| name | ctx-verify |
| description | Runs 3-stage verification of a hierarchical context architecture — reference integrity, code reference validity, and content accuracy checked in sequence to produce a report. Triggers — 계층적 컨텍스트 검증, 참조 무결성, 코드 참조 검증, 내용 정확성, 컨텍스트 아키텍처 검증, ctx-verify. |
| argument-hint | [stage number: 1|2|3|all (default: all)] |
Context Architecture Verify
Performs 3-stage verification of a hierarchical context architecture. For the detailed verification procedure, see references/verification-guide.md in the guide skill.
Respond to the user in Korean.
Execution Steps
Step 0: Collect context files
Collect the following files across the project:
CLAUDE.md (project root)**/CLAUDE.md (subdirectories — Claude Code on-demand auto-loading).claude/rules/*.md (path-scoped rules)AGENTS.md (project root — not auto-loaded by Claude Code)**/CONTEXT.md (all directories — not auto-loaded by Claude Code)
If no files exist, output "컨텍스트 아키텍처가 아직 초기화되지 않았습니다. /agent-context:ctx-init을 먼저 실행하세요." and exit.
If a stage number is given as an argument, run only that stage. The default is all (run everything).
Stage 1: Reference Integrity
- Extract markdown links
[텍스트](경로) and @path/to/file imports from all context files.
- Check whether each link/import target file exists (use Glob).
- Check that every context file is referenced by at least one parent file.
- Check whether the root CLAUDE.md exists.
- Output the results as a markdown table:
## Stage 1: 참조 무결성 ✅/❌
| 상태 | 파일 | 항목 | 설명 |
|------|------|------|------|
| ❌ | src/CONTEXT.md | ./old/CONTEXT.md 링크 | 파일 존재하지 않음 |
| ⚠️ | tests/CONTEXT.md | (고립) | 상위에서 참조 없음 |
| ✅ | 전체 | 순환 참조 | 없음 |
Stage 2: Code Reference Validation
- Extract code references from all context files (CLAUDE.md, subdirectory CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules/, CONTEXT.md):
- File paths in backticks:
`src/handler.ts`
- Key Files list items
- import/require statements inside code blocks
- Check whether each reference exists in the actual filesystem via Glob.
- For references that do not exist, search for similar filenames (infer moves).
- Check whether the build/test commands in CLAUDE.md are valid (cross-check against package.json scripts, etc.).
- Output the results as a markdown table:
## Stage 2: 코드 참조 검증 ✅/❌
| 상태 | 컨텍스트 파일 | 참조 | 비고 |
|------|--------------|------|------|
| ❌ | CLAUDE.md | `npm run lint:fix` | package.json에 없음 |
| ⚠️ | src/CONTEXT.md | `utils.ts` | src/shared/utils.ts로 이동 추정 |
| ✅ | src/api/CONTEXT.md | `handler.ts` | 존재 확인 |
Stage 3: Content Accuracy
- Extract technical claims from context documents:
- "uses library X" → verify against package.json/Cargo.toml, etc.
- "follows pattern Y" → attempt to verify from code structure
- "build with command Z" → check actual runnability
- Verify only the items that can be verified automatically.
- Classify items needing manual verification as Info.
- Output the results as a markdown table:
## Stage 3: 내용 정확성 ✅/❌
| 상태 | 컨텍스트 파일 | 주장 | 실제 |
|------|--------------|------|------|
| ❌ | CLAUDE.md | "Zustand 사용" | package.json에 없음 |
| ⚠️ | src/CONTEXT.md | "RORO 패턴 준수" | 12/15 엔드포인트만 준수 |
| ℹ️ | src/api/CONTEXT.md | "P99 < 100ms" | 자동 검증 불가 |
Stage 3.5: Codex Second-Pass Validation (optional)
After Stage 2/3 findings are complete, if the Codex skill is available, bring in /codex:review as a second-pass validator.
- Run
/codex:review --wait — target the context files verified in Stages 1–3.
- Collect structured findings with
/codex:result.
- Cross-check the Codex findings:
- Critical/Warning items missed in Stages 1–3 → add to the consolidated report with
source: "codex-second-pass"
- Items found by both → keep the existing finding (deduplicate)
- Codex-only Info items → ignore
Guardrail: The PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL verdict, anti-pattern deductions, and CLEAN criteria are owned by ctx-verify as the source of truth. Codex only supplements coverage.
Skip this stage if the Codex skill is not installed.
Final: Consolidated report
# 컨텍스트 아키텍처 검증 종합 리포트
## 요약
| 단계 | Critical | Warning | Info | 상태 |
|------|----------|---------|------|------|
| 참조 무결성 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 🟢 |
| 코드 참조 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 🔴 |
| 내용 정확성 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 🟡 |
## 전체 건전성: 🟡 양호 (주의 필요)
## 우선 조치 항목
1. [Critical] ...
2. [Critical] ...
3. [Warning] ...
Skeptical Re-verification Loop
Principle: Generator-Evaluator role separation + skeptical evaluation (Anthropic Harness Design blog)
"tuning a standalone evaluator to be skeptical turns out to be far more tractable
than making a generator critical of its own work"
Step 1: Define the Sprint Contract
Before starting automated fixes, agree on the completion criteria:
## Sprint Contract
- 자동 수정 대상: [아래 표의 자동 수정 가능 항목]
- CLEAN 기준: Critical + Warning findings = 0
- 수동 조치 항목: [고립 파일 구조 변경, 수동 검증 필요 기술적 주장]
- 수정이 아닌 것: findings 삭제, 심각도 하향, 검증 기준 완화
Step 2: Auto-fixable items
| Type | Stage | Fix method |
|---|
| Broken link (target file moved) | 1 | Update path to the similar filename |
| Code reference path mismatch | 2 | Locate current position via Glob → update path |
| Build/test command mismatch | 2 | Extract the exact command from package.json/Makefile → update |
| Library description mismatch | 3 | Extract the actual list from the dependency file → update |
Items requiring manual fixes are shown in the report only.
Step 3: Skeptical re-verification
After fixing, switch to a separate skeptical evaluator role and re-verify.
Skeptical evaluation perspective (avoiding the self-evaluation trap):
- Do the fixed paths/commands actually exist? — re-confirm with Glob/Read.
- Did the fix break references in other context files? — trace the impact scope.
- Compare before/after files to check for unintended content changes.
- If in doubt, fail — at boundary scores (6-7), rule fail.
- Do not self-praise — re-read the file before judging that "the fix was done well".
3-axis multidimensional evaluation:
| Axis | Weight | Description |
|---|
| Reference Integrity | 40% | Link/import targets exist, no orphaned files |
| Code Sync | 35% | Code reference paths valid, build/test commands valid |
| Content Accuracy | 25% | Technical claims match reality |
Score calibration:
| Range | Reference Integrity | Code Sync | Content Accuracy |
|---|
| 9-10 | Links 100% valid + 0 orphans | All paths/commands valid | Technical claims 100% verified |
| 7-8 | Links valid, 1 orphan | 1-2 paths incomplete | Mostly accurate |
| 5-6 | 1-2 broken links | Build command mismatch | Major library mismatch |
| 3-4 | Many broken links | Core paths missing | Major technical claims inaccurate |
| 1-2 | Root CLAUDE.md missing | Most code references invalid | Content unrelated to reality |
Verdict: weighted average ≥7 PASS / 4-6 PARTIAL / <4 FAIL
ctx-verify domain anti-patterns (automatic deductions):
| Anti-pattern | Axis | Deduction |
|---|
| Circular reference | Reference Integrity | -3 |
| Link to a nonexistent file | Reference Integrity | -2 |
| Description of a removed library | Content Accuracy | -2 |
| Orphaned context file | Reference Integrity | -1 |
| Reference to a moved file not updated | Code Sync | -1 |
| Non-runnable build command | Code Sync | -1 |
Artifact generation (required for 2+ rounds):
At the end of each round, record into the .claude/ctx-verify/ directory:
# Verify Round {N} — Context Architecture
## 평가 축 점수
| 축 | 가중치 | 점수 | 근거 |
|----|--------|------|------|
| 참조 무결성 | 40% | {N}/10 | {구체적 근거} |
| 코드 동기화 | 35% | {N}/10 | {구체적 근거} |
| 내용 정확성 | 25% | {N}/10 | {구체적 근거} |
| **가중 평균** | | **{N.N}** | **{PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL}** |
## 안티패턴 탐지
| 안티패턴 | 축 | 감점 | 상세 |
|----------|-----|------|------|
## 수정 지침 (PARTIAL/FAIL 시)
1. {파일}:{위치} — {구체적 수정 방법}
Loop control
Round 1: Sprint Contract 정의 → Stage 1~3 검증 → 자동 수정 (사용자 승인)
Round 2: 회의적 재검증 (수정한 Stage만)
→ CLEAN → 완료
→ 잔여 findings → 추가 수정 + Round 3
Round 3: 회의적 재검증 (최종)
→ CLEAN → 완료
→ 잔여 → "수동 조치 필요" 리포트 출력 후 종료
Termination conditions (any one met):
- The Sprint Contract's CLEAN criteria are met → CLEAN
- This round's findings ≥ the previous round's → CONVERGED (the fix introduced new problems)
- Round 3 complete → MAX_ROUNDS
Add the loop history to the final report:
## 검증 루프 이력
| 라운드 | Sprint Contract | findings | 수정 | 잔여 | 가중평균 | 판정 |
|--------|----------------|----------|------|------|---------|------|
| 1 | Critical+Warning=0 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5.8 | CONTINUE |
| 2 | Critical+Warning=0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6.2 | CONVERGED (수동 조치 필요) |
