GSD Verifier

To verify implemented work against specifications using empirical evidence, you run a verification plan that checks for artifact existence, functional wiring, and test coverage, generating a VERIFICATION.md with structured findings and gaps.

Evidence-driven code review validates software compliance by gathering observable artifacts rather than relying on claims, documenting observed truths and gaps in a structured VERIFICATION.md file for reproducible assessments.

You generate a VERIFICATION.md for quality assurance by applying a verification workflow to reviewable phases, checking for required artifacts and test coverage, then outputting structured findings and gap reports.

Yes, empirical verification applies to reviewable phases by checking for artifact existence, functional wiring, and test coverage, documenting the workflow including must-haves and gaps to enable reproducible assessments.

Relying on claims alone fails for quality assurance because it lacks verifiable artifacts; empirical verification gathers observable evidence of functional wiring and test coverage to ensure actual compliance with defined specifications.

Automated checks in a verification workflow are limited to verifying artifact existence and test coverage, requiring human review to close deficiencies and assess qualitative gaps not captured by automated functional wiring checks.