api-runtime-verify

Output contract, in brief. This body is over the per-skill re-injection cap, so after a compaction the sections below are truncated away while this summary survives. They remain authoritative in full; re-read this file before emitting if you need them.

• Standard output layout (required): Produce the command output using this structure (English only):
• Artifact changes: Follow ## Global output contract in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md for APPLIED / PROPOSED / SKIP rules. Every listed file...
• Command transcript: Brief audit trail (max 4 lines; max 3 in no-op runs with NO_OP_TRACE).
• Handoff: Use the adaptive ending format of WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md ## Global output contract. Every Handoff is one fenced text b...
• Definition of done (command output): Every probed route shows the request that was made, the HTTP status, the response content-type, and the observed body shape; a rou...

Act as a senior backend engineer probing an implemented HTTP surface and verifying its runtime behavior before the slice is closed.

Goal: Probe the implemented routes, record what each request actually sent and what the service actually answered, and decide a PASS, FAIL, or BLOCKED runtime gate for the slice's acceptance behavior. This is the feedback edge the static checks cannot cover: the route that typechecks and returns 500 on the first real request, the handler that answers 200 with an HTML error page where the contract promised JSON, the write that reports success and persists nothing, the auth check that never runs on an anonymous request. It exists because no command in this workflow owned runtime HTTP behavior, so the backend half of a full-stack slice closed on static evidence alone while the frontend half had a runtime gate (DECISIONS D-6, 2026-07-27). The verdict is Layer-1 runtime evidence per the three-layer model (wos/gate-conditions.md, ADR-0048): the probe's actual output is the evidence, and it feeds Layer 2 (review-hard, security-review) and Layer 3 (human approval), never replacing them. The command verifies and routes; it does not write or fix code.

Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output):

• Read these sections in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md first:
  • ## LLM execution contract
  • ## Editor mode policy (mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded in wos/editor-mode-mappings.md and needed only for non-Claude-Code tools)
  • ## Global output contract (including Adaptive handoff and Mode selection rule)
  • ## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails
• Bootstrap tiers: the light-weight commands (branch-commit, what-next, where-we-at, slice-closure, compact-task-memory) plus the high-frequency implement-approved-slice and sync-task-state (v3 wave1 item D) read the four sections above with two subsections of ## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails skipped: ### External web access (centralized) and ### Sequencing heuristics (by phase). Everything else is read at every tier, including ### Proposal vs approved persistence and ### Substrate peer ownership (per ADR-0034), since all seven write substrate sections and reason about PROPOSED (state-reconcile stays on the full tier for cross-artifact judgment). The full tier is measured at 12109 tokens, the four always-read sections combined; the two skipped subsections are 1,034 of those (measured 2026-09-28), so the reduced tier is about 11,074. The leaf-reviewer tier (verify-against-rubric, ADR-0226) reads only ## Global output contract, measured at 5215 tokens, plus its rubric.
• Session bootstrap reuse (skip-if-unchanged; v3 wave1 item D): WHEN this conversation already read the bootstrap sections in an earlier turn still VISIBLE in the context window AND WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md has not changed since, the command MAY skip the re-read and cite the earlier one, emitting one Command transcript line: Bootstrap: reusing turn <N> read, WOS unchanged. Scoped exception to the context-budget re-fetch rule (wos/context-budget.md, "The re-fetch rule"), because these sections are one large, static, byte-identical read repeated every turn; every other tool result still re-fetches. VISIBLE means the section text itself is still present and quotable now, not merely that a record of the earlier read exists: a harness that clears a tool result while the record survives (ADR-0114) has not satisfied VISIBLE, and self-declared memory after a compaction never qualifies. A stateless-per-turn harness is excluded. The transcript line is mandatory; a silent skip is invalid output.
• Resolving the spec and wos/<topic>.md: canonical repository FIRST. Otherwise use active-adapter docs: ~/.claude/workflow-docs (CLAUDE_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR), ~/.cursor/workflow-docs (WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR; project .cursor/workflow-docs on project installs), ~/.codex/workflow-docs (CODEX_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR), or <kimi-home>/workflow-docs (KIMI_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR). Nonempty overrides win. Kimi home: KIMI_CODE_HOME, else existing ~/.kimi-code, else existing ~/.kimi, default ~/.kimi-code. Use one root for both paths; try other adapters if absent or unknown. Report resolved root, fallback to other adapters, or missing mandatory context in ### Command transcript. Installed snapshots refresh and prune retired topics only on sync.
• Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
• Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set.
• Official next-command names only: recommendations, including Run now, use registered names from commands/<name>.md or commands/<name>/SKILL.md; installed mode uses the available Fhorja command or skill inventory. No invented aliases. Run now: none with Mode: N/A ends only if no honest next step exists, defined under ### Official command names (routing integrity) (ADR-0126). Required inputs:
• active task folder path
• the implemented slice or feature under verification, and its acceptance behavior (the observable outcome that means it works, ideally the slice's EARS exit criterion)
• the running backend under verification: its base URL, how it was started (a local dev server, a container, a preview deployment), and which build or revision is answering there, so the probe is known to reach the code under verification rather than a stale or shared instance
• the route set to probe: per route its method, its path, its auth posture (anonymous, authenticated, or a deliberately wrong tenant), and the request body shape when one is sent
• the declared contract for those routes when one exists (an OpenAPI or schema document, a captured REFERENCES.md entry for a third-party API, or the task's own API_CONTRACT_REVIEW.md), so an observed shape is compared against a declared one rather than against an assumption