(As I commented on Paul Sinclair's answer, their hint doesn't work to prove completeness of the completion.)
I will assume first-countability.
We imitate the proof of the completeness of the completion of a metric space. First-countability will give us a countable local basis at zero, that will play the role of the open balls in the metric case.
Lemma (Completeness Criterion). Let $G$ be a first-countable abelian topological group. Suppose $A\subset G$ is dense and that every Cauchy sequence of $G$ contained in $A$ converges in $G$. Then every Cauchy sequence in $G$ converges.
Proof. Let $(x_n)\subset G$ be Cauchy. Pick a local basis $U_n\subset G$ at zero. We can suppose $U_n$ is decreasing (intersect the first $n$ open sets and replace the $n$th open by this). We can also suppose $-U_n=U_n$ (replace $U_n$ by $U_n\cap(-U_n)$). For each $n$, pick $y_n\in A\cap (x_n+U_n)$. We claim that $(y_n)$ is Cauchy. Pick $N$. There is $M$ such that $U_M+U_M+U_M\subset U_N$ (for the sum $G\times G\times G\to G$ is continuous). Let $k$ be such that $x_n-x_m\in U_M$ for all $n,m\geq k$. Then, for $n,m\geq \max(k,M)$,
\begin{align*}
y_n-y_m&\in x_n+U_n-x_m-U_m\\
&=x_n-x_m+U_n+U_m\\
&\subset x_n-x_m+U_M+U_M\\
&\subset U_M+U_M+U_M\\
&\subset U_N.
\end{align*}
By hypothesis, there is $y\in G$ with $y_n\to y$. Now, we claim that $x_n\to y$. Pick $N$. There is $M$ such that $U_M+U_M\subset U_N$. There is $k$ such that $y_n-y\in U_M$ for all $n\geq k$. Hence, for $n\geq\max(k,M)$,
\begin{align*}
x_n-y&\in y_n-y+U_n\\
&\subset U_M+U_M\\
&\subset U_N.&\square
\end{align*}
Lemma. Let $G$ be a first-countable abelian topological group. Then every Cauchy sequence in $\hat{G}$ converges.
Proof. We will apply the completeness criterion with $A=\phi(G)$, where $\phi:G\to\hat{G}$ is the map that sends $x\in G$ to the class of the sequence constantly $x$. Density of $\phi(G)$ is proven in Remark 4.2. Suppose then $\phi(x_n)\in\phi(G)\subset \hat{G}$ is Cauchy in $\hat{G}$. We claim that $(x_n)$ is Cauchy in $G$: Let $U\subset G$ be an open neighborhood of zero. There is $k$ such that $\phi(x_n)-\phi(x_m)\in\hat{U}$ for all $n,m\geq k$. In particular, $x_n-x_m\in U$ for all $n,m\geq k$. Next, we claim that $\phi(x_n)\to[x_n]$. This is proven in the linked Remark above. $\square$