@cregis-dev/cckit 0.3.0 → 0.4.1

package/templates/bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md

@@ -1,264 +1,264 @@
----
-name: 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation'
-description: 'Holistic Quality Assessment - Assess PRD as cohesive, compelling document - is it a good PRD?'
-
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-12-completeness-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
-advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
----
-
-# Step 11: Holistic Quality Assessment
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Assess the PRD as a cohesive, compelling document - evaluating document flow, dual audience effectiveness (humans and LLMs), BMAD PRD principles compliance, and overall quality rating.
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
-
-### Universal Rules:
-
-- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
-- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
-- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
-- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-
-### Role Reinforcement:
-
-- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
-- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
-- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
-- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and document quality expertise
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-- ✅ Uses Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on holistic document quality assessment
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate individual components (done in previous steps)
-- 💬 Approach: Multi-perspective evaluation using Advanced Elicitation
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Use Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective assessment
-- 🎯 Evaluate document flow, dual audience, BMAD principles
-- 💾 Append comprehensive assessment to validation report
-- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
-
-- Available context: Complete PRD file, validation report with findings from steps 1-10
-- Focus: Holistic quality - the WHOLE document
-- Limits: Don't re-validate individual components, don't pause for user input
-- Dependencies: Steps 1-10 completed - all systematic checks done
-
-## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
-
-**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
-
-### 1. Attempt Sub-Process with Advanced Elicitation
-
-**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess using Advanced Elicitation:**
-
-"Perform holistic quality assessment on this PRD using multi-perspective evaluation:
-
-**Read fully and follow the Advanced Elicitation workflow:**
-{advancedElicitationTask}
-
-**Evaluate the PRD from these perspectives:**
-
-**1. Document Flow & Coherence:**
-- Read entire PRD
-- Evaluate narrative flow - does it tell a cohesive story?
-- Check transitions between sections
-- Assess consistency - is it coherent throughout?
-- Evaluate readability - is it clear and well-organized?
-
-**2. Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
-
-**For Humans:**
-- Executive-friendly: Can executives understand vision and goals quickly?
-- Developer clarity: Do developers have clear requirements to build from?
-- Designer clarity: Do designers understand user needs and flows?
-- Stakeholder decision-making: Can stakeholders make informed decisions?
-
-**For LLMs:**
-- Machine-readable structure: Is the PRD structured for LLM consumption?
-- UX readiness: Can an LLM generate UX designs from this?
-- Architecture readiness: Can an LLM generate architecture from this?
-- Epic/Story readiness: Can an LLM break down into epics and stories?
-
-**3. BMAD PRD Principles Compliance:**
-- Information density: Every sentence carries weight?
-- Measurability: Requirements testable?
-- Traceability: Requirements trace to sources?
-- Domain awareness: Domain-specific considerations included?
-- Zero anti-patterns: No filler or wordiness?
-- Dual audience: Works for both humans and LLMs?
-- Markdown format: Proper structure and formatting?
-
-**4. Overall Quality Rating:**
-Rate the PRD on 5-point scale:
-- Excellent (5/5): Exemplary, ready for production use
-- Good (4/5): Strong with minor improvements needed
-- Adequate (3/5): Acceptable but needs refinement
-- Needs Work (2/5): Significant gaps or issues
-- Problematic (1/5): Major flaws, needs substantial revision
-
-**5. Top 3 Improvements:**
-Identify the 3 most impactful improvements to make this a great PRD
-
-Return comprehensive assessment with all perspectives, rating, and top 3 improvements."
-
-**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool or Advanced Elicitation unavailable):**
-- Perform holistic assessment directly in current context
-- Read complete PRD
-- Evaluate document flow, coherence, transitions
-- Assess dual audience effectiveness
-- Check BMAD principles compliance
-- Assign overall quality rating
-- Identify top 3 improvements
-
-### 2. Synthesize Assessment
-
-**Compile findings from multi-perspective evaluation:**
-
-**Document Flow & Coherence:**
-- Overall assessment: [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
-- Key strengths: [list]
-- Key weaknesses: [list]
-
-**Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
-- For Humans: [assessment]
-- For LLMs: [assessment]
-- Overall dual audience score: [1-5]
-
-**BMAD Principles Compliance:**
-- Principles met: [count]/7
-- Principles with issues: [list]
-
-**Overall Quality Rating:** [1-5 with label]
-
-**Top 3 Improvements:**
-1. [Improvement 1]
-2. [Improvement 2]
-3. [Improvement 3]
-
-### 3. Report Holistic Quality Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Holistic Quality Assessment
-
-### Document Flow & Coherence
-
-**Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
-
-**Strengths:**
-{List key strengths}
-
-**Areas for Improvement:**
-{List key weaknesses}
-
-### Dual Audience Effectiveness
-
-**For Humans:**
-- Executive-friendly: [assessment]
-- Developer clarity: [assessment]
-- Designer clarity: [assessment]
-- Stakeholder decision-making: [assessment]
-
-**For LLMs:**
-- Machine-readable structure: [assessment]
-- UX readiness: [assessment]
-- Architecture readiness: [assessment]
-- Epic/Story readiness: [assessment]
-
-**Dual Audience Score:** {score}/5
-
-### BMAD PRD Principles Compliance
-
-| Principle | Status | Notes |
-|-----------|--------|-------|
-| Information Density | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
-| Measurability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
-| Traceability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
-| Domain Awareness | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
-| Zero Anti-Patterns | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
-| Dual Audience | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
-| Markdown Format | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
-
-**Principles Met:** {count}/7
-
-### Overall Quality Rating
-
-**Rating:** {rating}/5 - {label}
-
-**Scale:**
-- 5/5 - Excellent: Exemplary, ready for production use
-- 4/5 - Good: Strong with minor improvements needed
-- 3/5 - Adequate: Acceptable but needs refinement
-- 2/5 - Needs Work: Significant gaps or issues
-- 1/5 - Problematic: Major flaws, needs substantial revision
-
-### Top 3 Improvements
-
-1. **{Improvement 1}**
-   {Brief explanation of why and how}
-
-2. **{Improvement 2}**
-   {Brief explanation of why and how}
-
-3. **{Improvement 3}**
-   {Brief explanation of why and how}
-
-### Summary
-
-**This PRD is:** {one-sentence overall assessment}
-
-**To make it great:** Focus on the top 3 improvements above.
-```
-
-### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**Holistic Quality Assessment Complete**
-
-Overall Rating: {rating}/5 - {label}
-
-**Proceeding to final validation checks...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-12-completeness-validation.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- Advanced Elicitation used for multi-perspective evaluation (or graceful degradation)
-- Document flow & coherence assessed
-- Dual audience effectiveness evaluated (humans and LLMs)
-- BMAD PRD principles compliance checked
-- Overall quality rating assigned (1-5 scale)
-- Top 3 improvements identified
-- Comprehensive assessment reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not using Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
-- Missing document flow assessment
-- Missing dual audience evaluation
-- Not checking all BMAD principles
-- Not assigning overall quality rating
-- Missing top 3 improvements
-- Not reporting comprehensive assessment to validation report
-- Not auto-proceeding
-
-**Master Rule:** This evaluates the WHOLE document, not just components. Answers "Is this a good PRD?" and "What would make it great?"
+---
+name: 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation'
+description: 'Holistic Quality Assessment - Assess PRD as cohesive, compelling document - is it a good PRD?'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-12-completeness-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+---
+
+# Step 11: Holistic Quality Assessment
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Assess the PRD as a cohesive, compelling document - evaluating document flow, dual audience effectiveness (humans and LLMs), BMAD PRD principles compliance, and overall quality rating.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and document quality expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+- ✅ Uses Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on holistic document quality assessment
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate individual components (done in previous steps)
+- 💬 Approach: Multi-perspective evaluation using Advanced Elicitation
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Use Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective assessment
+- 🎯 Evaluate document flow, dual audience, BMAD principles
+- 💾 Append comprehensive assessment to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Complete PRD file, validation report with findings from steps 1-10
+- Focus: Holistic quality - the WHOLE document
+- Limits: Don't re-validate individual components, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 1-10 completed - all systematic checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process with Advanced Elicitation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess using Advanced Elicitation:**
+
+"Perform holistic quality assessment on this PRD using multi-perspective evaluation:
+
+**Read fully and follow the Advanced Elicitation workflow:**
+{advancedElicitationTask}
+
+**Evaluate the PRD from these perspectives:**
+
+**1. Document Flow & Coherence:**
+- Read entire PRD
+- Evaluate narrative flow - does it tell a cohesive story?
+- Check transitions between sections
+- Assess consistency - is it coherent throughout?
+- Evaluate readability - is it clear and well-organized?
+
+**2. Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Executive-friendly: Can executives understand vision and goals quickly?
+- Developer clarity: Do developers have clear requirements to build from?
+- Designer clarity: Do designers understand user needs and flows?
+- Stakeholder decision-making: Can stakeholders make informed decisions?
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- Machine-readable structure: Is the PRD structured for LLM consumption?
+- UX readiness: Can an LLM generate UX designs from this?
+- Architecture readiness: Can an LLM generate architecture from this?
+- Epic/Story readiness: Can an LLM break down into epics and stories?
+
+**3. BMAD PRD Principles Compliance:**
+- Information density: Every sentence carries weight?
+- Measurability: Requirements testable?
+- Traceability: Requirements trace to sources?
+- Domain awareness: Domain-specific considerations included?
+- Zero anti-patterns: No filler or wordiness?
+- Dual audience: Works for both humans and LLMs?
+- Markdown format: Proper structure and formatting?
+
+**4. Overall Quality Rating:**
+Rate the PRD on 5-point scale:
+- Excellent (5/5): Exemplary, ready for production use
+- Good (4/5): Strong with minor improvements needed
+- Adequate (3/5): Acceptable but needs refinement
+- Needs Work (2/5): Significant gaps or issues
+- Problematic (1/5): Major flaws, needs substantial revision
+
+**5. Top 3 Improvements:**
+Identify the 3 most impactful improvements to make this a great PRD
+
+Return comprehensive assessment with all perspectives, rating, and top 3 improvements."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool or Advanced Elicitation unavailable):**
+- Perform holistic assessment directly in current context
+- Read complete PRD
+- Evaluate document flow, coherence, transitions
+- Assess dual audience effectiveness
+- Check BMAD principles compliance
+- Assign overall quality rating
+- Identify top 3 improvements
+
+### 2. Synthesize Assessment
+
+**Compile findings from multi-perspective evaluation:**
+
+**Document Flow & Coherence:**
+- Overall assessment: [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
+- Key strengths: [list]
+- Key weaknesses: [list]
+
+**Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
+- For Humans: [assessment]
+- For LLMs: [assessment]
+- Overall dual audience score: [1-5]
+
+**BMAD Principles Compliance:**
+- Principles met: [count]/7
+- Principles with issues: [list]
+
+**Overall Quality Rating:** [1-5 with label]
+
+**Top 3 Improvements:**
+1. [Improvement 1]
+2. [Improvement 2]
+3. [Improvement 3]
+
+### 3. Report Holistic Quality Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Holistic Quality Assessment
+
+### Document Flow & Coherence
+
+**Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
+
+**Strengths:**
+{List key strengths}
+
+**Areas for Improvement:**
+{List key weaknesses}
+
+### Dual Audience Effectiveness
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Executive-friendly: [assessment]
+- Developer clarity: [assessment]
+- Designer clarity: [assessment]
+- Stakeholder decision-making: [assessment]
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- Machine-readable structure: [assessment]
+- UX readiness: [assessment]
+- Architecture readiness: [assessment]
+- Epic/Story readiness: [assessment]
+
+**Dual Audience Score:** {score}/5
+
+### BMAD PRD Principles Compliance
+
+| Principle | Status | Notes |
+|-----------|--------|-------|
+| Information Density | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Measurability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Traceability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Domain Awareness | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Zero Anti-Patterns | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Dual Audience | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Markdown Format | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+
+**Principles Met:** {count}/7
+
+### Overall Quality Rating
+
+**Rating:** {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Scale:**
+- 5/5 - Excellent: Exemplary, ready for production use
+- 4/5 - Good: Strong with minor improvements needed
+- 3/5 - Adequate: Acceptable but needs refinement
+- 2/5 - Needs Work: Significant gaps or issues
+- 1/5 - Problematic: Major flaws, needs substantial revision
+
+### Top 3 Improvements
+
+1. **{Improvement 1}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+2. **{Improvement 2}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+3. **{Improvement 3}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+### Summary
+
+**This PRD is:** {one-sentence overall assessment}
+
+**To make it great:** Focus on the top 3 improvements above.
+```
+
+### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Holistic Quality Assessment Complete**
+
+Overall Rating: {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Proceeding to final validation checks...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-12-completeness-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Advanced Elicitation used for multi-perspective evaluation (or graceful degradation)
+- Document flow & coherence assessed
+- Dual audience effectiveness evaluated (humans and LLMs)
+- BMAD PRD principles compliance checked
+- Overall quality rating assigned (1-5 scale)
+- Top 3 improvements identified
+- Comprehensive assessment reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not using Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
+- Missing document flow assessment
+- Missing dual audience evaluation
+- Not checking all BMAD principles
+- Not assigning overall quality rating
+- Missing top 3 improvements
+- Not reporting comprehensive assessment to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** This evaluates the WHOLE document, not just components. Answers "Is this a good PRD?" and "What would make it great?"