# Validate

> Verify that an implementation plan was correctly executed. Runs success criteria checks and generates validation reports. Use after implementation is complete.

- Skill: `juicesharp/validate-2` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add juicesharp/validate-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/juicesharp/validate-2/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: juicesharp (https://skillmd.com/u/juicesharp)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/juicesharp/validate-2

---


# 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:
1. **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

2. **Locate the plan**:
   - If plan path provided, use it
   - Otherwise, search recent commits for plan references or ask user

3. **Gather implementation evidence**:
   ```bash
   # Check recent commits
   git log --oneline -n 20
   git diff HEAD~N..HEAD  # Where N covers implementation commits

   # Run comprehensive checks
   cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) && make check test
   ```

## Validation Process

### Step 1: Context Discovery

If starting fresh or need more context:

   **If the injected git context shows "not a git repo":**
   - Skip git-based evidence gathering (git log, git diff)
   - Validate via file inspection, automated test commands, and plan checklist
   - Note in report: "Git history unavailable — validation based on file inspection only"

1. **Read the implementation plan** completely
2. **Identify what should have changed**:
   - List all files that should be modified
   - Note all success criteria (automated and manual)
   - Identify key functionality to verify

3. **Spawn parallel research agents** to verify implementation:

   Use the Agent tool to spawn general-purpose sub-agents to validate the implementation:
   - **general-purpose** agent — Verify implementation details match plan specifications (analyzer role)
   - **general-purpose** agent — Verify implementation follows established codebase patterns (pattern-finder role)

   Example agent prompts:
   - "Analyze [component] and verify it implements [plan requirement] correctly"
   - "Find patterns similar to [new code] and check if conventions are followed"

   Also gather evidence directly:
   ```bash
   # Check recent commits
   git log --oneline -n 20
   git diff HEAD~N..HEAD  # Where N covers implementation commits

   # Run comprehensive checks
   cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) && make check test
   ```

### Step 2: Systematic Validation

For each phase in the plan:

1. **Check completion status**:
   - Look for checkmarks in the plan (- [x])
   - Verify the actual code matches claimed completion

2. **Run automated verification**:
   - Execute each command from "Automated Verification"
   - Document pass/fail status
   - If failures, investigate root cause

3. **Assess manual criteria**:
   - List what needs manual testing
   - Provide clear steps for user verification

4. **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:

```markdown
## 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: `make build`
✓ Tests pass: `make test`
✗ Linting issues: `make lint` (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
```

## 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

1. **Be thorough but practical** - Focus on what matters
2. **Run all automated checks** - Don't skip verification commands
3. **Document everything** - Both successes and issues
4. **Think critically** - Question if the implementation truly solves the problem
5. **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 Skills

Recommended workflow:
1. `/skill:implement` - Execute the implementation
2. `/skill:commit` - Create atomic commits for changes
3. `/skill:validate` - Verify implementation correctness

The validation works best after commits are made, as it can analyze the git history to understand what was implemented.

Remember: Good validation catches issues before they reach production. Be constructive but thorough in identifying gaps or improvements.