maintain-verification-skill

Maintain Verification Skill

A verification skill that names dead commands is worse than none: it fails loudly on trivia and passes quietly on what matters. This skill re-syncs the project's verify skill to the repo's current reality.

When to use

• verification errors on a command that no longer exists or was renamed
• a new surface (package, app, e2e suite) has no check recorded
• after a toolchain or CI migration

Workflow

1. Audit the recorded skill: list every command and manual check it names; for each, does the command still exist and still mean the same thing (flags, scripts, config)?
2. Re-run, don't re-read: execute each surviving command and compare the observed outcome to the recorded expectation. A command whose passing shape changed gets its expectation rewritten, with the new evidence.
3. Find uncovered surface: what does the repo build/check now that the feature map does not mention? Add the check by running it, or record the gap as uncovered — the map stays honest.
4. Update the skill and feature map in place: same file, corrected commands, corrected coverage table, dated revision line at the top.
5. Record the resync through the ledger's locked writer — appendLedgerEntry and defaultLedgerPath from the installed package's dist/features/verification-ledger/index.js (babysit's ledger step demonstrates the exact invocation); never append raw rows to .omc/state/verification-ledger.tsv — the writer owns header creation, locking, and cell sanitization. The verdict is the one the rerun actually earned — unit-test-verified when the test suite ran, live-ui-verified for a live-UI flow, type-check-only when only build/lint/typecheck commands were rerun — and those commands as evidence. Never claim a test ran that did not.

Rules

• The rerun is the resync; nothing is marked current without execution.
• Coverage that shrank is reported out loud, not silently dropped from the map.
• If the project's verification has outgrown the single skill shape (multi- package, per-app checks), say so and split per surface rather than fattening one file.