/gate-spec

name: gate-spec
description: >-
  Maps every acceptance criterion from the spec to implementation evidence
  and test evidence. Criteria without evidence fail. The ultimate quality
  gate. Internal — invoked by verify.
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Bash
  - Glob
  - Grep
  - Write
  - Task

Gate: Spec Compliance

Goal

Prove that the implementation actually does what was asked for. Every acceptance criterion in the spec must map to implementation evidence (file:line) and test evidence (test name at file:line). This is the gate that closes the loop.

Inputs

• `{workDir}/spec.md` -- acceptance criteria
• `{repoStateRoot}/work/{selectedWork.id}/workflow.json` -- selected work unit
• The codebase (implementation and tests)

Outputs

• Evidence file at `{workDir}/evidence/spec-compliance.md`
• Compliance matrix: each criterion → implementation ref + test ref + status
• Gate status in the selected work's `workflow.json`
• The compliance matrix remains the canonical AC / IC proof surface that

downstream `review-packet.md` synthesis summarizes or references

Constraints

**Criteria extraction (LOW freedom):**

• Parse spec.md for all acceptance criteria (lines matching `- [ ] AC-*`).
• Number them. Every single one must be mapped. No skipping.
• On the final work unit of a multi-WU design: also parse behavioral integration

criteria (IC-B{n} entries) from `integration-criteria.md` in the design-level directory. IC-B entries are added to the compliance matrix alongside ACs. When not on the final work unit, when `integration-criteria.md` does not exist, or when `integration-criteria.md` has no IC-B entries, gate-spec operates exactly as before — no behavioral IC mapping.

**Evidence mapping (HIGH freedom):**

• For each criterion, search the codebase for implementation evidence.
• For each criterion, search test files for test evidence.
• Delegate to `specwright-reviewer` for thorough analysis if needed.
• For behavioral criteria (execution-path claims, not structural checks), trace

premises from the spec and code, derive claims from those premises, and draw conclusions without adding uncited evidence.

• Evidence must be specific: file path and line number, not "somewhere in src/".

**Verdict (LOW freedom):**

• Follow `protocols/evidence.md#verdict-rendering`.
• Criterion with both implementation AND test evidence = PASS.
• Criterion with implementation but no test = WARN.
• Criterion with neither = FAIL.
• Overall: if ANY criterion is FAIL, gate is FAIL.
• IC-B entries (when present): IC-B with both implementation and test evidence = PASS.

IC-B without test evidence = FAIL (gate-spec's standard verdict vocabulary). Note: gate-spec FAIL for IC-Bs and deliverable verification BLOCK for IC-Bs are complementary — gate-spec reports the finding within its standard framework, deliverable verification enforces the action. gate-spec runs first (as part of the 6 standard gates); deliverable verification runs after all gates.

• Reference discovered behaviors at INFO level per `protocols/build-quality.md`. Does not alter PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict.

**Compliance matrix format:**

| # | Criterion | Implementation | Test | Status |
|---|-----------|---------------|------|--------|
| AC-1 | Description | file:line | test_name at file:line | PASS |

**Matrix stability (LOW freedom):** Preserve the five-column compliance matrix shape above. `sw-verify` may digest or quote it in `review-packet.md`, but gate-spec remains the canonical proof surface for AC / IC conformance.

Protocol References

• `protocols/evidence.md#verdict-rendering` -- verdict rendering and self-critique
• `protocols/evidence.md` -- evidence storage
• `protocols/state.md` -- gate status updates
• `protocols/delegation.md` -- reviewer agent delegation

Failure Modes

| Condition | Action | |-----------|--------| | No spec.md found | Gate ERROR: "No spec found for this work unit" | | No acceptance criteria in spec | Gate ERROR: "Spec has no acceptance criteria" | | Implementation exists but tests don't | WARN per criterion, gate WARN overall | | Can't determine mapping with confidence | FAIL the criterion. Don't guess. |