Feature verification (READ-ONLY, P0-P5). Use when: verifying feature behavior after deployment, validating API responses, diagnosing production issues, post-deploy smoke test. Not for: modifying data (use dhpk-adaptive-dev-workflow in feature mode), code review (use dhpk-change-review), writing tests (use dhpk-tdd-workflow), security audit (use dhpk-security-review). Output: a P0-P5 verification report with pass/fail evidence per check.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add hmj1026/dhpk --skill dhpk-feature-verify --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Dhpk Feature Verify?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hmj1026-dhpk-feature-verify-0fe7cee7)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: dhpk-feature-verify
description: 'Feature verification (READ-ONLY, P0-P5). Use when: verifying feature behavior after deployment, validating API responses, diagnosing production issues, post-deploy smoke test. Not for: modifying data (use dhpk-adaptive-dev-workflow in feature mode), code review (use dhpk-change-review), writing tests (use dhpk-tdd-workflow), security audit (use dhpk-security-review). Output: a P0-P5 verification report with pass/fail evidence per check.'
allowed-tools: 'Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebFetch, Task, Skill, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply'
context: fork
metadata:
dhpk-invocation-class: implicit-eligible
---
# Feature Verify — Runtime-First API Verification
Verify deployed behavior with read-only runtime evidence:
`Claude analysis → Codex independent confirmation → integrated verdict`
Use this for post-deploy checks, smoke tests, and production diagnosis. For
local tests use the repository verification route; for changes use
`dhpk-adaptive-dev-workflow` in feature mode; for code review use
`dhpk-change-review`.
## When NOT to Use
- The requested action changes application data, configuration, or deployment state.
- The task is to implement or modify a feature; use
`dhpk-adaptive-dev-workflow` in feature mode.
- The task is a code, security, or test review rather than runtime behavior
verification.
- There is no read-only endpoint, observation path, or approved test environment that
can produce evidence for the requested claim.
## Required References
Read these at the indicated phase:
- P0/P3: [safety-rules.md](references/safety-rules.md) and [environments.md](references/environments.md)
- P1/P2/P4/P5: [blackbox-testing.md](references/blackbox-testing.md)
- P0/P2/P5: [verification-playbook.md](references/verification-playbook.md)
- Report: [output-template.md](references/output-template.md)
`Bash` is permitted only for read-only curl and observation queries reviewed against the safety rules. Missing endpoint allowlist means P3 is skipped.
## P0 — Scope and Safety
1. Select `--env`, defaulting to test, and load its configuration.
2. Run `scripts/health-probe.sh <health-url>` (3 attempts, 2-second timeout).
3. Compare local HEAD with the deployed version and warn on mismatch.
4. Confirm every planned operation is read-only.
5. Determine L4/L3/L2-API/L2-OBS/L1 using the playbook matrix.
API unreachable with logs gives L2-OBS; without logs gives L1. At L1 skip P3/P4. `--level L2` remains an alias for L2-API.
## P1 — Diff-Lite Scope
Follow [blackbox-testing.md § P1](references/blackbox-testing.md#p1-diff-lite-scoping). Map `git diff main...HEAD --name-only` to affected endpoints, dependency chains, active triggers, and passive targets. This phase scopes behavior; it does not judge code quality. If no diff exists, build scope from the user's feature description.
## P2 — Test Charter and Approval
Follow [blackbox-testing.md § P2](references/blackbox-testing.md#p2-test-charter-design). Generate only cases supported by the detected level: L1 regression, L2 active trigger, L3 passive observation, and M1 metrics. Present the charter and wait for user approval before any P3 request.
## P3 — API Execution
Run only for L2-API/L3/L4 after approval. For each allowlisted case:
1. Confirm method and endpoint exactly match the allowlist.
2. Run one request at a time with fixed, non-PII test parameters:
`scripts/api-exec.sh <GET|POST> <allowlisted-url> [json-payload]`
3. Record its request ID, HTTP status, response fields, and latency.
The script rejects methods other than GET and POST; the operator must separately confirm that POST is allowlisted and read-only. L2-OBS always skips P3.
## P4 — Observation Correlation
Follow [blackbox-testing.md § P4](references/blackbox-testing.md#p4-log-verification-flow).
- L3/L4: correlate each request ID, then fall back to alternate fields and endpoint/time window.
- L2-OBS/L3/L4: scan the observation window for related errors and warnings.
- Observe background services after their expected delay; query affected metrics at L4.
- Record blind spots. A missing log signal is not itself proof of failure.
For L2-OBS use deploy time → now, a user-provided window, or the last 30 minutes, in that order.
## P5 — Independent Verdict
1. Claude forms a conclusion from P3/P4 evidence.
2. Codex independently reviews scope, commands, allowlist compliance, evidence, blind spots, and confidence using [blackbox-testing.md § P5](references/blackbox-testing.md#p5-codex-independent-review-prompt).
3. Integrate both conclusions using the verdict/confidence rules in the playbook.
4. Render [output-template.md](references/output-template.md).
The report may recommend another skill, but must not auto-invoke it.
## Output
Produce the report from `references/output-template.md`. It must identify the deployed
target and local/deployed alignment, record the detected degradation level, list every
executed and skipped case with the reason, preserve request/log/metric evidence, state
blind spots, and end with the integrated verdict and confidence. A skipped API phase is
valid only when the level or safety gate requires it; it is not a passing execution.
## Verification
- [ ] P0 established environment, deployment alignment, read-only scope, and the
degradation level.
- [ ] P1 mapped the diff or explicitly documented the feature-description fallback.
- [ ] P2 produced a level-appropriate charter and received approval before any P3
request.
- [ ] Every P3 request matched the endpoint allowlist and recorded status, fields, and
latency, or was marked skipped with a reason.
- [ ] P4 correlated logs or metrics when available and recorded the observation window
and blind spots.
- [ ] P5 contains Claude's analysis, the independent Codex review, and the integrated
verdict from the playbook.
- [ ] The final report matches `output-template.md` and does not claim evidence for a
phase that was skipped or unavailable.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!