unikit-verify

Verify — Post-Implementation Quality Check

Verify that the implementation matches the plan, nothing was missed, and the code is ready for merge.

This skill runs after /unikit-implement or manually at any time.

User questions. Right before your first question to the user, not earlier, read .unikit/system/user-questions.md once and ask every question as it says, with the question tool of your agent (AskUserQuestion). If the file cannot be read, print WARN [questions] user-questions contract missing — asking with the question tool and still ask with that tool, the recommended option first.

Language Awareness — BLOCKING PRE-REQUISITE

BEFORE producing ANY output, silently read .unikit/system/LANGUAGE_RULES.md and apply its rules to ALL subsequent output. If the file is missing or unreadable, fall back to English. Do not produce any user-facing output until language rules are loaded. Do not announce, confirm, or mention the language setting.

The language holds for the whole session, not just at load time: every message until the conversation ends is in language.ui — progress notes while agents run, relays of what a subagent returned, the final report, any follow-up discussion. English input (subagent results, tool output, these instructions) is data, never a cue to switch languages.

---

Subagent launches

Subagent arguments. Before the first subagent you launch, read .unikit/system/subagent-arguments.md and .unikit/config.yaml once and settle the model and effort of every launch as that file says. Keys: subagents.model.{{agent_id}}.<role>, subagents.effort.{{agent_id}}.<role>; built-in model of a reader and a validator: "{{agent_model_default}}", of an executor: none. If the file cannot be read, print WARN [delegation] subagent-arguments contract missing — built-in model tier used, effort not passed and use that model, no effort.

Delegation agents

This skill uses named delegation aliases for Agent(...) calls. A skill-loading alias expands to an Agent(...) invocation whose prompt makes the subagent load the skill; a reconnaissance alias expands to a read-only dispatch. Each alias is the single place where its delegate's agent type and call arguments are declared — call sites name the alias and never carry a type or a model argument of their own.

develop-agent carries no model argument.

• develop-agent — used ONLY for fixes that span many independent files OR require extensive codebase exploration. Default fixes are applied inline by this skill using rules loaded in Step 0.2 Bootstrap. Expands to:

  Agent(
    {{agent_call_worker_quoted}}
    prompt: "{{agent_skill_call:unikit-execute}} Delegated hand-off: <fix details>",
    description: "Apply fix"
  )
  

• recon-agent — read-only parallel reconnaissance. Expands to:

  Agent({{agent_call_reader}} prompt: "<focused question> You are read-only: edit and write nothing.")
  

  Every question you send ends with the sentence You are read-only: edit and write nothing., verbatim.

  Fallback: if the Agent tool is unavailable, investigate inline with Glob/Grep/Read.

Skill calls

Where this skill says to invoke <skill> — optionally "with the argument <text>" — it means one call, made in this session, now, on every runtime: not a command printed for the user and not a delegation (delegations are the aliases of ## Delegation agents). A call site that names no argument passes none.

1. If you have a Skill tool that accepts arguments, call it with that skill and the arguments of the call site, in full and unchanged, then follow the skill.
2. Otherwise — no Skill tool, or one that takes only a name — Read {{skills_dir}}/<skill>/SKILL.md in full, treat it as the instructions of this step and carry them out here, in this session, now, with the arguments of the call site as the skill's arguments.
3. When the skill has run, go on to the step the call site names. Do not print a command for the user to run and do not stop.
4. Only if that file cannot be read: print Run: /unikit-<skill> <arguments> for the user and stop.

---

Step 0: Load Context

0.0 Load Ownership and Gate Contract

• Read {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/CONTEXT-GATES-AND-OWNERSHIP.md first.
• Treat it as the canonical source for:
  • command-to-artifact ownership,
  • read-only behavior for unikit-commit/unikit-review/unikit-verify,
  • normal vs strict context-gate thresholds.
• If this contract conflicts with older examples in this file, follow the contract.
• Also read .unikit/system/gate-result-contract.md — the canonical schema for the machine-readable unikit-gate-result block emitted in Step 4.4. If it is missing or unreadable, do not block: the Step 4.4 section is self-sufficient on the schema and degrades gracefully (see there).
• Also read .unikit/system/ultra-plan-read.md — the reader contract for an ultra plan bundle: detection, per-consumer reading depth, what is mutable during execution, and the blocking integrity checks. Name it and follow it; never restate it here — one contract, one place. If .unikit/system/ultra-plan-read.md is missing or unreadable, do not block: treat every plan as a single-file plan and continue exactly as before — a project that predates the ultra port has no bundles to read.

0.1 Find Feature Plan

Phase selector first. Extract a phase selector — Phase N or Phases N-M (the same form /unikit-implement takes) — and remove it from $ARGUMENTS before a folder name is matched. With a selector, phase_scope = N..M; without, phase_scope = all. Once the plan is resolved, a selector naming a phase the plan does not have prints WARN [plan] Phases N-M: the plan has no phase <X> — verifying the whole plan and sets phase_scope = all.

Search logic — same as /unikit-implement (unified plan detection):

1. If $ARGUMENTS specifies a folder name (e.g. core-loop, 2026-03-10_core-loop, or legacy NNN-feature-name) → use it; a folder that is an unfinished plan (below) → print its NOTE line and STOP
2. Otherwise → auto-detect: a. Fast plan check — if .unikit/code/PLAN.md exists, use it (flat fast-mode plan) b. Branch match. From branch <prefix><name>, collect every folder in .unikit/code/plans/ that matches any of the three name formats: (1) exactly <name> — the current format; (2) ending with _<name> — the YYYY-MM-DD_<name> format; (3) ending with -<name> and beginning with three digits — the legacy DDD-<name> format. An experiment plan's folder does not carry its dated branch name (experiment-<topic> on experiment/<date>-<topic>), so its own record adds the folders whose manifest has, inside ## Experiment Context, a Branch: line equal to the current branch and a Base: other than none (Grep ^Branch: over .unikit/code/plans/*/PLAN.md); a folder found both ways counts once. Exactly one match → use it. More than one → ask the user which one, listing each with its Updated: — do not pick by format precedence: two folders for one feature is exactly the state the date used to prevent, and choosing silently is how the resolver starts finding the wrong one. No match → fall through to latest. c. Latest. Read the Updated: line from each candidate's .unikit/code/plans/<folder>/PLAN.md and sort descending; ties break on Created: descending, then on folder name descending. A manifest with no Updated: is excluded and named — WARN [plan] <folder>: manifest has no Updated: — excluded; run unikit-ai update to backfill it — never guessed from the folder name and never from the file's mtime, which git checkout and a fresh clone rewrite. latest fallback is a guess, not a resolution: the branch named no plan. With two or more plans present, print the candidate table (folder, Updated:, tasks remaining) and ask — never auto-select. With exactly one plan present there is nothing to choose between: announce it with the branch miss named in the reason and continue.

An unfinished plan is not a plan. A folder under .unikit/code/plans/ that holds .planning/STATE.md but not its manifest .unikit/code/plans/<folder>/PLAN.md is an ultra plan still being written: it is never a candidate, and it is named once:

NOTE [plan] <folder> — unfinished planning: .planning/STATE.md is there, the manifest is not. Continue it with: /unikit-plan ultra <folder>

Announce the resolution. Print exactly one visible line before any other output:

INFO [plan] resolved: <path> (<reason>)

<reason> is exactly one of: explicit path · feature name · fast plan · branch match: <branch> · latest fallback. This is plain output, never the payload of an interactive question. 3. If no plan found (no .unikit/code/PLAN.md and .unikit/code/plans/ is empty or doesn't exist):

No plan found. What should I verify?

Options:
1. Verify branch diff — compare the current branch against the base branch (Step 0.4)
2. Verify last N commits — check recent commits for completeness
3. Cancel

Based on choice:

• Branch diff → gather CHANGED_FILES via git diff --name-only $BASE_BRANCH...HEAD. Skip Step 1 (Task Completion Audit — no plan exists). Execute Step 2 (Code Quality) and Step 3 (Consistency Checks) on collected files. In the report (Step 4), use header: ### Standalone verification (no plan) instead of ### Feature: ...
• Last N commits → ask user for the number of commits via the question tool of your agent (AskUserQuestion). Gather files via git diff --name-only HEAD~N..HEAD. Skip Step 1. Execute Steps 2-3 on collected files. Same standalone report header.
• Cancel → STOP

If both .unikit/code/PLAN.md and a matching folder plan exist, ask the user which one to verify.

Check if --strict is in $ARGUMENTS. If yes — enable strict mode (see Strict Mode section).

Ultra bundle check. Read the first line of the resolved plan manifest. If it equals <!-- unikit:plan-mode:ultra -->, this is an ultra bundle: follow .unikit/system/ultra-plan-read.md for reading depth, integrity and mutability. Otherwise continue unchanged. Discovery itself does not change — the folder is found the way it always was; only what is read inside it differs.

Reading depth: read the manifest plus the phase files of the audited phases before verification begins — under phase_scope = N..M the phases N..M, otherwise the phases that hold at least one executed (- [x]) task. Other phases are not opened. The integrity checks of ultra-plan-read.md still cover the whole folder, by listing and heading search — never by reading an unaudited phase.

Phase scope. Under phase_scope ≠ all (a module check — /unikit-implement calls <folder> Phases K-L before a PR checkpoint) the run narrows in exactly these places, and nowhere else:

• Step 1 audits only the tasks of phases N..M.
• CHANGED_FILES is the phases line of ## Diff range of a check (Step 0.5).
• Step 2.2 checks no Full run: anchor and asks nothing, under --strict as well — it reports the module's test state from ## Test Runs: the last line whose coverage lies inside N..M, or not run.
• Under a phase scope, Step 3.8 checks only the acceptance criteria cited by tasks of phases N..M. The criteria of later modules are not unmet yet — checked here, they would turn into Step 4.4 blockers under ## Design and fail every module check.
• Step 3.9 (implemented_version) does not run — a partial check stamps nothing into the design.
• The report header reads ### Feature: <folder> — phases N-M, and the unikit-gate-result block is built from the same findings.

Unfinished plan. phase_scope = all and the checklist holds - [ ] tasks without a ⏭️ MERGED, ⏸️ MANUAL or ⏳ AWAITING RESULT label → only what was executed is verified. Step 1 audits the - [x] tasks; the - [ ] ones are listed as ➖ NOT EXECUTED — not read, not searched for, no blocker, never implemented by Step 4.3. Steps 2.2, 3.8 (criteria cited by executed tasks), 3.9 and the pull request option follow the phase-scope rules above; the header reads ### Feature: <folder> — <done> of <total> tasks executed; status is at least warn. No - [x] task → print Nothing to verify: no task of the plan is executed and STOP.

0.2 Read Plan & Context

• Read the plan manifest — .unikit/code/plans/<folder>/PLAN.md for a folder plan, .unikit/code/PLAN.md for a flat fast-mode plan. In fast and full one file carries everything: ## Overview, ## Settings, the ## Checklist with phases, dependencies and completion status, and ## Technical Context (constraints, interfaces, key patterns, dependency graph, files, editor targets, DI bindings). In an ultra bundle it does not: the manifest carries the checklist and only the cross-phase part of ## Technical Context, while every task's own detail lives in its phase file — the reading depth is stated in .unikit/system/ultra-plan-read.md. For the full section list see {{skills_dir}}/unikit-plan/references/TASK-FORMAT.md → Plan Manifest Template; it is not restated here.
• If the manifest has a ## Based on section pointing to a research, do NOT read that research's RESEARCH.md as a substitute for the plan's own context. The plan's ## Technical Context is authoritative and supersedes the research summary (/unikit-plan: it was synthesized from the research and then verified against the code). The drift check below runs a script over it and reads nothing itself.
• Read .unikit/DESCRIPTION.md — project specification, tech stack
• Read .unikit/ARCHITECTURE.md — project structure, dependency rules, modules, namespace conventions. Architecture topics: the root now; then the topic files listed under its ## Topics whose Load when matches a file the plan's tasks changed — their Files: lines and the diff under verification; when unsure, load (RULES_INDEX.md → Step 1). A listed file that is missing is reported in 3.4.
• Read .unikit/ROADMAP.md (if present) — strategic milestones for alignment checks

Research drift check — only when ## Based on has at least one entry. Read .unikit/system/research-link.md now, and only now, and run its ## Checking an entry against every entry. Name it and follow it; never restate it here — one contract, one place.

If .unikit/system/research-link.md is missing or unreadable, do not block: record no Summary SHA256 and check none — print WARN [research-drift]: research-link contract missing — drift detection off for this run; run unikit-ai update once, and continue.

Skipping this drift check is a verification bug. A verification that passed while the plan and its source had diverged is the one failure this check exists to prevent.

Every WARN [research-drift] line reaches the Step 4 report and the unikit-gate-result block — otherwise it is lost with the session. The gate level is warn, never fail: source drift does not make the implementation wrong, it makes it debatable, and the decision is the user's. An INFO [research-hash] line reaches the Step 4 report too and raises nothing.

Parse ## Settings from the plan while it is open here — Step 1 needs it and runs long before the Docs: read in Step 3:

• Editor tasks: engine-bridge | manual | direct (the 2.x spelling mcp is read as the same value) — the mode /unikit-implement used. Context for Step 1: under manual, editor targets are expected to be marked ⏸️ MANUAL rather than implemented.
• Test checkpoints: task | phase | plan — the run placement the planner recorded. Context for Step 2.2: under phase and plan there are no runs among the ### Verification commands — they live in test-checkpoint tasks. Line absent under Testing: yes → the plan is legacy: placement was never declared, and runs may sit anywhere in the task text. Under Testing: no the line is omitted by design, and there are no runs to place.

## Rule Candidates holds at least one open row → read {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/rule-candidates.md now, once — Step 5 follows it. No open row → do not read it here.

The manifest has ## Balance Context → read {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/balance-checks.md now, once — Steps 1, 4.4 and 5 and the Strict Mode table follow it. Missing → WARN [balance] balance-checks reference missing — plan verified as an ordinary plan; run unikit-ai update.

The manifest has ## Experiment Context → read .unikit/system/prototype-profile.md now, once, and follow its ## Role: verification and pull request — Steps 2.3, 3.2-3.7, 3.9 and 5 follow it. Missing or unreadable → WARN [prototype] profile contract missing — plan verified as an ordinary plan; run unikit-ai update.

Bootstrap loads coding rules and principles ONCE upfront so Step 4.3 fixes can be applied inline without re-loading on each delegation.

Read in parallel (rules + principles, for inline fix execution in Step 4.3):

1. .unikit/system/dev-principles.md — up to its lazy-read boundary: find the marker line (Grep -n '^<!-- === LAZY-READ BOUNDARY === -->') and Read the file with limit set to that line number. The part below the marker is read once, at plan load, when the checklist carries an Editor: line — D3 and the editor procedures D6–D7 close the editor targets of Step 1; without such a line it is read before the first GATE LIFTED verdict of Step 2, if not read yet — D1 decides whether an absent affordance is absent. An agent that cannot read with a limit reads the whole file.
2. .unikit/RULES.md — project overrides (highest priority). Rule topics: the root always; then the topic files listed under its ## Topics whose Load when matches a file the plan's tasks changed — their Files: lines and the diff under verification; when unsure, load (RULES_INDEX.md → Step 1).
3. .unikit/memory/code/RULES_INDEX.md — index of core/stack rules
4. For EACH row in the Core table where Required By = all or contains unikit-verify — read that file from .unikit/memory/code/core/ using the Read tool.

Stack rules are loaded on-demand if Step 4.3 fixes reveal framework-specific issues.

Engine-bridge rules (conditional, engine-neutral) — once per session, zero calls:

5. .unikit/system/engine-bridges/BRIDGES.md — the whole file (one short block per bridge) — and, for each bridge whose block names a rules tree, that tree's .unikit/system/engine-bridges/<bridge>/INDEX.md, base section only: the stamp under the title (the bridge row) plus every section except the ## Check table — access, the live failure classes, shape and cost, what is irreversible, the lane, and what to do when the file is silent. Those are the exceptions that hold for every target here. Do not read the ## Check table now — it is grepped per editor target, by area (Step 1). Also read .unikit/bridges.yaml (the bridge order) and, when it exists, .unikit/bridge-routing.md (the routing rules); a missing order file means the default order BRIDGES.md states, a missing routing file means no routing rules.

6. For each bridge listed in BRIDGES.md: .unikit/bridge-notes/<bridge>.md, header only (bridge: / audited:) — this project's own accumulated findings, and they apply to that bridge only. Compare the header against the bridge the file is named for. On a mismatch print exactly one line and apply the entries anyway:

   WARN [bridges] notes header ≠ bridge (<header> ≠ <bridge>)
   

   The entries are suspect, not void, and a suspect check still fails safe. Retiring them belongs to /unikit-bridge-audit.

7. For each such bridge, .unikit/system/engine-bridges/<bridge>/verification.md — this skill and no other reads it. It is the per-gate calibration for that bridge: for each gate, whether it is reachable and what class of evidence closes it. It grants nothing and lifts nothing (see the gate rule in Step 2); it tells you which observation counts. When BRIDGES.md lists a bridge, also read {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/bridge-gates.md now, once.

Any of them absent → skip it, print one line, and continue with every right you had:

Bridge rules: <bridge> has no INDEX.md — no known exceptions for it, rights unchanged

No rules means no known exceptions, never no capabilities. Absence never disables an engine bridge and never turns a target into ⏸️ MANUAL (.unikit/system/dev-principles.md → A9), and it never lifts a gate — a missing calibration leaves every gate in force.

Read .unikit/skill-context/unikit-verify/SKILL.md — MANDATORY if the file exists.

This file contains project-specific rules accumulated by /unikit-evolve from patches, codebase conventions, and tech-stack analysis. These rules are tailored to the current project.

How to apply skill-context rules:

• Treat them as project-level overrides for this skill's general instructions
• When a skill-context rule conflicts with a general rule written in this SKILL.md, the skill-context rule wins (more specific context takes priority)
• When there is no conflict, apply both: general rules from SKILL.md + project rules from skill-context
• Do NOT ignore skill-context rules even if they seem to contradict this skill's defaults — they exist because the project's experience proved the default insufficient

Understand:

• Which tasks are completed (- [x]) and which are not (- [ ])
• Dependencies between phases
• Which files and classes are expected

0.3 Load Engine Rules

Read {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/ENGINE_RULES.md to load engine-specific verification checks.

This file contains:

• Companion file checks — engine-specific file pairing rules
• Module boundary checks — engine-specific boundary enforcement mechanism
• Structural checks — engine-specific code conventions and validation rules
• Read-only paths — engine-specific directories that must not be modified
• Strict mode items — engine-specific checks that always fail on violation

All engine-specific checks in Steps 2 and 3 reference this file. If ENGINE_RULES.md is missing, skip engine-specific checks and note: Engine rules: ENGINE_RULES.md not found, engine-specific checks skipped.

<!-- unikit:extension-point:bootstrap -->

0.4 Detect Base Branch

Read .unikit/system/plan-boundaries.md now, once, and resolve the base branch by its ## Base branch. Save it as $BASE_BRANCH — every later git command uses it instead of a hardcoded main or master.

If .unikit/system/plan-boundaries.md is missing or unreadable, do not block: resolve the base branch the old way, print the line below once, and continue — Step 0.5 then takes its fallback range.

BASE_BRANCH=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||')
if [ -z "$BASE_BRANCH" ]; then
  BASE_BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --verify origin/master >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo master || echo main)
fi

WARN [plan-range] plan-boundaries contract missing — base from origin/HEAD, plan range off; run unikit-ai update

0.5 Gather Changed Files

• A folder plan in a git repository → the range of .unikit/system/plan-boundaries.md → ## Diff range of a check. The whole plan is the union of git diff --name-only <plan start> HEAD (two-dot — the start may be the empty tree) and git diff --name-only $BASE_BRANCH...HEAD, with the start found by ## Plan start; no start → the second half alone. Under phase_scope ≠ all — the phases line of that section. No local branch $BASE_BRANCH → origin/$BASE_BRANCH (## Base branch).
• The flat fast plan .unikit/code/PLAN.md, or the contract is missing → git diff --name-only $BASE_BRANCH...HEAD, as before: the plan-start chain needs a plan folder.
• On $BASE_BRANCH itself, without a plan → git diff --name-only HEAD~20..HEAD, as before.

Save as CHANGED_FILES — this list will be used in all subsequent steps. When it is a union, the Step 4 report carries one line naming where the files came from; the list itself is never printed:

Changed files: from <plan start short> (plan start) and <base>

---

Step 1: Task Completion Audit

Use the recon-agent alias to verify task completion in parallel. This keeps the main context clean and allows simultaneous verification of multiple phases.

Launch one Explore task per audited phase. For each phase, provide:

• Task descriptions from the roadmap
• CHANGED_FILES list for context
• Instructions: find implementing code using Glob/Grep, read key files, confirm completeness (not a stub), report status per task with file paths
• Instructions: skip any task carrying an Editor: line or a PR checkpoint: line, or — in a plan with ## Balance Context — a Measure: line or a Hand-back: line — do not mark it NOT FOUND. It is verified in the main context (see below).

Editor targets are excluded from the Explore fan-out. A task with an Editor: line changed the editor's serialized state; there is nothing in the sources to find, so an Explore agent would honestly return ❌ NOT FOUND and block correctly completed work. The subagents also have no engine tools — the grants of the engine bridge catalog are issued to unikit-verify, not to its children. So:

• Editor tasks stay in this skill's own context and are verified by reading the editor state back through an engine bridge (references/bridge-gates.md → Editor targets), never with Glob/Grep. The per-kind checks are engine knowledge — see {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/ENGINE_RULES.md → ## Editor Target Checks.
• The file exists but carries no ## Editor Target Checks section → a normal A9 degradation, not a dead end. Verify the target anyway: close it with an evidence class from .unikit/system/dev-principles.md (A2, and D3 when the first route is unavailable), reading the project's own rules in .unikit/system/engine-bridges/ first. This is never “no engine bridge available” and never ⏸️ MANUAL — a missing section means the per-kind signals were not written down for this engine yet, never that the affordance is absent.
• Verify against the editor, never against the plan. The acceptance criterion is closed by what the editor reports now, not by what the plan said would happen and not by what the implementation report claimed. Re-reading the plan's own words back is not verification: it makes a planning error invisible, because the two sides of the comparison have the same author.
• Per target, before the read-back: steps 1–3 of .unikit/system/dev-principles.md → D6 — candidates from the live catalog by intent, their schemas, the ## Check tables grepped by area. No matching line changes nothing: an absent exception is not an absent capability (A9).
• A call that misled you is a finding (dev-principles.md → D7): a candidate line in the verification report and a row in the plan's ## Engine Bridge Findings table, written on the pass over the target that produced it, never in the verification summary — observed is the date you observed it (Bash(date *)), bridge the id of the bridge the call went through. A table in the 2.x form is converted first (TASK-FORMAT.md → ### Engine bridge findings section). Never write .unikit/bridge-notes/<bridge>.md from here.
• No engine bridge available → ⏭️ SKIPPED (editor target, no engine bridge available). Not a failure.
• Task marked ⏸️ MANUAL in the plan → ⏸️ MANUAL. Not a blocker: the user took it on deliberately. Report the target so it stays visible.

A PR checkpoint task is excluded from the fan-out too — it leaves nothing in the project. Its status comes from its checkbox ({{skills_dir}}/unikit-plan/references/TASK-FORMAT.md → ### PR checkpoint task grammar): [x] … → PR <sha> → ✅ COMPLETED (boundary <sha>); a ⏭️ MERGED label → ⏭️ SKIPPED (merged into task N.M, or — the last one — into the PR after verification); [ ] without a label → ⏭️ SKIPPED (not reached). A PR checkpoint never produces a blocker in the unikit-gate-result block — it is a process step, not an implementation.

A Measure: or Hand-back: task is excluded from the fan-out too — its status comes from its checkbox and from ## Measurements (references/balance-checks.md → ## Step 1 — task status).

Fallback: If Agent tool is unavailable, investigate directly using Glob and Grep — with the same exclusion: tasks carrying an Editor: line are not Glob/Grep-verifiable and keep the treatment above, and a task carrying a PR checkpoint: line is read from its checkbox, and a task carrying a Measure: or Hand-back: line is read from its checkbox and ## Measurements.

In an ultra bundle the checkbox is not the specification. Verify implementation against the detailed per-task interfaces, edge cases, logging, acceptance criteria, and commands — not only the short checkbox text. The manifest's checklist line is a pointer; what is verified against is the task's own ### Acceptance Criteria and ### Verification in its phase file. Pass those to each Explore task alongside the checklist line.

1.1 Build Checklist

After tasks return, synthesize findings into a checklist:

✅ Task 1.1: Create ICustomer interface — COMPLETED
   - ICustomer.cs created in Assets/Modules/Characters/Scripts/Customers/
   - All methods from plan are present
   - Namespace is correct

⚠️ Task 2.3: Add customer factory — PARTIAL
   - CustomerFactory.cs created
   - MISSING: CreateFromConfig() method mentioned in plan
   - MISSING: registration in Zenject installer

❌ Task 3.1: Create CustomerView — NOT FOUND
   - File not found in expected directory
   - No mention of CustomerView in changed files

Statuses:

• ✅ COMPLETED — all requirements confirmed in code
• ⚠️ PARTIAL — partially implemented, something missing
• ❌ NOT FOUND — implementation not found
• ⏭️ SKIPPED — task was intentionally skipped by the user, or an editor target could not be read back (⏭️ SKIPPED (editor target, no engine bridge available))
• ⏸️ MANUAL — an editor target the user took on themselves (Editor tasks: manual); reported, never a blocker
• ⏳ AWAITING RESULT — a measurement waiting for its result; pending, never a blocker in normal mode
• ➖ NOT EXECUTED — a - [ ] task of an unfinished plan; not audited, not a blocker

---

Step 2: Code Quality Verification

Gate calibration — the verification.md of each bridge (read in Step 0). Follow {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/bridge-gates.md for every gate of this step. A gate ends in one of three outcomes, and only these: closed, GATE LIFTED — a verdict this skill produces, never a line it reads, reached only after the gate was tried on every bridge that was available — and no engine bridge available. A gate marked partly reachable is not lifted in advance either: attempt it, and lift only the half that produced evidence of absence. A bridge with no verification.md leaves every gate in full for it (dev-principles.md → A9).

2.1 {{engine_name}} Compile Check

Check that the project compiles after implementation — gate compilation of references/bridge-gates.md, through each available bridge in the D3 order until one closes it:

• Refresh/recompile the project through that bridge
• Check the {{engine_name}} console for compilation errors
• If errors found — display them with file:line references
• No bridge available — skip and note: Compilation check: no engine bridge available, skipped
• The gate is attempted on every available bridge and no affordance answers it — GATE LIFTED, skip and note: Compilation check: gate lifted — <the observation that established it>

2.2 {{engine_name}} Test Evidence

Normal mode starts no test run. Running the tests is the executor's work: /unikit-implement runs them in the plan's test-checkpoint tasks and closes the plan with Test checkpoint: plan, a run of every test, recorded in the manifest's ## Test Runs. This step checks that the record exists and still describes the code in front of you. A test-checkpoint task is audited by its checkbox and its ## Test Runs line; a test-run command found in the task text of a legacy plan is not executed either — the recorded run stands for it.

1. Testing: no, or no ## Settings → one line, Tests: not part of this plan (Testing: no), and nothing else in this step. It is not a finding.

2. Read the manifest's ## Test Runs and find the Full run: anchor line. No section or no line → ⚠️ Test run: no full run recorded. An anchor whose tree-sha256 reads unavailable → ⚠️ Test run: the full run of <date> carries no tree hash and cannot be checked.

3. An anchor is there → compute the current tree hash by the one tree-hash command below; nothing is read for it:

   node .unikit/system/tree-hash.mjs
   

   It prints a digest of the project's content, one git blob id per file, and needs no Git Bash and no Unix utility. You read no project file for it — git hashes only the changed ones. A commit that moves no file never moves it; .unikit/, where the plan records its progress, and Markdown files (*.md), which the plan's documentation step writes after the final run, are left out, and staging a file never moves the hash. A non-zero exit, or no node → git did not answer (item 6): the command prints no digest.

4. The hash matches, and the anchor's count is above zero → one line into the report, quoting the run:

   Test run: reused — <anchor date> · <coverage> · passed N/N · tree unchanged
   

   This is not a lifted gate and not a skip: the gate is closed, and closed by the very class of evidence verification.md names for it — the evidence was produced earlier, and by another skill. The report must name whose run it was, or verify claims someone else's result as its own. The hash matches but the count is zero → ⚠️ Test run: the full run of <date> ran 0 tests — not evidence.

5. The hash does not match → ⚠️ Test run: stale — the tree changed since the full run of <date>. A commit alone does not move the hash, so a stale anchor means a file changed since the run. An anchor recorded before this hash existed also reads as stale, until the next run of every test rewrites it.

6. The command does not answer (no git, no node, the script is missing) → WARN [testing] the tree-hash command did not answer — the Full run: anchor was not checked. A command that did not answer never means "the evidence holds": an unknown tree state is reported, not assumed.

A broken anchor — no tree-sha256, an unreadable date — is reported as WARN [testing] the Full run: line could not be parsed. Acting on a half-parsed anchor is forbidden: half a mark is worse than none.

Every ⚠️ and WARN [testing] above is a finding of the report, not a fourth outcome of the gate. In normal mode it raises status to at least warn and never becomes a blocker (Step 4.4). The three outcomes of Step 2 apply to Step 2.1 and to the strict-mode run below.

Strict mode — one question when the evidence does not cover this tree. Under --strict, the outcomes of items 2, 5 and 6, a zero count in item 4 and a broken anchor ask once:

The recorded test run does not cover the current code (<reason>). Run the full test suite now?

Options:
1. Run the full suite now
2. Leave it — strict verification fails

• A non-interactive run, or a reply that picks neither option → no answer, and no run.
• Run the full suite now → run every test in the project, in one run, through the first available bridge that offers a test run (gate tests), and wait for the result. Green — a readable result with a test count above zero, the bar verification.md names for this gate — → by one Edit, append <date> · plan · all tests, /unikit-verify --strict · passed N/N · tree-sha256 <hash> to ## Test Runs and rewrite its anchor line as Full run: <date> · all tests · passed N/N · tree-sha256 <hash>; <date> from Bash(date *), <hash> by the command of item 3. This edit touches ## Test Runs and nothing else in the manifest. Red → the failing tests go into the report, and strict verification fails.
• Unsaved editor state stops the run → .unikit/system/test-run-width.md → ### Unsaved editor state.
• Leave it, or no answer → strict verification fails on this finding.
• No engine bridge available → skip and note: Test run: no engine bridge available, skipped. The run is attempted on every available bridge and no affordance answers it → GATE LIFTED, skip and note: Test run: gate lifted — <the observation that established it>; a run that reports success over zero tests has not closed the gate. In both cases the finding stays a warning, exactly as the compilation gate behaves when it cannot run.
• Under a phase scope (Step 0.1) nothing is asked.

2.3 Engine-Specific Checks

Apply all checks defined in {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/ENGINE_RULES.md:

• Companion file checks — verify file pairing rules for this engine (if applicable)
• Module boundary checks — verify dependency boundaries using the engine's boundary mechanism (if applicable)
• Structural checks — verify engine-specific code conventions
• Read-only path enforcement — flag any modifications to engine-defined read-only directories

If ENGINE_RULES.md is not loaded (Step 0.3), skip this section and note: Engine-specific checks: skipped (no ENGINE_RULES.md)

---

Step 3: Consistency Checks

3.1 Plan vs Code Drift

Check discrepancies between plan and code:

• Naming: do class/interface/method names match the plan?
• File locations: are files where the plan expected them?
• Contracts: do interfaces contain the methods described in the plan?

3.2 Leftover Artifacts

Search for artifacts that should have been cleaned up:

Grep in CHANGED_FILES: TODO|FIXME|HACK|XXX|TEMP|PLACEHOLDER

Also check:

• Debug.Log without conditional context (not in #if DEBUG)
• Commented-out code blocks

Each finding — record it, but note it may be intentional.

3.3 DESCRIPTION.md Sync

Check whether .unikit/DESCRIPTION.md reflects the current state:

• New dependencies/libraries → should be in the document
• Architecture changes → should be reflected
• New modules → should be documented

3.4 ARCHITECTURE.md Sync

Check .unikit/ARCHITECTURE.md:

• New modules or directories → should be in the project tree
• New module boundaries → should be reflected in dependency rules
• Changes to folder structure → should be updated
• Topic table ↔ .unikit/architecture/: a listed file missing, or a file no row lists → WARN [architecture] topic table: <slug or file> …; growth → CONTEXT-GATES-AND-OWNERSHIP.md → ## Architecture growth sign, reported in 3.6

3.5 Context Gates (Architecture / Rules / Roadmap)

Apply the canonical contract from {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/CONTEXT-GATES-AND-OWNERSHIP.md.

Evaluate and report each gate explicitly:

• Architecture gate

  • Pass: implementation follows module/layer boundaries, dependency rules, and anti-patterns from the .unikit/ARCHITECTURE.md root and the topics loaded for the checked files
  • Warn: architecture document appears stale or mapping is ambiguous
  • Fail: clear boundary/dependency violation (e.g. Assets/Modules/ → Assets/Game/)

• Rules gate

  • Pass: implementation follows explicit project rules
  • Warn: relevance/verification is ambiguous
  • Fail: clear violation of explicit rule text

• Roadmap gate (only if .unikit/ROADMAP.md exists)

  • Pass: feat/fix/perf work has milestone linkage in the plan's ## Roadmap Linkage section
  • Warn: .unikit/ROADMAP.md missing, ambiguous milestone mapping, or no milestone linkage for feat/fix/perf scope
  • Note: missing milestone linkage for feat/fix/perf remains a warning even in strict mode — it is never a blocker

Normal mode behavior:

• Architecture/rules clear violations fail verification.
• Ambiguous or stale context artifacts are warnings.
• Missing milestone linkage is a warning.

Strict mode behavior:

• Architecture and rules clear violations fail verification.
• Stale context artifacts are warnings.
• Missing milestone linkage is a warning (not a failure).

Logging/reporting format:

• Non-blocking findings: WARN [gate-name] ...
• Blocking findings: ERROR [gate-name] ...

3.6 Context Drift (Optional Remediation)

/unikit-verify is read-only for context artifacts. Do not edit or regenerate .unikit/* files here.

If you detect that a context artifact is stale, missing, or ambiguous, report it as a drift finding and provide the owner-command remediation:

• DESCRIPTION.md drift → suggest /unikit (or note that /unikit-implement should have updated it)
• ARCHITECTURE.md drift → suggest /unikit-architecture update; growth or a topic table ↔ files mismatch → suggest /unikit-architecture optimise (growth sign: CONTEXT-GATES-AND-OWNERSHIP.md)
• RULES.md drift → suggest /unikit-rules to add missing conventions
• ## Topics table ↔ .unikit/rules/ drift (a listed file missing, a file not listed) → suggest /unikit-rules optimise
• ROADMAP.md drift → suggest /unikit-roadmap check (or /unikit-roadmap <update request>)

Ask the user a single optional question only if drift was detected and fixing it now would materially improve correctness:

Context drift detected. Update now?

Options:
1. Yes — show update commands (recommended)
2. No — continue without updating

Based on choice:

• Yes → show update commands for user to invoke
• No → continue verification without updating

3.7 Documentation Sync

Check whether the implementation introduced user-facing changes that should be reflected in project documentation (README.md, docs/).

a) Check plan's Docs policy:

Read the ## Settings section from the plan manifest:

• If Docs: yes — verify that documentation was actually updated during implementation (check CHANGED_FILES for README.md, docs/*.md, or .unikit/docs-config.json). If no doc files were modified: WARN [docs] Docs policy was 'yes' but no documentation files were changed — run /unikit-docs
• If Docs: no or missing — check whether the implementation introduced new public APIs, new modules, changed configuration, or modified user-facing behavior. If yes: WARN [docs] Implementation changed public API/behavior but Docs policy was no/unset — consider /unikit-docs

b) Check existing docs for staleness:

If README.md and/or docs/ exist:

• Scan for references to classes, interfaces, or files that were renamed or deleted during this implementation
• Check if docs mention modules or systems that were substantially restructured
• If stale references found: WARN [docs] docs/<file>.md references <old-name> which was renamed/deleted in this implementation

c) Report:

Include documentation findings in the verification report under a ### Documentation section:

• ✅ Documentation up to date — docs policy satisfied or no doc-impacting changes
• ⚠️ Documentation may need update — with specific findings and suggestion to run /unikit-docs

3.8 Design Acceptance Criteria (game-design module)

Only when the plan carries a ## Design section (added by /unikit-plan Step 4.5 when the project has a game-design workspace). If there is no ## Design section, skip this check silently.

Verify the implementation against the Acceptance Criteria snapshotted in the plan — not against the live .unikit/gamedesign/ docs. The plan's ## Design block pins the system SYS-id, the version, and the cited AC-<id>s; checking against the plan (not the current design) preserves the one-way boundary (verify reads the plan; design changes flow only through /unikit-gd-*) and validates against the exact version the plan was written for.

For each cited AC-<id> (Given-When-Then):

• Confirm the implementing code (from CHANGED_FILES / the Step 1 audit) satisfies the Then-clause under the Given/When conditions. Be concrete — cite file:line.
• An AC marked removed in vN → confirm the old behavior was actually ripped out; a lingering old code path is a finding.
• Unmet or partially-met AC → record it as an issue.

Report findings under a ### Design Acceptance section (see Step 4.1). The AC check itself is read-only against the live design — it validates the plan snapshot, never .unikit/gamedesign/. The one exception is the all-AC-met writeback in Step 3.9 below.

3.9 implemented Writeback (game-design module — the lone code→design write)

Gate — only when phase_scope = all and 3.8 found every cited AC-<id> met for the plan's SYS-id@version (no unmet, no partial). On any unmet/partial AC, or under a phase scope, do nothing here — skip silently.

This is the single sanctioned code→design write (gd-principles → One-Way Boundary; canonical in references/CONTEXT-GATES-AND-OWNERSHIP.md, which overrides this body). It is explicitly carved out of the read-only rules — Step 3.6, Step 3.8, and the global Important Rules #1 and #5. On all-AC-met, stamp the implemented marker on the single design surface:

1. .unikit/gamedesign/GD-IDS.yaml — find the systems entry whose id: equals the cited SYS-id and add-or-set implemented_version: <cited @version> (add the key if the entry lacks it — authoring skills inline their entries and may not carry the template's commented field). Leave doc_status and every other field untouched.

The implemented state is read-only everywhere else: GAME.md's ## System Map [gen] renders it from this implemented_version field (display precedence over doc_status), so there is no second surface to write — design re-renders the map, code never touches it.

Locate-read only. Opening GD-IDS.yaml here is solely to locate the write target; it is not a general live-design read and does not relax 3.8's snapshot-only discipline (the AC check still runs against the plan's ## Design snapshot, never the live docs). GD-IDS.yaml is the only .unikit/gamedesign/ file this skill may open, and only on all-AC-met.

Surface the write (no silent writes). Confirm it in the ### Design Acceptance report line (Step 4.1): on all-AC-met append — stamped implemented_version: vN on <SYS-id>. Never write silently.

---

Step 4: Verification Report

4.1 Display Results

## Verification Report

### Feature: {NNN-feature-name}
### Branch: {current branch}

### Task Completion: 7/8 (87%)
| # | Task | Status | Notes |
|---|------|--------|-------|
| 1.1 | Create ICustomer | ✅ Completed | |
| 1.2 | Create CustomerArgs | ✅ Completed | |
| 2.1 | Add CustomerFactory | ⚠️ Partial | Missing CreateFromConfig() |
| 2.2 | Register in DI | ✅ Completed | |
| 3.1 | Create CustomerView | ❌ Not found | File missing |

### Code Quality
- Compilation: ✅ <bridge> / ⏭️ no engine bridge available / gate lifted
- Tests: ✅ passed 3363/3363 — full run of 2026-09-12 by /unikit-implement, tree unchanged / ⚠️ stale — the tree changed since the full run of <date> / ⚠️ no full run recorded / — not part of this plan (Testing: no)
- Engine checks: ✅ All passed (per ENGINE_RULES.md)
- Anti-patterns: ⚠️ 2 warnings

### Issues Found
1. **Task 2.1 partial** — CustomerFactory created but missing CreateFromConfig() method
2. **Task 3.1 not implemented** — CustomerView.cs not found
3. **Anti-pattern** — async void in CustomerSpawner.cs:42
4. **TODO found** — Assets/Game/Scripts/.../CustomerSystem.cs:87

### Documentation
- Documentation: ✅ up to date / ⚠️ may need update (run /unikit-docs)

### Design Acceptance
- Design AC: ✅ all cited AC met / ⚠️ N unmet (see issues) / ⏭️ no ## Design section
- Writeback: ✅ stamped implemented_version: vN on <SYS-id> (all-AC-met) / — none (unmet/partial or no ## Design)

### No Issues
- Engine-specific checks passed (per ENGINE_RULES.md)
- Namespace convention followed
- DESCRIPTION.md up to date

4.2 Determine Overall Status

• All clean — all tasks verified, no issues
• Minor issues — can be fixed quickly
• Significant gaps — tasks not implemented, needs more work

4.3 Action on Issues

If issues were found:

Verification found issues. What to do?

Options:
1. Fix now (recommended) — fix all issues right here
2. Fix critical only — skip warnings
3. Accept as is — move on

Based on choice:

• Fix now → apply fixes inline using Read/Edit/Write/Bash with the rules and principles loaded in Step 0.2. Use develop-agent ONLY when fixes span many independent files OR require extensive codebase exploration. Do NOT invoke /unikit-execute via Skill(...) — Bootstrap already covers everything.
• Fix critical only → same inline approach, but only incomplete tasks — skip warnings
• Accept as is → mark accepted issues in the report, proceed to Step 5

Fallback: If Agent tool is unavailable, do NOT invoke /unikit-execute inline. Implement fixes directly with the rules from Step 0.2 Bootstrap.

For each fix iteration (Fix now / Fix critical only). Fixes are written by this skill directly; rules are already in context from Step 0.2 Bootstrap.

• For each incomplete/partial task — implement the missing parts
• For TODO/debug artifacts — clean up
• For anti-patterns — fix
• Update the plan manifest after fixes — checkbox lines and the ## Engine Bridge Findings table only. ## Technical Context is never rewritten from here; it belongs to /unikit-plan and /unikit-improve
• After fixes — re-run checks on affected items, Step 2.2 included: a fix changes the tree, so the recorded run becomes stale, and the report says so instead of keeping the earlier ✅. A Step 2.2 finding is never fixed here by starting a run in normal mode — "Fix now" leaves it in the report; under --strict the Step 2.2 question is asked once more when a fix made the run it approved stale

4.4 Machine-Readable Gate Result

Canonical template. This section is the canonical shape of the unikit-gate-result block. The unikit-review "Machine-readable gate result" section mirrors it field-for-field — the only differences there are "gate": "review" and the projection source (review's Findings table instead of verify's task-audit + context gates). The graceful-degradation wording and the last-fence rule below are kept textually identical across the two skills so a single guard can lock both; if this wording changes, the review section must change in lockstep.

After the human-readable report (Step 4.1) and overall status (Step 4.2) — and after any inline fixes from Step 4.3, so the block reflects the final state — append exactly one fenced unikit-gate-result JSON block. Use the schema loaded from .unikit/system/gate-result-contract.md in Step 0.0.

Last fence wins: the unikit-gate-result block MUST be the LAST fenced block in this skill's output — orchestrators parse only the last one. Any earlier fence (the example below, quoted prior output) is illustrative and is not the gate result.

Projection (verify): derive the fields from the verification report:

• "gate": always "verify".
• "status":
  • fail — at least one blocker: a non-skipped task at ⚠️ PARTIAL or ❌ NOT FOUND, a failed blocking quality check (compile error, a failing test of the strict-mode run), a Step 2.2 test-evidence finding left unresolved in strict mode, a context-gate ERROR (architecture/rules clear violation), or — in strict mode, or whenever the plan carries a ## Design section — an unmet/partial Design AC.
  • warn — no blockers, but non-blocking findings remain: ➖ NOT EXECUTED tasks of an unfinished plan, anti-pattern/TODO warnings (normal mode), docs/test gaps accepted as warnings, ambiguous context drift, or missing milestone linkage.
  • pass — no blocking or warning findings.
• "blocking": true only when status is fail (the result should stop commit/merge).
• "blockers": include only blocking findings, each { "id", "severity", "file", "summary" }. Use stable ids (verify-task-<id>, verify-gate-architecture, verify-gate-rules, verify-ac-<AC-id>, verify-editor-<task-id>, verify-tests). severity is error for blockers (warning only when policy escalates a warning-class finding to blocking). Non-blocking notes stay in the human summary, never in blockers.
  • verify-editor-<task-id> covers an editor target that was read back and found unimplemented or wrong. The two benign outcomes never enter blockers: ⏸️ MANUAL (the user took the target on) and ⏭️ SKIPPED (editor target, …) (it could not be read back). Both belong in the human summary.
• Balance plans add verify-balance-report, verify-measure-<id>, verify-instrument-<id> and WARN [balance-drift] — references/balance-checks.md → ## Gate result.
• "affected_files": the CHANGED_FILES the gate actually evaluated or cited (not unrelated repo files); empty array when none apply.
• Research drift. Every WARN [research-drift] line from Step 0.2 raises status to at least warn and is named in the human summary. It is never a blocker and never enters blockers: source drift makes the work debatable, not wrong, and the call is the user's.
• A reused run. A test gate closed by someone else's full run (Step 2.2, the reused branch) is a Gate closed: it does not affect status, and it never enters blockers. The human summary must name it in one line — Test run: reused — … — because "the gate was closed by evidence obtained earlier" and "the gate was not checked" are different statements, and in JSON they look identical.
• Test evidence findings. A Step 2.2 ⚠️ — no full run recorded, a stale or unhashed anchor, a zero count — raises status to at least warn and is named in the human summary. It enters blockers only in strict mode, as verify-tests with file set to the plan manifest, when the Step 2.2 question did not end in a green run — declined, unanswered, or red. A run that could not happen because no engine bridge is available, or whose gate was lifted, stays a warning (Step 2.2), as the compilation gate does. Under a phase scope Step 2.2 produces none of these findings.
• WARN [testing] of any origin — a tree-hash command that did not answer, an anchor line that would not parse, an inadmissible checkpoints value — raises status to at least warn and is named in the summary. It is never a blocker — except a Step 2.2 one in strict mode that the Step 2.2 question did not end in a green run, which is verify-tests like the ⚠️ above, with the same exception: not knowing the state of the tree makes the work debatable rather than wrong, which is the same logic research drift follows.
• "suggested_next.command": from the allowlist in gate-result-contract.md — /unikit-fix (task gaps, anti-patterns, failing checks), /unikit-rules (rules-gate violation needing a writer update), /unikit-architecture (architecture drift), /unikit-roadmap (roadmap drift), /unikit-commit (clean — natural next step), or null.

Ultra bundle — verification commands outside the grant. Commands under a task's ### Verification are executed within the grant this skill already holds. Anything outside it is printed with the ⏸️ MANUAL status in the report and must reach this block, or it is lost in silence: an unrun verification command is an accepted skip, so status is at least warn and the human summary names the command and the task. It is not a blocker and it never enters blockers. allowed-tools is not widened for this — the ⏸️ MANUAL idiom already exists for editor targets.

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "gate": "verify",
  "status": "pass",
  "blocking": false,
  "blockers": [],
  "affected_files": [],
  "suggested_next": {
    "command": "/unikit-commit",
    "reason": "Verification passed without blockers."
  }
}

The fenced block contains JSON only — no comments, trailing commas, or prose inside it.

Graceful degradation: if .unikit/system/gate-result-contract.md is missing or unreadable, do not hard-fail — emit the block from the inline schema in this section; if even that is not possible, skip the block and append the single line WARN [gate-result]: contract asset unavailable.

---

Step 5: Suggest Follow-Up

After verification completes, suggest next steps based on results:

• If unresolved issues remain (accepted or deferred), suggest /unikit-fix first
• If all green, suggest review/commit flow

Propose new rules — ask, never write.

Candidates come from two places, and they are unified before anything is proposed:

• the rows whose status is open in the manifest's ## Rule Candidates;
• the recurring convention violations this verification just found — the same naming pattern wrong in several places, a DI convention consistently missed.

What this verification found is written into ## Rule Candidates first, and only then proposed — the same columns, with from: verify. The order is the point: a candidate that was proposed but never recorded disappears with the session.

No open candidate → silence. Not a line, not a "no rules found". A run without candidates is the ordinary case, and a line about it on every run turns the signal into wallpaper.

At least one open candidate → follow {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/rule-candidates.md — read at Step 0.2 when the manifest already carried an open candidate, otherwise read it now, once. If the file is missing or unreadable, propose the candidates in the report as text, write nothing, and print WARN [rules] rule-candidates reference missing — candidates proposed in the report only; run unikit-ai update.

No manifest at all — verify was called outside a plan — → the candidates cannot be recorded: select them by the filter of {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/rule-candidates.md (read it now, once — at most three) and propose them in the report as text, then print WARN [rules] no plan — candidates were not saved, proposed in the report only. Losing a candidate silently is not allowed, and inventing a file is not either.

This block runs before the "What's next?" question below, and the two are never merged: they are different questions, and folding them into one would take away the option of adding nothing independently of choosing the next step.

Verification complete. What's next?

Options:
1. Fix issues — run /unikit-fix with verification findings
2. Code review — run /unikit-review on changed files
3. Commit — run /unikit-commit
4. Skip — I'll handle it myself

The pull request option. After a check of the whole plan (phase_scope = all, no ➖ NOT EXECUTED task) with no blocker, in a git repository (git.enabled from .unikit/config.yaml; no key → a .git directory decides) and on a branch other than the base of Step 0.4, option 1 becomes Pull request — run /unikit-pr: there is nothing to fix, and the question keeps its four options. The choice invokes unikit-pr with no argument (## Skill calls): a closed plan is read from its checkboxes. When {{skills_dir}}/unikit-pr/SKILL.md does not exist (a project that ran update without --install-new), print WARN [pr] /unikit-pr is not installed — run unikit-ai update --install-new instead of a command that does not exist. The unikit-gate-result block's suggested_next does not change.

A balance plan with no blocker repeats its hand-back command as the last line, in plain text after the gate-result block — references/balance-checks.md → ## Step 5.

Based on choice:

• Fix issues → invoke unikit-fix with the issue summary as its argument
• Pull request → invoke unikit-pr as above
• Code review → invoke unikit-review on the changed files
• Commit → invoke unikit-commit
• Skip → STOP

Context Cleanup

Suggest the user to free up context space if needed: /clear (full reset) or /compact (compress history).

---

Strict Mode

When called with --strict:

/unikit-verify --strict

Normal mode already checks all items below but tolerates partial results and warnings. Strict mode raises the bar on these specific points:

Check	Normal mode	Strict mode
Task completion	⚠️ PARTIAL and ⏭️ SKIPPED allowed	All tasks must be ✅ COMPLETED — partial, skipped and ➖ NOT EXECUTED are failures (verify-task-<id>, not executed). Carve-out: ⏭️ SKIPPED (editor target, …) and ⏸️ MANUAL are exempt in both modes — the first is an unreachable capability, the second is work the user deliberately took on; failing either would fail correctly completed work
Compilation (engine bridge)	Reported if available	Required to pass if an engine bridge is available
Tests (the recorded run, Step 2.2)	The ## Test Runs record is checked against the current tree; missing, stale or zero-count evidence is a warning, and no test run is started	Under Testing: yes, a green run of every test recorded for the current tree is required; when it is missing or stale, verify asks once whether to run the full suite now through an engine bridge — declined, unanswered or red is a failure; no engine bridge available or a lifted gate stays a warning
TODO/FIXME/HACK	Warning	Failure — no leftover markers allowed in changed files
Anti-patterns	Warning	Failure — async void, missing CancellationToken, etc.
Design acceptance criteria	Unmet AC reported as a finding	Failure — every cited AC must be met (only when the plan has a ## Design section)
Balance measurements	⏳ AWAITING RESULT is a warning	Failure — every Measure: task needs a row with valid = yes, except a task skipped at a blocker (⏭️ SKIPPED) (only for a plan with ## Balance Context)

Items that behave the same in both modes (always checked, always fail on violation):

• Engine-specific checks (per ENGINE_RULES.md strict mode items)
• Namespace correctness
• Context gates (Architecture, Rules — see thresholds in {{skills_dir}}/{{self_name}}/references/CONTEXT-GATES-AND-OWNERSHIP.md)

Strict mode is recommended before merging to the base branch or creating a PR.

---

Important Rules

1. Read-only by default — verification only reads and analyzes; fixes only with explicit user consent. Sole automatic write: the all-AC-met implemented writeback to the design layer (Step 3.9)
2. Respond in the configured language — use language.ui from .unikit/config.yaml (default: English)
3. Precise references — always provide file:line for each finding
4. No false positives — if unsure, mark as "⚠️ Verify manually"
5. Do not modify .unikit/ files — only report drift and suggest updates. Single exception: Step 3.9's all-AC-met writeback to .unikit/gamedesign/GD-IDS.yaml (implemented_version) — the lone sanctioned code→design write (a single surface; GAME.md's ## System Map [gen] renders the implemented state read-only from it)
6. Do not touch engine read-only paths — see ENGINE_RULES.md for the list of read-only directories; ignore them during checks
7. Agent-based delegation — use the recon-agent alias for read-only investigation. Fixes are applied INLINE by this skill using rules loaded in Step 0.2 Bootstrap. Use develop-agent for fixes ONLY when they span many independent files or require extensive codebase exploration. Never invoke /unikit-execute via Skill(...). If Agent tool is unavailable, fall back to inline work for both exploration (Glob/Grep/Read) and fixes (direct Read/Edit/Write/Bash with loaded rules).

---

Usage

After implement (recommended)

/unikit-verify

Strict mode before merge

/unikit-verify --strict

Specific feature

/unikit-verify 2026-03-08_customers-system

Strict + specific feature

/unikit-verify --strict 2026-03-08_customers-system