Hello and welcome to the Cove
I'm not aware of any standard practice to achieve the above, and honestly, I don't think you need one. "Verify" is just a fancy word for "make sure", IMHO, and "workflow" just conveys an expectation (by whoever tasked you with it) that you explain how you're going to do it. In simple words: "show me how you're going to make sure that that equipment is still in it's validated state."
Of course, the simplest way would be to re-validate it. I'm quite sure you want to avoid that.
The other thing you could do is just "walk through" the last validation report, and make sure that all the stated and implied premises still hold, and that all the validation's outputs (parameter settings, control plans, other recommendations etc.) are implemented, as before the equipment was taken off for repair. Perhaps you should also prepare a monitoring plan (not an extensive one) for the first 1-3 months of operation post-repair, to avoid any surprises - weigh the risks and decide whether this is worth the resources.
Since a "workflow" was required, I'd just put all the above, in sufficient detail, in a written plan, and submit.
Please let me know if I completely missed the point...