agentleFS
Sign inStart free
LIDR-academyLIDR-academy/AI4Devs-LTI-extended/.claude/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md

openspec-verify-change

Skill278 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

37 rules. 34 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 34

    Common

    Most of the 68 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    Run openspec list --json to get available changes.

    line 20
  3. Common:

    IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change.

    line 26
  4. Common:

    Create a report structure with three dimensions:

    line 46
  5. Very specific:

    If contextFiles.tasks exists, read every file path in it

    line 56
  6. Common:

    If incomplete tasks exist:

    line 59
  7. Common:

    Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task

    line 60
  8. Very specific:

    If delta specs exist in openspec/changes/<name>/specs/:

    line 64
  9. Common:

    Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement

    line 67
  10. Common:

    If requirements appear unimplemented:

    line 69
  11. Common:

    Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"

    line 70
  12. Common:

    Search codebase for implementation evidence

    line 77
  13. Common:

    If found, note file paths and line ranges

    line 78
  14. Common:

    Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"

    line 81
  15. Common:

    Check if conditions are handled in code

    line 86
  16. Common:

    Check if tests exist covering the scenario

    line 87
  17. Common:

    If scenario appears uncovered:

    line 88
  18. Common:

    Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"

    line 89
  19. Common:

    Verify implementation follows those decisions

    line 97
  20. Common:

    Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"

    line 99
  21. Common:

    If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"

    line 101
  22. Common:

    Check file naming, directory structure, coding style

    line 105
  23. Common:

    If significant deviations found:

    line 106
  24. Common:

    Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"

    line 107
  25. Common:

    If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found.

    line 142
  26. Common:

    If only warnings: "No critical issues.

    line 143
  27. Common:

    If all clear: "All checks passed.

    line 144
  28. Common:

    Correctness: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty

    line 149
  29. Common:

    Coherence: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style

    line 150
  30. Common:

    False Positives: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL

    line 151
  31. Common:

    Actionability: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable

    line 152
  32. Common:

    If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks

    line 156
  33. Common:

    If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design

    line 157
  34. Common:

    If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions

    line 158
  35. Common:

    Always note which checks were skipped and why

    line 159
  36. Common:

    Use clear markdown with:

    line 163
  37. Common:

    No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"

    line 168

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 68 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

  1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

    Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

    Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists). Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".

    IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

  2. Check status to understand the schema
    openspec status --change "<name>" --json
    Parse the JSON to understand:
    • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
    • Which artifacts exist for this change

  3. Get the change directory and load artifacts

    openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json

    This returns the change directory and contextFiles (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). Read all available artifacts from contextFiles.

  4. Initialize verification report structure

    Create a report structure with three dimensions:

    • Completeness: Track tasks and spec coverage
    • Correctness: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
    • Coherence: Track design adherence and pattern consistency

    Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.

  5. Verify Completeness

    Task Completion:

    • If contextFiles.tasks exists, read every file path in it
    • Parse checkboxes: - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete)
    • Count complete vs total tasks
    • If incomplete tasks exist:
      • Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
      • Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"

    Spec Coverage:

    • If delta specs exist in openspec/changes/<name>/specs/:
      • Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
      • For each requirement:
        • Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
        • Assess if implementation likely exists
      • If requirements appear unimplemented:
        • Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
        • Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"

  6. Verify Correctness

    Requirement Implementation Mapping:

    • For each requirement from delta specs:
      • Search codebase for implementation evidence
      • If found, note file paths and line ranges
      • Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
      • If divergence detected:
        • Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
        • Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"

    Scenario Coverage:

    • For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
      • Check if conditions are handled in code
      • Check if tests exist covering the scenario
      • If scenario appears uncovered:
        • Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
        • Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"

  7. Verify Coherence

    Design Adherence:

    • If contextFiles.design exists:
      • Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
      • Verify implementation follows those decisions
      • If contradiction detected:
        • Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
        • Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
    • If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"

    Code Pattern Consistency:

    • Review new code for consistency with project patterns
    • Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
    • If significant deviations found:
      • Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
      • Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"

  8. Generate Verification Report

    Summary Scorecard:

    ## Verification Report: <change-name>

### Summary
| Dimension    | Status           |
|--------------|------------------|
| Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
| Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
| Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |

    Issues by Priority:

    1. CRITICAL (Must fix before archive):
      • Incomplete tasks
      • Missing requirement implementations
      • Each with specific, actionable recommendation
    2. WARNING (Should fix):
      • Spec/design divergences
      • Missing scenario coverage
      • Each with specific recommendation
    3. SUGGESTION (Nice to fix):
      • Pattern inconsistencies
      • Minor improvements
      • Each with specific recommendation

    Final Assessment:

    • If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
    • If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
    • If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."

Verification Heuristics

  • Completeness: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
  • Correctness: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
  • Coherence: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
  • False Positives: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
  • Actionability: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable

Graceful Degradation

  • If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
  • If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
  • If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
  • Always note which checks were skipped and why

Output Format

Use clear markdown with:

  • Table for summary scorecard
  • Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
  • Code references in format: file.ts:123
  • Specific, actionable recommendations
  • No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free