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)

Phase 2: Expert Review

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

Perspective 1: Type Design

code

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/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

code

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/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

code

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 (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:

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:

code

## 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):

code

[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

code

## 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

code

## 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?