validate

name	validate
description	Verify that an implementation plan was correctly executed by running each phase's success criteria against the working tree and producing a validation report. Use after the implement skill completes, when the user asks to "validate the plan", wants a post-implementation audit, or needs to confirm a feature is fully shipped per its plan.
argument-hint	[plan-path]
allowed-tools	Read, Bash(git *), Bash(make *), Glob, Grep, Agent
shell-timeout	10

Validate

You are tasked with validating that an implementation plan was correctly executed, verifying all success criteria and identifying any deviations or issues.

Input

$ARGUMENTS — optional path to a plan in .rpiv/artifacts/plans/. If omitted, branch on the recent-plans list in the Metadata block.

Metadata

node "${SKILL_DIR}/../_shared/now.mjs"
echo
node "${SKILL_DIR}/../_shared/git-context.mjs"
echo
echo "### recent (read only in case of empty user input)"
echo "recent plans:"
node "${SKILL_DIR}/../_shared/list-recent.mjs" .rpiv/artifacts/plans 10

Steps

Step 1: Input Handling and Context Discovery

When invoked:

1. Determine context — fresh or existing conversation?

   • If existing: review what was implemented in this session, then proceed to Step 2.
   • If fresh: continue with the substeps below.

2. Locate the plan:

   • If plan path provided, use it.
   • Otherwise, branch on the recent plans: listing in the Metadata block:
     • Empty — no plans under .rpiv/artifacts/plans/; ask the user for a path in prose.
     • Exactly one entry — confirm with ask_user_question: "Validate this plan?" with options "Validate <filename> (Recommended)" and "Pick a different path".
     • Two or more entries — present the top 4 filenames as ask_user_question options (a free-text "Other" row is appended automatically).

3. Read the implementation plan completely

4. Identify what should have changed:

   • List all files that should be modified
   • Note all success criteria (automated and manual)
   • Identify key functionality to verify

5. Gather implementation evidence:

   If in_repo: in the Metadata block is no:

   • Skip git-based evidence gathering (git log, git diff).
   • Validate via file inspection, the plan's #### Automated Verification: commands, and the plan checklist.
   • Note in report: "Git history unavailable — validation based on file inspection only".

   Otherwise:

   • git log --oneline -n 20 — recent commits for implementation context.
   • git diff <base>..HEAD — where <base> covers the implementation commits (determine from git log above). Scope to specific paths if the diff is large.
   • The plan's own #### Automated Verification: commands — read them out of the plan and run them as-written. Do NOT hardcode make or any project-specific build tool here; the plan encodes the right commands per project (e.g. npm run check, npm test, cargo test, pytest).

6. Spawn parallel research agents to verify implementation:

   Spawn the agents below in parallel using the Agent tool. Wait for ALL agents to complete before proceeding.

   Analyzer agent:

   • subagent_type: codebase-analyzer
   • Prompt: "Analyze {component} and verify it implements {plan requirement} correctly."

   Pattern finder agent:

   • subagent_type: codebase-pattern-finder
   • Prompt: "Find patterns similar to {new code} and check if conventions are followed."

Step 2: Systematic Validation

For each phase in the plan:

1. Check completion status:

   • Look for checkmarks in the plan (- [x])
   • Verify the actual code matches claimed completion

2. Run automated verification:

   • Execute each command from "Automated Verification"
   • Document pass/fail status
   • If failures, investigate root cause

3. Assess manual criteria:

   • List what needs manual testing
   • Provide clear steps for user verification

4. Think deeply about edge cases:

   • Were error conditions handled?
   • Are there missing validations?
   • Could the implementation break existing functionality?

Step 3: Write the Validation Report

1. Determine metadata (from the Metadata block at the top of this skill):

   • Filename: .rpiv/artifacts/validation/<slug>_<plan-topic-kebab>.md — <slug> is the second tab-separated field on line 1 of the Metadata block above; <plan-topic-kebab> is the plan's topic: frontmatter value lowercased and hyphen-joined.
   • repository: ← repo: label; branch: / commit: ← matching labels.
   • date: ← <iso> (first tab-separated field on line 1 of the Metadata block above, offset verbatim).
   • author: ← matching label (fallback: unknown).
   • parent: ← the plan path resolved in Step 1.
   • tags: ← [validation, ...] plus any tags carried from the plan's frontmatter.
   • topic: ← "Validation of <plan topic>".

2. Determine status:

   • complete — every phase marked - [x] in the plan is verified against the code, every automated command passes, no Deviations from Plan and no Potential Issues require action.
   • needs_changes — any phase fails verification, any automated command fails, or Deviations / Potential Issues list items that require action.

3. Write the artifact using the Write tool (no Edit — this skill writes once per run). Read templates/validation.md, fill every {placeholder} with the values determined above and the observations gathered in Step 2, apply the section-omission rules in the template (omit #### Pattern Conformance: and #### Potential Issues: entirely when empty; keep all other sections and emit None — … literals when empty), and Write the result to the target path.

What is NOT emitted to the artifact: per-agent dispatch logs, raw git log output, intermediate reasoning. The Findings subsections capture verified outcomes only — the agent trace stays in the skill run, not the artifact.

Step 4: Present Summary

Validation written to:
`.rpiv/artifacts/validation/{filename}.md`

Status: {complete | needs_changes}

Follow-up footer:

---

💬 Follow-up: if findings are localized, fix them and re-run /skill:validate. If findings imply plan-level changes, escalate to /skill:revise <plan-path> first.

Next step: /skill:commit — group the validated changes into atomic commits (skip if status is needs_changes — fix the gaps first, then re-run /skill:validate).

🆕 Tip: start a fresh session with /new first — chained skills work best with a clean context window.

Handle Follow-ups

• Validate does not edit code or plans. It produces a report. Fixes happen in implement; plan revisions happen in revise.
• Localized gaps. If findings are small and localized, fix them in-place and re-run /skill:validate for a fresh report.
• Plan-level gaps. If findings imply the plan itself is wrong (missing phases, wrong approach, untestable success criteria), escalate to /skill:revise <plan-path> first, then re-implement, then re-validate.
• No append mode. Each validation run produces a fresh report — there is no ## Follow-up append. The previous block's Next step: stays valid only when status is complete.

Working with Existing Context

If you were part of the implementation:

• Review the conversation history
• Check your todo list for what was completed
• Focus validation on work done in this session
• Be honest about any shortcuts or incomplete items

Important Guidelines

1. Be thorough but practical - Focus on what matters
2. Run all automated checks - Don't skip verification commands
3. Document everything - Both successes and issues
4. Think critically - Question if the implementation truly solves the problem
5. Consider maintenance - Will this be maintainable long-term?

Validation Checklist

Always verify:

• All phases marked complete are actually done
• Automated tests pass
• Code follows existing patterns
• No regressions introduced
• Error handling is robust
• Documentation updated if needed
• Manual test steps are clear

Relationship to Other Skills

Recommended workflow:

1. /skill:implement - Execute the implementation
2. /skill:commit - Create atomic commits for changes
3. /skill:validate - Verify implementation correctness

The validation works best after commits are made, as it can analyze the git history to understand what was implemented.

Remember: Good validation catches issues before they reach production. Be constructive but thorough in identifying gaps or improvements.