Semantic Validation

Semantic Validation Skill

Purpose: Use GenAI to validate that documentation accurately reflects implementation, catching issues that structural validation misses.

When to Use This Skill

Auto-invoke triggers (when implemented):

• /align-project command (Phase 2: Semantic Validation)
• After major code changes (10+ files modified)
• Before releases

Manual invoke:

• Investigating documentation accuracy
• After refactoring
• When documentation feels stale

What This Skill Detects

1. Outdated Documentation

Problem: Documentation claims X, code implements Y

Example:

# PROJECT.md:181

### Tool Calling (CRITICAL ISSUE)

Status: Still investigating duplicate tool calls

// src/convert.ts:45 (committed 3 hours ago)
// SOLVED: Streaming tool parameters via input_json_delta
case "tool-input-delta": {
  controller.enqueue({ type: "input_json_delta", ... });
}

Detection: GenAI compares documented status with implementation reality.

2. Version Mismatches

Problem: Different versions across files

Example:

• CHANGELOG.md:8 says v2.0.0
• package.json:3 says v1.0.0
• README.md:5 says latest stable: 1.5.0

Detection: Extract version numbers from all docs, flag inconsistencies.

3. Architecture Drift

Problem: Documented architecture doesn't match current structure

Example:

# PROJECT.md:95

Architecture: Simple proxy server

# Actual codebase structure:
src/
├── translation-layers/  (5 different layers)
├── format-converters/
├── stream-handlers/
└── protocol-adapters/

Detection: Analyze file organization, compare to documented architecture.

4. Stale Claims

Problem: Documentation makes claims no longer true

Example:

# README.md:8

"A simplified fork of anyclaude"

# Reality:
- 2000+ lines of custom code
- Complex 5-layer architecture
- Completely different from original

Detection: Look for words like "simple", "basic", "fork" and verify against codebase size/complexity.

5. Broken Promises

Problem: Documentation promises features not implemented

Example:

# README.md:45

## Features

- ✅ Streaming support
- ✅ Tool calling
- ✅ Image attachments (coming soon)

# Search codebase for image handling
grep -r "image" src/  # No results

Detection: Extract claimed features, search codebase for implementation.

Workflow

Phase 1: Extract Documentation Claims

Step 1.1: Read PROJECT.md Sections

Extract these sections:

• Architecture Overview (lines 50-150)
• Known Issues (lines 180-250)
• Feature List (if present)
• Status Claims (SOLVED, IN PROGRESS, etc.)

Parse format:

### Section Title (Status)

Status: CRITICAL ISSUE | HIGH | SOLVED

Create map:

{
  "tool-calling": {
    "status": "CRITICAL ISSUE",
    "description": "Still investigating duplicate tool calls",
    "lines": "181-210"
  }
}

Step 1.2: Extract Versions

Search all documentation for version patterns:

• v1.2.3
• version 1.2.3
• @latest
• stable: X.X.X

Sources:

• package.json → version field
• CHANGELOG.md → ## [X.X.X] headers
• README.md → version badges, mentions
• pyproject.toml → version field
• Cargo.toml → version field

Create version map:

{
  "package.json": "1.0.0",
  "CHANGELOG.md": "2.0.0",
  "README.md": "1.5.0 (stable)"
}

Step 1.3: Extract Architecture Claims

Parse PROJECT.md "Architecture Overview":

• Pattern type (Translation Layer, MVC, Microservices, etc.)
• Component descriptions
• Complexity claims ("simple", "straightforward", "complex")

Phase 2: Analyze Implementation Reality

Step 2.1: Search for Issue Resolutions

For each "CRITICAL ISSUE" or "HIGH" status in Known Issues:

# Search for resolution keywords in code
grep -r "SOLVED\|FIX\|RESOLVED" src/

# Search for the specific issue topic
grep -r "{issue_keyword}" src/

# Check git log for recent fixes
git log --oneline --since="1 week ago" | grep -i "{issue_keyword}"

Signs of resolution:

• Code comments with "SOLVED", "FIXED"
• Git commits with fix message
• Implementation of previously-missing feature
• Error handlers for previously-unhandled case

Step 2.2: Validate Architecture Claims

If docs claim "simple" or "straightforward":

# Count files
FILE_COUNT=$(find src/ -type f | wc -l)

# Count lines of code
LOC=$(find src/ -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js" | xargs wc -l | tail -1)

# Check for complex patterns
LAYERS=$(find src/ -type d -name "*layer*" | wc -l)
ADAPTERS=$(grep -r "adapter" src/ | wc -l)
CONVERTERS=$(grep -r "convert" src/ | wc -l)

Complexity indicators:

• Files > 50 → Not simple
• LOC > 1000 → Not simple
• Directories with "layer", "adapter", "converter" → Translation pattern, not simple
• Multiple service directories → Microservices, not monolithic

If docs claim specific pattern:

• Translation Layer: Look for convert/transform/adapter files
• MVC: Look for models/, views/, controllers/ directories
• Microservices: Look for services/, Docker files
• Event-Driven: Look for EventEmitter, pub/sub code

Step 2.3: Verify Feature Claims

For each claimed feature:

# Example: "Image attachments supported"
grep -r "image" src/
grep -r "attachment" src/
grep -r "file.*upload" src/

# If no results → Feature not implemented

Verification levels:

• ✅ Implemented: Code found
• ⚠️ Partial: Some code, not complete
• ❌ Missing: No code found
• 🔄 Coming Soon: No code but documented as future

Phase 3: Semantic Comparison

Step 3.1: Compare Issue Status

For each documented issue:

ALIGNED if:

• Status = "SOLVED" AND code has implementation
• Status = "CRITICAL" AND code has no fix

DIVERGENT if:

• Status = "CRITICAL" BUT code has fix (outdated doc)
• Status = "SOLVED" BUT no implementation found (inaccurate claim)

Output format:

⚠️ DIVERGENT: Section "Tool Calling" (PROJECT.md:181-210)
   Severity: HIGH

   Documented Status: CRITICAL ISSUE - Still investigating
   Actual Status: SOLVED (commit 2e8237c, 3 hours ago)

   Evidence:
   - src/convert.ts:45-89 implements solution
   - Git commit: "fix: resolve tool calling duplication"
   - No TODO or FIXME comments in related code

   Fix: Update PROJECT.md section to:
   ```markdown
   ### Tool Calling (SOLVED)
   Status: SOLVED (2024-10-26)

   Problem: Duplicate tool calls in streaming mode
   Solution: Stream tool parameters via input_json_delta
   Implementation: src/convert.ts:45-89

#### Step 3.2: Compare Architecture Claims

**ALIGNED** if:
- Docs say "simple" AND codebase is simple (< 500 LOC, 1-2 layers)
- Docs say "Translation Layer" AND pattern detected in code
- Docs say "5 layers" AND 5 layer directories found

**DIVERGENT** if:
- Docs say "simple" BUT codebase is complex (2000+ LOC, 5+ layers)
- Docs say "proxy" BUT implements translation
- Docs say "fork of X" BUT substantial divergence

**Output format**:

⚠️ DIVERGENT: Architecture Description (PROJECT.md:95-120) Severity: MEDIUM

Documented: "Simple proxy server" Actual: Complex 5-layer translation architecture

Evidence:

• 2187 lines of code in src/
• 5 directories: translation-layers/, format-converters/, stream-handlers/, protocol-adapters/, validators/
• 12 adapter files
• Complex data flow with 5 transformation steps

Suggested Fix: Update PROJECT.md architecture section to: "Multi-Layer Translation Architecture - This project implements a sophisticated 5-layer architecture for translating between incompatible API formats while preserving streaming, tool calling, and error handling semantics."

#### Step 3.3: Validate Version Consistency

**ALIGNED** if:
- All version numbers match across files

**DIVERGENT** if:
- Versions differ across documentation

**Output format**:

❌ VERSION MISMATCH (HIGH)

Found inconsistent versions:

• package.json:3 → "1.0.0"
• CHANGELOG.md:8 → "2.0.0"
• README.md:5 → "latest stable: 1.5.0"

Most recent:

• CHANGELOG.md last updated: 2 hours ago
• package.json last updated: 3 days ago

Likely correct: 2.0.0 (CHANGELOG is most recent)

Fixes needed:

1. Update package.json:3 "version": "2.0.0"

2. Update README.md:5 Latest stable: v2.0.0

---

### Phase 4: Generate Report

#### Output Format

🧠 Semantic Validation Report

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SUMMARY ✅ Aligned: 3/5 major sections ⚠️ Divergent: 2/5 sections outdated Overall: 60% accuracy → NEEDS ATTENTION

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

ALIGNED SECTIONS

✅ Authentication Flow (PROJECT.md:50-89) Documented: OAuth2 with JWT tokens Implemented: src/auth.ts:45-67 Evidence: Code matches description

✅ Database Schema (PROJECT.md:150-180) Documented: PostgreSQL with Prisma ORM Implemented: Correctly described

✅ Testing Strategy (PROJECT.md:310-340) Documented: Unit + Integration tests Implemented: tests/unit/ and tests/integration/ present

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

DIVERGENT SECTIONS

⚠️ CRITICAL: Known Issues Section (PROJECT.md:181-210) Severity: HIGH Age: 3 hours since resolution

Issue: Tool Calling marked as "CRITICAL ISSUE" Reality: SOLVED in commit 2e8237c

Evidence:

• src/convert.ts:45-89 has solution
• Commit message: "fix: resolve tool duplication"
• No outstanding TODO comments

Recommended Fix: Update status to SOLVED, document solution

⚠️ Architecture Description (PROJECT.md:95-120) Severity: MEDIUM

Documented: "Simple proxy server" Reality: Complex 5-layer translation

Evidence:

• 2187 LOC in src/
• 5 transformation layers
• 12 adapter files

Recommended Fix: Rewrite architecture section to reflect complexity

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

VERSION MISMATCHES

❌ Inconsistent Versions Found

package.json: 1.0.0 CHANGELOG.md: 2.0.0 (most recent) README.md: 1.5.0

Recommended: Update all to 2.0.0

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Priority 1 (Critical - Fix Today):

1. Update PROJECT.md:181-210 (Tool Calling section)
2. Fix version mismatches (package.json, README)

Priority 2 (High - Fix This Week): 3. Rewrite PROJECT.md:95-120 (Architecture section)

Priority 3 (Medium - Next Sprint): (None)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

NEXT STEPS

Option 1: Auto-fix version mismatches /align-project → Choose option 2 (Fix interactively) → Approve version sync

Option 2: Manual updates vim PROJECT.md vim package.json vim README.md git add . git commit -m "docs: sync versions and update solved issues"

Option 3: Review only (no changes) This report saved to: docs/alignment-report-{date}.md

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

---

## Edge Cases

### Case 1: "SOLVED" But Code Removed

```markdown
# PROJECT.md
Status: SOLVED - Fixed in v1.5

# Search for implementation
grep -r "{feature}" src/  # No results

# Check git history
git log --all --grep="{feature}"  # Feature was removed in v2.0

Output:

⚠️ REGRESSION: Feature claimed as SOLVED but no longer in codebase

   Documented: SOLVED in v1.5
   Reality: Removed in v2.0 (commit abc123)

   Options:
   1. Mark as REMOVED in Known Issues
   2. Reimplement feature
   3. Update docs to reflect removal

Case 2: Multiple Conflicting Claims

# README.md:8

Simple proxy server

# ARCHITECTURE.md:15

Complex multi-layer translation system

# PROJECT.md:95

Hybrid approach: proxy with translation capabilities

Output:

⚠️ CONFLICTING DOCUMENTATION

   README.md: "Simple proxy"
   ARCHITECTURE.md: "Complex translation"
   PROJECT.md: "Hybrid approach"

   Codebase analysis suggests: Complex translation (2000+ LOC, 5 layers)

   Recommended: Align all docs to match PROJECT.md (source of truth)

Case 3: Recent Changes Not Yet Documented

# Git shows massive refactor 6 hours ago
git log --since="1 day ago" --oneline
# 10 commits, 500+ lines changed

# PROJECT.md last updated 3 days ago

Output:

⚠️ DOCUMENTATION LAG

   Last PROJECT.md update: 3 days ago
   Recent changes: 10 commits (6 hours ago)
   Lines changed: 500+

   Recommendation:
   Review recent commits and update PROJECT.md to reflect changes

   Recent commit themes:
   - Refactor: stream handling (5 commits)
   - Feature: Add timeout support (3 commits)
   - Fix: Error handling (2 commits)

Success Criteria

After running semantic validation:

• ✅ All "CRITICAL ISSUE" statuses verified against code
• ✅ Version numbers consistent across all files
• ✅ Architecture claims match codebase reality
• ✅ Feature claims verified (implemented or marked "coming soon")
• ✅ Actionable fix suggestions provided with file:line references
• ✅ Report completes in < 30 seconds for medium projects (2000-5000 LOC)

Limitations

What this skill CAN'T detect:

• Subtly incorrect explanations (if code exists)
• Performance claims (needs profiling)
• Scalability assertions (needs load testing)
• Security vulnerabilities (use security-auditor skill)

Workarounds:

• Performance: Use observability skill
• Security: Use security-patterns skill
• Scalability: Manual review + load testing

Integration with /align-project

This skill is Phase 2 of /align-project:

Phase 1: Structural validation (files exist, directories correct) Phase 2: Semantic validation (THIS SKILL - docs match reality) Phase 3: Documentation currency (separate skill) Phase 4: Cross-reference validation (separate skill)

Invocation:

/align-project
# After Phase 1 completes, Phase 2 runs automatically
# User sees combined report from all phases

Output to User

Always provide:

1. Severity levels (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
2. Evidence (file:line references, commit SHAs)
3. Suggested fixes (exact text to replace)
4. Priority ordering (what to fix first)
5. Auto-fix availability (YES/NO for each issue)

Never:

• Claim something is wrong without evidence
• Provide vague suggestions ("update docs")
• Skip severity assessment
• Omit actionable fixes

This skill transforms documentation validation from structural checking to semantic understanding, catching issues humans miss.