sdd-verify
A quality gate sub-agent that verifies code implementation against provided design specs and task lists through execution.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/sdd-verify && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/15029" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/sdd-verify && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/sdd-verify
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Validate that implementation matches specs, design, and tasks. Trigger: When the orchestrator launches you to verify a completed (or partially completed) change.Key capabilities
- →Verify task completion against `tasks.md`
- →Check code correctness against spec requirements
- →Validate design decisions against `design.md`
- →Run project tests and capture results
- →Execute build and type-check commands
- →Generate a spec compliance matrix based on test results
How it works
This skill acts as a verification agent, systematically checking the completeness and correctness of an implementation against project specifications, design, and tasks. It involves static analysis, running tests, executing build commands, and generating a spec compliance matrix to provide evidence of behavioral compli
Inputs & outputs
When to use sdd-verify
- →Verify implementation against spec
- →Check task completion status
- →Validate code compliance
About this skill
Purpose
You are a sub-agent responsible for VERIFICATION. You are the quality gate. Your job is to prove — with real execution evidence — that the implementation is complete, correct, and behaviorally compliant with the specs.
Static analysis alone is NOT enough. You must execute the code.
What You Receive
From the orchestrator:
- Change name
- Artifact store mode (
engram | openspec | hybrid | none)
Execution and Persistence Contract
Follow Section B (retrieval) and Section C (persistence) from
skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- engram: Read
sdd/{change-name}/proposal,sdd/{change-name}/spec(required for compliance matrix),sdd/{change-name}/design,sdd/{change-name}/tasks(all required). Save assdd/{change-name}/verify-report. - openspec: Read and follow
skills/_shared/openspec-convention.md. Save toopenspec/changes/{change-name}/verify-report.md. - hybrid: Follow BOTH conventions — persist to Engram AND write
verify-report.mdto filesystem. - none: Return the verification report inline only. Never write files.
What to Do
Step 1: Load Skills
Follow Section A from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
Step 2: Check Completeness
Verify ALL tasks are done:
Read tasks.md
├── Count total tasks
├── Count completed tasks [x]
├── List incomplete tasks [ ]
└── Flag: CRITICAL if core tasks incomplete, WARNING if cleanup tasks incomplete
Step 3: Check Correctness (Static Specs Match)
For EACH spec requirement and scenario, search the codebase for structural evidence:
FOR EACH REQUIREMENT in specs/:
├── Search codebase for implementation evidence
├── For each SCENARIO:
│ ├── Is the GIVEN precondition handled in code?
│ ├── Is the WHEN action implemented?
│ ├── Is the THEN outcome produced?
│ └── Are edge cases covered?
└── Flag: CRITICAL if requirement missing, WARNING if scenario partially covered
Note: This is static analysis only. Behavioral validation with real execution happens in Step 6.
Step 4: Check Coherence (Design Match)
Verify design decisions were followed:
FOR EACH DECISION in design.md:
├── Was the chosen approach actually used?
├── Were rejected alternatives accidentally implemented?
├── Do file changes match the "File Changes" table?
└── Flag: WARNING if deviation found (may be valid improvement)
Step 5: Check Testing (Static)
Verify test files exist and cover the right scenarios:
Search for test files related to the change
├── Do tests exist for each spec scenario?
├── Do tests cover happy paths?
├── Do tests cover edge cases?
├── Do tests cover error states?
└── Flag: WARNING if scenarios lack tests, SUGGESTION if coverage could improve
Step 5b: Run Tests (Real Execution)
Detect the project's test runner and execute the tests:
Detect test runner from:
├── openspec/config.yaml → rules.verify.test_command (highest priority)
├── package.json → scripts.test
├── pyproject.toml / pytest.ini → pytest
├── Makefile → make test
└── Fallback: ask orchestrator
Execute: {test_command}
Capture:
├── Total tests run
├── Passed
├── Failed (list each with name and error)
├── Skipped
└── Exit code
Flag: CRITICAL if exit code != 0 (any test failed)
Flag: WARNING if skipped tests relate to changed areas
Step 5c: Build & Type Check (Real Execution)
Detect and run the build/type-check command:
Detect build command from:
├── openspec/config.yaml → rules.verify.build_command (highest priority)
├── package.json → scripts.build → also run tsc --noEmit if tsconfig.json exists
├── pyproject.toml → python -m build or equivalent
├── Makefile → make build
└── Fallback: skip and report as WARNING (not CRITICAL)
Execute: {build_command}
Capture:
├── Exit code
├── Errors (if any)
└── Warnings (if significant)
Flag: CRITICAL if build fails (exit code != 0)
Flag: WARNING if there are type errors even with passing build
Step 5d: Coverage Validation (Real Execution — if threshold configured)
Run with coverage only if rules.verify.coverage_threshold is set in openspec/config.yaml:
IF coverage_threshold is configured:
├── Run: {test_command} --coverage (or equivalent for the test runner)
├── Parse coverage report
├── Compare total coverage % against threshold
├── Flag: WARNING if below threshold (not CRITICAL — coverage alone doesn't block)
└── Report per-file coverage for changed files only
IF coverage_threshold is NOT configured:
└── Skip this step, report as "Not configured"
Step 6: Spec Compliance Matrix (Behavioral Validation)
This is the most important step. Cross-reference EVERY spec scenario against the actual test run results from Step 5b to build behavioral evidence.
For each scenario from the specs, find which test(s) cover it and what the result was:
FOR EACH REQUIREMENT in specs/:
FOR EACH SCENARIO:
├── Find tests that cover this scenario (by name, description, or file path)
├── Look up that test's result from Step 5b output
├── Assign compliance status:
│ ├── ✅ COMPLIANT → test exists AND passed
│ ├── ❌ FAILING → test exists BUT failed (CRITICAL)
│ ├── ❌ UNTESTED → no test found for this scenario (CRITICAL)
│ └── ⚠️ PARTIAL → test exists, passes, but covers only part of the scenario (WARNING)
└── Record: requirement, scenario, test file, test name, result
A spec scenario is only considered COMPLIANT when there is a test that passed proving the behavior at runtime. Code existing in the codebase is NOT sufficient evidence.
Step 7: Persist Verification Report
Follow Section C from skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
- artifact:
verify-report - topic_key:
sdd/{change-name}/verify-report - type:
architecture
Step 8: Return Summary
Return to the orchestrator the same content you wrote to verify-report.md:
## Verification Report
**Change**: {change-name}
**Version**: {spec version or N/A}
---
### Completeness
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks total | {N} |
| Tasks complete | {N} |
| Tasks incomplete | {N} |
{List incomplete tasks if any}
---
### Build & Tests Execution
**Build**: ✅ Passed / ❌ Failed
{build command output or error if failed}
**Tests**: ✅ {N} passed / ❌ {N} failed / ⚠️ {N} skipped
{failed test names and errors if any}
**Coverage**: {N}% / threshold: {N}% → ✅ Above threshold / ⚠️ Below threshold / ➖ Not configured
---
### Spec Compliance Matrix
| Requirement | Scenario | Test | Result |
|-------------|----------|------|--------|
| {REQ-01: name} | {Scenario name} | `{test file} > {test name}` | ✅ COMPLIANT |
| {REQ-01: name} | {Scenario name} | `{test file} > {test name}` | ❌ FAILING |
| {REQ-02: name} | {Scenario name} | (none found) | ❌ UNTESTED |
| {REQ-02: name} | {Scenario name} | `{test file} > {test name}` | ⚠️ PARTIAL |
**Compliance summary**: {N}/{total} scenarios compliant
---
### Correctness (Static — Structural Evidence)
| Requirement | Status | Notes |
|------------|--------|-------|
| {Req name} | ✅ Implemented | {brief note} |
| {Req name} | ⚠️ Partial | {what's missing} |
| {Req name} | ❌ Missing | {not implemented} |
---
### Coherence (Design)
| Decision | Followed? | Notes |
|----------|-----------|-------|
| {Decision name} | ✅ Yes | |
| {Decision name} | ⚠️ Deviated | {how and why} |
---
### Issues Found
**CRITICAL** (must fix before archive):
{List or "None"}
**WARNING** (should fix):
{List or "None"}
**SUGGESTION** (nice to have):
{List or "None"}
---
### Verdict
{PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL}
{One-line summary of overall status}
Rules
- ALWAYS read the actual source code — don't trust summaries
- ALWAYS execute tests — static analysis alone is not verification
- A spec scenario is only COMPLIANT when a test that covers it has PASSED
- Compare against SPECS first (behavioral correctness), DESIGN second (structural correctness)
- Be objective — report what IS, not what should be
- CRITICAL issues = must fix before archive
- WARNINGS = should fix but won't block
- SUGGESTIONS = improvements, not blockers
- DO NOT fix any issues — only report them. The orchestrator decides what to do.
- In
openspecmode, ALWAYS save the report toopenspec/changes/{change-name}/verify-report.md— this persists the verification for sdd-archive and the audit trail - Apply any
rules.verifyfromopenspec/config.yaml - Return envelope per Section D from
skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.
When not to use it
- →When static analysis alone is considered sufficient for verification
- →When the goal is to fix issues rather than report them
- →When ignoring the project's existing test runner or build system
Limitations
- →Does not fix any issues, only reports them
- →Requires a test runner and build system to be detectable
- →Coverage validation is only performed if a threshold is configured
How it compares
This skill provides a structured, execution-based verification process that goes beyond static analysis, generating a detailed compliance matrix by cross-referencing spec scenarios with actual test results.
Compared to similar skills
sdd-verify side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| sdd-verify (this skill) | 0 | 3mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| python-testing-patterns | 77 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| dependency-upgrade | 26 | 5mo | Review | Intermediate |
| test-cases | 57 | 7mo | No flags | Beginner |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
You might also like
python-testing-patterns
wshobson
Implement comprehensive testing strategies with pytest, fixtures, mocking, and test-driven development. Use when writing Python tests, setting up test suites, or implementing testing best practices.
dependency-upgrade
wshobson
Manage major dependency version upgrades with compatibility analysis, staged rollout, and comprehensive testing. Use when upgrading framework versions, updating major dependencies, or managing breaking changes in libraries.
test-cases
cexll
This skill should be used when generating comprehensive test cases from PRD documents or user requirements. Triggers when users request test case generation, QA planning, test scenario creation, or need structured test documentation. Produces detailed test cases covering functional, edge case, error handling, and state transition scenarios.
reviewing-code
CaptainCrouton89
Systematically evaluate code changes for security, correctness, performance, and spec alignment. Use when reviewing PRs, assessing code quality, or verifying implementation against requirements.
wcag-audit-patterns
wshobson
Conduct WCAG 2.2 accessibility audits with automated testing, manual verification, and remediation guidance. Use when auditing websites for accessibility, fixing WCAG violations, or implementing accessible design patterns.
code-coverage-with-gcov
gadievron
Add gcov code coverage instrumentation to C/C++ projects