide useful?Help us make Brief easier to learn.

Ready for another workflow?Choose your next mission →