Atlas / Skills / gotalab / Kiro Validate Impl

Kiro Validate ImplSAFE

skills/gotalab/kiro-validate-impl

Turn approved specs into long-running autonomous implementation. A minimal, adaptable SDD harness with Agent Skills for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Windsurf, OpenCode, Gemini CLI, and Antigravity.

Verdict
SAFE
Grade
B
Trust score
89 /100
Version
—
Hosts
—
License
MIT
Stars
3,707
01

Overview

Turn approved specs into long-running autonomous implementation. A minimal, adaptable SDD harness with Agent Skills for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Windsurf, OpenCode, Gemini CLI, and Antigravity.

Read from source at commit 4504485f1027OBSERVED · 2026-10-07
02

What it tells the agent

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: kiro-validate-impl
description: Validate feature-level integration after all tasks are implemented. Checks cross-task consistency, full test suite, and overall spec coverage.
---


# Implementation Integration Validation

<background_information>
Individual tasks are usually reviewed during implementation. Your job is to catch problems that only become visible when looking across all tasks together.

Boundary terminology continuity:
- discovery identifies `Boundary Candidates`
- design fixes `Boundary Commitments`
- tasks constrain execution with `_Boundary:_`
- feature validation checks for cross-task `Boundary Violations`

- **Success Criteria**:
  - All tasks marked `[x]` in tasks.md
  - Full test suite passes (not just per-task tests)
  - Cross-task integration works (data flows between components, interfaces match)
  - Requirements coverage is complete across all tasks (no gaps between tasks)
  - Design structure is reflected end-to-end (not just per-component)
  - No orphaned code, conflicting implementations, integration seams, or boundary spillover

**What This Skill Does NOT Do**: This skill is not a full replacement for task-local review during `/kiro-impl`. This skill does NOT re-check every individual task acceptance criterion, every per-file reality check, or every single-task spec detail unless a concrete integration finding forces it.

This skill's main question is: when the completed tasks are viewed together, do they still respect the designed boundary seams and dependency direction?
</background_information>

<instructions>
## Execution Steps

### 1. Detect Validation Target

**If no arguments provided** (`$1` empty):
- Parse conversation history for `/kiro-impl <feature> [tasks]` commands
- Extract feature names and task numbers from each execution
- Aggregate all implemented tasks by feature
- Report detected implementations (e.g., "user-auth: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3")
- If no history found, scan `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/` for features with completed tasks `[x]`

**If feature provided** (`$1` present, `$2` empty):
- Use specified feature
- Detect all completed tasks `[x]` in `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/tasks.md`

**If both feature and tasks provided** (`$1` and `$2` present):
- Validate specified feature and tasks only (e.g., `user-auth 1.1,1.2`)

#### Sub-agent Dispatch (parallel)

The following validation dimensions are independent and can be dispatched as **sub-agents**. The agent should decide the optimal decomposition based on feature scope — split, merge, or skip sub-agents as appropriate. Each sub-agent returns a **structured findings summary** to keep the main context clean for GO/NO-GO synthesis.

**Typical validation dimensions** (adjust as appropriate):
- **Test execution**: Run the complete test suite, report pass/fail with details
- **Requirements coverage**: Build requirements → implementation matrix, report gaps
- **Design alignment**: Verify architecture matches design.md, report drift and dependency violations
- **Cross-task integration**: Verify data flows, API contracts, shared state consistency

If multi-agent is not available, run checks sequentially in main context.

After all checks complete, synthesize findings for GO/NO-GO/MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED assessment.

If the implementation run explicitly skipped task-local review (for example `--review off`), tighten scrutiny on obvious task-level gaps that surface during integration validation and call out that reduced review coverage in the report.

### 2. Load Context

For each detected feature:
- Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/<feature>/spec.json` for metadata
- Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/<feature>/requirements.md` for requirements
- Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/<feature>/design.md` for design structure
- Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/<feature>/tasks.md` for task list and Implementation Notes
- Core steering context: `product.md`, `tech.md`, `structure.md`
- Additional steering files only when directly relevant to the validated boundaries, runtime prerequisites, integrations, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect the GO/NO-GO call
- Use explicitly requested skills and task-relevant local skills/playbooks, including design, accessibility, and UX. Select by description and read only needed guidance, even for small tasks; preserve required checks and host/project rules.

**Discover canonical validation commands**:
- Inspect repository-local sources of truth in this order: project scripts/manifests (`package.json`, `pyproject.toml`, `go.mod`, `Cargo.toml`, app manifests), task runners (`Makefile`, `justfile`), CI/workflow files, existing e2e/integration configs, then `README*`
- Derive a feature-level validation set for this repo: `TEST_COMMANDS`, `BUILD_COMMANDS`, and `SMOKE_COMMANDS`
- Prefer commands already used by repo automation over ad hoc shell pipelines
- For `SMOKE_COMMANDS`, choose the lightest trustworthy runtime-liveness check for the app shape (for example: root URL load, Electron launch, CLI `--help`, service health endpoint, mobile simulator/e2e harness if one already exists)
- If multiple candidates exist, prefer the command with the smallest setup cost that still exercises the real built artifact

### 3. Execute Integration Validation

#### Mechanical Checks (run commands, use results)

**A. Full Test Suite**
- Run the discovered canonical full-test command. Use the exit code.
- If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.
- If the canonical test command cannot be identified → `MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED`

**B. Residual TBD/TODO/FIXME**
- Run: `grep -rn "TBD\|TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX" <files-in-feature-boundary>`
- If matches found that were introduced by this feature → flag as Warning

**C. Residual Hardcoded Secrets**
- Run: `grep -rn "password\s*=\|api_key\s*=\|secret\s*=\|token\s*=" <files-in-feature-boundary>` (case-insensitive)
- If matches found that aren't environment variable references → flag as Critical

**D. Runtime Liveness (Smoke Boot)**
- Run the discovered canoni
03

Trust audit

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

LayerWhat it checksResult
L0Provenance & inventoryPASS
L1Static analysis of the codeNA
L2Instruction surface (what it tells the agent)PASS
L3Class-specific surfacePASS
L4Behavioural (sandbox)SKIPPED

What the source does

Filesystem
none-observed
Network
none-observed
Shell
none-observed
Dependencies
pinned
Secrets in source
none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.

Audited 2026-10-07 · audit v0.4.1 · source sha 4504485f1027full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/gotalab__kiro-validate-impl.json · Report an issue / request a re-scan
04

Audit history

Every audit this skill has had.

DateSourceVerdictGradeScoreChange
2026-10-074504485f1027SAFEB89first audit
05

Questions

What does the Kiro Validate Impl skill do?

Turn approved specs into long-running autonomous implementation. A minimal, adaptable SDD harness with Agent Skills for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Windsurf, OpenCode, Gemini CLI, and Antigravity.

Is Kiro Validate Impl safe to install?

The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.

What can Kiro Validate Impl access on my machine?

The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.

How current is this page?

The grade is for one exact copy of the source (4504485f1027), read on 2026-10-07. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.

Advertisement