openspec-verify-change

name	openspec-verify-change
description	Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.
license	MIT
compatibility	Requires openspec CLI.
metadata	{"author":"openspec","version":"1.0","generatedBy":"1.3.1"}

Project context preflight before workflow actions: before this skill takes a workflow action, follow the project-constitution skill. Read root CONSTITUTION.md when present, enforce relevant project rules, stop on material conflicts, and follow the strict missing-constitution bootstrap/diagnostic policy. For architecture-sensitive work, also read ARCHITECTURE.md, adr/README.md, and relevant in-force adr/*.md. Read .secrets.local.env only when the current workflow actually needs a listed external system, and never reveal secret values.

Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

   Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the Codex interactive user question tool when available, otherwise a concise Markdown question to let the user select.

   Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists). Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

2. Check status to understand the schema

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
   • Which artifacts exist for this change

3. Get the change directory and load artifacts

   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
   

   This returns the change directory and contextFiles (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). Read all available artifacts from contextFiles. For intent-driven changes, also read grill.md, design-review.md, and test-plan.md from context files, read root CONTEXT.md/CONTEXT-MAP.md when present, read top-level adr/*.md when present, read openspec/changes/<name>/reviews/*.json OpenAI-compatible artifact review reports when present or required by .codex/openspec-artifact-review.json, and derive the in-force ADR set by following supersession links.

4. Initialize verification report structure

   Create a report structure with three dimensions:

   • Completeness: Track tasks and spec coverage
   • Correctness: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
   • Coherence: Track design adherence and pattern consistency

   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.

5. Verify Completeness

   Task Completion:

   • If contextFiles.tasks exists, read every file path in it

Verification Heuristics

• Completeness: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
• Correctness: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
• Coherence: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
• False Positives: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
• Actionability: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable

Graceful Degradation

• If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design/grill/design-review/test-plan checks
• If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
• If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions, including grill/design-review resolutions, TDD evidence, and ADR constraints when present
• Always note which checks were skipped and why

Output Format

Use clear markdown with:

• Table for summary scorecard
• Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
• Code references in format: file.ts:123
• Specific, actionable recommendations
• No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"