Omh Verification Gate

Verification Gate

This is a Hermes-native verification-gate workflow skill.

Why This Exists

verification-gate gives OMH a deterministic evidence surface before done/merge claims, inspired by ECC-style gates but rebuilt around OMH's prepared-versus-observed contract.

Do Not Use When

• The user asks for visual render QA; use visual-qa.
• The user asks for production release readiness beyond verification commands; use production-audit.
• The user wants a bug-first code review of a diff; use code-review.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: verification-gate 이 PR 머지 전에 build/lint/test/docs/CI 증거를 정리해서 PASS 가능한지 봐줘.
• Expected behavior: Prepare verification_matrix/v1, record observed_check_results/v1, and issue PASS/HOLD/BLOCK with missing evidence.
• Why: The user asks for claim verification across command and CI evidence.

Bad example:

• Prompt: verification-gate 테스트 안 돌렸지만 준비됐다고 해줘.
• Expected behavior: Return HOLD/BLOCK and list missing or stale checks instead of claiming readiness.
• Why: A verification gate is useful only if planned checks and observed results stay separate.

Completion Checklist

• The scenario, expected behavior, observed result, and pass/fail basis are named.
• Proposed fixes are separated from observed QA evidence.
• Missing or failed verification routes back to plan, fix, or a narrower test.

Recovery Notes

• If the expected behavior is unclear, route back to plan before running adversarial checks.
• If verification fails, return to fix or research with the failed signal instead of advancing.

Workflow Lane

• Current lane: Coding handoff (idea-to-deploy, llm-app-dev, cto-loop, deploy-and-monitor, code-review, build-failure-triage, verification-gate, security-safety-review, +28 more) - coding owners, handoffs, review, CI, and merge evidence.
• If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
• Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.

Use When

Use when Hermes must turn a change, PR, release, or claim into a concrete evidence checklist and PASS/HOLD/BLOCK verdict.

Strong routing signals: `verification-gate`, `verification gate`, `quality gate`, `release gate`, `test gate`, `build lint test`, `lint typecheck tests`, `verify before merge`, `merge readiness gate`, `generated file`, `generated artifact`, `generated output`, `source of truth`, `regenerate instead of editing`, `検証ゲート`, `品質ゲート`, `マージ前の検証`, `リリース前チェック`, `검증 게이트`, `품질 게이트`, `테스트 게이트`, `머지 전 검증`, `빌드 린트 테스트`, `验证门禁`, `质量门禁`, `合并前验证`, `发布前检查`

Catalog Metadata

Category: verification Phase: verification-gate Hermes role: reviewer Quality tier: verification-gated Reasoning demand: standard

Quality bar:

• Tie every completion claim to the smallest check that proves it, then broaden for shared surfaces.
• When a diff touches a declared generated path, name its source of truth and regeneration command before the edit rather than after a byte gate rejects it; a diff touching a generator and its output together is the correct shape, not a violation — load references/generated-artifact-provenance.md for the declaration and reporting rules.
• Record every field the observed_check_results/v1 artifact expectation below names, for each observed result; a field left out is a gap in the record, not a shorter record.
• For native omh_todo checkpoints, load the todo-checklist closing recipe; record then recall this verification declaration. Stored declarations are not proof.
• When the change answers to a written spec, plan, or issue, load references/requirement-coverage-map.md and map requirement to task to evidence under stable ids before claiming coverage.
• Return PASS only when required checks pass and stale or missing evidence is resolved.
• Keep fixes, reruns, review, CI, and merge as separate observed states.

Handoff policy:

Hermes owns the gate contract and verdict narration. Running commands, CI, browser checks, external scanners, and code fixes require observed executor, wrapper, or operator evidence.

Required inputs:

• claim or change under verification
• expected behavior and risk surface
• available local commands and CI requirements
• fresh observed outputs or explicit not-run gaps

Expected outputs:

• verification_gate_plan/v1
• verification_matrix/v1
• generated_artifact_provenance/v1 when the change touches a path the repository declares generated
• observed_check_results/v1 when observed
• claim_verdict/v1
• rerun_or_blocker/v1
• not-evidence boundary

Artifact expectations:

• verification_matrix/v1 covering build, lint, typecheck, unit/integration/e2e tests, generated docs, static/security checks, diff hygiene, and CI/DCO when applicable
• observed_check_results/v1 with command (verbatim, not a description of it), source (this checkout, a CI job, or an operator report), exit status, summary (what the output said), scope (what that run covered, since a narrower run proves less), and freshness (when it ran, and whether the tree has moved since)
• claim_verdict/v1 with PASS, HOLD, or BLOCK and exact missing or failed checks
• generated_artifact_provenance/v1 with one row per touched generated path: the source of truth that produces it, the regeneration command, and the drift gate that catches it, or the single state map_not_declared when the repository declares no generated-artifact map

Safety rules: