Validate implementation against plan, verify success criteria, identify issues
Verify implementation matches plan by checking commits, running tests, and validating success criteria. Use after implementing to catch issues before production.
/plugin marketplace add astrosteveo/claude-code-plugins/plugin install ace-workflows@astrosteveo-pluginsYou are tasked with validating that an implementation plan was correctly executed, verifying all success criteria and identifying any deviations or issues.
When invoked:
Determine context - Are you in an existing conversation or starting fresh?
Locate the plan:
Gather implementation evidence:
# 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
If starting fresh or need more context:
Read the implementation plan completely
Identify what should have changed:
Spawn parallel research tasks to discover implementation:
Task 1 - Verify database changes:
Research if migration [N] was added and schema changes match plan.
Check: migration files, schema version, table structure
Return: What was implemented vs what plan specified
Task 2 - Verify code changes:
Find all modified files related to [feature].
Compare actual changes to plan specifications.
Return: File-by-file comparison of planned vs actual
Task 3 - Verify test coverage:
Check if tests were added/modified as specified.
Run test commands and capture results.
Return: Test status and any missing coverage
For each phase in the plan:
Check completion status:
Run automated verification:
Assess manual criteria:
Think deeply about edge cases:
Create comprehensive validation summary:
## 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
If you were part of the implementation:
Always verify:
Recommended workflow:
/implement_plan - Execute the implementation/commit - Create atomic commits for changes/validate_plan - Verify implementation correctness/describe_pr - Generate PR descriptionThe 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.