Fission-AI · Seekers2001 · Jul 14, 2026
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ AI:  Reading add-dark-mode artifacts...
 
 ### `/opsx:verify`
 
-Validate that implementation matches your change artifacts. Checks completeness, correctness, and coherence.
+Validate that implementation matches your change artifacts. Checks completeness, correctness, coherence, and relevance.
 
 **Syntax:**
 ```
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ Validate that implementation matches your change artifacts. Checks completeness,
 | `change-name` | No | Which change to verify (inferred from context if not provided) |
 
 **What it does:**
-- Checks three dimensions of implementation quality
+- Checks four dimensions of implementation quality
 - Searches codebase for implementation evidence
 - Reports issues categorized as CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION
 - Does not block archive, but surfaces issues
@@ -394,6 +394,7 @@ Validate that implementation matches your change artifacts. Checks completeness,
 | **Completeness** | All tasks done, all requirements implemented, scenarios covered |
 | **Correctness** | Implementation matches spec intent, edge cases handled |
 | **Coherence** | Design decisions reflected in code, patterns consistent |
+| **Relevance** | Changed code serves the final implementation, without planning residue |
 
 **Example:**
 ```
@@ -416,15 +417,20 @@ AI:  Verifying add-dark-mode...
      ✓ Naming conventions consistent with design.md
      ⚠ Design mentions "CSS variables" but implementation uses Tailwind classes
 
+     RELEVANCE
+     ✓ New implementation elements map to requirements or necessary infrastructure
+     ⚠ Unused theme adapter remains from an earlier approach
+
      SUMMARY
      ─────────────────────────────
      Critical issues: 0
-     Warnings: 2
+     Warnings: 3
      Ready to archive: Yes (with warnings)
 
      Recommendations:
      1. Add test for system preference detection
      2. Update design.md to reflect Tailwind usage, or refactor to use CSS variables
+     3. Remove the unused theme adapter
 ```
 
 **Tips:**

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Concretely, after some `/opsx:apply` work:
 
 - Want to re-examine the plan? Open the artifacts and read them, or run `openspec show <change>` in your terminal for a consolidated view.
 - Found something to change? Edit the artifact (or ask the AI to), then continue.
-- Want a structured check that the code matches the plan? Run `/opsx:verify` (expanded command). It reports completeness, correctness, and coherence without blocking anything. See [Workflows: Verify](workflows.md#verify-check-your-work).
+- Want a structured check that the code matches the plan? Run `/opsx:verify` (expanded command). It reports completeness, correctness, coherence, and relevance without blocking anything. See [Workflows: Verify](workflows.md#verify-check-your-work).
 
 There's no "review phase" to return to, because review is something you can do at any point, including after implementation.
 

@@ -97,13 +97,14 @@ Then re-read the part you changed. Re-draft until it's a plan you'd sign your na
 
 ## After the code: verify
 
-Once the work is built, `/opsx:verify` is your second review. It re-reads the artifacts and the code and reports mismatches across three dimensions:
+Once the work is built, `/opsx:verify` is your second review. It re-reads the artifacts and the code and reports mismatches across four dimensions:
 
 | Dimension | What it checks |
 |-----------|----------------|
 | **Completeness** | Every task done, every requirement implemented, scenarios covered |
 | **Correctness** | The implementation matches the spec's intent, edge cases handled |
 | **Coherence** | Design decisions actually show up in the code |
+| **Relevance** | Code introduced by the change still serves the final implementation |
 
 ```
 You: /opsx:verify

@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ The recommended completion flow:
 
 #### Verify: Check Your Work
 
-`/opsx:verify` validates implementation against your artifacts across three dimensions:
+`/opsx:verify` validates implementation against your artifacts across four dimensions:
 
 ```text
 You: /opsx:verify
@@ -282,15 +282,20 @@ AI:  Verifying add-auth...
      ✓ Naming conventions consistent with design.md
      ⚠ Design mentions "event-driven" but implementation uses polling
 
+     RELEVANCE
+     ✓ New implementation elements map to requirements or necessary infrastructure
+     ⚠ Unused compatibility branch remains from an earlier approach
+
      SUMMARY
      ─────────────────────────────
      Critical issues: 0
-     Warnings: 2
+     Warnings: 3
      Ready to archive: Yes (with warnings)
 
      Recommendations:
      1. Add test for session timeout scenario
      2. Consider refactoring to event-driven as designed, or update design.md
+     3. Remove the unused compatibility branch
 ```
 
 **What verify checks:**
@@ -300,6 +305,7 @@ AI:  Verifying add-auth...
 | Completeness | All tasks done, all requirements implemented, scenarios covered |
 | Correctness | Implementation matches spec intent, edge cases handled |
 | Coherence | Design decisions reflected in code, patterns consistent |
+| Relevance | Changed code serves the final implementation, without planning residue |
 
 Verify won't block archive, but it surfaces issues you might want to address first.
 

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ import { STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE } from './store-selection.js';
 export function getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate(): SkillTemplate {
   return {
     name: 'openspec-verify-change',
-    description: 'Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.',
+    description: 'Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, coherent, and relevant before archiving.',
     instructions: `Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
 
 ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
@@ -48,10 +48,11 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
 
 4. **Initialize verification report structure**
 
-   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   Create a report structure with four dimensions:
    - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
    - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
    - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+   - **Relevance**: Track semantic residue and unnecessary scope
 
    Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
 
@@ -112,7 +113,22 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
      - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
      - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
 
-8. **Generate Verification Report**
+8. **Verify Relevance**
+
+   **Semantic Residue Audit**:
+   - Review code introduced or changed for this change, focusing on implementation files identified in the earlier steps
+   - For each new API, function, type field, state value, helper, branch, or mapping, identify the requirement, task, design decision, or necessary enabling role it serves
+   - Look for residue from superseded planning assumptions: unused elements, unreachable branches, placeholder or mock code, duplicated mappings, and extension points disconnected from any requirement or task
+   - Trace references and data flow before flagging an element as residue
+   - If an element has no traceable purpose:
+     - Add WARNING: "Planning residue: <element and evidence>"
+     - Recommendation: "Remove <element> or show the requirement/task it serves"
+   - If the purpose is uncertain:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Possibly irrelevant code: <element>"
+     - Recommendation: "Confirm whether <element> is required"
+   - Pre-existing debt is out of scope; keep findings limited to code introduced or changed for this change
+
+9. **Generate Verification Report**
 
    **Summary Scorecard**:
    \`\`\`
@@ -124,6 +140,7 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
    | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
    | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
    | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   | Relevance    | Clean/N residue  |
    \`\`\`
 
    **Issues by Priority**:
@@ -136,6 +153,7 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
    2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
       - Spec/design divergences
       - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Confirmed planning residue
       - Each with specific recommendation
 
    3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
@@ -153,14 +171,16 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
 - **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
 - **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
 - **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **Relevance**: Require reference and data-flow evidence that a changed element serves no requirement, task, design decision, or necessary enabling role
 - **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
 - **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
 
 **Graceful Degradation**
 
 - If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
 - If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
-- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- If full artifacts: verify all four dimensions
+- If implementation files cannot be identified: skip relevance and explain why
 - Always note which checks were skipped and why
 
 **Output Format**
@@ -220,10 +240,11 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
 
 4. **Initialize verification report structure**
 
-   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   Create a report structure with four dimensions:
    - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
    - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
    - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+   - **Relevance**: Track semantic residue and unnecessary scope
 
    Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
 
@@ -284,7 +305,22 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
      - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
      - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
 
-8. **Generate Verification Report**
+8. **Verify Relevance**
+
+   **Semantic Residue Audit**:
+   - Review code introduced or changed for this change, focusing on implementation files identified in the earlier steps
+   - For each new API, function, type field, state value, helper, branch, or mapping, identify the requirement, task, design decision, or necessary enabling role it serves
+   - Look for residue from superseded planning assumptions: unused elements, unreachable branches, placeholder or mock code, duplicated mappings, and extension points disconnected from any requirement or task
+   - Trace references and data flow before flagging an element as residue
+   - If an element has no traceable purpose:
+     - Add WARNING: "Planning residue: <element and evidence>"
+     - Recommendation: "Remove <element> or show the requirement/task it serves"
+   - If the purpose is uncertain:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Possibly irrelevant code: <element>"
+     - Recommendation: "Confirm whether <element> is required"
+   - Pre-existing debt is out of scope; keep findings limited to code introduced or changed for this change
+
+9. **Generate Verification Report**
 
    **Summary Scorecard**:
    \`\`\`
@@ -296,6 +332,7 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
    | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
    | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
    | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   | Relevance    | Clean/N residue  |
    \`\`\`
 
    **Issues by Priority**:
@@ -308,6 +345,7 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
    2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
       - Spec/design divergences
       - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Confirmed planning residue
       - Each with specific recommendation
 
    3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
@@ -325,14 +363,16 @@ ${STORE_SELECTION_GUIDANCE}
 - **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
 - **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
 - **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **Relevance**: Require reference and data-flow evidence that a changed element serves no requirement, task, design decision, or necessary enabling role
 - **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
 - **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
 
 **Graceful Degradation**
 
 - If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
 - If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
-- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- If full artifacts: verify all four dimensions
+- If implementation files cannot be identified: skip relevance and explain why
 - Always note which checks were skipped and why
 
 **Output Format**

@@ -52,11 +52,11 @@ const EXPECTED_FUNCTION_HASHES: Record<string, string> = {
   getArchiveChangeSkillTemplate: 'c511a1c943bcfc5f9f3833b8c0ff284b22d34864a08f5f553cec471ee485d38f',
   getBulkArchiveChangeSkillTemplate: '0f635913757ae3d1609e111f4a8f699443ca47cbaaf8a1b21eb652f7b96a1d13',
   getOpsxSyncCommandTemplate: '86cf706886d0f18069e2cfa16948b7357028fd348210efb58588c88c416d8622',
-  getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate: 'd718c79aad649223a73fdb11036c93fb3842ac5a780f4934d50bfa03c9692683',
+  getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate: '8246c4e94bddf75369926651b4d5420768eeb13b864af041577311119cf88b94',
   getOpsxArchiveCommandTemplate: '6985bddb310cb45b6b50350bfcebe31bf67146135ca0084c94930920280970a4',
   getOpsxOnboardCommandTemplate: '0673f34a0f81fd173bcfb8c3ac83e2b1c617f7b7564e24e5298d3bd5665a05a9',
   getOpsxBulkArchiveCommandTemplate: '9f444fc7b27a5b788077b5e3aa4f61af45aa8c8004ac8d899d204fa362ff89b7',
-  getOpsxVerifyCommandTemplate: '011509480a20a60342c993906f0f9280c0e9ba5d019d335bdc1ef4d53213a5a8',
+  getOpsxVerifyCommandTemplate: 'a1d235ae804661eec80504fe7f1e8f65bfe2c3a17ec4aa3c3a83af0d4b14acdf',
   getOpsxProposeSkillTemplate: '8dfb5e9c719d5ba547aff0d3953c076dca6b33d7223be98cbffc396b8f1e0048',
   getOpsxProposeCommandTemplate: '7cd569beb32d99cdabd0b49615a8245160a8e152b6ea67a99fc4dd71e3f39f50',
   getFeedbackSkillTemplate: 'd7d83c5f7fc2b92fe8f4588a5bf2d9cb315e4c73ec19bcd5ef28270906319a0d',
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ const EXPECTED_GENERATED_SKILL_CONTENT_HASHES: Record<string, string> = {
   'openspec-sync-specs': 'f6a1581eb11a30061795c42582db6fa4f5e1f213b4b7cad9f3cbfbe3e9fb2d97',
   'openspec-archive-change': '1821aee5a06afd895d59d1e1d16495e484b6087ecf59ec93460d7d5e7851e772',
   'openspec-bulk-archive-change': '7b09b04a440809dd7dbf0b1d7b695cbb8c41184d8d104eb32e82d7cdfb476d18',
-  'openspec-verify-change': '9a8735eaaa34c278d2193eb32fa736f4b111d1c47e675971c8df40f81d20c8c3',
+  'openspec-verify-change': '2bc8cdaa5582621c8df81794557d1efcb234dda29f9ea3f03c831f52e29aac05',
   'openspec-onboard': 'b1b6fc9a1b3ff64dafe9b8c39a761ee1bd001b542d47b4e4deaf058e0aa21256',
   'openspec-propose': '0cfc9278123d973929cb4da3ea7ac8ae1b6c84b472eed4fb753657b8347eaeb9',
   'openspec-update-change': '77ff4d1f1cd08a57649cce1f25e0ebc4f55d6d032dfde5c301d1b479561b72fa',
@@ -194,6 +194,21 @@ describe('skill templates split parity', () => {
     expect(getFeedbackSkillTemplate().instructions).not.toContain('**Store selection:**');
   });
 
+  it('checks semantic planning residue in both verify templates', () => {
+    const verifyTemplates = [
+      getVerifyChangeSkillTemplate().instructions,
+      getOpsxVerifyCommandTemplate().content,
+    ];
+
+    for (const content of verifyTemplates) {
+      expect(content).toContain('Create a report structure with four dimensions');
+      expect(content).toContain('**Relevance**: Track semantic residue and unnecessary scope');
+      expect(content).toContain('**Verify Relevance**');
+      expect(content).toContain('Trace references and data flow before flagging');
+      expect(content).toContain('Pre-existing debt is out of scope');
+    }
+  });
+
   it('generates no workspace-planning residue in any workflow template (4.1)', () => {
     const allSkills: Array<[string, () => SkillTemplate]> = [
       ['openspec-apply-change', getApplyChangeSkillTemplate],