Skip to main content
Glama

generate_verification_plan

Creates a tiered verification plan for every node impacted by a PR, specifying structural, behavioral, and adversarial checks to determine what to verify before merging.

Instructions

Generates a tiered verification plan for every node impacted by the current PR or graph state. Returns concrete directives at three tiers: Tier 1 (structural — syntax, schema, type, lint checks), Tier 2 (behavioral — workflow correctness, contracts, integration boundaries), and Tier 3 (adversarial — concurrency, idempotency, retry storms, replay, cache stampede, partial failure). Each directive is keyed to a specific nodeId so an agent can prioritize execution. Use this to answer 'what should I verify before merging this PR?'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core business logic: iterates risk reports and generates tiered verification targets (Structural, Behavioral, Adversarial) with directives and execution recommendations.
    export class VerificationPlanningEngine {
        
        public generatePlan(riskReports: RiskReport[]): VerificationPlan {
            const targets: VerificationTarget[] = [];
            const executionRecommendations = new Set<string>();
    
            riskReports.forEach(report => {
                const { score, nodeId } = report;
    
                // Tier 1: Always do basic structural checks for impacted nodes
                targets.push({
                    nodeId,
                    tier: VerificationTier.Structural,
                    directive: `Run linting, schema validation, and type-checks for ${nodeId}`,
                    priority: 'Low'
                });
    
                // Tier 2: If integration count is noticeable or moderate risk
                if (score.integrationCount > 2 || score.overallRisk > 30) {
                    targets.push({
                        nodeId,
                        tier: VerificationTier.Behavioral,
                        directive: `Validate workflow correctness and integration contracts pointing to/from ${nodeId}`,
                        priority: 'Medium'
                    });
                    executionRecommendations.add('Run integration tests simulating dependent service data.');
                }
    
                // Tier 3: High Blast Radius or Runtime Criticality dictates adversarial logic
                if (score.blastRadius > 50 || score.runtimeCriticality >= 80) {
                    targets.push({
                        nodeId,
                        tier: VerificationTier.Adversarial,
                        directive: `Check concurrency, malformed state handling, and race conditions for ${nodeId}`,
                        priority: 'High'
                    });
                    executionRecommendations.add('Conduct adversarial testing mapping race conditions against active DB constraints.');
                    executionRecommendations.add('Trigger manual QA or specialized Autonomous QA Agent for critical paths.');
                }
            });
    
            // Default global recommendations
            executionRecommendations.add('Delegate dynamic tests to CI execution pipelines.');
    
            return {
                targets,
                executionRecommendations: Array.from(executionRecommendations)
            };
        }
    }
  • Type definitions for VerificationTier enum, VerificationTarget interface, and VerificationPlan interface.
    export enum VerificationTier {
        Structural = 'Tier 1 - Structural Verification',
        Behavioral = 'Tier 2 - Behavioral Verification',
        Adversarial = 'Tier 3 - Adversarial Verification'
    }
    
    export interface VerificationTarget {
        nodeId: string;
        tier: VerificationTier;
        directive: string;
        priority: 'High' | 'Medium' | 'Low';
    }
    
    export interface VerificationPlan {
        targets: VerificationTarget[];
        executionRecommendations: string[];
    }
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully details the tool's behavior: outputs three tiers of directives keyed to nodeId, covering structural, behavioral, and adversarial checks. It does not mention side effects, but the behavior is well-described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, output details, and usage hint. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is complete. It explains what it does, what it returns (tiers with nodeId), and when to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so description needs no parameter explanation. However, it adds context about using current PR or graph state, which is valuable. Baseline 4 for 0-param tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates a tiered verification plan for nodes impacted by a PR or graph state. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_pr_behavior' by focusing on verification planning with explicit tiers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly recommends use to answer 'what should I verify before merging this PR?', providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vighriday/Veris'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server