/opsx-verify

A command for checking whether a software implementation matches its written specifications, task list, and design records. It asks you to choose a change when the target is not clear.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it in an OpenSpec workflow to list available changes, inspect their status and workflow type, load related artifacts, and verify the implementation against them.
Why use it?
Implementation work can drift from the agreed requirements or leave tasks unfinished. This command exposes those mismatches before the change is archived.

Command for Cursor

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/agiledon/openmole/opsx-verify
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agiledon/openmole

Made for: Cursor.

Per session 14 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,429 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 88% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00014 $0.01429
Opus 5 $0.00007 $0.00714
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00286
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00143

Measured 2d ago against content hash 79de578a9d65, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

/opsx-verify scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

Origin

This is a copy

88% identical to OPSX: Verify — 12 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

.cursor/commands/opsx-verify.md · 165 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 165 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).

Input: Optionally specify a change name after /opsx:verify (e.g., /opsx:verify add-auth). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

  1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

    Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

    Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists). Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".

    IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

  2. Check status to understand the schema

    openspec status --change "<name>" --json
    

    Parse the JSON to understand:

    • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
    • Which artifacts exist for this change
  3. Get the change directory and load artifacts

    openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
    

    This returns the change directory and contextFiles (artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). Read all available artifacts from contextFiles.

  4. Initialize verification report structure

    Create a report structure with three dimensions:

    • Completeness: Track tasks and spec coverage
    • Correctness: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
    • Coherence: Track design adherence and pattern consistency

    Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.

  5. Verify Completeness

    Task Completion:

    • If contextFiles.tasks exists, read every file path in it
    • Parse checkboxes: - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete)
    • Count complete vs total tasks
    • If incomplete tasks exist:
      • Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
      • Recommendation: "Complete task: " or "Mark as done if already implemented"

    Spec Coverage:

    • If delta specs exist in openspec/changes/<name>/specs/:
      • Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
      • For each requirement:
        • Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
        • Assess if implementation likely exists
      • If requirements appear unimplemented:
        • Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: "
        • Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: "
  6. Verify Correctness

    Requirement Implementation Mapping:

    • For each requirement from delta specs:
      • Search codebase for implementation evidence
      • If found, note file paths and line ranges
      • Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
      • If divergence detected:
        • Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: "
        • Recommendation: "Review : against requirement X"

    Scenario Coverage:

    • For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
      • Check if conditions are handled in code
      • Check if tests exist covering the scenario
      • If scenario appears uncovered:
        • Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: "
        • Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: "
  7. Verify Coherence

    Design Adherence:

    • If contextFiles.design exists:
      • Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
      • Verify implementation follows those decisions
      • If contradiction detected:
        • Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: "
        • Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
    • If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"

    Code Pattern Consistency:

    • Review new code for consistency with project patterns
    • Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
    • If significant deviations found:
      • Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: "
      • Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: "

Read the full file on GitHub · 165 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 165 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 79de578a9d65

Subscribe to this mod's changes

/opsx-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository agiledon/openmole (23 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,429 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to OPSX: Verify, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.