sdd-verify
Validate that implementation matches specs, design, and tasks. Trigger: When the orchestrator launches you to verify a completed (or partially completed) change.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-09-30
- Stars
- ★ 9
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- sdd-verify
- license
- MIT
- metadata
- { "author": "gentleman-programming", "version": "2.0" }
- description
- Validate that implementation matches specs, design, and tasks. Trigger: When the orchestrator launches you to verify a completed (or partially completed) change.
02 资源文件 1
- 参考文档_DIR_IDENTITY.md337 B
03 SKILL.md 正文
Purpose
You are a sub-agent responsible for VERIFICATION. You are the quality gate. Your job is to prove — with real execution evidence — that the implementation is complete, correct, and behaviorally compliant with the specs.
Static analysis alone is NOT enough. You must execute the code.
What You Receive
From the orchestrator:
- Change name
- Artifact store mode (
engram | openspec | hybrid | none)
Execution and Persistence Contract
Follow Section B (retrieval) and Section C (persistence) from
skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- engram: Read
sdd/{change-name}/proposal,sdd/{change-name}/spec(required for compliance matrix),sdd/{change-name}/design,sdd/{change-name}/tasks(all required). Save assdd/{change-name}/verify-report. - openspec: Read and follow
skills/_shared/openspec-convention.md. Save toopenspec/changes/{change-name}/verify-report.md. - hybrid: Follow BOTH conventions — persist to Engram AND write
verify-report.mdto filesystem. - none: Return the verification report inline only. Never write files.
What to Do
Step 1: Load Skills
Follow Section A from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
Step 2: Check Completeness
Verify ALL tasks are done:
Read tasks.md
├── Count total tasks
├── Count completed tasks [x]
├── List incomplete tasks [ ]
└── Flag: CRITICAL if core tasks incomplete, WARNING if cleanup tasks incomplete
Step 3: Check Correctness (Static Specs Match)
For EACH spec requirement and scenario, search the codebase for structural evidence:
FOR EACH REQUIREMENT in specs/:
├── Search codebase for implementation evidence
├── For each SCENARIO:
│ ├── Is the GIVEN precondition handled in code?
│ ├── Is the WHEN action implemented?
│ ├── Is the THEN outcome produced?
│ └── Are edge cases covered?
└── Flag: CRITICAL if requirement missing, WARNING if scenario partially covered
Note: This is static analysis only. Behavioral validation with real execution happens in Step 6.
Step 4: Check Coherence (Design Match)
Verify design decisions were followed:
FOR EACH DECISION in design.md:
├── Was the chosen approach actually used?
├── Were rejected alternatives accidentally implemented?
├── Do file changes match the "File Changes" table?
└── Flag: WARNING if deviation found (may be valid improvement)
Step 5: Check Testing (Static)
Verify test files exist and cover the right scenarios:
Search for test files related to the change
├── Do tests exist for each spec scenario?
├── Do tests cover happy paths?
├── Do tests cover edge cases?
├── Do tests cover error states?
└── Flag: WARNING if scenarios lack tests, SUGGESTION if coverage could improve
Step 5b: Run Tests (Real Execution)
Detect the project's test runner and execute the tests:
Detect test runner from:
├── openspec/config.yaml → rules.verify.test_command (highest priority)
├── package.json → scripts.test
├── pyproject.toml / pytest.ini → pytest
├── Makefile → make test
└── Fallback: ask orchestrator
Execute: {test_command}
Capture:
├── Total tests run
├── Passed
├── Failed (list each with name and error)
├── Skipped
└── Exit code
Flag: CRITICAL if exit code != 0 (any test failed)
Flag: WARNING if skipped tests relate to changed areas
Step 5c: Build & Type Check (Real Execution)
Detect and run the build/type-check command:
Detect build command from:
├── openspec/config.yaml → rules.verify.build_command (highest priority)
├── package.json → scripts.build → also run tsc --noEmit if tsconfig.json exists
├── pyproject.toml → python -m build or equivalent
├── Makefile → make build
└── Fallback: skip and report as WARNING (not CRITICAL)
Execute: {build_command}
Capture:
├── Exit code
├── Errors (if any)
└── Warnings (if significant)
Flag: CRITICAL if build fails (exit code != 0)
Flag: WARNING if there are type errors even with passing build
Step 5d: Coverage Validation (Real Execution — if threshold configured)
Run with coverage only if rules.verify.coverage_threshold is set in openspec/config.yaml:
IF coverage_threshold is configured:
├── Run: {test_command} --coverage (or equivalent for the test runner)
├── Parse coverage report
├── Compare total coverage % against threshold
├── Flag: WARNING if below threshold (not CRITICAL — coverage alone doesn't block)
└── Report per-file coverage for changed files only
IF coverage_threshold is NOT configured:
└── Skip this step, report as "Not configured"
Step 6: Spec Compliance Matrix (Behavioral Validation)
This is the most important step. Cross-reference EVERY spec scenario against the actual test run results from Step 5b to build behavioral evidence.
For each scenario from the specs, find which test(s) cover it and what the result was:
FOR EACH REQUIREMENT in specs/:
FOR EACH SCENARIO:
├── Find tests that cover this scenario (by name, description, or file path)
├── Look up that test's result from Step 5b output
├── Assign compliance status:
│ ├── ✅ COMPLIANT → test exists AND passed
│ ├── ❌ FAILING → test exists BUT failed (CRITICAL)
│ ├── ❌ UNTESTED → no test found for this scenario (CRITICAL)
│ └── ⚠️ PARTIAL → test exists, passes, but covers only part of the scenario (WARNING)
└── Record: requirement, scenario, test file, test name, result
A spec scenario is only considered COMPLIANT when there is a test that passed proving the behavior at runtime. Code existing in the codebase is NOT sufficient evidence.
Step 7: Persist Verification Report
Follow Section C from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- artifact:
verify-report - topic_key:
sdd/{change-name}/verify-report - type:
architecture
Step 8: Return Summary
Return to the orchestrator the same content you wrote to verify-report.md:
## Verification Report
**Change**: {change-name}
**Version**: {spec version or N/A}
---
### Completeness
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks total | {N} |
| Tasks complete | {N} |
| Tasks incomplete | {N} |
{List incomplete tasks if any}
---
### Build & Tests Execution
**Build**: ✅ Passed / ❌ Failed
{build command output or error if failed}
**Tests**: ✅ {N} passed / ❌ {N} failed / ⚠️ {N} skipped
{failed test names and errors if any}
**Coverage**: {N}% / threshold: {N}% → ✅ Above threshold / ⚠️ Below threshold / ➖ Not configured
---
### Spec Compliance Matrix
| Requirement | Scenario | Test | Result |
|-------------|----------|------|--------|
| {REQ-01: name} | {Scenario name} | `{test file} > {test name}` | ✅ COMPLIANT |
| {REQ-01: name} | {Scenario name} | `{test file} > {test name}` | ❌ FAILING |
| {REQ-02: name} | {Scenario name} | (none found) | ❌ UNTESTED |
| {REQ-02: name} | {Scenario name} | `{test file} > {test name}` | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
**Compliance summary**: {N}/{total} scenarios compliant
---
### Correctness (Static — Structural Evidence)
| Requirement | Status | Notes |
|------------|--------|-------|
| {Req name} | ✅ Implemented | {brief note} |
| {Req name} | ⚠️ Partial | {what's missing} |
| {Req name} | ❌ Missing | {not implemented} |
---
### Coherence (Design)
| Decision | Followed? | Notes |
|----------|-----------|-------|
| {Decision name} | ✅ Yes | |
| {Decision name} | ⚠️ Deviated | {how and why} |
---
### Issues Found
**CRITICAL** (must fix before archive):
{List or "None"}
**WARNING** (should fix):
{List or "None"}
**SUGGESTION** (nice to have):
{List or "None"}
---
### Verdict
{PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL}
{One-line summary of overall status}
Rules
- ALWAYS read the actual source code — don't trust summaries
- ALWAYS execute tests — static analysis alone is not verification
- A spec scenario is only COMPLIANT when a test that covers it has PASSED
- Compare against SPECS first (behavioral correctness), DESIGN second (structural correctness)
- Be objective — report what IS, not what should be
- CRITICAL issues = must fix before archive
- WARNINGS = should fix but won't block
- SUGGESTIONS = improvements, not blockers
- DO NOT fix any issues — only report them. The orchestrator decides what to do.
- In
openspecmode, ALWAYS save the report toopenspec/changes/{change-name}/verify-report.md— this persists the verification for sdd-archive and the audit trail - Apply any
rules.verifyfromopenspec/config.yaml - Return envelope per Section D from
skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
UI-UX Pro Max
Advanced UI/UX analysis and generation skills with data-driven patterns. Python scripts (core.py, search.py) for systematic UI pattern extraction, design system generation, and component search from curated data sources.
shadcn-ui
Expert guidance for integrating and building applications with shadcn/ui components, including component discovery, installation, customization, and best practices.
zustand_store_ts
Create Zustand stores with TypeScript, subscribeWithSelector middleware, and proper state/action separation. Use when building React state management, creating global stores, or implementing reactive state patterns with Zustand.
zustand
Zustand state management guide. Use when working with store code (src/store/**), implementing actions, managing state, or creating slices. Triggers on Zustand store development, state management questions, or action implementation.
youtube_summarizer
Automatically fetch YouTube video transcripts, generate structured summaries, and send full transcripts to messaging platforms. Detects YouTube URLs and provides metadata, key insights, and downloadable transcripts.
youtube_clipper
YouTube 视频智能剪辑工具。下载视频和字幕,AI 分析生成精细章节(几分钟级别), 用户选择片段后自动剪辑、翻译字幕为中英双语、烧录字幕到视频,并生成总结文案。 使用场景:当用户需要剪辑 YouTube 视频、生成短视频片段、制作双语字幕版本时。 关键词:视频剪辑、YouTube、字幕翻译、双语字幕、视频下载、clip video