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.
node ${SKILL_DIR}/scripts/static-checks.js ${PROJECT_ROOT}
Output format:
{
"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 (
callnotinvoke/usefor 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)
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 (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/frame/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/gap/SKILL.md, hermeneia/skills/clarify/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, hermeneia/skills/clarify/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**:
- AskUserQuestion mandates enforced (tool call, not text)
- 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 (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/frame/SKILL.md, syneidesis/skills/gap/SKILL.md, hermeneia/skills/clarify/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 AskUserQuestion
Call AskUserQuestion tool to present findings. 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:
- Fix critical issues - Address critical findings before commit
- Review concerns - Examine each concern individually
- Proceed anyway - Commit with decision logged
- 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: 12 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: 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?