robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-verify

1. IDENTIFY — What command proves this claim? (from the prompt's Verification field)
2. RUN     — Execute the command (Bash) fresh and complete
3. READ    — Full output, exit code, failure count
4. JUDGE   — Does the output confirm the claim?
              YES → State the claim WITH the evidence
              NO  → State what actually happened WITH the evidence
5. RECORD  — Log the result for checkpoint and improvement tracking

IDENTIFY: P3 verification is `npm test -- --grep "auth"`
RUN:      npm test -- --grep "auth"
READ:     12/12 tests pass, exit 0
CLAIM:    "P3 verified — 12/12 auth tests pass"

IDENTIFY: P5 verification is `cargo test session`
RUN:      cargo test session
READ:     8/8 tests pass, exit 0
THEN:     Dispatch spec reviewer → spec-pass
CLAIM:    "P5 verified — tests pass, spec compliant"

IDENTIFY: P7 verification is `make test && make lint`
RUN:      make test && make lint
READ:     all pass, exit 0
THEN:     Spec reviewer → spec-pass → Quality reviewer → pass
CLAIM:    "P7 verified — tests pass, spec compliant, quality approved"

For EACH prompt in the group:
  IDENTIFY → RUN → READ → JUDGE
  Record: pass with evidence / needs-fix with failure output
 
Report: "Group A: 3/4 passed. P2 needs-fix (2 test failures in auth module)"

1. Run the ORIGINAL verification command (the one that failed)
2. Run any ADDITIONAL check for the specific failure that triggered the fix
3. Both must pass
CLAIM: "Fix verified — original tests pass AND specific failure resolved"

**P{N} Verification** [{timestamp}]
- Command: `{command}`
- Exit code: {0/1/...}
- Result: {pass/fail}
- Detail: {summary of output — test count, error message, etc.}
- Review: {verify-only/spec-review/full-review} — {outcome}