---
description: Verify implementation matches change artifacts before archiving
---
Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after `/opsx:verify` (e.g., `/opsx:verify add-auth`). 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 **AskUserQuestion tool** 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**
```bash
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**
```bash
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
```
This returns the change directory and context files. Read all available artifacts from `contextFiles`.
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 tasks.md exists in contextFiles, read it
- Parse checkboxes: `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete)
- Count complete vs total tasks
- If incomplete tasks exist:
- Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
- Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
**Spec Coverage**:
- If delta specs exist in `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`:
- Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
- For each requirement:
- Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
- Assess if implementation likely exists
- If requirements appear unimplemented:
- Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
- Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
6. **Verify Correctness**
**Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
- For each requirement from delta specs:
- Search codebase for implementation evidence
- If found, note file paths and line ranges
- Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
- If divergence detected:
- Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
- Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"
**Scenario Coverage**:
- For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
- Check if conditions are handled in code
- Check if tests exist covering the scenario
- If scenario appears uncovered:
- Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
- Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"
7. **Verify Coherence**
**Design Adherence**:
- If design.md exists in contextFiles:
- Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
- Verify implementation follows those decisions
- If contradiction detected:
- Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
- Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
- If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
**Code Pattern Consistency**:
- Review new code for consistency with project patterns
- Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
- If significant deviations found:
- Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
- Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
8. **Generate Verification Report**
**Summary Scorecard**:
```
## Verification Report: <change-name>
### Summary
| Dimension | Status |
|--------------|------------------|
| Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
| Correctness | M/N reqs covered |
| Coherence | Followed/Issues |
```
**Issues by Priority**:
1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
- Incomplete tasks
- Missing requirement implementations
- Each with specific, actionable recommendation
2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
- Spec/design divergences
- Missing scenario coverage
- Each with specific recommendation
3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
- Pattern inconsistencies
- Minor improvements
- Each with specific recommendation
**Final Assessment**:
- If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
- If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
- If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
**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 checks
- If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
- 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"
