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: 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:

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 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?