kiro-validate-impl
Skill3 starsChanged 6 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Validate feature-level integration after all tasks are implemented. Checks cross-task consistency, full test suite, and overall spec coverage.
3 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- aiproxer/aiproxeredited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- growilabs/growiedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- kyuki3rain/cc-sdd-adredited, first seen Jul 27, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 3
- growilabs/growi★ 1.5k77% same
- aiproxer/aiproxer★ 2298% same
- kyuki3rain/cc-sdd-adr★ 085% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- cc-sdd-restack-after-mergeSkill
- cc-sdd-review-slice-stackSkill
- ci-stable-log-testingSkill
- create-issueSkill
- docker-deployment-guideSkill
- hibernate-pcSkill
- kiro-debugSkill
- kiro-discoverySkill
- kiro-implSkill
- kiro-reviewSkill
- kiro-spec-batchSkill
- kiro-spec-designSkill
- kiro-spec-initSkill
- kiro-spec-quickSkill
- kiro-spec-requirementsSkill
- kiro-spec-statusSkill
- kiro-spec-tasksSkill
- kiro-steering-customSkill
- kiro-steeringSkill
- kiro-validate-designSkill
- kiro-validate-gapSkill
- kiro-verify-completionSkill
- notion-pdfSkill
- playwright-scraperSkill
- pptx-slides-creatorSkill
- pr-creatorSkill
- pytest-marksSkill
- python-readable-codeSkill
- resolve-pr-review-threadsSkill
- sec-diff-reviewSkill
- sec-full-scanSkill
- sec-runtime-scanSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- storage-stateSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
41 rules. 23 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 17 are very specific to this project.
23
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
17
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 19
All tasks marked [x] in tasks.md
- Common: line 24
No orphaned code, conflicting implementations, integration seams, or boundary spillover
- Very specific: line 41
If no history found, scan docs/specs/ for features with completed tasks [x]
- Common: line 55
Test execution: Run the complete test suite, report pass/fail with details
- Common: line 57
Design alignment: Verify architecture matches design.md, report drift and dependency violations
- Common: line 58
Cross-task integration: Verify data flows, API contracts, shared state consistency
- Distinctive: line 60
If multi-agent is not available, run checks sequentially in main context.
- Very specific: line 62
After all checks complete, synthesize findings for GO/NO-GO/MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED assessment.
- Very specific: line 67
Read docs/specs/<feature>/spec.json for metadata
- Very specific: line 68
Read docs/specs/<feature>/requirements.md for requirements
- Very specific: line 69
Read docs/specs/<feature>/design.md for design structure
- Very specific: line 70
Read docs/specs/<feature>/tasks.md for task list and Implementation Notes
- Common: line 77
Prefer commands already used by repo automation over ad hoc shell pipelines
- Common: line 79
If multiple candidates exist, prefer the command with the smallest setup cost that still exercises the real built artifact
- Common: line 86
Run the discovered canonical full-test command.
- Common: line 87
If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.
- Very specific: line 88
If the canonical test command cannot be identified → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- Common: line 92
If matches found that were introduced by this feature → flag as Warning
- Common: line 96
If matches found that aren't environment variable references → flag as Critical
- Common: line 99
Run the discovered canonical smoke command that proves the built artifact actually starts and reaches its first usable state.
- Common: line 101
If boot produces a runtime crash, unhandled exception, module-load failure, native ABI mismatch, or missing required env/config → NO-GO.
- Very specific: line 102
If no trustworthy smoke command can be identified, or the required runtime environment is unavailable → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- Common: line 108
Verify that Task A's output format matches Task B's expected input
- Common: line 109
Check for conflicting assumptions between tasks (naming conventions, error codes, data shapes)
- Common: line 110
Verify shared state (database schemas, config, environment) is consistent across tasks
- Common: line 111
Verify integration work happens at the intended seams rather than by leaking one boundary's behavior into another
- Very specific: line 117
Use the original section numbering from requirements.md.
- Common: line 120
Verify the overall component graph matches design.md
- Common: line 121
Check that integration patterns (event flow, API boundaries, dependency injection) work as designed
- Common: line 122
Verify dependency direction follows design.md's architecture (no upward imports)
- Common: line 123
Verify File Structure Plan matches the actual file layout
- Very specific: line 125
Use the original section numbering from design.md
- Common: line 132
If a revalidation trigger fired, verify the affected adjacent specs or integration points were actually re-checked
- Very specific: line 135
Check for any tasks still marked _Blocked:_ — report why and assess impact on feature completeness
- Very specific: line 140
Before returning GO, apply the kiro-verify-completion protocol to the feature-level claim.
- Very specific: line 147
If ownership is UPSTREAM, do not collapse the issue into local remediation for this feature.
- Common: line 176
If NO-GO, REMEDIATION is mandatory — identify the exact issue and what needs to change.
- Very specific: line 180
Boundary integrity over convenience: Do not return GO if the feature only works by smearing responsibilities across boundaries, even when …
- Very specific: line 186
No Implementation Found: If no /kiro-impl in history and no [x] tasks, report "No implementations detected"
- Very specific: line 188
Missing Spec Files: Stop with error if spec.json/requirements.md/design.md missing
- Common: line 204
Do not treat the feature as complete
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.
Files
Implementation Integration Validation
<background_information> Individual tasks have already been reviewed by the per-task reviewer during implementation. Your job is to catch problems that only become visible when looking across all tasks together.
Boundary terminology continuity:
- discovery identifies
Boundary Candidates - design fixes
Boundary Commitments - tasks constrain execution with
_Boundary:_ - feature validation checks for cross-task
Boundary Violations - Success Criteria:
- All tasks marked
[x]in tasks.md - Full test suite passes (not just per-task tests)
- Cross-task integration works (data flows between components, interfaces match)
- Requirements coverage is complete across all tasks (no gaps between tasks)
- Design structure is reflected end-to-end (not just per-component)
- No orphaned code, conflicting implementations, integration seams, or boundary spillover
- All tasks marked
What This Skill Does NOT Do: Per-task checks are the reviewer's responsibility during /kiro-impl. This skill does NOT re-check individual task acceptance criteria, per-file reality checks, or single-task spec alignment.
This skill's main question is: when the completed tasks are viewed together, do they still respect the designed boundary seams and dependency direction? </background_information>
<instructions>
## Execution Steps1. Detect Validation Target
If no arguments provided ($1 empty):
- Parse conversation history for
/kiro-impl <feature> [tasks]commands - Extract feature names and task numbers from each execution
- Aggregate all implemented tasks by feature
- Report detected implementations (e.g., "user-auth: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3")
- If no history found, scan
docs/specs/for features with completed tasks[x]
If feature provided ($1 present, $2 empty):
- Use specified feature
- Detect all completed tasks
[x]indocs/specs/$1/tasks.md
If both feature and tasks provided ($1 and $2 present):
- Validate specified feature and tasks only (e.g.,
user-auth 1.1,1.2)
Sub-agent Dispatch (parallel)
The following validation dimensions are independent and can be dispatched as sub-agents. The agent should decide the optimal decomposition based on feature scope — split, merge, or skip sub-agents as appropriate. Each sub-agent returns a structured findings summary to keep the main context clean for GO/NO-GO synthesis.
Typical validation dimensions (adjust as appropriate):
- Test execution: Run the complete test suite, report pass/fail with details
- Requirements coverage: Build requirements → implementation matrix, report gaps
- Design alignment: Verify architecture matches design.md, report drift and dependency violations
- Cross-task integration: Verify data flows, API contracts, shared state consistency
If multi-agent is not available, run checks sequentially in main context.
After all checks complete, synthesize findings for GO/NO-GO/MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED assessment.
2. Load Context
For each detected feature:
- Read
docs/specs/<feature>/spec.jsonfor metadata - Read
docs/specs/<feature>/requirements.mdfor requirements - Read
docs/specs/<feature>/design.mdfor design structure - Read
docs/specs/<feature>/tasks.mdfor task list and Implementation Notes - Core steering context:
product.md,tech.md,structure.md - Additional steering files only when directly relevant to the validated boundaries, runtime prerequisites, integrations, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect the GO/NO-GO call
Discover canonical validation commands:
- Inspect repository-local sources of truth in this order: project scripts/manifests (
package.json,pyproject.toml,go.mod,Cargo.toml, app manifests), task runners (Makefile,justfile), CI/workflow files, existing e2e/integration configs, thenREADME* - Derive a feature-level validation set for this repo:
TEST_COMMANDS,BUILD_COMMANDS, andSMOKE_COMMANDS - Prefer commands already used by repo automation over ad hoc shell pipelines
- For
SMOKE_COMMANDS, choose the lightest trustworthy runtime-liveness check for the app shape (for example: root URL load, Electron launch, CLI--help, service health endpoint, mobile simulator/e2e harness if one already exists) - If multiple candidates exist, prefer the command with the smallest setup cost that still exercises the real built artifact
3. Execute Integration Validation
Mechanical Checks (run commands, use results)
A. Full Test Suite
- Run the discovered canonical full-test command. Use the exit code.
- If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.
- If the canonical test command cannot be identified →
MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
B. Residual TBD/TODO/FIXME
- Run:
grep -rn "TBD\|TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX" <files-in-feature-boundary> - If matches found that were introduced by this feature → flag as Warning
C. Residual Hardcoded Secrets
- Run:
grep -rn "password\s*=\|api_key\s*=\|secret\s*=\|token\s*=" <files-in-feature-boundary>(case-insensitive) - If matches found that aren't environment variable references → flag as Critical
D. Runtime Liveness (Smoke Boot)
- Run the discovered canonical smoke command that proves the built artifact actually starts and reaches its first usable state.
- Examples if relevant: open the root URL in a headless browser and require zero boot-time console errors; launch Electron and wait for the main process ready signal and first renderer load; run a CLI with
--help; start a service and hit its health endpoint. - If boot produces a runtime crash, unhandled exception, module-load failure, native ABI mismatch, or missing required env/config → NO-GO.
- If no trustworthy smoke command can be identified, or the required runtime environment is unavailable →
MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
Judgment Checks (read code, compare to spec)
E. Cross-Task Integration
- Identify where tasks share interfaces, data models, or API contracts
- Verify that Task A's output format matches Task B's expected input
- Check for conflicting assumptions between tasks (naming conventions, error codes, data shapes)
- Verify shared state (database schemas, config, environment) is consistent across tasks
- Verify integration work happens at the intended seams rather than by leaking one boundary's behavior into another
F. Requirements Coverage Gaps
- Map every requirement section to at least one completed task
- Identify requirements that no single task fully covers (cross-cutting requirements)
- Identify requirements partially covered by multiple tasks but not fully by any
- Use the original section numbering from
requirements.md; do NOT inventREQ-*aliases
G. Design End-to-End Alignment
- Verify the overall component graph matches design.md
- Check that integration patterns (event flow, API boundaries, dependency injection) work as designed
- Verify dependency direction follows design.md's architecture (no upward imports)
- Verify File Structure Plan matches the actual file layout
- Identify any architectural drift from the original design
- Use the original section numbering from
design.md
G.5 Boundary Audit
- Compare completed work against the design's
Boundary Commitments,Out of Boundary,Allowed Dependencies, andRevalidation Triggers - Identify cross-task spillover where one area quietly absorbed another boundary's responsibility
- Identify downstream-specific workarounds embedded upstream "to make integration easier"
- Identify new hidden dependencies or shared ownership that were not declared in the design
- If a revalidation trigger fired, verify the affected adjacent specs or integration points were actually re-checked
H. Blocked Tasks & Implementation Notes
- Check for any tasks still marked
_Blocked:_— report why and assess impact on feature completeness - Review
## Implementation Notesin tasks.md for cross-cutting insights that need attention
4. Generate Report
Before returning GO, apply the kiro-verify-completion protocol to the feature-level claim. Tests alone are insufficient: include full-suite, runtime liveness, coverage, integration, design-alignment, and blocked-task status in the evidence.
Classify concrete failures by ownership before writing remediation:
LOCALif the defect belongs to the feature being validatedUPSTREAMif the root cause belongs to a dependency, foundation, shared platform, or earlier specUNCLEARif ownership cannot be established from the available evidence
If ownership is UPSTREAM, do not collapse the issue into local remediation for this feature. Name the owning upstream spec and explain which dependent specs should be revalidated after that upstream fix lands.
Provide summary in the language specified in spec.json:
## Validation Report
- DECISION: GO | NO-GO | MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- MECHANICAL_RESULTS:
- Tests: PASS | FAIL (command and exit code)
- TBD/TODO grep: CLEAN | <count> matches
- Secrets grep: CLEAN | <count> matches
- Smoke boot: PASS | FAIL | MANUAL_REQUIRED
- INTEGRATION:
- Cross-task contracts: <status>
- Shared state consistency: <status>
- Boundary audit: <status>
- COVERAGE:
- Requirements mapped: <X/Y sections covered>
- Coverage gaps: <list of uncovered requirement sections>
- DESIGN:
- Architecture drift: <findings>
- Dependency direction: <violations if any>
- File Structure Plan vs actual: <match/mismatch>
- OWNERSHIP: LOCAL | UPSTREAM | UNCLEAR
- UPSTREAM_SPEC: <feature-name | N/A>
- BLOCKED_TASKS: <list and impact assessment>
- REMEDIATION: <if NO-GO: specific, actionable steps to fix each issue>If NO-GO, REMEDIATION is mandatory — identify the exact issue and what needs to change.
Important Constraints
- Strict Final Gate: Return
GOonly when all integration checks passed; returnNO-GOfor concrete failures andMANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIREDwhen mandatory validation could not be completed - Boundary integrity over convenience: Do not return
GOif the feature only works by smearing responsibilities across boundaries, even when tests pass</instructions>
Safety & Fallback
Error Scenarios
- No Implementation Found: If no
/kiro-implin history and no[x]tasks, report "No implementations detected" - Test Command Unknown: Return
MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIREDand explain which validation command is missing; do not returnGO - Missing Spec Files: Stop with error if spec.json/requirements.md/design.md missing
Next Steps Guidance
If GO Decision:
- Feature validated end-to-end and ready for deployment or next feature
If NO-GO Decision:
- Address integration issues listed
- Re-run
/kiro-impl <feature> [tasks]for targeted fixes - Re-validate with
/kiro-validate-impl [feature]
Session Interrupted:
- Safe to re-run — validation is read-only and idempotent
If MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED:
- Do not treat the feature as complete
- Provide the exact missing validation step or environment prerequisite
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
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.

