verification-gates
Verification Gates establishes explicit validation checkpoints between project phases to prevent cascading errors and ensure quality before proceeding to the next stage. Use this skill when implementing quality assurance processes, defining milestone acceptance criteria, configuring CI/CD gate configurations, establishing approval workflows, or creating go/no-go decision points for multi-step projects involving security changes, API modifications, or database migrations.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rohitg00/skillkit /tmp/verification-gates && cp -r /tmp/verification-gates/packages/core/src/methodology/packs/planning/verification-gates ~/.claude/skills/verification-gatesSKILL.md
# Verification Gates
You are implementing verification gates - explicit checkpoints where work is validated before proceeding. This prevents cascading errors and ensures quality at each phase.
## Core Principle
**Never proceed to the next phase with unverified assumptions from the previous phase.**
A verification gate is a deliberate pause to confirm that prerequisites are met before continuing.
## Standard Verification Gates
### Gate 1: Requirements Verification
Before starting design:
- [ ] All requirements are documented and clear
- [ ] Ambiguities have been resolved with stakeholders
- [ ] Non-requirements are explicitly stated
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are defined
- [ ] Edge cases are identified
**Actions:**
1. Review requirements document
2. Identify any unclear items
3. Get explicit confirmation on ambiguous points
4. Document answers
### Gate 2: Design Verification
Before starting implementation:
- [ ] Design addresses all requirements
- [ ] Technical approach is validated
- [ ] Interfaces are defined
- [ ] Data model is complete
- [ ] Error handling is planned
- [ ] Design has been reviewed (self or peer)
**Actions:**
1. Walk through design against requirements
2. Review with rubber duck or teammate
3. Check for missing pieces
4. Get approval to proceed
### Gate 3: Implementation Verification
Before calling task complete:
- [ ] Code compiles/runs without errors
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] New code has test coverage
- [ ] Code follows project conventions
- [ ] No obvious bugs or issues
- [ ] Dependencies are appropriate
**Actions:**
1. Run full test suite
2. Self-review the diff
3. Check for code smells
4. Verify against acceptance criteria
### Gate 4: Integration Verification
Before merging:
- [ ] Feature works end-to-end
- [ ] Integration tests pass
- [ ] No regression in existing functionality
- [ ] Performance is acceptable
- [ ] Documentation is updated
**Actions:**
1. Test the full user flow
2. Run integration test suite
3. Compare performance metrics
4. Review documentation changes
### Gate 5: Deployment Verification
Before marking complete:
- [ ] Feature works in target environment
- [ ] Monitoring shows no errors
- [ ] Feature flags are properly configured
- [ ] Rollback plan exists
- [ ] Stakeholders can verify
**Actions:**
1. Smoke test in environment
2. Check error logs and metrics
3. Get stakeholder sign-off
4. Document deployment
## Gate Types
### Automated Gates
Gates that can be enforced automatically:
```yaml
# CI Pipeline Gates
gates:
- name: lint
command: npm run lint
required: true
- name: type-check
command: npm run typecheck
required: true
- name: unit-tests
command: npm test
required: true
coverage: 80%
- name: build
command: npm run build
required: true
```
### Manual Gates
Gates requiring human judgment:
```markdown
## Manual Verification Checklist
Before Code Review:
- [ ] I've tested my changes locally
- [ ] I've written/updated tests
- [ ] I've read my own diff
- [ ] I've checked for security issues
- [ ] I've updated documentation
Before Deployment:
- [ ] Code review approved
- [ ] QA verified (if applicable)
- [ ] Stakeholder approved (if required)
- [ ] Deployment plan reviewed
```
### Conditional Gates
Gates that apply in specific situations:
| Condition | Required Gates |
|-----------|---------------|
| Security-related | Security review |
| Public API change | API review + migration plan |
| Database change | DBA review + backup plan |
| Performance-sensitive | Performance test |
| Breaking change | Deprecation notice + migration |
## Implementing Gates
### In Your Workflow
```
Task Start
│
▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ Gate: Prereqs │ ← Verify before starting
│ - Requirements │
│ - Dependencies │
└────────┬────────┘
│
▼
Do the work
│
▼
┌─────────────────┐
│ Gate: Completion│ ← Verify before proceeding
│ - Tests pass │
│ - Code reviewed │
└────────┬────────┘
│
▼
Task Complete
```
### Gate Documentation Template
```markdown
## Gate: [Name]
**When:** [Before what action]
**Purpose:** [What this gate ensures]
**Checklist:**
- [ ] Item 1
- [ ] Item 2
- [ ] Item 3
**Verification Method:**
- [How to verify each item]
**Failure Actions:**
- [What to do if gate fails]
**Approver:** [Who can approve passage]
```
## Gate Metrics
Good gates have high effectiveness (catch most issues), low overhead (quick to pass), and high value (prevent expensive downstream fixes). Track which gate caught an issue and how much time was spent at each gate to tune your process over time.
## Integration with CI/CD
```yaml
# GitHub Actions example
jobs:
gate-lint:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: npm ci
- run: npm run lint
gate-test:
needs: gate-lint
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: npm ci
- run: npm test
gate-build:
needs: gate-test
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: npm ci
- run: npm run build
deploy:
needs: gate-build
# Only deploys if all gates pass
```
## Quick Reference
| Phase | Gate Before | Key Checks |
|-------|-------------|------------|
| Design | Requirements | Clear, complete, approved |
| Implementation | Design | Reviewed, feasible |
| Review | Implementation | Tests, conventions, working |
| Merge | Review | Approved, conflicts resolved |
| Deploy | Merge | Environment ready, plan exists |
## Integration with Other Skills
- **design-first**: Gates validate design before implementation
- **task-decomposition**: Gates between task phases
- **testing/red-green-refactor**: Tests are key gate criteria
- **collaboration/structured-review**: Review is a gateManages work transitions between team members or agents by creating structured handoff documents, summarizing project status, documenting key decisions, blockers, and open questions, and generating onboarding briefs. Use when someone needs to hand off, hand over, or transition a project; pass work to another person or agent; brief a colleague taking over; prepare a shift change summary; or onboard someone mid-task. Produces ready-to-use handoff documents covering current status, next steps, known issues, technical context, and communication templates for both planned and unplanned transfers.
Coordinates parallel investigation threads to simultaneously explore multiple hypotheses or root causes across different system areas. Use when debugging production incidents, slow API performance, multi-system integration failures, or complex bugs where the root cause is unclear and multiple plausible theories exist; when serial troubleshooting is too slow; or when multiple investigators can divide root-cause analysis work. Provides structured phases for problem decomposition, thread assignment, sync points with Continue/Pivot/Converge decisions, and final report synthesis.
Performs a structured five-stage code review covering requirements compliance, correctness, code quality, testing, and security/performance. Each stage uses targeted checklists and categorized feedback (Blocker/Major/Minor/Nit) with actionable suggestions and rationale. Use when the user asks for code review, PR feedback, pull request review, or wants their code checked for bugs, style issues, or vulnerabilities — triggered by phrases like "review my code", "check this PR", "review my changes", "pull request review", or "code feedback".
Applies the scientific method to debugging by helping users form specific, testable hypotheses, design targeted experiments, and systematically confirm or reject theories to find root causes. Use when a user says their code isn't working, they're getting an error, something broke, they want to troubleshoot a bug, or they're trying to figure out what's causing an issue. Concrete actions include isolating failing components, forming and testing hypotheses, analyzing error messages, tracing execution paths, and interpreting test results to narrow down root causes.
Performs systematic root cause analysis to identify the true source of bugs, errors, and unexpected behavior through structured investigation phases — not just treating symptoms. Use when a user reports a bug, crash, error, or broken behavior and needs to debug, troubleshoot, or investigate why something is not working; especially for complex or intermittent issues across multiple components. Applies the Five Whys method, hypothesis-driven testing, stack trace analysis, git blame/log evidence gathering, and causal chain documentation to isolate and confirm root causes before applying any fix.
Applies systematic tracing and isolation techniques to pinpoint exactly where a bug originates in code. Use when a bug is hard to locate, code is not working as expected, an error or crash appears with unclear cause, a regression was introduced between recent commits, or you need to narrow down which component, function, or line is faulty. Covers binary search debugging, git bisect for regressions, strategic logging with [TRACE] patterns, data and control flow tracing, component isolation, minimal reproduction cases, conditional breakpoints, and watch expressions across TypeScript, SQL, and bash.
Creates and structures SKILL.md files for AI coding agents, including YAML frontmatter, trigger phrases, directive instructions, decision trees, code examples, and verification checklists. Use when the user asks to write a new skill, create a skill file, author agent capabilities, generate skill documentation, or define a skill template for Claude Code agents.
Guides the creation of technical design documents before writing code, producing architecture diagrams, data models, API interface definitions, implementation plans, and multi-option trade-off analyses. Use when the user asks to plan a feature, architect a system, design an API, explore implementation approaches, or requests a technical design or spec before coding — especially for complex features involving multiple components, ambiguous requirements, or significant architectural changes.