Acceptance Verifier

Who the node is. The id is the key the DOT pins.

id

acceptance-verifier

name

Acceptance Verifier

type

validation

phases

Testing

What it does, and the prose the agent is handed when the graph runs.

action33 words

Check the candidate against every acceptance criterion and pass it on only once all of them clear, raising a conflict signal instead when the failure is a genuine disagreement rather than a defect.

spec107 words

Check the finished artefact you are handed against every criterion in the set registered as acceptance-criteria@1, one at a time, using the supporting material supplied alongside it wherever a criterion calls for evidence. Emit the artefact unchanged on accepted only once every criterion has cleared. When one is missed, judge which kind of miss it is: if the work is simply wrong, record the criterion and stop the run; if the candidates it was chosen from answered the brief in genuinely different ways, emit that on conflict so the choice can be reopened. conflict is for real disagreement only, never use it as a second failure exit.in full above

model

claude-opus-5

agent

Verifier

skill

skills/acceptance-verifier.md

tools

none

mcp

none

params

strict: true, criteria_ref: acceptance-criteria@1

What arrives, what leaves, which nodes it expects to hear from, and what may not.

inputs

candidate : json, evidence : json

outputs

accepted : json, conflict : status

dependencies

weighted-vote

cannot

no type is refused

will_not

pass a candidate that missed a criterion, use conflict as a second failure exit

The keys the static analysis reads. Nothing here instructs the agent.

risk_markers

none

notes200 words

conflict is not a second failure exit. A candidate can miss a criterion because the work is wrong, or because the proposals it was chosen from read the brief differently, only the second is worth reopening, and separating the two is the whole reason this version exists. The model moved with the job: 1.0.0 decides pass or fail and names claude-sonnet-5, this one has to tell a defect from a disagreement and names claude-opus-5. On its own that is a minor change by inferBump, since model is the default the card was written against and the graph settles it at run time, so what the node runs on moves while no port, type or prohibition a blueprint declared against does. The version is 2.0.0 for the other edit: use \conflict\ as a second failure exit is a new entry under will_not. inferBump prices that as minor, because nothing in the engine reads the field and no graph that resolved against 1.0.0 refuses against this one. The major is the author's own call: the node turns work away that 1.0.0 accepted, and a reader deciding whether to swap the pin should see that in the number rather than in the notes.

The card's own version, and who wrote it.

version

2.0.0

author

autogen

provenance

not stated