@windagency/valora 2.0.1

package/data/prompts/04_code/verify-implementation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,705 @@
+---
+id: code.verify-implementation
+version: 1.0.0
+category: code
+experimental: true
+name: Verify Implementation
+description: Validate implementation quality through linting, type checking, and testing
+tags:
+  - verification
+  - quality-assurance
+  - validation
+model_requirements:
+  min_context: 128000
+  recommended:
+    - claude-sonnet-4.5
+agents:
+  - software-engineer-typescript-backend
+  - software-engineer-typescript-frontend
+  - platform-engineer
+  - secops-engineer
+dependencies:
+  requires:
+    - context.use-modern-cli-tools
+    - code.implement-changes
+    - code.implement-tests
+    - documentation.update-inline-docs
+  optional:
+    - review.validate-completeness
+inputs:
+  - name: code_changes
+    description: Changes from implement-changes
+    type: object
+    required: true
+  - name: test_files
+    description: Test files from implement-tests
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: plan_summary
+    description: Original plan summary
+    type: object
+    required: true
+outputs:
+  - verification_status
+  - linter_results
+  - type_check_results
+  - test_results
+  - coverage_results
+  - implementation_complete
+  - issues_found
+tokens:
+  avg: 2500
+  max: 6000
+  min: 1500
+---
+
+# Verify Implementation
+
+## Objective
+
+Validate that implementation meets quality standards through automated checks: linting, type checking, testing, and coverage analysis.
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+This prompt verifies:
+
+1. **Linter** - Code style and quality standards
+2. **Type Checker** - Type safety (TypeScript, mypy, etc.)
+3. **Tests** - All tests pass
+4. **Coverage** - Meets coverage threshold (80%+)
+5. **Build** - Project builds successfully
+6. **Security** - No obvious vulnerabilities
+7. **Performance** - No obvious inefficiencies
+8. **Completeness** - All plan requirements met
+
+**IMPORTANT: Infrastructure Exclusions**
+
+VALORA validates the project being built, NOT its own infrastructure. Always exclude from verification:
+
+- `data/` - VALORA infrastructure
+- `.valora/` - VALORA runtime data
+- `.git/` - Git internal state
+- `node_modules/` - Package dependencies
+
+Target specific project directories (e.g., `src/`, `app/`, `lib/`) rather than the repository root.
+
+## Instructions
+
+### Step 1: Run Linter
+
+Execute linter based on project configuration on **project source only**:
+
+**Node.js/TypeScript**:
+
+```bash
+# ESLint - target project source (exclude infrastructure)
+pnpm exec eslint src --ext .ts,.tsx,.js,.jsx
+
+# With auto-fix (read-only check first)
+pnpm exec eslint src --ext .ts,.tsx,.js,.jsx --max-warnings 0
+```
+
+**Note**: Always target `src/` or project directories rather than `.` to avoid linting infrastructure files.
+
+**Python**:
+
+```bash
+# Pylint
+pylint src/
+
+# Or flake8
+flake8 src/
+
+# Or ruff (faster)
+ruff check src/
+```
+
+**Go**:
+
+```bash
+# golangci-lint
+golangci-lint run
+```
+
+**Capture results**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"linter": {
+		"tool": "eslint",
+		"exit_code": 0,
+		"errors": 0,
+		"warnings": 0,
+		"issues": [],
+		"status": "pass"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**If linter fails**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"linter": {
+		"tool": "eslint",
+		"exit_code": 1,
+		"errors": 3,
+		"warnings": 2,
+		"issues": [
+			{
+				"file": "src/services/email.ts",
+				"line": 45,
+				"column": 12,
+				"rule": "no-unused-vars",
+				"severity": "error",
+				"message": "'token' is defined but never used"
+			}
+		],
+		"status": "fail"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**Action**: If linter fails with errors, fix issues before proceeding.
+
+### Step 2: Run Type Checker
+
+Execute type checker if applicable:
+
+**TypeScript**:
+
+```bash
+# Type check only (no emit)
+pnpm exec tsc --noEmit
+
+# With specific config
+pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --project tsconfig.json
+```
+
+**Python**:
+
+```bash
+# mypy
+mypy src/
+
+# Or pyright
+pyright src/
+```
+
+**Capture results**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"type_checker": {
+		"tool": "tsc",
+		"exit_code": 0,
+		"errors": 0,
+		"issues": [],
+		"status": "pass"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**If type check fails**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"type_checker": {
+		"tool": "tsc",
+		"exit_code": 2,
+		"errors": 2,
+		"issues": [
+			{
+				"file": "src/services/email.ts",
+				"line": 52,
+				"message": "Type 'string | undefined' is not assignable to type 'string'"
+			}
+		],
+		"status": "fail"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**Action**: If type check fails, fix type errors before proceeding.
+
+### Step 3: Run Tests
+
+Execute test suite:
+
+**Node.js**:
+
+```bash
+# Jest
+npm test
+
+# With coverage
+npm test -- --coverage
+
+# Specific files
+npm test -- src/services/email.test.ts
+```
+
+**Python**:
+
+```bash
+# pytest
+pytest
+
+# With coverage
+pytest --cov=src --cov-report=term-missing
+
+# Verbose
+pytest -v
+```
+
+**Capture results**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"tests": {
+		"tool": "jest",
+		"exit_code": 0,
+		"total": 45,
+		"passed": 45,
+		"failed": 0,
+		"skipped": 0,
+		"duration": "3.52s",
+		"status": "pass",
+		"suites": [
+			{
+				"name": "EmailService",
+				"file": "src/services/email.test.ts",
+				"tests": 12,
+				"passed": 12,
+				"failed": 0,
+				"duration": "0.85s"
+			}
+		]
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**If tests fail**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"tests": {
+		"tool": "jest",
+		"exit_code": 1,
+		"total": 45,
+		"passed": 43,
+		"failed": 2,
+		"skipped": 0,
+		"duration": "3.52s",
+		"status": "fail",
+		"failures": [
+			{
+				"test": "should send verification email",
+				"file": "src/services/email.test.ts",
+				"line": 45,
+				"error": "Expected mock to be called with 'user@example.com', but received 'undefined'",
+				"stack": "..."
+			}
+		]
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**Action**: If tests fail, fix failing tests before proceeding.
+
+### Step 4: Check Code Coverage
+
+Analyze test coverage:
+
+**Parse coverage report**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"coverage": {
+		"overall": {
+			"statements": 92.5,
+			"branches": 88.3,
+			"functions": 95.2,
+			"lines": 91.8
+		},
+		"by_file": [
+			{
+				"file": "src/services/email.ts",
+				"statements": 95.2,
+				"branches": 90.0,
+				"functions": 100.0,
+				"lines": 94.5,
+				"uncovered_lines": [47, 48]
+			},
+			{
+				"file": "src/routes/auth.ts",
+				"statements": 88.5,
+				"branches": 85.0,
+				"functions": 90.0,
+				"lines": 87.8,
+				"uncovered_lines": [112, 113, 125]
+			}
+		],
+		"threshold": 80.0,
+		"meets_threshold": true,
+		"status": "pass"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**Coverage evaluation**:
+
+- ✅ **≥80%**: Meets threshold
+- ⚠️ **70-79%**: Warning (acceptable for some projects)
+- ❌ **<70%**: Below threshold
+
+**Identify coverage gaps**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"coverage_gaps": [
+		{
+			"file": "src/services/email.ts",
+			"lines": [47, 48],
+			"reason": "Error recovery path - requires mocking external service failure",
+			"severity": "low",
+			"recommendation": "Add test case for email service unavailability"
+		}
+	]
+}
+```
+
+### Step 5: Build Project (Smoke Test)
+
+Attempt to build the project:
+
+**Node.js**:
+
+```bash
+# Build
+npm run build
+
+# Or with specific command
+pnpm exec tsc && pnpm exec vite build
+```
+
+**Python**:
+
+```bash
+# Check imports work
+python -c "from src.services.email import EmailService"
+
+# Or run application
+python src/main.py --check
+```
+
+**Capture results**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"build": {
+		"exit_code": 0,
+		"duration": "12.5s",
+		"output_size": "2.4 MB",
+		"status": "pass"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**If build fails**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"build": {
+		"exit_code": 1,
+		"error": "Module 'nodemailer' not found",
+		"status": "fail"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**Action**: If build fails, resolve dependency or configuration issues.
+
+### Step 6: Security Check
+
+Review for common vulnerabilities:
+
+**Automated checks** (optional but recommended):
+
+```bash
+# Node.js - Check dependencies
+npm audit
+
+# Python - Check dependencies
+pip-audit
+
+# Snyk (if available)
+snyk test
+```
+
+**Manual review checklist**:
+
+- [ ] Input validation present for all external inputs
+- [ ] SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
+- [ ] XSS prevention (output encoding)
+- [ ] CSRF protection (if applicable)
+- [ ] Authentication/authorization checks
+- [ ] Sensitive data not logged
+- [ ] Secrets not hardcoded
+- [ ] Rate limiting implemented (if needed)
+
+**Capture results**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"security": {
+		"automated_scan": {
+			"tool": "npm audit",
+			"vulnerabilities": 0,
+			"status": "pass"
+		},
+		"manual_review": {
+			"input_validation": "present",
+			"sql_injection_safe": true,
+			"xss_safe": true,
+			"auth_checks": true,
+			"secrets_secure": true,
+			"status": "pass"
+		}
+	}
+}
+```
+
+### Step 7: Performance Check
+
+Review for obvious inefficiencies:
+
+**Check for**:
+
+- [ ] No N+1 query patterns
+- [ ] Appropriate caching strategy
+- [ ] No synchronous blocking operations in async code
+- [ ] Reasonable algorithmic complexity
+- [ ] No memory leaks (event listeners cleaned up)
+- [ ] Proper connection pooling (database, HTTP)
+
+**Capture results**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"performance": {
+		"issues": [],
+		"recommendations": ["Consider caching email templates (reduces DB queries)"],
+		"status": "pass"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+### Step 8: Validate Completeness vs Plan
+
+Compare implementation against plan:
+
+**From `plan_summary`, verify**:
+
+- [ ] All implementation steps completed
+- [ ] All target files modified/created
+- [ ] All acceptance criteria met
+- [ ] All features implemented
+- [ ] All edge cases handled
+- [ ] All risks addressed
+
+**Completeness check**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"completeness": {
+		"plan_steps": {
+			"total": 8,
+			"completed": 8,
+			"skipped": 0
+		},
+		"target_files": {
+			"planned": 5,
+			"modified": 5
+		},
+		"acceptance_criteria": {
+			"total": 6,
+			"met": 6
+		},
+		"status": "complete"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+**If incomplete**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"completeness": {
+		"missing": [
+			{
+				"item": "Rate limiting implementation",
+				"type": "feature",
+				"severity": "high",
+				"step": 7
+			}
+		],
+		"status": "incomplete"
+	}
+}
+```
+
+### Step 9: Aggregate Results
+
+**Decision logic**:
+
+```
+IF linter fails OR type_check fails OR tests fail THEN
+  verification_status = "fail"
+  implementation_complete = false
+ELSE IF coverage < 80% THEN
+  verification_status = "warning"
+  implementation_complete = true (with warnings)
+ELSE IF completeness has high-severity missing items THEN
+  verification_status = "incomplete"
+  implementation_complete = false
+ELSE
+  verification_status = "pass"
+  implementation_complete = true
+END
+```
+
+**Provide actionable feedback**:
+
+```json
+{
+	"issues_found": [
+		{
+			"category": "linter",
+			"severity": "error",
+			"message": "3 linting errors in src/services/email.ts",
+			"resolution": "Run: pnpm exec eslint --fix src/services/email.ts"
+		},
+		{
+			"category": "coverage",
+			"severity": "warning",
+			"message": "Coverage 78%, below 80% threshold",
+			"resolution": "Add tests for uncovered lines: src/routes/auth.ts:112-113"
+		}
+	]
+}
+```
+
+### Step 10: Final Verification Summary
+
+**Quality gates**:
+
+- ✅ Linter: Pass
+- ✅ Type checker: Pass
+- ✅ Tests: 45/45 passed
+- ✅ Coverage: 92.5% (threshold: 80%)
+- ✅ Build: Success
+- ✅ Security: No issues
+- ✅ Performance: No issues
+- ✅ Completeness: All criteria met
+
+**Status**: ✅ **Ready for review**
+
+## Output Format
+
+```json
+{
+	"verification_status": "pass",
+	"implementation_complete": true,
+	"linter_results": {
+		"tool": "eslint",
+		"status": "pass",
+		"errors": 0,
+		"warnings": 0
+	},
+	"type_check_results": {
+		"tool": "tsc",
+		"status": "pass",
+		"errors": 0
+	},
+	"test_results": {
+		"tool": "jest",
+		"status": "pass",
+		"total": 45,
+		"passed": 45,
+		"failed": 0,
+		"duration": "3.52s"
+	},
+	"coverage_results": {
+		"overall": {
+			"statements": 92.5,
+			"branches": 88.3,
+			"functions": 95.2,
+			"lines": 91.8
+		},
+		"meets_threshold": true,
+		"threshold": 80.0
+	},
+	"build_results": {
+		"status": "pass",
+		"duration": "12.5s"
+	},
+	"security_results": {
+		"status": "pass",
+		"vulnerabilities": 0
+	},
+	"performance_results": {
+		"status": "pass",
+		"issues": []
+	},
+	"completeness_results": {
+		"status": "complete",
+		"plan_steps_completed": "8/8",
+		"acceptance_criteria_met": "6/6"
+	},
+	"issues_found": [],
+	"quality_summary": {
+		"linter": "✅ Pass",
+		"type_checker": "✅ Pass",
+		"tests": "✅ Pass (45/45)",
+		"coverage": "✅ 92.5% (threshold: 80%)",
+		"build": "✅ Success",
+		"security": "✅ No issues",
+		"performance": "✅ No issues",
+		"completeness": "✅ Complete"
+	},
+	"next_steps": "Ready for code review (/review-code)"
+}
+```
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- ✅ Linter passes (0 errors)
+- ✅ Type checker passes (0 errors)
+- ✅ All tests pass
+- ✅ Coverage meets threshold (80%+)
+- ✅ Build succeeds
+- ✅ No security issues identified
+- ✅ No performance issues identified
+- ✅ Implementation complete vs plan
+- ✅ All issues documented with resolutions
+
+## Rules
+
+**DO**:
+
+- ✅ Run all automated checks
+- ✅ Capture actual output from tools
+- ✅ Provide specific error messages
+- ✅ Give actionable resolution steps
+- ✅ Check completeness against plan
+- ✅ Fail fast on critical issues
+
+**DON'T**:
+
+- ❌ Don't skip checks
+- ❌ Don't ignore warnings without justification
+- ❌ Don't proceed if tests fail
+- ❌ Don't accept coverage below threshold
+- ❌ Don't ignore security issues
+- ❌ Don't mark complete if plan not fully implemented