---

name: verify description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify protocols", "check consistency before commit", "validate definitions", "run pre-commit checks", "verify soundness", or wants to ensure epistemic protocol quality. Invoke explicitly with /verify for pre-commit validation. allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(node *), Task, AskUserQuestion

Protocol Verification

Verify epistemic protocol consistency before commit through static checks and expert review.

Purpose

Surface potential issues in protocol definitions without blocking commits. Follow Anthropic philosophy: transparency over enforcement, user agency over automation.

Core Principles

Workflow

Phase 1: Static Checks

Run scripts/static-checks.js against project root. This script executes without loading into context.

Copynode ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/static-checks.js ${PROJECT_ROOT}

Output format:

Copy{
  "pass": [{ "check": "...", "file": "...", "message": "..." }],
  "fail": [{ "check": "...", "file": "...", "message": "..." }],
  "warn": [{ "check": "...", "file": "...", "message": "..." }]
}

Checks performed:

• JSON schema validation (plugin.json required fields, version format)
• Unicode notation consistency (→ not ->, ∥, ∩)
• Directive verb enforcement (call not invoke/use for tools)
• Cross-reference integrity (CLAUDE.md ↔ source files)
• Required sections in protocols (Definition, Mode Activation, Protocol, Rules)

Phase 2: Expert Review

Spawn parallel Task subagents for LLM-based review. Each perspective analyzes independently.

Perspective 1: Type Design

CopySpawn Task subagent with prompt:

You are a Type Theory Expert analyzing protocol type design.

**Soundness check**:
- Type signatures: well-formed domain/codomain
- State machines: transition totality
- Flow consistency: types match phase transitions
- Tool grounding: TOOL GROUNDING ↔ PHASE TRANSITIONS consistency

**Tool Grounding check**:
- External operations (extern) have corresponding [Tool] notation in PHASE TRANSITIONS
- Internal operations marked with "no external tool"
- Escape behavior semantics match protocol context (fallback/Silence/cancel)

**Necessity check**:
- Cardinality constraints (|P| ≥ 2): prose sufficient given Esc interrupt?
- Refinement types: marginal benefit for LLM interpretation?
- Principle: no type checker exists; social enforcement via prose is primary

Files: prothesis/skills/prothesis/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/syneidesis/SKILL.md, hermeneia/skills/hermeneia/SKILL.md

Focus on Definition sections (FLOW, TYPES, PHASES, TOOL GROUNDING). Output JSON with findings array.

Perspective 2: Specification Clarity

CopySpawn Task subagent with prompt:

You are a Specification Clarity Expert analyzing LLM interpretability.

**LLM behavior modification**:
- Activation clarity: trigger conditions unambiguous
- Priority conflicts: supersession domain overlap
- Instruction parsability: rules actionable without implicit reasoning
- Tool binding clarity: TOOL GROUNDING section readable and actionable

**Notation complexity**:
- Flow formulas: understandable at a glance?
- Standard notation preferred (|P| ≥ 2) over custom constructors (Set²⁺)
- Section structure: FLOW → TYPES → PHASES → TOOL GROUNDING → STATE sufficient?
- [Tool] notation in PHASE TRANSITIONS: adds clarity or noise?

Principle: specification is for human/LLM comprehension, not compiler verification.

Files: prothesis/skills/prothesis/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/syneidesis/SKILL.md, hermeneia/skills/hermeneia/SKILL.md, CLAUDE.md

Focus on Definition, Mode Activation, Priority, Rules, TOOL GROUNDING sections. Output JSON with findings array.

Perspective 3: Claude Code Ecosystem

CopySpawn Task subagent with prompt:

You are a Claude Code Ecosystem Expert.

**Pattern validation**:
- AskUserQuestion mandates enforced (tool call, not text)
- Epistemic transitions correctly typed (unknown unknowns vs known unknowns)
- User agency preserved (no automatic decisions)

**False positive filtering** (dismiss concerns from other perspectives):
- "Automatic intensity reduction" → not needed (AskUserQuestion provides control)
- "Automatic deactivation" → not needed (user can interrupt via Esc)
- "Topic boundary detection" → context-dependent (model judgment acceptable)
- "Type-level cardinality" → prose sufficient (low violation cost, Esc recovery)

Files: prothesis/skills/prothesis/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/syneidesis/SKILL.md, hermeneia/skills/hermeneia/SKILL.md, CLAUDE.md

Focus on Mode Activation, Rules, UX patterns. Output JSON with findings and filtered arrays.

All three subagents run in parallel. Collect results before proceeding.

Phase 3: Synthesize Findings

Combine static check results with expert review findings. Categorize by severity:

Identify convergence (all perspectives agree) and divergence (perspectives differ).

Apply Claude Code Ecosystem expert's filtered array to dismiss false positives from other perspectives.

Phase 4: Surface via AskUserQuestion

Call AskUserQuestion tool to present findings. Format:

Copy## Verification Results

### Critical (n issues)
- [issue 1]: [location] - [description]
- [issue 2]: [location] - [description]

### Concerns (n issues)
- [issue 1]: [location] - [description]

### Notes (n observations)
- [observation 1]

### Filtered (Claude Code context)
- [filtered issue]: [reason dismissed]

---
Select action:

Options to present:

1. Fix critical issues - Address critical findings before commit
2. Review concerns - Examine each concern individually
3. Proceed anyway - Commit with decision logged
4. Cancel - Abort verification

Phase 5: Handle User Decision

Commit message annotation (if proceeding with issues):

Copy[verify: n critical, m concerns acknowledged]

Severity Reference

Consult references/criteria.md for detailed severity definitions and decision matrix.

Review Checklists

Consult references/review-checklists.md for:

• Type Design expert prompt template
• Specification Clarity expert prompt template
• Claude Code Ecosystem expert prompt template
• Known issues checklist
• Synthesis template

Error Handling

Integration Notes

With Prothesis

Verification may trigger perspective selection if findings require analysis approach decision.

With Syneidesis

Critical findings surface as high-stakes gaps. Syneidesis gap detection may augment verification.

Standalone Usage

Most common pattern: invoke /verify before /commit command.

Output Examples

Clean State

Copy## Verification Results

All checks passed.

- Static checks: 12 pass, 0 fail, 0 warn
- Type/Category review: No issues
- Instruction Design review: No issues

Ready to commit.

Issues Found

Copy## Verification Results

### Critical (1 issue)
- State machine totality: prothesis.md:10 - Undefined transition when |perspectives(C)| < 2

### Concerns (2 issues)
- Categorical terminology: prothesis.md:35 - limit/colimit may not match intended semantics
- Directive verb: reflexion/SKILL.md:32 - "Invoke AskUserQuestion" should be "call"

### Notes (1 observation)
- Version: prothesis plugin.json version not bumped since last change

---
How to proceed?