opencode-metis 0.1.0

package/opencode/command/validate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+---
+description: "Validate specifications, implementations, constitution compliance, or understanding with spec quality checks, drift detection, and constitution enforcement"
+argument-hint: "spec ID (e.g., 005), file path, 'constitution', 'drift', or description of what to validate"
+allowed-tools:
+  [
+    "todowrite",
+    "bash",
+    "write",
+    "edit",
+    "read",
+    "glob",
+    "grep",
+    "question",
+    "skill",
+  ]
+---
+
+# Validate
+
+Roleplay as a validation orchestrator that ensures quality and correctness across specifications, implementations, and governance.
+
+**Validation Request**: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Validate {
+  Constraints {
+    You are an orchestrator - delegate validation tasks to specialist agents; parallel where applicable
+    Call skill tool FIRST - load validation methodology based on mode (see SkillRouting)
+    Include file:line for every finding - no generic observations
+    Make every finding actionable - include a clear fix recommendation
+    Parallel validation - launch ALL applicable validation perspectives simultaneously
+    Log drift decisions - record drift decisions to spec README.md for traceability
+    Read full target first - never validate without reading the full target; no assumptions about content
+    Advisory by default - all findings are recommendations unless they are constitution L1/L2 violations (which block)
+    Synthesize before presenting - deduplicate and merge findings; never present raw agent output directly
+  }
+
+  ValidationMode {
+    Parse $ARGUMENTS to determine mode. Evaluate top-to-bottom, first match wins.
+    
+    | IF input matches | THEN mode is | Description |
+    | --- | --- | --- |
+    | Spec ID (005, 005-auth) | Spec Validation | Validate specification documents |
+    | File path (src/auth.ts) | File Validation | Validate individual file quality |
+    | "drift" or "check drift" | Drift Detection | Check spec-implementation alignment |
+    | "constitution" | Constitution Validation | Check code against CONSTITUTION.md |
+    | "X against Y" pattern | Comparison Validation | Compare two sources |
+    | Freeform text | Understanding Validation | Validate approach or understanding |
+  }
+
+  SkillRouting {
+    | Mode | Skill to Load |
+    | --- | --- |
+    | Spec Validation | skill({ name: "specification-validation" }) |
+    | File Validation | skill({ name: "specification-validation" }) |
+    | Drift Detection | skill({ name: "drift-detection" }) |
+    | Constitution Validation | skill({ name: "constitution-validation" }) |
+    | Comparison Validation | skill({ name: "specification-validation" }) |
+    | Understanding Validation | skill({ name: "specification-validation" }) |
+  }
+
+  ValidationPerspectives {
+    | Perspective | Intent | What to Validate |
+    | --- | --- | --- |
+    | Completeness | Ensure nothing missing | All sections filled, no TODO/FIXME, checklists complete, no [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] |
+    | Consistency | Check internal alignment | Terminology matches, cross-references valid, no contradictions |
+    | Alignment | Verify doc-code match | Documented patterns exist in code, no hallucinated implementations |
+    | Coverage | Assess specification depth | Requirements mapped, interfaces specified, edge cases addressed |
+    | Drift | Check spec-implementation divergence | Scope creep, missing features, contradictions, extra work |
+    | Constitution | Governance compliance | L1/L2/L3 rule violations, autofix opportunities |
+  }
+
+  PerspectiveGuidance {
+    Completeness => Scan for markers, check checklists, verify all sections populated
+    Consistency => Cross-reference terms, verify links, detect contradictions
+    Alignment => Compare docs to code, verify implementations exist, flag hallucinations
+    Coverage => Map requirements to specs, check interface completeness, find gaps
+    Drift => Compare spec requirements to implementation, categorize drift types
+    Constitution => Parse rules, apply patterns/checks, report violations by level
+  }
+
+  TaskDelegation {
+    Template {
+      Validate [PERSPECTIVE] for [target]:
+      
+      CONTEXT:
+      - Target: [Spec files, code files, or both]
+      - Scope: [What's being validated]
+      - Standards: [CLAUDE.md, project conventions]
+      
+      FOCUS: [What this perspective validates - from ValidationPerspectives table]
+      
+      OUTPUT: Return findings as a structured list:
+      
+      FINDING:
+      - status: PASS | WARN | FAIL
+      - severity: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
+      - title: Brief title (max 40 chars)
+      - location: file:line
+      - issue: One sentence describing what was found
+      - recommendation: How to fix
+      
+      If no findings: NO_FINDINGS
+    }
+  }
+
+  ReferenceMaterials {
+    reference/3cs-framework.md => Completeness, Consistency, Correctness validation
+    reference/ambiguity-detection.md => Vague language patterns and scoring
+    reference/drift-detection.md => Spec-implementation alignment checking
+    reference/constitution-validation.md => Governance rule enforcement
+  }
+
+  Workflow {
+    Phase1_ParseInputGatherContext {
+      1. Analyze $ARGUMENTS to select validation mode (see ValidationMode table)
+      2. Load appropriate skill (see SkillRouting table)
+      3. Gather context based on mode:
+         Spec Validation => Check which documents exist (PRD, SDD, PLAN), read spec files, identify cross-references
+         Drift Detection => Load spec documents, identify implementation files, extract requirements and interfaces
+         Constitution Validation => Check for CONSTITUTION.md at project root, parse rules by category, identify applicable scopes
+         File Validation => Read target file, identify related specs or tests
+         Comparison => Read both sources
+      4. Determine applicable perspectives
+    }
+
+    Phase2_LaunchValidation {
+      Launch ALL applicable perspectives in parallel (single response with multiple task calls)
+      Use the TaskDelegation template
+    }
+
+    Phase3_SynthesisAndReport {
+      DeduplicationAlgorithm {
+        1. Collect all findings from all perspectives
+        2. Group by location (file:line range overlap - within 5 lines = potential overlap)
+        3. For overlapping findings: keep highest severity, merge complementary details, credit both perspectives
+        4. Sort by severity (FAIL > WARN > PASS)
+        5. Assign IDs: F[N] for failures, W[N] for warnings
+      }
+      
+      PresentationFormat {
+        ## Validation: [target]
+        
+        **Mode**: [Spec | File | Drift | Constitution | Comparison | Understanding]
+        **Assessment**: Excellent | Good | Needs Attention | Critical
+        
+        ### Summary
+        
+        | Perspective | Pass | Warn | Fail |
+        | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+        | Completeness | X | X | X |
+        | Consistency | X | X | X |
+        | Alignment | X | X | X |
+        | Coverage | X | X | X |
+        | Drift | X | X | X |
+        | Constitution | X | X | X |
+        | **Total** | X | X | X |
+        
+        *Failures (Must Fix)*
+        
+        | ID | Finding | Recommendation |
+        | --- | --- | --- |
+        | F1 | Brief title *(file:line)* | Fix recommendation *(issue description)* |
+        
+        *Warnings (Should Fix)*
+        
+        | ID | Finding | Recommendation |
+        | --- | --- | --- |
+        | W1 | Brief title *(file:line)* | Fix recommendation *(issue description)* |
+        
+        *Passes*
+        
+        | Perspective | Verified |
+        | --- | --- |
+        | Completeness | All sections populated, no TODO markers |
+        
+        ### Verdict
+        
+        [What was validated and key conclusions]
+      }
+      
+      ModeSpecificSynthesis {
+        DriftDetection {
+          Categorize by drift type: Scope Creep, Missing, Contradicts, Extra
+          Log decisions to spec README.md
+        }
+        
+        ConstitutionValidation {
+          Separate by level: L1 (autofix required), L2 (manual fix required), L3 (advisory only)
+          L1/L2 are blocking; L3 is informational
+          Pattern rules: regex match. Check rules: semantic analysis
+        }
+        
+        AmbiguityDetection {
+          Detect vague patterns: hedge words ("should", "might"), vague quantifiers ("fast", "many"), open-ended lists ("etc."), undefined terms ("the system")
+          Score: 0-5% Excellent, 5-15% Acceptable, 15-25% Recommend clarification, 25%+ High ambiguity
+        }
+      }
+    }
+
+    Phase4_NextSteps {
+      After presenting findings, evaluate scenario. First match wins.
+      
+      | IF findings include | THEN offer (via question) | Recommended |
+      | --- | --- | --- |
+      | Constitution L1/L2 violations | Apply autofixes (L1), Show violations, Skip checks | Apply autofixes |
+      | Drift detected | Acknowledge and continue, Update implementation, Update specification, Defer decision | Context-dependent |
+      | Spec issues (failures) | Address failures first, Show detailed findings, Continue anyway | Address failures |
+      | All passing | Proceed to next step | Proceed |
+    }
+  }
+
+  IntegrationPoints {
+    Called by /implement at phase checkpoints (drift) and completion (comparison)
+    Called by /specify during SDD phase for architecture alignment
+  }
+}
+
+## Important Notes
+
+- **Advisory by default** - All findings are recommendations unless L1/L2 constitution violations
+- **Be specific** - Include file:line for every finding; no generic observations
+- **Actionable findings** - Every finding must include a clear fix recommendation
+- **Synthesize first** - Deduplicate and merge before presenting to user
+- **Log drift decisions** - Record all drift acknowledgments to spec README.md for traceability