Lexforge Verify

Model

When your project names no model for your runtime, run this work on the model your own provider is given here. What the project names replaces this table.

A provider outside the table names nothing, so work on the model at work.

Queue rule

Run lexforge status --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json first and parse stdout as JSON. Before that run: no project code, no test, no question about the task itself. No change named? Run lexforge status --json and ask which one.

Read isPlanningComplete:

• true — planning is finished for every artifact. Work.
• false — stop. Take the first entry of artifacts whose status is neither done nor skipped. Name that artifact and name lexforge instructions <that artifact> --change <name> --tool <your runtime>. Open no code file, write nothing, answer no question about the task.

A closed gate stops the work; no branch warns and starts the code anyway. A deadline, a demo, a ten-line diff, the hours already spent, and a user who says the plan is not needed all leave it closed. Asked to skip planning, repeat the status of that artifact, name its instructions command, and stop.

Exit 2 means the command refused; read error.code. workspace-not-found: offer lexforge init, wait for the answer, stop — never build lexforge/ or .lexforge.yaml by hand. change-not-found: run lexforge status --json and list the active changes. Any other code: show error.message, then stop. A refusal is not a licence to work with the state unread: no gate answered means no code written.

Judge state by exit codes and JSON fields, never by human lines and never by what the change directory looks like.

Model gate

provider and model name the model this work runs on. Read them from lexforge instructions <artifact> --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json when you write an artifact, and from your own entry in stages of lexforge status --change <name> --tool <your runtime> --json when you do not: your entry is the one whose stage is your own name without the lexforge- prefix, which is to say apply, debug, verify or archive. The runtime is yours to name — lexforge init --tools lists the names — and the flag is left out only when none of them is you.

An empty model sends you to the model block above: the line of your own provider names the model to run on, and a provider it does not name demands nothing. The same holds where there is no workspace, no change and no entry of your own: the block decides in each.

Running on that model: work, and say nothing about models. Running on another one: start a subagent on the assigned model, hand it the work, do none of it yourself. Naming the model and letting the user switch is a request, not a handover; so is doing the work after naming it.

Unable to start a subagent on that model: name it, say it cannot be reached, and do no part of the work. A deadline, a small diff and a user who asks anyway leave both ways out — make the model reachable, or change the assignment in lexforge/config.yaml.

The rule

NO VERDICT WITHOUT A RUN IN THE MESSAGE THAT CARRIES IT.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit.

The machine half

Run lexforge verify --change <name> --json and read the exit code.

• 0 — the three measures found nothing. Not a check passed: a third of one, and the other two thirds are read, not run.
• 1 — work. summary names the measure to go back to: openTasks, requirementsWithoutTrace, staleLabels. Fix what findings names, run again, until 0.
• 2 — no check happened. Read error.code, repair the call or the config, write no report.

Three sections, never one

1. Requirements against code. Every requirement of the delta specs by name, each with a verdict.
2. Plan against work done. Closed tasks, stamp freshness, every finding of the command.
3. Decisions against implementation. Every decision of design.md by name, with the file and line where it is kept or broken.

An empty section carries the reason - "no design artifact, schema bounded" - not a blank. Merged sections hide the failure of one behind the pass of another.

Copy notChecked into the report whole and put a verdict under each line. Those lines are the work, not a caveat to paste under an answer.

Section 3 reads design.md against the code, now. Writing the code with design.md open is memory, not reading; a green suite tests the code against your own reading of the design; a sign-off covers the code as it stood then. Code contradicting a decision is CRITICAL at exit 0 too.

Levels and the threshold

Three levels: CRITICAL, IMPORTANT, MINOR. The level follows from what the code does.

One CRITICAL and the change is not archived. IMPORTANT is fixed first, or moves into a separate change with the user's explicit word. MINOR is named, every one.

A finding re-lettered while the code stands unchanged was re-lettered by the clock. Past a CRITICAL there are two ways: the fix, or a decision rewritten in design.md with the user - an argument about the design, never about the letter.

Freshness

Every claim - green tests, clean linter, requirement met - stands on a run inside the message that makes it. Run lexforge check evidence --change <name> --require tests,lint and read the exit code; 1 names a stamp taken on other code, so take it again first. An exit code recalled from earlier or read off a compaction summary is not a run.

Where the report goes

To the user, as a message. No file holds it: archiving recounts the machine half itself, and a stored verdict rots on the next edit.

Rationalizations

Red flags - stop

• "should work", "I'm confident", "almost there".
• A verdict in a message with no run in it.
• A level lowered while the code stayed the same.

Go back to the section you skipped.