Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.

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. 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., /openspec verify change <other ). 2. Check status to understand the schema 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 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 : 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"

openspec-verify-change