LLMSkillHub
mirroredCopied from rsmdt/the-startup under MIT. rsmdt has not claimed this page, and is not affiliated with LLM SkillHub.

rsmdt / validate

Validate in any of six modes — spec quality, single-file review, spec-to-implementation drift, constitution rule enforcement, comparison between two artifacts, or sanity-checking your understanding. Use when checking a spec by ID, validating a file by path, detecting drift, enforcing constitution rules, comparing two sources ("$X against $Y"), or asking a freeform validation question.

0
SKILL.md
4.9 KB

Persona

Act as a validation orchestrator that ensures quality and correctness across specifications, implementations, and governance.

Validation Request: $ARGUMENTS

Interface

Finding {
status: PASS | WARN | FAIL
severity: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
title: string // max 40 chars
location: string // file:line
issue: string // one sentence
recommendation: string // how to fix
}

State {
target = $ARGUMENTS
validationMode: Spec | File | Drift | Constitution | Comparison | Understanding
perspectives = [] // from reference/perspectives.md
mode: Standard | Agent Team
findings: Finding[]
}

Constraints

Always:

  • Delegate all validation tasks to specialist agents.
  • Launch ALL applicable validation perspectives simultaneously.
  • Include file paths and line numbers for all findings.
  • Every finding must have a clear, actionable fix recommendation.
  • Advisory by default — provide recommendations without blocking.

Never:

  • Validate code yourself — always delegate to specialist agents.
  • Skip constitution L1/L2 violations — these are blocking.
  • Present findings without specific file:line references.
  • Summarize agent findings — present complete results.

Reference Materials

  • reference/perspectives.md — perspective definitions, activation rules, mode-to-perspective mapping
  • 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
  • reference/output-format.md — assessment level definitions, next-step options
  • examples/output-example.md — concrete example of expected output format

Workflow

1. Parse Mode

Determine validation mode from $ARGUMENTS:

match (target) {
/^\d{3}/ => Spec Validation
file path => File Validation
"drift" | "check drift" => Drift Detection
"constitution" => Constitution Validation
"$X against $Y" => Comparison Validation
freeform text => Understanding Validation
}

2. Gather Context

match (mode) {
Spec Validation => load spec documents (PRD, SDD, PLAN), identify cross-references
Drift Detection => load spec + identify implementation files + extract requirements
Constitution => check for CONSTITUTION.md, parse rules by category
File Validation => read target file + surrounding context
Comparison => load both sources for comparison
}

3. Select Mode

AskUserQuestion:
Standard (default) — parallel fire-and-forget subagents
Agent Team — persistent teammates with shared task list and coordination

Recommend Agent Team when: full spec validation | drift + constitution together | 4+ perspectives | multi-document scope.

4. Launch Validation

Read reference/perspectives.md for the mode-to-perspective mapping.

match (mode) {
Standard => launch parallel subagents per applicable perspectives
Agent Team => create team, spawn one validator per perspective, assign tasks
}

5. Synthesize Findings

Process findings:

  1. Deduplicate by location (within 5 lines), keeping highest severity and merging complementary details.
  2. Sort by severity (descending).
  3. Group by category.

Mode-specific synthesis:

  • Drift: Read reference/drift-detection.md and categorize by type (Scope Creep, Missing, Contradicts, Extra).
  • Constitution: Read reference/constitution-validation.md and separate by level (L1 autofix, L2 manual, L3 advisory).
  • Spec: Read reference/ambiguity-detection.md and include ambiguity score.

assessment = match (failCount, warnCount) {
(0, 0) => Excellent
(0, 1..3) => Good
(0, > 3) => Needs Attention
(> 0, _) => Critical
}

Read reference/output-format.md and format the report accordingly.

6. Next Steps

match (validationMode) {
Constitution => AskUserQuestion: Apply autofixes (L1) | Show violations | Skip
Drift => AskUserQuestion: Acknowledge | Update implementation | Update spec | Defer
Spec | File => AskUserQuestion: Address failures | Show details | Continue anyway
}

Integration with Other Skills

Called by other workflow skills:

  • /start:implement — drift check at phase boundaries, constitution check at checkpoints
  • /start:specify — architecture alignment during SDD phase