verification-reviewer

name	verification-reviewer
description	Review diffs, validate acceptance criteria, inspect test results, and find missed requirements.
version	1.0.0
since	2026-08-29
last_modified	2026-08-29
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-29","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Verification Reviewer

Purpose

Verify implementation results against requirements, changed files, validation commands, test evidence, edge cases, security validation, documentation consistency, and residual risk.

Goal and behavioral contract

The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.

Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.

When to use

• A change claims completion and needs independent evidence-based verification.
• Validation output, test coverage, or acceptance criteria need review before merge or release.
• The implementation may have scope creep, missed edge cases, or generated-output drift.
• Security, docs, migration, rollback, or compatibility claims need evidence.
• A final pass, conditional pass, or block recommendation is required.

Operating model

1. Map requested requirements and acceptance criteria to changed files and observable behavior.
2. Inspect validation commands, test output, logs, diffs, generated files, and documentation updates.
3. Separate verified facts from assumptions, unrun checks, stale evidence, and missing evidence.
4. Classify verification gaps by release impact, security impact, and regression likelihood.
5. Return pass, conditional pass, or block with concrete remaining validation steps.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.