@codewalla_india/openspec 1.3.1 → 1.3.2

package/dist/core/templates/workflows/verify-change.js

@@ -1,172 +1,170 @@
-import { PLAYWRIGHT_VERIFY_GUIDANCE } from './mcp-guidance.js';
 import { STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE } from './store-selection.js';
-import { PROMPT_SELECT_CHANGE } from './user-prompt-guidance.js';
 export function getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate() {
     return {
         name: 'openspec-verify-change',
         description: 'Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.',
-        instructions: `Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
-
-${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
-
-**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. 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**
-
-   ${PROMPT_SELECT_CHANGE}
-
-   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")
-   - \`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>"
-
-${PLAYWRIGHT_VERIFY_GUIDANCE}
-
-9. **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  |
-   | Browser      | Screenshot / Playwright tests (or skipped) |
-   \`\`\`
-
-   **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
+        instructions: `Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. 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"`,
         license: 'MIT',
         compatibility: 'Requires openspec CLI.',
@@ -179,168 +177,168 @@ export function getOpsxVerifyCommandTemplate() {
         description: 'Verify implementation matches change artifacts before archiving',
         category: 'Workflow',
         tags: ['workflow', 'verify', 'experimental'],
-        content: `Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
-
-${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
-
-**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**
-
-   ${PROMPT_SELECT_CHANGE}
-
-   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")
-   - \`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>"
-
-${PLAYWRIGHT_VERIFY_GUIDANCE}
-
-9. **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  |
-   | Browser      | Screenshot / Playwright tests (or skipped) |
-   \`\`\`
-
-   **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
+        content: `Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
+
+**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"`
     };
 }