updated openspec workflow to include verify
This commit is contained in:
@@ -34,6 +34,30 @@ Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wher
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Planning a Change
|
||||
|
||||
When the user is planning a change, guide them toward shared understanding with focused discovery questions. For open-ended discussion, follow the conversation without imposing an interview or a required output.
|
||||
|
||||
Before asking a factual question, follow the context discovery below and inspect relevant OpenSpec artifacts, source, tests, docs, and configuration. Do not ask the user to repeat facts you can verify. Summarize relevant findings without reproducing private context or rules. If evidence is missing, conflicting, or inaccessible, state that limitation and ask only for the clarification needed to proceed.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Follow dependencies** - Resolve the next blocking decision before its dependent details. For example, clarify the user's outcome and scope before choosing an API or data model. Revisit downstream assumptions when an earlier answer changes. Skip branches that do not matter to this goal.
|
||||
- **Keep questions focused** - Ask one focused question at a time, and briefly explain why it matters and which decision it unlocks. Batch questions only if the user asks for a batch; keep them small and group related decisions.
|
||||
- **Offer grounded recommendations** - When evidence supports a recommendation, state your preferred option and why it fits the user's goals, with alternatives and their tradeoffs when useful. Do not invent intent, priorities, or external constraints: ask the user when only they can answer. Avoid a fixed question format.
|
||||
- **Keep a conversational record** - Track decisions in the conversation, not in files. Separate confirmed decisions from proposed defaults and unresolved questions. Silence is not acceptance. Accepting an answer or a batch of recommendations is not permission to write. Keep file-write confirmation separate from discovery questions and follow the guardrails below.
|
||||
|
||||
Stop asking when the user has enough clarity. Let them pause, pivot, or defer a decision; do not exhaust every branch or force a proposal.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, after inspecting the relevant code:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
The CLI already uses SQLite and has no remote service. Is sharing state
|
||||
across devices in scope? That determines whether local storage is enough.
|
||||
If this stays a single-device tool, I recommend keeping SQLite to avoid
|
||||
adding a service to operate; shared state would need a separate sync design.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What You Might Do
|
||||
|
||||
Depending on what the user brings, you might:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -93,6 +93,10 @@ When the user is ready to implement, they must start the apply workflow explicit
|
||||
- `resolvedOutputPath`: Resolved path or pattern to write the artifact
|
||||
- `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
|
||||
- Read any completed dependency files for context - always re-read them from disk, even if you saw them earlier in the conversation (the user may have edited them)
|
||||
- **Inspect the relevant project before drafting**: Read `context` and `rules` first, then inspect relevant implementation, nearby tests, configuration, and documentation outside `openspec/`. Keep inspection read-only and proportional to the change; reuse findings for later artifacts and inspect more only as needed.
|
||||
- Identify the target project from the request and project context; the planning home may be separate from the code. If the target is unclear, ask. For greenfield or non-code changes, inspect the available structure and relevant documents. If source is unavailable, state the limitation and ask when it materially affects the plan.
|
||||
- Ground scope, approach, and tasks in what you find. Distinguish observed behavior from assumptions and proposed additions; surface conflicts with existing specs instead of silently deciding which is correct.
|
||||
- Do this discovery now, rather than leaving generic "explore the codebase" or "make a plan" tasks for implementation. Keep any necessary follow-up investigation specific to an unresolved question.
|
||||
- If the `instruction` field delegates creation to a specific skill or command, invoke it to produce the artifact instead of writing the file yourself, then verify the artifact file exists at `resolvedOutputPath`
|
||||
- Otherwise create the artifact file using `template` as the structure and write it to `resolvedOutputPath`. If `resolvedOutputPath` is a glob, follow `instruction` to choose the concrete file path
|
||||
- Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
|
||||
|
||||
171
.claude/commands/opsx/verify.md
Normal file
171
.claude/commands/opsx/verify.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: "OPSX: Verify"
|
||||
description: "Verify implementation matches change artifacts before archiving"
|
||||
allowed-tools: Bash(openspec:*)
|
||||
category: "Workflow"
|
||||
tags: ["workflow", "verify", "experimental"]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
|
||||
|
||||
**Store selection:** If the user names a store (a store is a standalone OpenSpec repo registered on this machine) or the work lives in one, run `openspec store list --json` to discover registered store ids, then pass `--store <id>` on the commands that read or write specs and changes (`new change`, `status`, `instructions`, `list`, `show`, `validate`, `archive`, `doctor`, `context`, `schemas`, `view`). Once selected, treat `--store <id>` as sticky for the rest of the workflow. Every unscoped example of those commands below is shorthand: before running it, append the flag. For example, run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json --store "<id>"`, not the unscoped form shown below. Other commands do not take the flag. Hints printed by commands already carry the flag; keep it on follow-ups. Without a store, commands act on the nearest local `openspec/` root.
|
||||
|
||||
**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. **Select the change**
|
||||
|
||||
If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
|
||||
- Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
|
||||
- Auto-select if only one active change exists
|
||||
- If ambiguous, run `openspec list --json` to get available changes and ask the user to select one
|
||||
|
||||
When prompting, 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)".
|
||||
|
||||
Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:verify <other>`).
|
||||
|
||||
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")
|
||||
- `planningHome`, `changeRoot`, `artifactPaths`, and `actionContext`: path and scope context
|
||||
- Which artifacts exist for this change
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Get planning context and load artifacts**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This returns the change directory and `contextFiles` (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). 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 `contextFiles.tasks` exists, read every file path in 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 `contextFiles.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 `contextFiles.design` exists:
|
||||
- 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**:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## 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"
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user