Kiro Validate Impl

kiro-validate-impl Skill

Role

Individual tasks have already been reviewed by the per-task reviewer during implementation. Your job is to catch problems that only become visible when looking across all tasks together.

Boundary terminology continuity:

• discovery identifies Boundary Candidates
• design fixes Boundary Commitments
• tasks constrain execution with _Boundary:_
• feature validation checks for cross-task Boundary Violations

Core Mission

• Success Criteria:
  • All tasks marked [x] in tasks.md
  • Full test suite passes (not just per-task tests)
  • Cross-task integration works (data flows between components, interfaces match)
  • Requirements coverage is complete across all tasks (no gaps between tasks)
  • Design structure is reflected end-to-end (not just per-component)
  • No orphaned code, conflicting implementations, integration seams, or boundary spillover

What This Skill Does NOT Do

Per-task checks are the reviewer's responsibility during /kiro-impl. This skill does not re-check:

• Individual task acceptance criteria
• Per-file reality checks (mock/stub detection)
• Single-task spec alignment

This skill's main question is: when the completed tasks are viewed together, do they still respect the designed boundary seams and dependency direction?

Execution Steps

Step 1: Detect Validation Target

If no arguments provided:

• Parse conversation history for /kiro-impl commands to detect recently implemented features and tasks
• Scan .kiro/specs/ for features with completed tasks [x]
• Report detected implementations (e.g., "user-auth: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3")

If feature provided (feature specified, tasks empty):

• Use specified feature
• Detect all completed tasks [x] in .kiro/specs/{feature}/tasks.md

If both feature and tasks provided (explicit mode):

• Validate specified feature and tasks only (e.g., user-auth 1.1,1.2)

Step 2: Gather Context

If steering/spec context is already available from conversation, skip redundant file reads. Otherwise, for each detected feature:

• Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/spec.json for metadata
• Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/requirements.md for requirements
• Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/design.md for design structure
• Read .kiro/specs/<feature>/tasks.md for task list and Implementation Notes
• Core steering context: product.md, tech.md, structure.md
• Additional steering files only when directly relevant to the validated boundaries, runtime prerequisites, integrations, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect the GO/NO-GO call

Discover canonical validation commands:

• Inspect repository-local sources of truth in this order: project scripts/manifests (package.json, pyproject.toml, go.mod, Cargo.toml, app manifests), task runners (Makefile, justfile), CI/workflow files, existing e2e/integration configs, then README*
• Derive a feature-level validation set for this repo: TEST_COMMANDS, BUILD_COMMANDS, and SMOKE_COMMANDS
• Prefer commands already used by repo automation over ad hoc shell pipelines
• For SMOKE_COMMANDS, choose the lightest trustworthy runtime-liveness check for the app shape (for example: root URL load, Electron launch, CLI --help, service health endpoint, mobile simulator/e2e harness if one already exists)
• If multiple candidates exist, prefer the command with the smallest setup cost that still exercises the real built artifact

Step 3: Execute Integration Validation

Subagent Dispatch (parallel)

The following validation dimensions are independent and can be dispatched as subagents via the Agent tool. The agent should decide the optimal decomposition based on feature scope — split, merge, or skip subagents as appropriate. Each subagent returns a structured findings summary to keep the main context clean for GO/NO-GO synthesis.

Typical validation dimensions (adjust as appropriate):

• Test execution: Run the complete test suite, report pass/fail with details
• Requirements coverage: Build requirements → implementation matrix, report gaps
• Design alignment: Verify architecture matches design.md, report drift and dependency violations
• Cross-task integration: Verify data flows, API contracts, shared state consistency

For simple features (few tasks, small scope), run checks in main context without subagent dispatch.

Mechanical Checks (run commands, use results)

These checks apply at the feature level. Use command output as the primary signal.

A. Full Test Suite

• Run the discovered canonical full-test command. Use the exit code.
• If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.
• If the canonical test command cannot be identified → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED

B. Residual TBD/TODO/FIXME

• Run: grep -rn "TBD\|TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX" <files-in-feature-boundary>
• If matches found that were introduced by this feature → flag as Warning

C. Residual Hardcoded Secrets

• Run: grep -rn "password\s*=\|api_key\s*=\|secret\s*=\|token\s*=" <files-in-feature-boundary> (case-insensitive)
• If matches found that aren't environment variable references → flag as Critical

D. Runtime Liveness (Smoke Boot)

• Run the discovered canonical smoke command that proves the built artifact actually starts and reaches its first usable state.
• Examples if relevant: open the root URL in a headless browser and require zero boot-time console errors; launch Electron and wait for the main process ready signal and first renderer load; run a CLI with --help; start a service and hit its health endpoint.
• If boot produces a runtime crash, unhandled exception, module-load failure, native ABI mismatch, or missing required env/config → NO-GO.
• If no trustworthy smoke command can be identified, or the required runtime environment is unavailable → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED

Judgment Checks (read code, compare to spec)

E. Cross-Task Integration

• Identify where tasks share interfaces, data models, or API contracts
• Verify that Task A's output format matches Task B's expected input
• Check for conflicting assumptions between tasks (naming conventions, error codes, data shapes)
• Verify shared state (database schemas, config, environment) is consistent across tasks
• Verify integration work happens at the intended seams rather than by leaking one boundary's behavior into another

F. Requirements Coverage Gaps

• Map every requirement section to at least one completed task
• Identify requirements that no single task fully covers (cross-cutting requirements)
• Identify requirements partially covered by multiple tasks but not fully by any
• Use the original section numbering from requirements.md; do NOT invent REQ-* aliases

G. Design End-to-End Alignment

• Verify the overall component graph matches design.md
• Check that integration patterns (event flow, API boundaries, dependency injection) work as designed
• Verify dependency direction follows design.md's architecture (no upward imports)
• Verify File Structure Plan matches the actual file layout
• Identify any architectural drift from the original design
• Use the original section numbering from design.md

G.5 Boundary Audit

• Compare completed work against the design's Boundary Commitments, Out of Boundary, Allowed Dependencies, and Revalidation Triggers
• Identify cross-task spillover where one area quietly absorbed another boundary's responsibility
• Identify downstream-specific workarounds embedded upstream "to make integration easier"
• Identify new hidden dependencies or shared ownership that were not declared in the design
• If a revalidation trigger fired, verify the affected adjacent specs or integration points were actually re-checked

G.6 Design Quality (筋の良い実装)

• Beyond spec coverage and boundary integrity, judge whether the feature — viewed whole — is a sound, well-shaped implementation per .claude/rules/coding-style.md (Reviewing for Design Quality). Judge the feature's overall shape against what it actually needs (its correctness/latency/memory/security profile as a whole), reasoning about the tradeoff from first principles — not against a fixed checklist; the repo's default markers are a floor, and a deliberate, well-argued deviation is itself 筋が良い. This is the feature-level counterpart to kiro-review's per-task check: each task can be locally fine yet, taken together, accrete needless complexity, drift-prone duplication across task seams, or an abstraction that fights the surrounding code.
• Apply the same severity discipline: a spec-compliant feature with a poor emergent shape is normally a Warning to record, not a NO-GO. Reserve NO-GO for a shape that is genuinely hard to maintain, hides coupling, or will force a rewrite. Do not turn this into a taste loop.

H. Blocked Tasks & Implementation Notes

• Check for any tasks still marked _Blocked:_ — report why and assess impact on feature completeness
• Review ## Implementation Notes in tasks.md for cross-cutting insights that need attention

Step 4: Generate Report

Before returning GO, apply the kiro-verify-completion protocol to the feature-level claim. Tests alone are insufficient: include full-suite, runtime liveness, coverage, integration, design-alignment, and blocked-task status in the evidence.

Classify concrete failures by ownership before writing remediation:

• LOCAL if the defect belongs to the feature being validated
• UPSTREAM if the root cause belongs to a dependency, foundation, shared platform, or earlier spec
• UNCLEAR if ownership cannot be established from the available evidence

If ownership is UPSTREAM, do not collapse the issue into local remediation for this feature. Name the owning upstream spec and explain which dependent specs should be revalidated after that upstream fix lands.

Provide summary in the language specified in spec.json:

## Validation Report
- DECISION: GO | NO-GO | MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
- MECHANICAL_RESULTS:
  - Tests: PASS | FAIL (command and exit code)
  - TBD/TODO grep: CLEAN | <count> matches
  - Secrets grep: CLEAN | <count> matches
  - Smoke boot: PASS | FAIL | MANUAL_REQUIRED
- INTEGRATION:
  - Cross-task contracts: <status>
  - Shared state consistency: <status>
  - Boundary audit: <status>
- COVERAGE:
  - Requirements mapped: <X/Y sections covered>
  - Coverage gaps: <list of uncovered requirement sections>
- DESIGN:
  - Architecture drift: <findings>
  - Dependency direction: <violations if any>
  - File Structure Plan vs actual: <match/mismatch>
- OWNERSHIP: LOCAL | UPSTREAM | UNCLEAR
- UPSTREAM_SPEC: <feature-name | N/A>
- BLOCKED_TASKS: <list and impact assessment>
- REMEDIATION: <if NO-GO: specific, actionable steps to fix each issue>

If NO-GO, REMEDIATION is mandatory — identify the exact issue and what needs to change. Vague feedback is not acceptable.

Important Constraints

• Strict Final Gate: Return GO only when all integration checks passed; return NO-GO for concrete failures and MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED when mandatory validation could not be completed
• Boundary integrity over convenience: Do not return GO if the feature only works by smearing responsibilities across boundaries, even when tests pass

Safety & Fallback

Error Scenarios

• No Implementation Found: If no [x] tasks found, report "No implementations detected"
• Test Command Unknown: Return MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED and explain which validation command is missing; do not return GO
• Missing Spec Files: Stop with error if spec.json/requirements.md/design.md missing

Next Steps Guidance

If GO Decision:

• Feature validated end-to-end and ready for deployment or next feature

If NO-GO Decision:

• Address issues listed in REMEDIATION
• Re-run /kiro-impl {feature} [tasks] for targeted fixes
• Re-validate with /kiro-validate-impl {feature}

If MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED:

• Do not treat the feature as complete
• Provide the exact missing validation step or environment prerequisite