Verification Agent Protocol
After synthesis completes, spawn a Verification Agent (V1) that audits all deliverables for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. This step catches issues that individual agents and synthesis can miss.
When to Run
- After synthesis is complete and all deliverable files are written
- Before the next phase begins (e.g., before Phase 3.5 Research Gate in startup-design)
- Uses one agent: V1: Verification
Agent Task
The V1 agent reads ALL deliverable files (not raw files) and checks them against the rules below. It produces a verification-report.md in the project directory.
Universal Checks
These apply to every skill in the startup plugin:
1. Claims Without Source
Every quantitative claim must have a data label: [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]. Flag any number, percentage, or factual assertion without a label.
2. Internal Contradictions
Cross-check numbers and statements across deliverable files. Flag when:
- The same metric appears with different values in two files
- A claim in one file contradicts a claim in another
- Confidence ratings disagree (e.g., "High confidence" in one file, different data in another suggests Medium)
3. Confidence Rating Consistency
Verify that confidence ratings match the evidence:
- A claim with only one Tier 3 source cannot be rated High
- A claim with multiple Tier 1 sources should not be rated Low
- Every major section must have a confidence rating
4. Data Gaps Declared
Every deliverable must have a Data Gaps section. Flag:
- Files missing the Data Gaps section entirely
- Sections where data is clearly thin but no gap is declared
- Gaps mentioned in raw files that didn't make it into the synthesized deliverables
5. Flags Present
Every deliverable must end with Red Flags and Yellow Flags sections. Flag:
- Files missing these sections
- Files with "No flags identified" where the content clearly contains risks
6. Stale Data
Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated.
7. Duplicate Sources
Flag when the same source is used as "independent corroboration" in multiple places. Two claims both citing the same blog post don't have independent verification.
Skill-Specific Checks: startup-design
In addition to the universal checks above, verify:
Cross-Phase Consistency
- Strategy reflects market data: Do the Lean Canvas, positioning, and GTM in Phase 4 reference specific findings from Phase 3? Flag strategy claims that have no research backing.
- Product reflects customer pains: Does the MVP definition (Phase 6) address the top pains identified in
target-audience.md? Flag features that don't map to any validated customer need. - Financial reflects business model: Do the revenue projections (Phase 7) use the pricing and unit economics from
market-analysis.mdandbusiness-model.md? Flag projection assumptions that contradict research data. - Validation covers key risks: Does the risk analysis (Phase 8) address the Red Flags and data gaps surfaced in earlier phases? Flag risks that were identified in research but missing from validation.
Numerical Consistency
- TAM/SAM/SOM numbers must be consistent across
market-analysis.md,lean-canvas.md, andrevenue-model.md - Pricing references must match between
competitor-landscape.mdandbusiness-model.md - Customer segment descriptions must be consistent between
target-audience.md,lean-canvas.md, andmvp-definition.md
Output: verification-report.md
# Verification Report: {project-name}
*Generated: {date}*
## Summary
- **Critical issues:** {count}
- **Warnings:** {count}
- **Info:** {count}
## Critical Issues
Issues that could mislead decision-making. The process pauses here for user review.
### {Issue title}
- **File(s):** {affected files}
- **Section:** {section name}
- **Problem:** {description}
- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve}
## Warnings
Issues that reduce quality but don't block decisions.
### {Issue title}
- **File(s):** {affected files}
- **Problem:** {description}
- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve}
## Info
Minor improvements and observations.
- {observation}
- {observation}
## Verification Checklist
- [ ] All quantitative claims labeled
- [ ] No internal contradictions found
- [ ] Confidence ratings consistent with evidence
- [ ] Data gaps declared in all deliverables
- [ ] Red/Yellow flags present in all deliverables
- [ ] No stale data unmarked
- [ ] No duplicate-source false corroboration
- [ ] Strategy reflects market data (cross-phase)
- [ ] Product reflects customer pains (cross-phase)
- [ ] Financial reflects business model (cross-phase)
- [ ] Validation covers identified risks (cross-phase)Flow Control
- If Critical issues > 0: Pause. Show the user: "Verification found {N} critical issues that could affect decision-making." List them. Ask: "Should I fix these before continuing, or proceed as-is?"
- If only Warnings/Info: Show a one-line summary: "Verification complete: {N} warnings, {N} info items. See
verification-report.mdfor details." Continue to next phase.