Verify Intent

Load the active intent from intent.md in the project root first. That file is bound to this repository and remains the content authority even when PATHMODE_API_KEY is set. Only call get_current_intent when no local file exists.

Walk the user through the five verification dimensions below. Ask ONE question at a time. For each question, propose your best-guess answer based on the intent's outcomes and what's visible in the codebase (existing tests, observability hooks, CI config).

The five dimensions:

1. Fastest check — What's the quickest signal that the code is broken? (typecheck, single unit test, lint rule)
2. Highest-confidence check — What's the most reliable signal it actually works? (e2e test, integration test, manual flow)
3. Manual fallback — If automation isn't available, what's the 30-second manual check? (curl command, screen recording flow, console query)
4. Observable shipped signal — Once deployed, what tells you it's working in production? (metric, log pattern, user behavior change)
5. What must not regress — What existing behavior would a fix here accidentally break? (named cases the user worries about)

Hold the five answers until the loop is complete; do not spend five tool calls logging fragments. Then write them once to the structured verification.checks collection: fastest, test (the highest-confidence check), manual, shipped-signal, and regression-guard. When intent.md exists, call intent_save with the full updated spec (it writes the file and also syncs in connected mode). Only use update_intent when no local file exists. In team mode, add one consolidated log_implementation_note only when the session produced rationale or a tradeoff that the structured checks do not carry.

When all five are answered, summarize the loop:

Verification loop for this intent:
- Fastest: [command/check]
- Highest-confidence: [command/check]
- Manual fallback: [steps]
- Shipped signal: [metric/log]
- Must not regress: [named cases]

Why five dimensions, not "tests"

A verification field that says "add tests" is a document, not a contract. It doesn't tell an implementation agent what to actually run, and it doesn't tell a reviewer what to check.

The five-dimension breakdown turns verification into something runnable:

• The agent knows the fastest check to run after every change → tight feedback loop
• The agent knows the highest-confidence check to run before declaring done → catches issues
• The user has a manual fallback when CI is broken or the test framework is mid-migration
• The team has a shipped signal to watch in production → closes the deploy-to-verify gap
• Everyone knows what must not regress → prevents the "fix that broke unrelated thing" pattern

Concrete example

Intent: "Payment completes in under 3 seconds (p95)"

Bad verification: "Add a test for the payment timeout."

Good verification (five dimensions):

• Fastest check: pnpm vitest run payment-timeout.test.ts — 2s, runs locally on save
• Highest-confidence: pnpm playwright test payment-flow.spec.ts — 30s, hits the actual payment provider sandbox
• Manual fallback: Open /checkout, add a $1 item, complete payment, time the wall clock from "pay" click to confirmation screen
• Shipped signal: Datadog metric checkout.payment.duration.p95 < 3000ms over 24h after deploy
• Must not regress: Refund flow (uses the same payment service); guest checkout (different code path that calls the same client)

The first version is a wish. The second version is a contract.

Mode behavior

• Repo-bound intent (local or connected) — Write all five answers to verification.checks with one intent_save. The rendered ## Verification section is the file projection of those structured checks.
• Cloud-only intent — Write all five answers with one update_intent call. log_implementation_note is for session narrative, not for a field that already exists.

Pairing with other skills

• After compile-intent produces a spec, run verify-intent before treating the spec as agent-ready. A spec without a verification loop is not agent-ready.
• Before handoff-intent, check that the verification loop ran — if outcomes are claimed delivered but verification was never designed, that's a gap to surface.
• review-against-intent consumes the verification field to know what "delivered" means.