Repository navigation
Add lightweight verification step (implementation vs spec) #381
Description
Problem
Today OpenSpec validates spec structure, but there is no lightweight, built-in way to guide post-implementation verification against an approved change. Teams end up improvising how to verify alignment with change deltas/specs, which can lead to drift or missed requirements.
Proposal
Introduce an optional, lightweight verification workflow that lives with each change:
- Add a per-change
openspec/changes/<change-id>/verification.mdtemplate that captures:- Spec alignment expectations (which deltas/specs apply)
- Hallucination risks (packages/functions/paths that must/must not exist)
- Pattern references (files to match)
- Spec-specific rules (hard constraints)
- Provide a
/verifyslash command (or guidance inAGENTS.md) that instructs AI to:- Load
openspec/changes/<change-id>/verification.md - Compare implementation to
openspec/changes/<change-id>/specs/and baselineopenspec/specs/ - Flag spec drift, missing acceptance criteria, or hallucinated usage
- Load
Benefits
- Lightweight and optional; no automated testing required
- Provides a consistent, repeatable review checklist for implementation-vs-spec
- Complements existing validation instead of replacing it
- Aligns with issue Feature request: Include acceptance verification instructions for each task in AGENTS.md prompts #345 (acceptance verification instructions per task)
Notes / Implementation sketch
- Add template file under OpenSpec assets (or generate on
openspec proposal). - Keep verification guidance separate from spec linting (this is post-implementation review guidance).
- The
verification.mdformat can be markdown-only; no parsing required initially.
Disclaimer: This issue was drafted with AI assistance after searching existing OpenSpec issues for related requests.
Activity
coderabbitai commentedon Dec 21, 2025
📝 CodeRabbit Plan Mode
Generate an implementation plan and prompts that you can use with your favorite coding agent.
Examples
🔗 Similar Issues
Related Issues
🔗 Related PRs
#283 - Fix Cline: use workflows instead of rules for slash commands [merged]
#306 - Enhance proposal guidelines in slash-command-templates.ts [merged]
#310 - Clarify scaffold proposal [merged]
#318 - Add Antigravity workflow support [merged]
#376 - feat(spec): add XDG global config and config command proposals [merged]
👤 Suggested Assignees
🧪 Issue enrichment is currently in open beta.
You can configure auto-planning by selecting labels in the issue_enrichment configuration.
To disable automatic issue enrichment, add the following to your
.coderabbit.yaml:💬 Have feedback or questions? Drop into our discord or schedule a call!
ramarivera commentedon Dec 21, 2025
I would be more than happy to raise a proposal and iterate on this :)
TabishB commentedon Dec 21, 2025
@ramarivera I'm pretty aligned on this, I think it's needed and something that should be in the default workflow. Happy for you to create a proposal.
I'm holding off on adding more steps/slash commands for now as I'm doing a bit of a refactor to make OpenSpec more customisable by being able to modify or create your own "workflow"/artifacts generated so to speak.
The goal will be to maintain a default -> This is what we think works best overall workflow but allow users to modify/create your own. This will also help us experiment more and test out different versions of workflows to see what actually works better in practice.
I want to convert the current workflow to this new format as well as make it more granular for better control. I was thinking of adding this step as part of that.
This will hopefully be in by next week. Just giving some rough estimates on timelines here. So yes feel free to go ahead and create the proposal and we can start experimenting this with the new workflow.
ramarivera commentedon Dec 22, 2025
Hey @TabishB , do you need any help with the workflow engine and so on? Happy to help there as well
TabishB commentedon Dec 22, 2025
@ramarivera I'm open to collaboration! I'll be create a few changes for this soon. Wold be open to a sanity check and getting your thoughts on it. Maybe dm me on discord or let me know what platform you prefer
TabishB commentedon Apr 11, 2026
We have a
/verifycommand now that can do this.