Validate Spec
Validate spec completeness and implementation compliance. Use before approval (--pre) or before completion (--post).
MCP get_skill({ skillId: "validate-spec-ab07e4c3" })Use this skill with your agent
Create a free account and connect via MCP
# /validate-spec
Validate spec quality (pre-implementation) or implementation compliance (post-implementation).
## Usage
```bash
/validate-spec SPEC-001 # Auto-detect mode based on status
/validate-spec SPEC-001 --pre # Pre-implementation validation
/validate-spec SPEC-001 --post # Post-implementation compliance
```
## Mode Detection
| Spec Status | Default Mode | Purpose |
|-------------|--------------|---------|
| draft, review | --pre | Validate before approval |
| approved | --pre | Final check before implementation |
| in_progress, complete | --post | Verify implementation matches |
## Pre-Implementation Validation (--pre)
### 1. Structure Completeness
```
Required sections:
✓ Summary (present)
✓ Problem Statement (present)
✓ Acceptance Scenarios (3 found)
✓ Agent Context (present)
✓ Out of Scope (present)
✗ Dependencies (MISSING)
```
### 2. Acceptance Scenario Quality
```
Scenario 1: "User signs up"
✓ Has Given/When/Then clauses
✓ Specific, not vague
Scenario 2: "Invalid credentials"
⚠ Then clause is vague: "shows error"
Suggest: "shows 'Invalid email or password' message"
```
Scenarios must be:
- **Specific**: Not "shows error" but "shows error X"
- **Testable**: Can become automated test
- **Complete**: Given/When/Then present
### 3. Agent Context Validation
```
Files referenced:
✓ src/lib/auth.ts exists
✗ src/middleware/session.ts NOT FOUND
```
### 4. Success Metrics Measurability
```
Metric 1: "Page load < 2s"
✓ Measurable, has threshold
Metric 2: "Good user experience"
✗ NOT MEASURABLE
Suggest: "User satisfaction > 4/5"
```
### 5. Conciseness Check
```
Word count: 847 words
Guideline: < 500 words
⚠ Consider splitting into multiple specs
```
### 6. Open Questions Check
```
2 open questions found:
1. "Which OAuth providers?"
2. "Session timeout?"
⚠ Resolve before 'approved' status
```
### Pre-Validation Summary
```
Ready for approval: NO
Fix:
- Add missing Dependencies section
- Refine vague scenario
- Make metrics measurable
- Resolve open questions
```
## Post-Implementation Validation (--post)
### 1. Acceptance Scenario Coverage
```
Scenario: "User signs up"
✓ Found: auth/signup.test.ts:15
Scenario: "Session expires"
✗ NO TEST FOUND
Coverage: 2/3 scenarios (67%)
```
### 2. Success Metrics Verification
```
Metric: "Page load < 2s"
Result: 1.4s average
✓ PASS
Metric: "95% coverage"
Result: 97.2%
✓ PASS
```
### 3. Out-of-Scope Violations
```
Out of scope: "Social login", "2FA"
Scanning...
✓ No oauth/social code found
⚠ Found "password strength" - potential violation
```
### 4. Agent Constraints Compliance
```
Constraint: "No new dependencies"
✓ package.json unchanged
Constraint: "Files outside scope"
⚠ src/utils/helpers.ts modified
```
### 5. Definition of Done
```
- [x] Acceptance scenarios tested
- [ ] No console errors ← incomplete
```
### Post-Validation Summary
```
Implementation compliance: PARTIAL
Issues to resolve:
1. Add test for "Session expires"
2. Review password complexity code
3. Fix console warnings
```
## Interactive Fixes
When issues found:
```
AI: Let's refine Scenario 2...
What should the error message say?
User: "Invalid email or password"
AI: Updated. Now the metrics...
Remove "Good UX" or replace with measurable?
User: Remove it
AI: Done. Re-validating...
## Validation: PASS
Ready to move to 'review' status?
```
## Integration
```
/spec → /validate-spec --pre → [approval] → /plan → /implement → /validate-spec --post → /complete
```Related Skills
More skills in Software Engineering
Accessibility Standards
Comprehensive web accessibility standards based on WCAG 2.2 AA, with 38+ anti-patterns, legal enforcement context (EAA, ADA Title II), WAI-ARIA patterns, and framework-specific fixes for modern web frameworks and libraries.
Accord
Authoring unified specification packages across Business/Development/Design teams via staged elaboration (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Detail → L3 Acceptance Criteria). No code. Use when authoring cross-team specs, building L0-L3 packages, or aligning Biz/Dev/Design on a single source of truth.
Acquire Codebase Knowledge
Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.
Acreadiness Assess
Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.
Acreadiness Generate Instructions
Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.
Acreadiness Policy
Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.
Explore Other Categories
Skills from other categories with shared topics
Brief
Create or update project brief through interactive discovery. Use when starting any new idea, revisiting an idea after time away, or when vision feels unclear.
Critique
Challenge idea assumptions with skeptical VC-style evaluation. Use when user requests critique, validation, or 'is this a good idea' assessment.
Daily Review
Complete daily journal review. Use at end of day or next morning to fill in journal sections, review highlights, and plan tomorrow. Triggers on "daily review", "end of day", "journal review", "what did I do today".