| 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: Structural conformance (JSON schema, Unicode notation, directive verbs, required sections, morphism anatomy, gate-type soundness), cross-reference and routing integrity (cross-reference integrity and scan, routing-index contract, onboard/catalog sync, partition invariant), drift prevention (version staleness, codex-manifest sync, spec-vs-impl drift, single-axis soundness, emit-load discipline, framing-readout enforcement, language purity), and packaging/contract sync (artifact self-containment, packaged-agent contract sync). The check inventory is the script itself (scripts/static-checks.js); 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:
- Fix critical issues - Address critical findings before commit
- Review concerns - Examine each concern individually
- Proceed anyway - Commit with decision logged
- 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 detailed severity definitions and decision matrix.
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
With Prothesis
Verification may trigger perspective selection if findings require analysis approach decision.
With Syneidesis
Critical findings surface as high-stakes gaps. Syneidesis gap detection may augment verification.
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: prothesis/skills/frame/SKILL.md - Undefined transition when |perspectives(C)| < 2
### Concerns (2 issues)
- Categorical terminology: prothesis/skills/frame/SKILL.md - limit/colimit may not match intended semantics
- Directive verb: prothesis/skills/frame/SKILL.md - "Invoke AskUserQuestion" should be "call"
### Notes (1 observation)
- Version: prothesis plugin.json version not bumped since last change
---
How to proceed?
