Claude-Code-Workflow/.claude/skills/team-tech-debt/roles/validator/commands/verify.md

Command: verify

回归测试与质量验证。运行测试套件、类型检查、lint、可选 CLI 质量分析。对比 debt_score_before vs debt_score_after 评估改善程度。

When to Use

• Phase 3 of Validator
• 修复操作已完成，需要验证结果
• Fix-Verify 循环中的验证阶段

Trigger conditions:

• TDVAL-* 任务进入 Phase 3
• 修复日志可用（fix-log.json）
• 需要对比 before/after 指标

Strategy

Delegation Mode

Mode: Sequential Checks + Optional CLI Analysis CLI Tool: gemini (for quality comparison) CLI Mode: analysis

Decision Logic

// 验证策略选择
const checks = ['test_suite', 'type_check', 'lint_check']

// 可选：CLI 质量分析（仅当修改文件较多时）
if (modifiedFiles.length > 5) {
  checks.push('cli_quality_analysis')
}

// Fix-Verify 循环中的验证：聚焦于回归文件
const isFixVerify = task.description.includes('fix-verify')
if (isFixVerify) {
  // 仅验证上次回归的文件
  targetScope = 'regression_files_only'
}

Execution Steps

Step 1: Context Preparation

// 获取修改文件列表
const modifiedFiles = fixLog.files_modified || []

// 获取原始债务分数
const debtScoreBefore = sharedMemory.debt_score_before || 0

// 检测可用的验证工具
const hasNpm = Bash(`which npm 2>/dev/null && echo "yes" || echo "no"`).trim() === 'yes'
const hasTsc = Bash(`which npx 2>/dev/null && npx tsc --version 2>/dev/null && echo "yes" || echo "no"`).includes('yes')
const hasEslint = Bash(`npx eslint --version 2>/dev/null && echo "yes" || echo "no"`).includes('yes')
const hasPytest = Bash(`which pytest 2>/dev/null && echo "yes" || echo "no"`).trim() === 'yes'

Step 2: Execute Strategy

// === Check 1: Test Suite ===
let testOutput = ''
let testsPassed = true
let testRegressions = 0

if (hasNpm) {
  testOutput = Bash(`npm test 2>&1 || true`)
} else if (hasPytest) {
  testOutput = Bash(`python -m pytest 2>&1 || true`)
} else {
  testOutput = 'no-test-runner'
}

if (testOutput !== 'no-test-runner') {
  testsPassed = !/FAIL|error|failed/i.test(testOutput)
  testRegressions = testsPassed ? 0 : (testOutput.match(/(\d+) failed/)?.[1] || 1) * 1
}

// === Check 2: Type Checking ===
let typeErrors = 0
if (hasTsc) {
  const tscOutput = Bash(`npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1 || true`)
  typeErrors = (tscOutput.match(/error TS/g) || []).length
}

// === Check 3: Linting ===
let lintErrors = 0
if (hasEslint && modifiedFiles.length > 0) {
  const lintOutput = Bash(`npx eslint --no-error-on-unmatched-pattern ${modifiedFiles.join(' ')} 2>&1 || true`)
  lintErrors = (lintOutput.match(/(\d+) error/)?.[0]?.match(/\d+/)?.[0] || 0) * 1
}

// === Check 4: Optional CLI Quality Analysis ===
let qualityImprovement = 0
if (checks.includes('cli_quality_analysis')) {
  const prompt = `PURPOSE: Compare code quality before and after tech debt cleanup to measure improvement
TASK: • Analyze the modified files for quality metrics • Compare complexity, duplication, naming quality • Assess if the changes actually reduced debt • Identify any new issues introduced
MODE: analysis
CONTEXT: ${modifiedFiles.map(f => `@${f}`).join(' ')}
EXPECTED: Quality comparison with: metrics_before, metrics_after, improvement_score (0-100), new_issues_found
CONSTRAINTS: Focus on the specific changes, not overall project quality`

  Bash(`ccw cli -p "${prompt}" --tool gemini --mode analysis --rule analysis-review-code-quality`, {
    run_in_background: true
  })
  // 等待 CLI 完成，解析质量改善分数
}

// === 计算债务分数 ===
// 已修复的项不计入 after 分数
const fixedDebtIds = new Set(
  (sharedMemory.fix_results?.files_modified || [])
    .flatMap(f => debtInventory.filter(i => i.file === f).map(i => i.id))
)
const debtScoreAfter = debtInventory.filter(i => !fixedDebtIds.has(i.id)).length

Step 3: Result Processing

const totalRegressions = testRegressions + typeErrors + lintErrors
const passed = totalRegressions === 0

// 如果有少量回归，尝试通过 code-developer 修复
if (totalRegressions > 0 && totalRegressions <= 3) {
  const regressionDetails = []
  if (testRegressions > 0) regressionDetails.push(`${testRegressions} test failures`)
  if (typeErrors > 0) regressionDetails.push(`${typeErrors} type errors`)
  if (lintErrors > 0) regressionDetails.push(`${lintErrors} lint errors`)

  Task({
    subagent_type: "code-developer",
    run_in_background: false,
    description: `Fix ${totalRegressions} regressions from debt cleanup`,
    prompt: `## Goal
Fix regressions introduced by tech debt cleanup.

## Regressions
${regressionDetails.join('\n')}

## Modified Files
${modifiedFiles.map(f => `- ${f}`).join('\n')}

## Test Output (if failed)
${testOutput.split('\n').filter(l => /FAIL|Error|error/i.test(l)).slice(0, 20).join('\n')}

## Constraints
- Fix ONLY the regressions, do not undo the debt fixes
- Preserve the debt cleanup changes
- Do NOT skip tests or add suppressions`
  })

  // Re-run checks after fix attempt
  // ... (simplified: re-check test suite)
}

// 生成最终验证结果
const validationReport = {
  passed,
  regressions: totalRegressions,
  debt_score_before: debtScoreBefore,
  debt_score_after: debtScoreAfter,
  improvement_percentage: debtScoreBefore > 0
    ? Math.round(((debtScoreBefore - debtScoreAfter) / debtScoreBefore) * 100)
    : 0
}

Output Format

## Validation Results

### Status: [PASS|FAIL]
### Regressions: [count]
- Test Suite: [PASS|FAIL] ([n] regressions)
- Type Check: [PASS|FAIL] ([n] errors)
- Lint: [PASS|FAIL] ([n] errors)
- Quality: [IMPROVED|NO_CHANGE]

### Debt Score
- Before: [score]
- After: [score]
- Improvement: [%]%

Error Handling

Scenario	Resolution
No test runner available	Skip test check, rely on type+lint
tsc not available	Skip type check, rely on test+lint
eslint not available	Skip lint check, rely on test+type
All checks unavailable	Report minimal validation, warn coordinator
Fix attempt introduces new regressions	Revert fix, report original regressions
CLI quality analysis times out	Skip quality analysis, use debt score comparison only