fix

2026-02-11 13:00:01 +08:00
parent ca3e929770
commit 51172e8c5a
88 changed files with 10076 additions and 142 deletions
--- a/.opencode/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.cn.md
+++ b/.opencode/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.cn.md
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+name: openspec-verify-change
+description: Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+验证实现是否与变更 artifacts (specs、tasks、design) 匹配。
+
+**输入**: 可选择指定变更名称。如果省略,检查是否可以从对话上下文中推断。如果模糊或不明确,你**必须**提示可用的变更。
+
+**步骤**
+
+1. **如果未提供变更名称,提示用户选择**
+
+   运行 `openspec list --json` 获取可用的变更。使用 **AskUserQuestion 工具**让用户选择。
+
+   显示具有实现任务的变更 (tasks artifact 存在)。
+   如果可用,包含每个变更使用的 schema。
+   将具有未完成任务的变更标记为 "(进行中)"。
+
+   **重要**: 不要猜测或自动选择变更。始终让用户选择。
+
+2. **检查状态以了解 schema**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   解析 JSON 以了解:
+   - `schemaName`: 正在使用的工作流 (例如: "spec-driven")
+   - 此变更存在哪些 artifacts
+
+3. **获取变更目录并加载 artifacts**
+
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+
+   这将返回变更目录和上下文文件。从 `contextFiles` 读取所有可用的 artifacts。
+
+4. **初始化验证报告结构**
+
+   创建具有三个维度的报告结构:
+   - **完整性 (Completeness)**: 跟踪任务和 spec 覆盖率
+   - **正确性 (Correctness)**: 跟踪需求实现和场景覆盖
+   - **一致性 (Coherence)**: 跟踪设计遵循情况和模式一致性
+
+   每个维度可以有 CRITICAL、WARNING 或 SUGGESTION 问题。
+
+5. **验证完整性**
+
+   **任务完成度**:
+   - 如果 contextFiles 中存在 tasks.md,读取它
+   - 解析复选框: `- [ ]` (未完成) vs `- [x]` (已完成)
+   - 统计已完成任务 vs 总任务数
+   - 如果存在未完成的任务:
+     - 为每个未完成的任务添加 CRITICAL 问题
+     - 建议: "完成任务: <描述>" 或 "如果已实现请标记为完成"
+
+   **Spec 覆盖率**:
+   - 如果 `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/` 中存在 delta specs:
+     - 提取所有需求 (标记为 "### Requirement:")
+     - 对于每个需求:
+       - 在代码库中搜索与需求相关的关键字
+       - 评估实现是否可能存在
+     - 如果需求看起来未实现:
+       - 添加 CRITICAL 问题: "未找到需求: <需求名称>"
+       - 建议: "实现需求 X: <描述>"
+
+6. **验证正确性**
+
+   **需求实现映射**:
+   - 对于 delta specs 中的每个需求:
+     - 在代码库中搜索实现证据
+     - 如果找到,记录文件路径和行范围
+     - 评估实现是否符合需求意图
+     - 如果检测到偏差:
+       - 添加 WARNING: "实现可能偏离 spec: <详情>"
+       - 建议: "根据需求 X 审查 <file>:<lines>"
+
+   **场景覆盖**:
+   - 对于 delta specs 中的每个场景 (标记为 "#### Scenario:"):
+     - 检查代码中是否处理了条件
+     - 检查是否存在覆盖该场景的测试
+     - 如果场景看起来未覆盖:
+       - 添加 WARNING: "场景未覆盖: <场景名称>"
+       - 建议: "为场景添加测试或实现: <描述>"
+
+7. **验证一致性**
+
+   **设计遵循**:
+   - 如果 contextFiles 中存在 design.md:
+     - 提取关键决策 (查找类似 "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:" 的部分)
+     - 验证实现是否遵循这些决策
+     - 如果检测到矛盾:
+       - 添加 WARNING: "未遵循设计决策: <决策>"
+       - 建议: "更新实现或修订 design.md 以匹配实际情况"
+   - 如果没有 design.md: 跳过设计遵循检查,注明 "没有 design.md 可供验证"
+
+   **代码模式一致性**:
+   - 审查新代码与项目模式的一致性
+   - 检查文件命名、目录结构、编码风格
+   - 如果发现重大偏差:
+     - 添加 SUGGESTION: "代码模式偏差: <详情>"
+     - 建议: "考虑遵循项目模式: <示例>"
+
+8. **生成验证报告**
+
+   **总结记分卡**:
+   ```
+   ## 验证报告: <change-name>
+
+   ### 总结
+   | 维度       | 状态              |
+   |-----------|-------------------|
+   | 完整性     | X/Y 任务, N 需求   |
+   | 正确性     | M/N 需求已覆盖     |
+   | 一致性     | 已遵循/有问题      |
+   ```
+
+   **按优先级分类的问题**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (归档前必须修复):
+      - 未完成的任务
+      - 缺失的需求实现
+      - 每个都有具体、可操作的建议
+
+   2. **WARNING** (应该修复):
+      - Spec/design 偏差
+      - 缺失的场景覆盖
+      - 每个都有具体建议
+
+   3. **SUGGESTION** (最好修复):
+      - 模式不一致
+      - 小改进
+      - 每个都有具体建议
+
+   **最终评估**:
+   - 如果有 CRITICAL 问题: "发现 X 个关键问题。归档前请修复。"
+   - 如果只有警告: "无关键问题。有 Y 个警告需要考虑。准备归档 (带注明的改进)。"
+   - 如果全部通过: "所有检查通过。准备归档。"
+
+**验证启发式方法**
+
+- **完整性**: 专注于客观的检查清单项 (复选框、需求列表)
+- **正确性**: 使用关键字搜索、文件路径分析、合理推断 - 不要求完全确定
+- **一致性**: 寻找明显的不一致,不要挑剔风格
+- **误报**: 如果不确定,优先选择 SUGGESTION 而不是 WARNING,WARNING 而不是 CRITICAL
+- **可操作性**: 每个问题都必须有具体的建议,并在适用时提供文件/行引用
+
+**优雅降级**
+
+- 如果只存在 tasks.md: 仅验证任务完成度,跳过 spec/design 检查
+- 如果 tasks + specs 存在: 验证完整性和正确性,跳过 design
+- 如果完整 artifacts 存在: 验证所有三个维度
+- 始终注明跳过了哪些检查以及原因
+
+**输出格式**
+
+使用清晰的 markdown:
+- 总结记分卡使用表格
+- 问题分组列表 (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
+- 代码引用格式: `file.ts:123`
+- 具体、可操作的建议
+- 不要使用模糊的建议如 "考虑审查"
--- a/.opencode/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md
+++ b/.opencode/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+name: openspec-verify-change
+description: Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
+
+   Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+   Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - Which artifacts exist for this change
+
+3. **Get the change directory and load artifacts**
+
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+
+   This returns the change directory and context files. Read all available artifacts from `contextFiles`.
+
+4. **Initialize verification report structure**
+
+   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
+   - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
+   - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+
+   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
+
+5. **Verify Completeness**
+
+   **Task Completion**:
+   - If tasks.md exists in contextFiles, read it
+   - Parse checkboxes: `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete)
+   - Count complete vs total tasks
+   - If incomplete tasks exist:
+     - Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
+     - Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
+
+   **Spec Coverage**:
+   - If delta specs exist in `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`:
+     - Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
+     - For each requirement:
+       - Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
+       - Assess if implementation likely exists
+     - If requirements appear unimplemented:
+       - Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
+
+6. **Verify Correctness**
+
+   **Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
+   - For each requirement from delta specs:
+     - Search codebase for implementation evidence
+     - If found, note file paths and line ranges
+     - Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
+     - If divergence detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
+       - Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"
+
+   **Scenario Coverage**:
+   - For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
+     - Check if conditions are handled in code
+     - Check if tests exist covering the scenario
+     - If scenario appears uncovered:
+       - Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"
+
+7. **Verify Coherence**
+
+   **Design Adherence**:
+   - If design.md exists in contextFiles:
+     - Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
+     - Verify implementation follows those decisions
+     - If contradiction detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
+       - Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
+   - If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
+
+   **Code Pattern Consistency**:
+   - Review new code for consistency with project patterns
+   - Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
+   - If significant deviations found:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
+     - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
+
+8. **Generate Verification Report**
+
+   **Summary Scorecard**:
+   ```
+   ## Verification Report: <change-name>
+
+   ### Summary
+   | Dimension    | Status           |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
+   | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
+   | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   ```
+
+   **Issues by Priority**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
+      - Incomplete tasks
+      - Missing requirement implementations
+      - Each with specific, actionable recommendation
+
+   2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
+      - Spec/design divergences
+      - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
+      - Pattern inconsistencies
+      - Minor improvements
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   **Final Assessment**:
+   - If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
+   - If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
+
+**Verification Heuristics**
+
+- **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
+- **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
+- **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
+- **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
+
+**Graceful Degradation**
+
+- If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
+- If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
+- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- Always note which checks were skipped and why
+
+**Output Format**
+
+Use clear markdown with:
+- Table for summary scorecard
+- Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
+- Code references in format: `file.ts:123`
+- Specific, actionable recommendations
+- No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"