@jspg-ai/coding-bb 0.0.3-beta.3 → 0.0.3-beta.31

package/openspec/commands/update.md

@@ -1,85 +1,103 @@
 ---
 name: "OPSX: Update"
-description: 
+description: Update a change - revise existing planning artifacts and keep them coherent (Experimental)
 category: Workflow
 tags: [workflow, artifacts, experimental]
 ---
-Revise a change's existing planning artifacts and keep them coherent. Never edit code.
-
-**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`). 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:update` (e.g., `/opsx:update add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
-
-`/opsx:continue` is an optional workflow and may not be installed. Before suggesting it anywhere below, verify that it is available. If it is unavailable, `openspec status --change "<name>" --json` shows the next artifact and `openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json` explains how to create it.
-
-**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 sorted by most recently modified, and ask the user to select one
-
-   When prompting, present the top 3-4 most recently modified changes as options, showing:
-   - Change name
-   - Schema (from `schema` field if present, otherwise "spec-driven")
-   - Status (e.g., "0/5 tasks", "complete", "no tasks")
-   - How recently it was modified (from `lastModified` field)
-
-   Mark the most recently modified change as "(Recommended)" since it's likely what the user wants to update.
-
-   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:update <other>`).
-
-2. **Get the change's artifacts**
-   ```bash
-   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
-   ```
-   Parse the JSON to understand current state. The response includes:
-   - `schemaName`: The workflow schema being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
-   - `artifacts`: Array of artifacts with their status ("done", "skipped", "ready", "blocked")
-   - `isPlanningComplete`: Boolean indicating if all planning artifacts are complete. Older CLI versions expose the same value as `isComplete`.
-   - `planningHome`, `changeRoot`, `artifactPaths`, and `actionContext`: path and scope context. Use these instead of assuming repo-local paths.
-
-   The artifact ids and paths come from the active schema - do NOT assume them, and do NOT branch on hardcoded artifact names. Custom schemas must work unchanged.
-
-   The files to edit are `artifactPaths.<id>.existingOutputPaths` - the concrete files that exist on disk, already glob-expanded for glob artifacts (e.g. `specs/**/*.md`). Do NOT write to `resolvedOutputPath`: for a glob artifact it is still the glob pattern, not a real file.
-
-3. **Understand the request**
-   - If the user asked for a specific revision ("the design now uses X"), that is the starting edit.
-   - If they only said "update" / "make this coherent", treat it as a coherence review: read the existing artifacts and check them against each other for contradictions, gaps, and duplication.
-
-4. **Read and reconcile**
-   - Read the artifact(s) the request touches and the change's other existing artifacts.
-   - Apply the requested edit. Then check every other existing artifact against it - in ANY direction: an edit to a later artifact may require revising an earlier one, not only the other way around. Build order is a useful reading order, not a constraint on which artifacts may be revised.
-   - Note everything that is now inconsistent, missing, or contradictory.
-   - Revise only files that already exist (`existingOutputPaths`). Do NOT create artifacts that don't exist yet, and do NOT invent new files under a glob artifact - note them and point the user to `/opsx:continue` to create them.
-   - If the change is already coherent, say so and make no edits.
-
-5. **Confirm and apply, one artifact at a time**
-   - Show each proposed revision and why. Write only after the user confirms.
-   - If the user rejects a revision, do not write it - leave that artifact unchanged.
-   - When a substantial rewrite is needed, get that artifact's rules and template first:
-     ```bash
-     openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json
-     ```
-
-6. **Point to the next step (guidance only - NEVER act on it)**
-   - Artifacts still missing -> suggest `/opsx:continue` to create them.
-   - Change already implemented (tasks checked off / already applied) -> the code may no longer match the revised plan; suggest `/opsx:apply` to carry the delta into code.
-   - Everything done and implemented -> suggest `/opsx:archive`.
-
-**Output**
-
-After each invocation, show:
-- Which artifacts were revised (and which proposed revisions were rejected)
-- Anything deferred to `/opsx:continue` (not-yet-created artifacts or files)
-- Where the change stands and the recommended next command
-
-**Guardrails**
-- Planning artifacts only - NEVER edit implementation code. If the revised plan implies code changes, stop and point to `/opsx:apply`.
-- Use the artifact ids and paths reported by `openspec status`; never branch on hardcoded artifact names.
-- Edit only the concrete files in `existingOutputPaths`; never write to a glob `resolvedOutputPath`.
-- Do not advance the build frontier: no new artifacts, no new files under glob artifacts - that is `/opsx:continue`'s job.
-- Confirm every edit with the user before writing.
-- If the request changes the change's *intent* rather than refining it, first verify whether the optional `/opsx:new` workflow is available. If it is, recommend starting fresh with `/opsx:new` (the "Update vs. Start Fresh" heuristic). If it is unavailable, ask for a distinct unused change name and recommend `openspec new change "<new-change-name>"` instead.
+Revise a change's existing planning artifacts and keep them coherent. Never edit code.
+
+**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.
+
+**Project check:** These steps expect a project that already uses OpenSpec. Before the first step that writes anything (`new change`, `archive`, `sync specs`, or authoring an artifact file), confirm the project has a root: run `openspec list --json` (with `--store <id>` when a store is selected, since the store is then the root) and read `root`. A root object means the project is set up. `"root": null` means it is not - there is no `openspec/` directory here, and a write such as `openspec new change` would create one as a side effect. The command also exits non-zero, which is that answer rather than a broken CLI, so read the JSON instead of retrying or working around it.
+
+One `"root": null` is not about setup: when a `status` error message starts with `Declared in` or `Invalid store declaration in` and names this project's `openspec/config.yaml` (or `config.yml`), the project does use OpenSpec through a store it declares, which this machine cannot resolve (the store is not registered, or the `store:` line is malformed). Do not treat it as uninitialized and skip the branches below: stop before writing and show the user that error's `message` and `fix`.
+
+Otherwise, with no root, what happens next depends on how this workflow was reached:
+
+- **Auto-selected**: you chose this workflow yourself, without the user naming OpenSpec, naming this skill, or running its slash command. Stop using OpenSpec and answer the request normally, as you would with no OpenSpec installed. Do not ask them to set anything up and do not mention OpenSpec setup.
+- **Explicit OpenSpec request**: the user named OpenSpec, named this skill, or ran its slash command. Stop before writing and ask how to proceed: set this project up (`openspec init`), target a store they already have (`--store <id>`), or continue without OpenSpec for this request. Wait for their answer.
+
+In both branches, never create the root as a side effect: do not run `openspec init` until the user asks for it, do not hand-create `openspec/` files, and do not let a command create it.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after `/opsx:update` (e.g., `/opsx:update add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+This workflow revises artifacts that already exist; `/opsx:continue` is what creates the ones that do not.
+
+**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 sorted by most recently modified, and ask the user to select one
+
+   When prompting, present the top 3-4 most recently modified changes as options, showing:
+   - Change name
+   - Status (e.g., "0/5 tasks", "complete", "no tasks")
+   - How recently it was modified (from `lastModified` field)
+
+   Mark the most recently modified change as "(Recommended)" since it's likely what the user wants to update.
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:update <other>`).
+
+2. **Get the change's artifacts**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand current state. The response includes:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow schema being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - `artifacts`: Array of artifacts with their status ("done", "skipped", "ready", "blocked")
+   - `isPlanningComplete`: Boolean indicating if all planning artifacts are complete. Older CLI versions expose the same value as `isComplete`.
+   - `planningHome`, `changeRoot`, `artifactPaths`, and `actionContext`: path and scope context. Use these instead of assuming repo-local paths.
+
+   The artifact ids and paths come from the active schema - do NOT assume them, and do NOT branch on hardcoded artifact names. Custom schemas must work unchanged.
+
+   The files to edit are `artifactPaths.<id>.existingOutputPaths` - the concrete files that exist on disk, already glob-expanded for glob artifacts (e.g. `specs/**/*.md`). Do NOT write to `resolvedOutputPath`: for a glob artifact it is still the glob pattern, not a real file.
+
+3. **Understand the request**
+   - If the user asked for a specific revision ("the design now uses X"), that is the starting edit.
+   - If they only said "update" / "make this coherent", treat it as a coherence review: read the existing artifacts and check them against each other for contradictions, gaps, and duplication.
+
+4. **Read and reconcile**
+   - Read the artifact(s) the request touches and the change's other existing artifacts.
+   - Draft the requested edit in the conversation, not in files. Work out exactly what it changes; step 5 owns every write. Then check every other existing artifact against the drafted edit - in ANY direction: an edit to a later artifact may require revising an earlier one, not only the other way around. Build order is a useful reading order, not a constraint on which artifacts may be revised.
+   - Note everything that is now inconsistent, missing, or contradictory.
+   - Propose revisions to files that already exist (`existingOutputPaths`). If an artifact has no existing output files and status `ready` or `blocked`, note it and point the user to `/opsx:continue` to create them. Leave `skipped` artifacts untouched; do not treat them as missing or defer them to the continue workflow.
+   - A glob artifact (e.g. `specs/**/*.md`) is marked `done` after at least one file matches, and the continue workflow only handles `ready` artifacts. When reconciliation identifies a missing file for a glob artifact whose `existingOutputPaths` is non-empty:
+     1. Run `openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json` and use its `instruction` and `template`. Treat `context` and `rules` as constraints; do not copy them into the file. If instructions report `skipped: true`, do not create the file. Read current dependency files from disk; if a required non-skipped dependency is missing, stop and ask the user to restore it first.
+     2. Choose a concrete path inside `changeRoot` that matches `artifactPaths.<id>.outputPath` and does not already exist. Verify it remains inside `changeRoot` after resolving any symlinked parent directories. The glob `resolvedOutputPath` is not a valid target.
+     3. Include the new file in step 5's proposed revisions and create it only after the user confirms.
+     4. After confirmation, immediately before creation, refresh status and instructions. Verify the artifact is still in scope, not skipped, and partially populated; repeat the concrete-path checks above.
+     5. Use a create operation that fails if the target already exists. If `instruction` delegates creation to another skill or command, invoke it only if it can honor the confirmed path and these guardrails; otherwise stop. If any check fails or the confirmed draft is no longer valid, stop and reconcile with the user rather than replacing existing content or choosing a different path.
+   - If the change is already coherent, say so and propose no revisions.
+
+5. **Confirm and apply, one artifact at a time**
+   - This step performs every artifact write in this workflow; no earlier step edits an artifact.
+   - Show each proposed revision and why - including the requested edit drafted in step 4. Write only after the user confirms.
+   - If the user rejects a revision, do not write it - leave that artifact unchanged.
+   - When a substantial rewrite is needed, get that artifact's rules and template first:
+     ```bash
+     openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json
+     ```
+
+6. **Point to the next step (guidance only - NEVER act on it)**
+   - Artifacts with empty `existingOutputPaths` and status `ready` or `blocked` -> suggest `/opsx:continue` to create them.
+   - Change already implemented (tasks checked off / already applied) -> the code may no longer match the revised plan; suggest `/opsx:apply` to carry the delta into code.
+   - Everything done and implemented -> suggest `/opsx:archive`.
+
+**Output**
+
+After each invocation, show:
+- Which artifacts were revised (and which proposed revisions were rejected)
+- Any file created under a glob artifact that was already partially populated
+- Anything deferred to `/opsx:continue` (artifacts with no files yet and status `ready` or `blocked`, never `skipped` artifacts)
+- Where the change stands and the recommended next command
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Planning artifacts only - NEVER edit implementation code. If the revised plan implies code changes, stop and point to `/opsx:apply`.
+- Use the artifact ids and paths reported by `openspec status`; never branch on hardcoded artifact names.
+- Edit only the concrete files in `existingOutputPaths`; never write to a glob `resolvedOutputPath`.
+- Do not advance the build frontier: if an artifact has empty `existingOutputPaths` and status `ready` or `blocked`, that is `/opsx:continue`'s job. Leave `skipped` artifacts untouched. The only new-file scope is a confirmed concrete path under a glob artifact whose `existingOutputPaths` is non-empty.
+- Confirm every edit with the user before writing.
+- If the request changes the change's *intent* rather than refining it, recommend starting fresh with `/opsx:new` (the "Update vs. Start Fresh" heuristic).

package/openspec/commands/verify.md

@@ -4,166 +4,210 @@ description: Verify implementation matches change artifacts before archiving
 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`). 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
+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.
+
+**Project check:** These steps expect a project that already uses OpenSpec. Before the first step that writes anything (`new change`, `archive`, `sync specs`, or authoring an artifact file), confirm the project has a root: run `openspec list --json` (with `--store <id>` when a store is selected, since the store is then the root) and read `root`. A root object means the project is set up. `"root": null` means it is not - there is no `openspec/` directory here, and a write such as `openspec new change` would create one as a side effect. The command also exits non-zero, which is that answer rather than a broken CLI, so read the JSON instead of retrying or working around it.
+
+One `"root": null` is not about setup: when a `status` error message starts with `Declared in` or `Invalid store declaration in` and names this project's `openspec/config.yaml` (or `config.yml`), the project does use OpenSpec through a store it declares, which this machine cannot resolve (the store is not registered, or the `store:` line is malformed). Do not treat it as uninitialized and skip the branches below: stop before writing and show the user that error's `message` and `fix`.
+
+Otherwise, with no root, what happens next depends on how this workflow was reached:
+
+- **Auto-selected**: you chose this workflow yourself, without the user naming OpenSpec, naming this skill, or running its slash command. Stop using OpenSpec and answer the request normally, as you would with no OpenSpec installed. Do not ask them to set anything up and do not mention OpenSpec setup.
+- **Explicit OpenSpec request**: the user named OpenSpec, named this skill, or ran its slash command. Stop before writing and ask how to proceed: set this project up (`openspec init`), target a store they already have (`--store <id>`), or continue without OpenSpec for this request. Wait for their answer.
+
+In both branches, never create the root as a side effect: do not run `openspec init` until the user asks for it, do not hand-create `openspec/` files, and do not let a command create it.
+
+**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 all active changes returned by the list, including changes with `status: "no-tasks"`.
+   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, `contextFiles` (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths), `taskTrackingConfigured`, and top-level `tasks` and `progress` aggregated from every concrete file matched by the schema's `apply.tracks` configuration that could be read. Read all available artifacts from `contextFiles`.
+
+   Treat apply `state` and `instruction` as context, not a verification verdict. Do not implement tasks or archive the change during verification.
+
+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.
+
+   Verification is advisory. Respect intentional omissions such as `skip_specs: true`, optional design documents, and schemas without task tracking. Do not require or invent optional or intentionally omitted artifacts to obtain a clean report. `Not verified` describes a limit of this report, not a new archive prerequisite. Archive retains its own checks and user-confirmation behavior.
+   Mark checks the schema does not define, or artifacts the status reports as intentionally skipped, as **Not applicable**. The correctness checks of a change whose readable delta specs contain REMOVED or RENAMED requirements but no ADDED or MODIFIED requirements are also **Not applicable** (see step 6). Exclude them from skipped-check counts and the archive-readiness assessment. Reserve **Not verified** for applicable checks whose evidence is missing or unusable.
+
+   If only task evidence is available for applicable checks, verify task completion only and mark the remaining applicable checks, including **Code Pattern Consistency**, as not verified with the reason "Only task evidence available".
+
+   If artifacts cannot be read or contain no usable requirements, scenarios, or design decisions, mark the affected checks as not verified with the specific reason. Continue checks supported by the remaining evidence, but a partially checked input set is not a fully verified check. Missing requirements affect Spec Coverage and Requirement Implementation Mapping; missing scenarios affect Scenario Coverage; missing design decisions affect Design Adherence.
+
+5. **Verify Completeness**
+
+   **Task Completion**:
+   - If `taskTrackingConfigured` is false, report **Task Completion** as not applicable. Do not treat empty `tasks` as missing evidence.
+   - Otherwise, use the top-level `tasks` and `progress` fields. They already aggregate every readable concrete file matched by `apply.tracks`, regardless of the tracked artifact's ID; do not infer tracking from a `contextFiles` key.
+   - If `unavailableTrackingFiles` is nonempty, mark **Task Completion** as not verified and include every unavailable path and reason. Continue using any readable task evidence, but do not infer completion from the partial `tasks` and `progress` fields.
+   - If `taskTrackingConfigured` is true and `tasks` is empty, mark **Task Completion** as not verified and record the reason from apply `state` and `instruction`. Nonzero totals alone do not establish evaluable task descriptions.
+   - Report complete vs total tasks from `progress`.
+   - If `progress.remaining` is greater than 0:
+     - Add CRITICAL issue for each listed incomplete task. If the remaining count exceeds the listed incomplete tasks, also report the incomplete checkboxes without descriptions and recommend adding descriptions and completing them. Do not infer completion from the listed tasks alone.
+     - Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
+
+   **Spec Coverage**:
+   - If status marks the spec artifact skipped by `skip_specs: true`, or the schema defines no spec artifact, report the spec-dependent checks as not applicable.
+   - Otherwise, `contextFiles` is keyed by artifact id, and artifact ids come from the active schema. If `contextFiles.specs` is absent or empty, mark **Spec Coverage**, **Requirement Implementation Mapping**, and **Scenario Coverage** as not verified; do not treat any of them as clean.
+   - If delta specs exist in `contextFiles.specs`:
+     - Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:", or listed as `FROM:`/`TO:` pairs under `## RENAMED Requirements`) and note the delta section each one sits under: `## ADDED`, `## MODIFIED`, `## REMOVED`, or `## RENAMED Requirements`. The section decides what the check looks for.
+     - For each ADDED or MODIFIED requirement (for MODIFIED, check the text in the delta, not the old wording):
+       - Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
+       - Assess if implementation likely exists
+     - If ADDED or MODIFIED requirements appear unimplemented:
+       - Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
+     - For each REMOVED requirement, the change asks for the behavior to be gone, so invert the check:
+       - Search codebase for the removed behavior. Matches in `openspec/` artifacts or docs, or in code that serves only the Migration note or an ADDED requirement, are not evidence by themselves. Report any code path that still delivers the removed behavior, including one shared with an ADDED requirement.
+       - Finding no implementation is the expected result. Never report a REMOVED requirement as "Requirement not found" or recommend implementing it.
+       - If the behavior is still present:
+         - Add CRITICAL issue: "Removed requirement still implemented: <requirement name>"
+         - Recommendation: "Remove the remaining implementation at <file>:<lines>, following the requirement's Migration note if it has one"
+     - For each RENAMED entry (`FROM:`/`TO:`), the name changes but the behavior stays, so check the TO requirement for that unchanged behavior:
+       - Do not report the FROM name as missing, and do not require code symbols, identifiers, or file names to be renamed.
+       - If the TO name also appears under MODIFIED, its behavior is checked there against the MODIFIED text; skip it here.
+       - Otherwise, read the baseline requirement in the main spec at `<planningHome.root>/openspec/specs/<capability-path>/spec.md`, using the same capability path as the delta spec: the requirement under the FROM name, or under the TO name only when the FROM name is absent because the main spec is already synced. Its body and scenarios are the evidence for the behavior the TO requirement keeps.
+       - Search codebase for that behavior and assess if it is still implemented.
+       - If it appears unimplemented:
+         - Add CRITICAL issue: "Renamed requirement not found: <TO name>"
+         - Recommendation: "Restore the behavior of <TO name> (renamed from <FROM name>); a rename must not change behavior"
+       - If the baseline requirement cannot be found or read, mark **Spec Coverage** as not verified for that entry with the reason. Never count an unchecked rename as passing.
+
+6. **Verify Correctness**
+
+   If the delta specs are readable and contain at least one REMOVED or RENAMED requirement but no ADDED or MODIFIED requirements (the change only removes or renames requirements), report **Requirement Implementation Mapping** and **Scenario Coverage** as **Not applicable**. The REMOVED and RENAMED checks under Spec Coverage are the evidence for such a change (each RENAMED entry is checked there against its baseline behavior), so do not mark these two checks as not verified. A delta spec with no parseable requirements at all is unusable evidence, not a removal-only change: mark these checks as not verified.
+
+   **Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
+   - For each ADDED or MODIFIED requirement from delta specs (REMOVED entries, and RENAMED entries without a MODIFIED block, were settled under Spec Coverage):
+     - 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 under an ADDED or MODIFIED requirement 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>"
+   - Skip scenarios under a REMOVED requirement; that behavior is meant to be gone.
+
+7. **Verify Coherence**
+
+   **Design Adherence**:
+   - If the schema defines no design artifact, report **Design Adherence** as not applicable.
+   - 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"
+   - Otherwise, if `contextFiles.design` is absent or empty: mark **Design Adherence** as not verified. With other supporting artifacts, **Code Pattern Consistency** still runs; the task-only case remains limited to task completion.
+
+   **Code Pattern Consistency**:
+   - If implementation changes cannot be identified, mark **Code Pattern Consistency** as not verified and explain the missing evidence.
+   - Otherwise, 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  |
+   ```
+
+   In each Status cell, report the results of checks that ran and `Not verified (<reason>)` for every skipped check. If all checks in a dimension were skipped, start the cell with `Not verified`. Never score a skipped check as passing. Treat every not verified or partially verified check as skipped in the final assessment. Count only ADDED and MODIFIED requirements in N, and report REMOVED and RENAMED requirements separately (for example, "1 removal confirmed, 1 rename verified"). For a change that only removes or renames requirements, the Correctness cell reads `Not applicable (no ADDED or MODIFIED requirements)`.
+
+   **Issues by Priority**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
+      - Incomplete tasks
+      - Missing requirement implementations
+      - Removed requirements still implemented
+      - Renamed requirements whose behavior is no longer implemented
+      - 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 any check was skipped, also name every skipped check and its reason.
+   - If no CRITICAL issues, one or more warnings, and no checks were skipped: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If only suggestions and no checks were skipped: "No critical issues or warnings. Z suggestion(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If no issues and no checks were skipped: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
+   - If any check was skipped and there are no CRITICAL issues: do not claim readiness. Say "No critical issues found in the checks that ran. <check(s)> not verified: <reason>." Include the warning count when nonzero.
+   - Include the suggestion count when nonzero in every final assessment.
+
+**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
+
+**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"