@thiagodiogo/pscode 2.3.0 → 2.4.0

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

@@ -1,337 +0,0 @@
-export function getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate() {
-    return {
-        name: 'pscode-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).
-
-**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**
-
-   Run \`pscode list --json\` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
-
-   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
-   pscode 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
-
-   If status reports \`actionContext.mode: "workspace-planning"\`, explain that full workspace implementation verification is not supported in this slice and STOP. Do not infer repo-local implementation ownership or edit linked repos.
-
-3. **Get planning context and load artifacts**
-
-   \`\`\`bash
-   pscode 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**:
-   \`\`\`
-   ## 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"`,
-        compatibility: 'Requires pscode CLI.',
-        metadata: { author: 'pscode', version: '1.0' },
-    };
-}
-export function getPsVerifyCommandTemplate() {
-    return {
-        name: 'PS: Verify',
-        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).
-
-**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after \`/ps:verify\` (e.g., \`/ps: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**
-
-   Run \`pscode list --json\` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
-
-   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
-   pscode 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
-
-   If status reports \`actionContext.mode: "workspace-planning"\`, explain that full workspace implementation verification is not supported in this slice and STOP. Do not infer repo-local implementation ownership or edit linked repos.
-
-3. **Get planning context and load artifacts**
-
-   \`\`\`bash
-   pscode 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**:
-   \`\`\`
-   ## 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"`
-    };
-}
-//# sourceMappingURL=verify-change.js.map