Validating Constitution

Overview

Constitution validation ensures governance documents are enforceable, testable, and free of anti-patterns before finalization. Every constitution MUST pass quality validation—no exceptions for "simple projects" or "tight deadlines."

Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.

Skipping validation because "the constitution looks fine" or "it's mostly complete" is not following the spirit of quality assurance—it is abandoning it.

When to Use

•After drafting a constitution with humaninloop:authoring-constitution or humaninloop:brownfield-constitution
•Before presenting a constitution to users for approval
•When updating an existing constitution (any change requires re-validation)
•When user explicitly requests constitution review or quality check
•When determining appropriate version bump for constitution changes
•When auditing existing constitution for anti-patterns

When NOT to Use

•During initial constitution drafting (validate AFTER drafting, not during)
•For documents that are not constitutions (specs, plans, code)
•When user only wants to READ a constitution without validation
•For informal project notes or temporary governance sketches

Core Process

Step 1: Load Quality Checklist

Read references/QUALITY-CHECKLIST.md and verify every item. Do not skip items because they "seem obvious" or "clearly pass."

Step 2: Check Each Principle

Every principle MUST have the three-part structure:

Part	Purpose	Verification
Enforcement	How is compliance verified?	CI check, code review rule, or audit process named
Testability	What does pass/fail look like?	Concrete pass and fail conditions defined
Rationale	Why does this rule exist?	Business or technical justification present

If any principle lacks any part, the constitution FAILS validation.

Step 3: Scan for Anti-Patterns

Compare against references/ANTI-PATTERNS.md. Common failures:

Anti-Pattern	Detection
Vague principle	Contains words like "appropriate", "reasonable", "clean" without metrics
Missing enforcement	Principle states rule but no verification mechanism
Placeholder syndrome	Contains `[PLACEHOLDER]`, `[COMMAND]`, `[THRESHOLD]` syntax
Generic thresholds	Says "coverage must be measured" instead of "coverage ≥80%"

Step 4: Verify No Placeholders

This is the most commonly rationalized check. Search the entire document for:

•[PLACEHOLDER]
•[COMMAND]
•[THRESHOLD]
•[TOOL]
•Any [BRACKETED_TEXT] pattern

No exceptions. A constitution with placeholders is not ready for validation sign-off.

Step 5: Determine Version Bump

Bump	Trigger	Example
MAJOR	Principle removed or incompatibly redefined	Removing "Test-First" principle; changing coverage from 80% to 50%
MINOR	New principle added or significant expansion	Adding "Observability" principle; adding 5+ rules to existing principle
PATCH	Clarification or non-semantic change	Rewording for clarity; typo fixes; formatting

Step 6: Document Validation Result

Produce explicit validation verdict:

code

VALIDATION RESULT: [PASS/FAIL]

Checklist items: [X/Y passed]
Anti-patterns found: [list or "none"]
Version bump: [MAJOR/MINOR/PATCH] (if changes made)

Issues requiring fix:
- [list each failure]

Quantification Requirements

Vague language MUST be replaced with measurable criteria:

Vague	Quantified
"Code should be clean"	"Zero lint warnings from configured rules"
"Functions should be short"	"Functions MUST NOT exceed 40 lines"
"Tests should cover the code"	"Coverage MUST be ≥80% for new code"
"Response should be fast"	"API MUST respond in <200ms p95"
"Secure by default"	"All inputs MUST be validated; auth required on all endpoints"

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Why It Happens	Fix
Skipping checklist items	"Obviously passes"	Run every item. Obvious failures happen.
Accepting placeholders	"User will fill in later"	Placeholders = incomplete. Return for completion.
Validating during drafting	Interrupts creative flow	Draft first, validate second. Separate phases.
Soft validation language	"Mostly looks good"	Binary verdict: PASS or FAIL. No middle ground.
Missing version bump	"Small change"	Every change needs version bump determination.
Validating non-constitutions	Skill triggered by similar keywords	Verify document IS a constitution before validating.

Red Flags - STOP and Restart Properly

If you notice yourself thinking any of these, STOP immediately:

•"The constitution looks complete enough"
•"This is just a minor update, doesn't need full validation"
•"I already reviewed it while writing"
•"User seems happy with it"
•"The checklist is too detailed for this simple project"
•"These anti-patterns don't apply to this case"
•"I can skip the placeholder check—I didn't use any"
•"Validation would be redundant since I wrote it carefully"

All of these mean: You are rationalizing. Restart validation from Step 1.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Constitution looks complete"	Looking complete ≠ being complete. Run the checklist.
"Just a minor update"	Minor updates can introduce major anti-patterns. Full validation.
"Already reviewed while writing"	Authoring mode ≠ validation mode. Fresh review catches blind spots.
"User seems satisfied"	User satisfaction doesn't verify enforcement mechanisms exist.
"Too detailed for simple project"	Simple projects become complex. Governance debt compounds.
"Anti-patterns don't apply here"	Every rationalization claims uniqueness. They apply.
"I'm being pragmatic"	Pragmatic = following validation process. Skipping is not pragmatic.
"Can validate more thoroughly later"	"Later" rarely comes. Validate now or ship broken governance.

Explicit Loophole Closures

"The constitution looks fine"

Looking fine is not validation. Run every checklist item. Document every result. A constitution is validated when all checks pass, not when it "looks fine."

"This is a small change"

Small changes require validation. A one-line change can introduce vague language, remove enforcement, or add placeholders. Size does not determine validation necessity.

"I'll add the missing parts later"

Constitutions with missing parts FAIL validation. Return to authoring. Do not sign off on incomplete governance.

"User asked to skip validation"

User requests do not override process. Explain why validation matters. If user insists, document that validation was skipped against recommendation—but never claim a validated constitution when validation was skipped.

"The project is just prototyping"

Prototypes become production. Governance established during prototyping persists. Validate now or inherit broken governance later.

Testing Evidence

Baseline Testing Results (RED Phase)

Pressure scenarios tested without skill loaded revealed these agent behaviors:

Scenario 1: Time pressure + "looks complete"

•Agent rationalized: "The constitution appears comprehensive and I wrote it carefully"
•Skipped checklist, missed placeholder in Quality Gates section
•Verdict: FAIL - proceeded without systematic validation

Scenario 2: User satisfaction signal

•Agent rationalized: "User already reviewed the draft and seemed satisfied"
•Skipped anti-pattern scan, missed vague "appropriate level" language
•Verdict: FAIL - treated user satisfaction as validation

Scenario 3: Minor update context

•Agent rationalized: "This is just updating one threshold, full validation is overkill"
•Skipped Steps 1-3, only checked the changed line
•Verdict: FAIL - partial validation is not validation

Skill Effectiveness (GREEN Phase)

Same scenarios re-run with skill loaded:

•Agent cited "letter = spirit" principle when tempted to skip
•Agent ran full checklist despite time pressure
•Agent produced binary PASS/FAIL verdicts
•All placeholders and anti-patterns caught

Related Skills

•OPTIONAL: humaninloop:authoring-constitution - Core authoring for greenfield projects
•OPTIONAL: humaninloop:brownfield-constitution - Authoring for existing codebases