Code-existence annotation
Coined hereInline `[VERIFIED]` / `[ASSUMED]` / `[MISSING]` markers attached to every symbol reference in a Claude Code plan, forcing the planning subagent to declare its evidence before any implementation begins.
A planning agent that writes “we’ll call OrderService.Cancel(orderId) and update the audit log” has made two existence claims. The code-existence annotation pattern requires those claims to be marked: OrderService.Cancel [VERIFIED — Api/Features/Orders/CancelEndpoint.cs:42], or [ASSUMED], or [MISSING]. The investigation-gate hook then refuses to execute any step containing [ASSUMED] or [MISSING] annotations until they are upgraded to [VERIFIED].
Placeholder body. Replace with the full glossary entry per playbook §9. Reference Boris Tane’s annotation cycle and the public
plannotatorrepo as adjacent prior art.
When to use
- Pair with an investigation-gate hook to make confabulation a build error rather than a code-review surprise.
- Long planning passes (Opus
xhigh) where the planner’s output is consumed by downstream Sonnet workers — the workers can trust the verified columns and skip re-reading.
Compare with
A simple “list the files you read” footer is human-friendly but the agent can omit symbols it lied about. The annotation pattern attaches the evidence to every reference, which the gate hook can mechanically check.