# Verify Generic dual-verification dispatcher for high-confidence verification across all verification types. **Core principle:** Agents cannot be trusted. Two independent agents + systematic collation = confidence. ## Usage ``` /cipherpowers:verify [scope] [--model=] ``` **Model guidance:** - `opus` - Deep analysis, security-critical verification, complex codebases - `sonnet` - Balanced quality/speed (default for most verification types) - `haiku` - Quick checks, simple verifications, execute adherence checks ## Algorithmic Workflow **Decision tree (follow exactly, no interpretation):** 1. What verification type is requested? - code → Dispatch to code verification workflow - plan → Dispatch to plan verification workflow - execute → Dispatch to execute verification workflow - research → Dispatch to research verification workflow - docs → Dispatch to documentation verification workflow - OTHER → Error: Unknown verification type. Valid types: code, plan, execute, research, docs 2. **MANDATORY: Skill Activation** **Load skill context:** @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}skills/dual-verification/SKILL.md **Step 1 - EVALUATE:** State YES/NO for skill activation: - Skill: "cipherpowers:dual-verification" - Applies to this task: YES/NO (reason) **Step 2 - ACTIVATE:** If YES, use Skill tool NOW: ``` Skill(skill: "cipherpowers:dual-verification") ``` ⚠️ Do NOT proceed without completing skill evaluation and activation. 3. **FOLLOW THE SKILL EXACTLY:** - Phase 1: Dispatch 2 specialized agents in parallel (see dispatch table) - Phase 2: Dispatch review-collation-agent to compare findings - Phase 3: Present collated findings to user with confidence levels 4. **STOP when verification is complete.** ## Dispatch Table | Type | Agent | Focus | Default Model | |------|-------|-------|---------------| | code | cipherpowers:code-review-agent + cipherpowers:code-agent | Heterogeneous review (Standards + Engineering) | sonnet | | plan | cipherpowers:plan-review-agent + cipherpowers:code-agent | Plan quality + Technical feasibility | sonnet | | execute | cipherpowers:execute-review-agent ×2 | Plan adherence, implementation match | haiku | | research | cipherpowers:research-agent ×2 | Information completeness, accuracy | sonnet | | docs | cipherpowers:technical-writer + cipherpowers:code-agent | Docs structure + Code example accuracy | haiku | **Model parameter rules:** - If user specified `--model=X` → pass `model: X` to ALL dispatched agents - If no model specified → use default model from table above - Collation agent always uses `haiku` (simple comparison task) ## Verification Types ### Code Verification **When to use:** Before merging, after significant implementation. **What it checks:** - Code quality and standards compliance - Testing coverage and quality - Security considerations - Performance implications - Maintainability **Workflow:** ``` /verify code [scope] [--model=] → Dispatches 1 code-review-agent and 1 code-agent in parallel (with model parameter if specified, otherwise sonnet) → Each agent independently reviews: - Read code changes - Run tests and checks - Review against standards → Dispatches review-collation-agent (always haiku) → Produces collated report with confidence levels ``` ### Plan Verification **When to use:** Before executing implementation plans. **What it checks:** - 35 quality criteria (security, testing, architecture, etc.) - Blocking issues that must be fixed - Non-blocking improvements to consider **Workflow:** ``` /verify plan [plan-file] [--model=] → Dispatches 1 plan-review-agent and 1 code-agent in parallel (with model parameter if specified, otherwise sonnet) → Each agent independently evaluates against criteria → Dispatches review-collation-agent (always haiku) → Produces collated report with confidence levels ``` ### Execute Verification **When to use:** After each batch during /execute workflow. **What it checks:** - Each task implemented exactly as plan specified - No skipped requirements - No unauthorized deviations - No incomplete implementations **What it does NOT check:** - Code quality (that's code verification) - Testing strategy (that's code verification) - Standards compliance (that's code verification) **Workflow:** ``` /verify execute [batch-number] [plan-file] [--model=] → Dispatches 2 execute-review-agent agents in parallel (with model parameter if specified, otherwise haiku) → Each agent independently verifies: - Read plan tasks for batch - Read implementation changes - Verify each task: COMPLETE / INCOMPLETE / DEVIATED → Dispatches review-collation-agent (always haiku) → Produces collated report with confidence levels ``` ### Research Verification **When to use:** When exploring unfamiliar topics, APIs, patterns, or codebases. **What it checks:** - Information completeness (did we find everything relevant?) - Accuracy (are findings correct?) - Multiple perspectives (different angles covered?) - Gaps identified (what's missing?) **Examples:** - "How does authentication work in this codebase?" - "What are the patterns for Bevy 0.17 picking?" - "How should we structure the API layer?" **Workflow:** ``` /verify research [topic] [--model=] → Dispatches 2 research-agent agents in parallel (with model parameter if specified, otherwise sonnet) → Each agent independently explores: - Different entry points - Multiple sources (codebase, web, docs) - Different perspectives → Dispatches review-collation-agent (always haiku) → Produces collated report: - Common findings (high confidence) - Unique insights (worth knowing) - Divergences (needs clarification) ``` ### Documentation Verification **When to use:** Auditing documentation accuracy. **What it checks:** - File paths exist - Commands work - Examples accurate - Structure complete **Workflow:** ``` /verify docs [files] [--model=] → Dispatches 1 technical-writer and 1 code-agent in parallel (with model parameter if specified, otherwise haiku) → Each agent independently verifies against codebase → Dispatches review-collation-agent (always haiku) → Produces collated report with confidence levels ``` ## Why Dual Verification? **Problem:** Single agent can miss issues, hallucinate, or confirm biases. **Solution:** Two independent agents catch what one misses. **Confidence levels:** - **VERY HIGH:** Both agents found → Act on this - **MODERATE:** One agent found → Consider carefully - **INVESTIGATE:** Agents disagree → User decides **Example (research):** ``` Agent #1: "Auth uses JWT with 1-hour expiry" Agent #2: "Auth uses JWT with 24-hour refresh tokens" → Collation: Both partially correct (access vs refresh) → Higher confidence understanding than single agent ``` ## Integration with Other Commands Execute workflow uses verify for batch verification: ``` /execute workflow: → Batch 1 (3 tasks) → /verify code (quality/standards) → /verify execute (plan adherence) → Fix all BLOCKING issues → Repeat for next batch ``` ## Related Commands - `/cipherpowers:execute` - Plan execution workflow (uses /cipherpowers:verify for batch verification) ## Related Skills - `dual-verification` - Core pattern for all dual-verification - `executing-plans` - Plan execution workflow integrating verification ## Related Agents - `code-review-agent` & `code-agent` - Code quality verification - `plan-review-agent` & `code-agent` - Plan quality verification - `execute-review-agent` - Plan adherence verification - `research-agent` - Research verification - `technical-writer` & `code-agent` - Documentation verification - `review-collation-agent` - Generic collation (works for all types) ## Remember - All verification types use dual-verification pattern - Dispatch table determines which agents to use - Collation agent is always the same (generic) - Confidence levels guide user decisions - Agents cannot be trusted - that's why we use two