Verify an OpenSpec implementation

Check that code actually satisfies a change's specs, tasks, and design — after implementation, before archiving — and report gaps with actionable, file-referenced recommendations.

Steps

1. Select the change. If not given, run openspec list --json, show changes with implementation tasks, mark ones with incomplete tasks "(In Progress)", and let the user choose. Never guess.
2. Check the schema: openspec status --change "<name>" --json.
3. Load artifacts: openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json returns contextFiles (artifact ID -> paths); read everything available.
4. Verify completeness. Tasks: parse - [ ]/- [x] in every contextFiles.tasks file; each incomplete task is CRITICAL with a recommendation ("Complete task: <description>" or "Mark done if already implemented"). Spec coverage: for each requirement in delta specs, search the codebase for implementation evidence; an apparently-unimplemented requirement is CRITICAL ("Requirement not found: <name>").
5. Verify correctness. For each requirement, search for implementation evidence and assess whether it matches intent; a divergence is WARNING with a file/line-referenced recommendation. For each scenario, check whether code and tests cover it; an uncovered scenario is WARNING.
6. Verify coherence. If design.md exists, extract key decisions and check the implementation follows them; a contradiction is WARNING. No design.md means skipping this check and noting it. Check new code against project naming/structure/style conventions; a significant deviation is SUGGESTION.
7. Generate the report: a summary scorecard (Completeness / Correctness / Coherence), issues grouped CRITICAL / WARNING / SUGGESTION each with a specific recommendation and file.ts:123-style references, and a final assessment — "X critical issue(s) found, fix before archiving" / "No critical issues, Y warning(s) to consider, ready for archive" / "All checks passed, ready for archive".

Heuristics

Completeness leans on objective checklist items; correctness and coherence use keyword search and reasonable inference, not certainty. When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL. Every issue needs a specific, actionable recommendation — never "consider reviewing".

Graceful degradation

Only tasks.md exists -> verify task completion only. Tasks + specs exist -> skip design coherence. Full artifacts -> verify all three dimensions. Always state which checks were skipped and why.

Completion

Complete when all three dimensions were assessed (or their skip was stated and why), every issue has a severity, a file reference, and an actionable recommendation, and the final assessment names whether the change is ready to archive.