/verify

name: verify
description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify protocols", "check consistency before commit", "validate definitions", "run pre-commit checks", "verify soundness", or wants to ensure epistemic protocol quality. Invoke explicitly with /verify for pre-commit validation.
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(node *), Task, AskUserQuestion

Protocol Verification

Verify epistemic protocol consistency before commit through static checks and expert review.

Purpose

Surface potential issues in protocol definitions without blocking commits. Follow Anthropic philosophy: transparency over enforcement, user agency over automation.

Core Principles

| Principle | Implementation | |-----------|----------------| | **Surface, don't enforce** | Present findings; user decides action | | **Zero-context scripts** | Static checks run without consuming context | | **Explicit control** | User invokes `/verify` intentionally | | **Graduated severity** | Critical / Concern / Note categorization |

Workflow

Phase 1: Static Checks

Run `scripts/static-checks.js` against project root. This script executes without loading into context.

node ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/static-checks.js ${PROJECT_ROOT}

**Output format**:

{
  "pass": [{ "check": "...", "file": "...", "message": "..." }],
  "fail": [{ "check": "...", "file": "...", "message": "..." }],
  "warn": [{ "check": "...", "file": "...", "message": "..." }]
}

**Checks performed**: `scripts/static-checks.js` is the orchestrator. Its head names the layer files it runs and what each layer holds, and each layer file's `CHECKS` list is that layer's inventory. `references/verification.md` carries why the non-obvious checks exist and what to do when one fires.

Phase 2: Expert Review

Spawn parallel Task subagents for LLM-based review — one per perspective (Type Theory / Category Theory, Instruction Design, Claude Code Ecosystem). Load each subagent's prompt template from `references/review-checklists.md` (single source of truth; do not duplicate the templates here — see Review Checklists below). Each template samples the protocols changed in the current diff, falling back to a representative sample when the diff is not protocol-scoped.

All three subagents run in parallel. Collect results before proceeding.

Phase 3: Synthesize Findings

Combine static check results with expert review findings. Categorize by severity:

| Severity | Static Check Source | LLM Review Source | |----------|--------------------|--------------------| | **Critical** | `fail` array | findings with `severity: "critical"` | | **Concern** | `warn` array (structural) | findings with `severity: "concern"` | | **Note** | `warn` array (stylistic) | findings with `severity: "note"` |

Identify convergence (all perspectives agree) and divergence (perspectives differ).

Apply Claude Code Ecosystem expert's `filtered` array to dismiss false positives from other perspectives.

Phase 4: Surface via Gate Interaction

Present findings via gate interaction. Format:

## Verification Results

### Critical (n issues)
- [issue 1]: [location] - [description]
- [issue 2]: [location] - [description]

### Concerns (n issues)
- [issue 1]: [location] - [description]

### Notes (n observations)
- [observation 1]

### Filtered (Claude Code context)
- [filtered issue]: [reason dismissed]

---
Select action:

**Options to present**: 1. **Fix critical issues** - Address critical findings before commit 2. **Review concerns** - Examine each concern individually 3. **Proceed anyway** - Commit with decision logged 4. **Cancel** - Abort verification

Phase 5: Handle User Decision

| Decision | Action | |----------|--------| | Fix critical | Show specific fixes, await approval for each | | Review concerns | Present concerns one by one with dismiss/address options | | Proceed anyway | Log decision, suggest commit message annotation | | Cancel | End verification, no changes |

**Commit message annotation** (if proceeding with issues):

[verify: n critical, m concerns acknowledged]

Severity Reference

Consult `references/criteria.md` for which channel judges which kind of obligation, the severity definitions, and what review reads for.

Review Checklists

Consult `references/review-checklists.md` for:

• Type Theory / Category Theory expert prompt template
• Instruction Design expert prompt template
• Claude Code Ecosystem expert prompt template
• Known issues checklist
• Synthesis template

Error Handling

| Error | Response | |-------|----------| | Script execution fails | Report error, offer manual check option | | Subagent timeout | Report partial results, continue with available data | | No issues found | Confirm clean state, proceed to commit |

Integration Notes

Standalone Usage

Most common pattern: invoke `/verify` before `/commit` command.

Output Examples

Clean State

## Verification Results

All checks passed.

- Static checks: all checks pass (0 fail, 0 warn)
- Type/Category review: No issues
- Instruction Design review: No issues

Ready to commit.

Issues Found

## Verification Results

### Critical (1 issue)
- State machine totality: hyphegesis/skills/conduct/SKILL.md - Undefined transition for a declared input with no arm in the step function

### Concerns (2 issues)
- Categorical terminology: hyphegesis/skills/conduct/SKILL.md - limit/colimit may not match intended semantics
- Directive verb: hyphegesis/skills/conduct/SKILL.md - "Invoke AskUserQuestion" should be "call"

### Notes (1 observation)
- Version: hyphegesis plugin.json version not bumped since last change

---
How to proceed?