Free SKILL.md scraped from GitHub. Clone the repo or copy the file directly into your Claude Code skills directory.
npx versuz@latest install jongwony-epistemic-protocols-claude-skills-verifygit clone https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.gitcp epistemic-protocols/SKILL.MD ~/.claude/skills/jongwony-epistemic-protocols-claude-skills-verify/SKILL.md---
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
| Principle | Implementation |
|-----------|----------------|
| **Surface, don't enforce** | Present findings; user decides action |
| **Zero-context scripts** | Static checks run without consuming context |
| **Explicit control** | User invokes `/verify` intentionally |
| **Graduated severity** | Critical / Concern / Note categorization |
## Workflow
### Phase 1: Static Checks
Run `scripts/static-checks.js` against project root. This script executes without loading into context.
```bash
node ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/static-checks.js ${PROJECT_ROOT}
```
**Output format**:
```json
{
"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)
- Tool grounding consistency (TOOL GROUNDING ↔ PHASE TRANSITIONS)
- Version staleness detection (content changes without version bump)
- Graph integrity (node/edge validation, orphaned nodes, isolated nodes, DAG acyclicity)
- Spec-vs-impl drift (TYPES definitions ↔ PHASE TRANSITIONS/prose usage, resolution type consistency)
- Morphism anatomy (FLOW → MORPHISM → TYPES order; deficit-as-precondition; required clauses requires/deficit/preserves/invariant; canonical resolution target; Type signature)
- Cross-reference scan (protocol name consistency, deficit → resolution pairs, distinction table completeness, edge type allowlist)
- Onboard sync, precedence linear extension, partition invariant, catalog sync
- Gate type soundness (warning-level safeguard for coproduct/prose option alignment)
- Artifact self-containment (runtime-contract view: packaged `Skill.md` + plugin description metadata + packaged support references). Severity-aware BANNED patterns: strict patterns (mission-bridge, axioms, derived-principles, architectural-principles, meta-principle, safeguards, A1-A7 identifiers, `.claude/`, `docs/`) surface as fail; expansion patterns (project-profile, editing-conventions, `principles/`, design-philosophy concepts — `Stage 1/2`, `Tier Factorization`, `Deficit Empiricism`, `Wirkungsgeschichte`, `Horizontverschmelzung`, `Zuhandenheit`) surface as warn under Stage 1 posture
- Emit load discipline (compiled-copy coverage for Context-Question Separation, Plain emit discipline, and Round-local salience bundling across all core protocol SKILL.md files, plus Output Style source coverage)
- Language purity (warn-level Korean character detection across project text files; whitelist preserves intentional Korean regions: `**/README_ko.md`, `.claude/skills/release/`, `src/`, `docs/`, `.claude/rules/editing-conventions.md`)
### Phase 2: Expert Review
Spawn parallel Task subagents for LLM-based review. Each perspective analyzes independently.
**Perspective 1: Type Design**
```
Spawn 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 (dispatch) 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/frame/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/gap/SKILL.md, horismos/skills/bound/SKILL.md
Focus on Definition sections (FLOW, TYPES, PHASES, TOOL GROUNDING). Output JSON with findings array.
```
**Perspective 2: Specification Clarity**
```
Spawn 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/frame/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/gap/SKILL.md, horismos/skills/bound/SKILL.md, CLAUDE.md
Focus on Definition, Mode Activation, Priority, Rules, TOOL GROUNDING sections. Output JSON with findings array.
```
**Perspective 3: Claude Code Ecosystem**
```
Spawn Task subagent with prompt:
You are a Claude Code Ecosystem Expert.
**Pattern validation**:
- Gate mandates enforced (structured presentation + turn yield, not unstructured bypass)
- Epistemic transitions correctly typed (deficit → resolved type signatures)
- User agency preserved (no automatic decisions)
**False positive filtering** (dismiss concerns from other perspectives):
- "Automatic intensity reduction" → not needed (gate interaction 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/frame/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/gap/SKILL.md, horismos/skills/bound/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:
| Severity | Static Check Source | LLM Review Source |
|----------|--------------------|--------------------|
| **Critical** | `fail` array | findings with `severity: "critical"` |
| **Concern** | `warn` array (structural) | findings with `severity: "concern"` |
| **Note** | `warn` array (stylistic) | findings with `severity: "note"` |
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 Gate Interaction
Present findings via gate interaction. Format:
```
## 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
| Decision | Action |
|----------|--------|
| Fix critical | Show specific fixes, await approval for each |
| Review concerns | Present concerns one by one with dismiss/address options |
| Proceed anyway | Log decision, suggest commit message annotation |
| Cancel | End verification, no changes |
**Commit message annotation** (if proceeding with issues):
```
[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
| Error | Response |
|-------|----------|
| Script execution fails | Report error, offer manual check option |
| Subagent timeout | Report partial results, continue with available data |
| No issues found | Confirm clean state, proceed to commit |
## 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
```
## Verification Results
All checks passed.
- Static checks: 16 pass, 0 fail, 0 warn
- Type/Category review: No issues
- Instruction Design review: No issues
Ready to commit.
```
### Issues Found
```
## 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: prothesis/skills/frame/SKILL.md:32 - "Invoke AskUserQuestion" should be "call"
### Notes (1 observation)
- Version: prothesis plugin.json version not bumped since last change
---
How to proceed?
```