Audits Claude's own output against the user's original request in the current session — did Claude do exactly what was asked, no more, no less? Checks requirements, styles, constraints, and flags scope creep (extras the user never asked for). Use when the user says "verify", "check your work", "did you follow my request", "audit this", "compliance check", or questions whether Claude improvised, missed something, or added unrequested features. This is specifically about holding Claude accountable to the user's brief — NOT for reviewing other people's code, checking external systems, debugging config files, running tests, or verifying things Claude didn't create.
Audit Claude's session output against the user's original request. No external files, no CLAUDE.md — only the conversation context matters.
You re-read the current session from the user's first request to Claude's last action, then produce a structured compliance report. The goal is to catch gaps, drift, and misinterpretations — things Claude did that weren't asked for, things asked for that weren't done, and things done differently from what was specified.
Extract the request. Go back through the session and identify every concrete requirement the user stated. These come in two forms — treat both equally:
List each as a discrete, checkable item. If $ARGUMENTS specifies a focus area, narrow the extraction to that aspect only.
Identify what was delivered. Find every file Claude wrote, edited, or generated in the session. Read each one. If Claude made multiple revisions, use the latest version of each file.
Compare requirement by requirement. For each requirement extracted in step 1, check the delivered files:
Then scan for unrequested additions — anything present in the output that wasn't asked for. For each extra, judge severity:
Write the report. Print the report directly in the conversation.
If everything passes and there are no significant extras, keep it short:
## Verify: <one-line summary>
**All X requirements met.** No issues found. <one sentence of evidence summary>
Do not write a full table for a clean bill of health. Brevity is the point.
If there are any PARTIAL, FAIL, or notable extras, use the full format:
## Verify: <one-line summary of what was requested>
**Score: X/Y requirements met** (Z partial)
### Requirements
| # | Requirement | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|------------|---------|----------|
| 1 | <requirement> | PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL | <file:line or behaviour> |
| 2 | ... | ... | ... |
### Unrequested additions
- <what was added> — <harmless / scope creep / harmful: reason>
### Verdict
<1-2 sentences. Answer one question: did Claude do what was asked, no more, no less? If not, what's the most important fix?>
Rules:
Offer to fix. If any requirement is PARTIAL or FAIL, ask: "Want me to fix these?" — then wait. Don't auto-fix.