Install
$ agentstack add skill-corticalstack-flow-validate-plan ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Validate Plan
You are tasked with validating that an implementation plan was correctly executed, verifying all success criteria and identifying any deviations or issues.
Initial Setup
When invoked:
- Determine context - Are you in an existing conversation or starting fresh?
- If existing: Review what was implemented in this session
- If fresh: Need to discover what was done through git and codebase analysis
- Locate the plan:
- If plan path provided, use it
- Otherwise, search recent commits for plan references or ask user
- Gather implementation evidence:
```bash # Check recent commits git log --oneline -n 20 git diff HEAD~N..HEAD # Where N covers implementation commits
# Run project-specific verification commands # The plan's "Automated Verification" section specifies what to run # Common examples: # - Python: uv run pytest tests/ -v # - Node: npm test # - Make: make check test # - Rust: cargo test # - Go: go test ./... ```
Validation Process
Step 1: Context Discovery
If starting fresh or need more context:
- Read the implementation plan completely
- Identify what should have changed:
- List all files that should be modified
- Note all success criteria (automated and manual)
- Identify key functionality to verify
- Spawn parallel research tasks to discover implementation:
``` Task 1 - Verify code changes: Find all modified files related to [feature]. Compare actual changes to plan specifications. Return: File-by-file comparison of planned vs actual
Task 2 - Verify test coverage: Check if tests were added/modified as specified. Run test commands and capture results. Return: Test status and any missing coverage ```
Step 2: Systematic Validation
For each phase in the plan:
- Check completion status:
- Look for checkmarks in the plan (- [x])
- Verify the actual code matches claimed completion
- Run automated verification:
- Execute each command from the plan's "Automated Verification" section
- Document pass/fail status with the actual command that was run
- If failures, investigate root cause
- Assess manual criteria:
- List what needs manual testing
- Provide clear steps for user verification
- Think deeply about edge cases:
- Were error conditions handled?
- Are there missing validations?
- Could the implementation break existing functionality?
Step 3: Generate Validation Report
Create comprehensive validation summary:
## Validation Report: [Plan Name]
### Implementation Status
✓ Phase 1: [Name] - Fully implemented
✓ Phase 2: [Name] - Fully implemented
⚠️ Phase 3: [Name] - Partially implemented (see issues)
### Automated Verification Results
✓ Build passes: `[command from plan's automated verification]`
✓ Tests pass: `[command from plan's automated verification]`
✗ Linting issues: `[command from plan's automated verification]` (3 warnings)
### Code Review Findings
#### Matches Plan:
- Database migration correctly adds [table]
- API endpoints implement specified methods
- Error handling follows plan
#### Deviations from Plan:
- Used different variable names in [file:line]
- Added extra validation in [file:line] (improvement)
#### Potential Issues:
- Missing index on foreign key could impact performance
- No rollback handling in migration
### Manual Testing Required:
1. UI functionality:
- [ ] Verify [feature] appears correctly
- [ ] Test error states with invalid input
2. Integration:
- [ ] Confirm works with existing [component]
- [ ] Check performance with large datasets
### Recommendations:
- Address linting warnings before merge
- Consider adding integration test for [scenario]
- Document new API endpoints
Step 4: Update Work-Item State
Based on validation results:
If validation fails (automated checks fail, critical issues found):
tracker set-state validation-failed in-progress
If validation passes (all automated checks pass, ready for PR):
- Keep
in-progressstate (it will be transitioned topr-submittedafter PR creation) - Validation passing doesn't mean implementation is done - it means it's ready for code review via PR
Working with Existing Context
If you were part of the implementation:
- Review the conversation history
- Check your todo list for what was completed
- Focus validation on work done in this session
- Be honest about any shortcuts or incomplete items
Important Guidelines
- Be thorough but practical - Focus on what matters
- Run all automated checks - Don't skip verification commands
- Document everything - Both successes and issues
- Think critically - Question if the implementation truly solves the problem
- Consider maintenance - Will this be maintainable long-term?
Validation Checklist
Always verify:
- [ ] All phases marked complete are actually done
- [ ] Automated tests pass
- [ ] Code follows existing patterns
- [ ] No regressions introduced
- [ ] Error handling is robust
- [ ] Documentation updated if needed
- [ ] Manual test steps are clear
Relationship to Other Commands
Recommended workflow:
/implement-plan- Execute the implementation/validate-plan- Verify implementation correctness (quality gate)- Fix any issues found during validation
/commit- Create atomic commits for changes (only after validation passes)/describe-pr- Generate PR description
Validation works best on uncommitted changes, acting as a quality gate before creating commits. This ensures a cleaner git history without "fix validation issues" commits. Use git diff to analyze what was implemented.
Remember: Good validation catches issues before they reach production. Be constructive but thorough in identifying gaps or improvements.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: corticalstack
- Source: corticalstack/flow
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://github.com/corticalstack/flow
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.