191 lines
7.0 KiB
Markdown
191 lines
7.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Validate Plan
|
|
|
|
You are tasked with validating that an implementation plan was correctly executed, verifying all success criteria and identifying any deviations or issues.
|
|
|
|
## Initial Setup
|
|
|
|
When invoked:
|
|
1. **Determine context** - Are you in an existing conversation or starting fresh?
|
|
- If existing: Review what was implemented in this session
|
|
- If fresh: Need to discover what was done through git and codebase analysis
|
|
|
|
2. **Locate the plan**:
|
|
- If plan path provided, use it
|
|
- Otherwise, search recent commits for plan references or ask user
|
|
|
|
3. **Gather implementation evidence**:
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Check recent commits
|
|
git log --oneline -n 20
|
|
git diff HEAD~N..HEAD # Where N covers implementation commits
|
|
|
|
# Run comprehensive checks
|
|
cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) && make check test
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Validation Process
|
|
|
|
### Step 1: Context Discovery
|
|
|
|
If starting fresh or need more context:
|
|
|
|
**If the injected git context shows "not a git repo":**
|
|
- Skip git-based evidence gathering (git log, git diff)
|
|
- Validate via file inspection, automated test commands, and plan checklist
|
|
- Note in report: "Git history unavailable — validation based on file inspection only"
|
|
|
|
1. **Read the implementation plan** completely
|
|
2. **Identify what should have changed**:
|
|
- List all files that should be modified
|
|
- Note all success criteria (automated and manual)
|
|
- Identify key functionality to verify
|
|
|
|
3. **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.
|
|
- **general-purpose** agent — Verify implementation details match plan specifications (analyzer role)
|
|
- **general-purpose** agent — Verify implementation follows established codebase patterns (pattern-finder role)
|
|
|
|
Example agent prompts:
|
|
- "Analyze {component} and verify it implements {plan requirement} correctly"
|
|
- "Find patterns similar to {new code} and check if conventions are followed"
|
|
|
|
Also gather evidence directly:
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Check recent commits
|
|
git log --oneline -n 20
|
|
git diff HEAD~N..HEAD # Where N covers implementation commits
|
|
|
|
# Run comprehensive checks
|
|
cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) && make check test
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 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: Generate Validation Report
|
|
|
|
Create comprehensive validation summary:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Validation Report: {Plan Name}
|
|
|
|
### Implementation Status
|
|
✓ Phase 1: {Name} - Fully implemented
|
|
✓ Phase 2: {Name} - Fully implemented
|
|
⚠️ Phase 3: {Name} - Partially implemented (see issues)
|
|
|
|
### Automated Verification Results
|
|
✓ Build passes: `make build`
|
|
✓ Tests pass: `make test`
|
|
✗ Linting issues: `make lint` (3 warnings)
|
|
|
|
### Code Review Findings
|
|
|
|
#### Matches Plan:
|
|
- Database migration correctly adds {table}
|
|
- API endpoints implement specified methods
|
|
- Error handling follows plan
|
|
|
|
#### Deviations from Plan:
|
|
- Used different variable names in {file:line}
|
|
- Added extra validation in {file:line} (improvement)
|
|
|
|
#### Potential Issues:
|
|
- Missing index on foreign key could impact performance
|
|
- No rollback handling in migration
|
|
|
|
### Manual Testing Required:
|
|
1. UI functionality:
|
|
- [ ] Verify {feature} appears correctly
|
|
- [ ] Test error states with invalid input
|
|
|
|
2. Integration:
|
|
- [ ] Confirm works with existing {component}
|
|
- [ ] Check performance with large datasets
|
|
|
|
### Recommendations:
|
|
- Address linting warnings before merge
|
|
- Consider adding integration test for {scenario}
|
|
- Document new API endpoints
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
💬 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.
|