cli-forge-validate

cli-forge Validate

Use this stage to verify that a generated or takeover-adopted Rust CLI Skill project complies with all structural, content, and code constraints before it proceeds to publication or whenever a fresh audit is needed.

Purpose

Run the authoritative 47-check compliance ruleset against a scaffolded, takeover-adopted, or extended project.

This stage acts as the final gatekeeper before release. It consumes the cli-plan.yml to define what should be checked, and produces a structured validation-report.yml detailing the results.

Canonical References

• ./instructions/validate.md
• ./planning-brief.md
• ./contracts/validation-report.yml.tpl
• ../cli-forge-plan/instructions/daemon-app-server.md

Entry Gate

#	Check	Source
1	project_path is known and exists	Router
2	Cargo.toml is present in the target directory	Filesystem
3	cli-plan.yml is present (for behavioral checks)	Filesystem

Required Inputs

• Target project_path
• .cli-forge/cli-plan.yml for expected command/flag definitions

Workflow

1. Read ./planning-brief.md to understand the baseline planning limits.
2. Execute the rule set defined in ./instructions/validate.md. The baseline includes 47 checks across these categories:
   • STRUCT-* (structure and pipeline-artifact ignore policy)
   • NAME-* (directory and package naming)
   • DEPS-* and META-* (dependencies and Cargo metadata)
   • SKILL-* (the SKILL.md contract)
   • BUILD-* (build, clippy, and format verification)
   • TREE-* (command-tree contract integrity)
   • HELP-* (leaf/non-leaf/--help/help behavior plus man-like formatting)
   • DIR-* (runtime directory documentation)
   • CTX-* (Active Context behavior and precedence)
   • ERR-* (structured error behavior)
   • REPL-* (REPL behavior when present)
   • DAEMON-* (daemon lifecycle, routing, and error behavior when present) Daemon expectations are validated through the DAEMON-* ruleset and the daemon-specific narrative overlay whenever daemon behavior is present.
3. For each check, look at the filesystem, code, and test output.
4. If the check requires knowledge of expected CLI behaviors (for example, flags, optional feature scope, or runtime conventions), source those expectations from cli-plan.yml.
5. Tabulate the results. A check is either PASS, WARN (missing best practice but non-blocking), or FAIL (blocks release).
6. Determine the final aggregate result:
   • compliant (0 fails)
   • warning (0 fails, >= 1 warn)
   • non_compliant (>= 1 fail)
7. Generate .cli-forge/validation-report.yml using the template at ./contracts/validation-report.yml.tpl. The report must snapshot the contract/receipt provenance Publish will later compare against the current .cli-forge/ baseline set.
8. Present the validation outcome and any next-stage options. When there are 2 or 3 legal next-stage options, call the runtime's dialog-based chooser (e.g., AskUserQuestion) with those options when it is available. If no dialog-based chooser is available, or if only one legal follow-up path remains, present a numbered text menu with 1 to 3 next-stage options using the smallest valid set. When only one follow-up path remains legal, show a single 1. option for that path. Put the recommended path first and add Other: explain a different follow-up request as an escape hatch. Accept only the exact digits that correspond to the numbered options actually shown, or Other: .... Do not auto-map plain-language replies onto numbered options. If a numeric reply includes additional text, or if an Other: reply conflicts with the validation guardrails, ask for clarification before proceeding. Do not require the user to type an exact phrase to continue to Publish or a fix-up stage.

Outputs

• .cli-forge/validation-report.yml

Exit Gate

#	Check
1	All 47 checks executed
2	Final result aggregated (compliant/warning/non_compliant)
3	validation-report.yml written

Guardrails

• WARN results do not block publication; they highlight where the cli-forge standard advises a better path but the skill operates safely.
• FAIL results MUST block any publication or npm distribution attempt. The workflow must return to Takeover, Scaffold, Extend, or Design to correct the issue.
• If cli-plan.yml marks daemon behavior in_scope, validate the declared daemon contract rather than silently downgrading to older managed-daemon assumptions. If the project still implements an older surface, call that mismatch out explicitly.
• If a pre-existing project lacks .cli-forge/cli-plan.yml, do not improvise a plan inside Validate. If .cli-forge/design-contract.yml already exists, route to Plan so the approved design wording stays authoritative. Otherwise, route to Takeover to reconstruct the missing baseline.
• Do not publish automatically. Ensure the user has the chance to review the validation report before handing off to the Publish stage. Use the runtime's dialog-based chooser (e.g., AskUserQuestion) for the handoff when there are 2 or 3 legal next-stage options. If no dialog-based chooser is available, or if only one legal follow-up path remains, use the standardized numbered text fallback with Other: explain a different follow-up request.

Next Step

• If compliant or warning, proceed to ../cli-forge-publish/SKILL.md.
• If non_compliant, return to Takeover, Scaffold, Extend, or Design to fix the underlying issues.