@windagency/valora 2.0.1

package/data/prompts/07_documentation/generate-functional-review-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,410 @@
+---
+id: documentation.generate-functional-review-report
+version: 1.0.0
+category: documentation
+experimental: true
+name: Generate Functional Review Report
+description: Synthesize functional validation results into comprehensive, actionable report with go/no-go decision
+tags:
+  - documentation
+  - functional-review
+  - reporting
+model_requirements:
+  min_context: 128000
+  recommended:
+    - claude-sonnet-4.5
+agents:
+  - lead
+dependencies:
+  requires:
+    - context.use-modern-cli-tools
+    - review.validate-functional-requirements
+inputs:
+  - name: completeness_score
+    description: Overall completeness score from validation
+    type: number
+    required: true
+  - name: functional_gaps
+    description: Identified functional gaps
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: ux_issues
+    description: UX and usability issues
+    type: array
+    required: true
+  - name: workflow_validation
+    description: Workflow validation results
+    type: object
+    required: true
+  - name: requirements_coverage
+    description: Requirements coverage details
+    type: object
+    required: true
+outputs:
+  - functional_report
+  - go_no_go_decision
+  - recommendations
+tokens:
+  avg: 4500
+  max: 9000
+  min: 2500
+---
+
+# Generate Functional Review Report
+
+## Objective
+
+Synthesize functional validation results into a clear, actionable report with a definitive go/no-go decision based on requirements coverage and user impact.
+
+## Instructions
+
+### Step 1: Generate Executive Summary
+
+Create high-level overview with key metrics.
+
+```markdown
+# Functional Review Report
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Completeness Score**: [score]/100
+**Overall Status**: [APPROVED ✅ | CHANGES REQUESTED ⚠️ | BLOCKED ❌]
+**Review Date**: [ISO timestamp]
+**Reviewer**: @lead
+**Feature**: [Feature name]
+
+**Requirements Coverage**: [X]/[Y] acceptance criteria met ([percentage]%)
+**User Workflows**: [X]/[Y] workflows validated
+**Critical Issues**: [count]
+**High Priority Issues**: [count]
+
+**Key Findings**:
+
+- [1-3 bullet points summarizing main functional gaps or achievements]
+
+**Recommendation**: [One sentence decision with brief justification]
+```
+
+**Status Determination**:
+
+- ✅ **APPROVED**: All P0 requirements met, critical workflows pass, completeness ≥90%
+- ⚠️ **CHANGES REQUESTED**: Minor gaps, completeness 70-89%, or high-priority issues
+- ❌ **BLOCKED**: P0 requirements unmet, critical workflows broken, completeness <70%
+
+### Step 2: Report Critical Functional Issues
+
+For each **CRITICAL** issue:
+
+```markdown
+## Critical Functional Issues (Must Fix)
+
+### 🔴 [Issue Title - User Impact Focus]
+
+**Requirement**: [Link to acceptance criterion - e.g., AC-002]
+**Severity**: CRITICAL
+**Category**: [Functionality | UX | Integration | Edge Case]
+
+**Problem**:
+[Clear description from user perspective]
+
+**User Impact**:
+[How this affects users - what breaks, what's impossible, business consequence]
+
+**Reproduction Steps**:
+
+1. [Step 1]
+2. [Step 2]
+3. [Expected vs Actual behavior]
+
+**Current Behavior**:
+[What actually happens]
+
+**Expected Behavior**:
+[What should happen per requirements]
+
+**Recommendation**:
+[Specific fix needed with implementation guidance]
+
+**Effort**: [Low | Medium | High]
+**Priority**: Must fix before commit
+```
+
+### Step 3: Report High Priority Issues
+
+For **HIGH** severity issues:
+
+```markdown
+## High Priority Issues
+
+### 🟠 [Issue Title]
+
+**Requirement**: [Link to criterion]
+**Severity**: HIGH
+**Category**: [...]
+
+**Problem**: [User-centric description]
+**User Impact**: [Significant UX degradation or major feature gap]
+**Current vs Expected**: [Gap analysis]
+**Recommendation**: [Specific fix]
+**Effort**: [Low | Medium | High]
+**Priority**: Strongly recommended before commit
+```
+
+### Step 4: Report Medium and Low Priority Issues
+
+```markdown
+## Medium Priority Issues
+
+### 🟡 [Issue Title]
+
+**Severity**: MEDIUM
+**Category**: [...]
+**Problem**: [Description]
+**User Impact**: [Minor inconvenience or usability issue]
+**Recommendation**: [Suggestion]
+**Effort**: [Low | Medium | High]
+**Priority**: Address soon (suggested)
+
+## Low Priority Enhancements (Optional)
+
+- **[Location]**: [Brief description and suggestion]
+- **[Location]**: [Brief description and suggestion]
+```
+
+### Step 5: Requirements Validation Matrix
+
+Provide clear status table:
+
+```markdown
+## Requirements Validation Matrix
+
+| Acceptance Criterion  | Status     | Notes             |
+| --------------------- | ---------- | ----------------- |
+| AC-001: [Description] | ✅ PASS    | [validation note] |
+| AC-002: [Description] | ❌ FAIL    | [gap description] |
+| AC-003: [Description] | ⚠️ PARTIAL | [what's missing]  |
+
+**Coverage Summary**:
+
+- Total Acceptance Criteria: [N]
+- Passed: [X] ([percentage]%)
+- Partial: [Y]
+- Failed: [Z]
+```
+
+### Step 6: User Workflow Validation
+
+Report workflow test results:
+
+```markdown
+## User Workflow Validation
+
+### Primary Workflows
+
+1. **[Workflow Name]**: ✅ VALIDATED
+   - All steps complete successfully
+   - User feedback clear and timely
+   - Error handling appropriate
+
+2. **[Workflow Name]**: ❌ ISSUES FOUND
+   - **Issue**: [Description with user impact]
+   - **Severity**: [HIGH/MEDIUM]
+   - **Location**: [file:line]
+
+### Secondary Workflows
+
+[Same format]
+
+### Edge Cases Tested
+
+- ✅ Empty state handling
+- ⚠️ Error recovery needs improvement (see HIGH-002)
+- ❌ Extreme value handling fails (see CRITICAL-001)
+```
+
+### Step 7: UX/Usability Assessment
+
+```markdown
+## UX/Usability Assessment
+
+**Overall UX Quality**: [Excellent | Good | Needs Improvement | Poor]
+
+**Strengths**:
+
+- ✅ [Positive UX aspect with specific example]
+- ✅ [Good practice observed]
+
+**Issues**:
+
+- ⚠️ [Usability concern with user impact]
+- ❌ [Critical UX issue]
+
+**Consistency with Design System**: [Yes | Partial | No]
+**Mobile Experience**: [Excellent | Good | Needs Work | Not Tested]
+```
+
+### Step 8: Accessibility Compliance (If Checked)
+
+```markdown
+## Accessibility Compliance
+
+**WCAG 2.1 AA Status**: [Compliant ✅ | Partial ⚠️ | Non-Compliant ❌]
+
+**Issues Found**:
+
+- [A11y issue with specific guideline reference]
+- [Impact on users with disabilities]
+
+**Keyboard Navigation**: [Validated ✅ | Issues Found ❌]
+**Screen Reader Compatible**: [Yes ✅ | Issues Found ❌]
+```
+
+### Step 9: Integration & Data Validation
+
+```markdown
+## Integration & Data Validation
+
+**API Integration**: [validated ✅ | issues found ❌]
+**State Management**: [consistent ✅ | inconsistencies found ❌]
+**Data Flow**: [correct ✅ | issues found ❌]
+**Error Handling**: [robust ✅ | gaps found ❌]
+
+**Issues**:
+
+- [Integration issue with severity and impact]
+```
+
+### Step 10: Recommendations Summary
+
+```markdown
+## Recommendations Summary
+
+### 🔴 Blocking Issues (Fix Before Commit)
+
+1. **[Issue ID]**: [Specific action item] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+2. **[Issue ID]**: [Specific action item] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+
+**Total blocking issues**: [count]
+**Estimated fix time**: [time estimate]
+
+### 🟠 High Priority Improvements (Strongly Recommended)
+
+1. **[Issue ID]**: [Action] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+2. **[Issue ID]**: [Action] - Effort: [Low/Med/High]
+
+### 🟡 Future Enhancements (Consider for Next Iteration)
+
+1. [Enhancement idea with business value]
+2. [Enhancement idea]
+```
+
+### Step 11: Final Decision
+
+```markdown
+## Final Decision
+
+**Recommendation**: [APPROVE AND PROCEED TO COMMIT | REQUEST CHANGES AND RE-IMPLEMENT | BLOCKED - CRITICAL REQUIREMENTS UNMET]
+
+**Justification**:
+[2-3 sentences explaining decision based on requirements coverage, user impact, and workflow validation]
+
+**Acceptance Criteria Met**: [X]/[Y] ([percentage]%)
+**Critical Workflows Validated**: [Yes/No]
+**User Impact Assessment**: [Positive/Neutral/Negative]
+
+**Next Steps**:
+
+1. [Specific action required]
+2. [Specific action required]
+3. [Re-review requirements or proceed to commit]
+
+---
+
+**Ready for Production**: [Yes/No]
+**Feature Completeness**: [percentage]%
+**Approval Conditions** (if applicable):
+
+- [Condition that must be met before approval]
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+```json
+{
+	"functional_report": "# Functional Review Report\n\n## Executive Summary\n...",
+	"go_no_go_decision": {
+		"decision": "REQUEST_CHANGES",
+		"status": "CHANGES_REQUESTED",
+		"completeness_score": 85,
+		"requirements_met": 4,
+		"requirements_total": 5,
+		"critical_issues": 2,
+		"high_issues": 3,
+		"ready_for_commit": false,
+		"justification": "2 critical functional gaps prevent full feature completeness: no email resend option and no graceful error handling for service failures."
+	},
+	"recommendations": [
+		{
+			"priority": "critical",
+			"issue_id": "FUNC-001",
+			"description": "Add resend verification email option",
+			"requirement_id": "AC-003",
+			"effort": "medium",
+			"user_impact": "High - users with expired tokens cannot recover"
+		},
+		{
+			"priority": "critical",
+			"issue_id": "FUNC-002",
+			"description": "Implement graceful error handling for email service failures",
+			"requirement_id": "AC-001",
+			"effort": "low",
+			"user_impact": "High - users see cryptic 500 errors"
+		}
+	],
+	"next_steps": [
+		"Fix 2 blocking functional gaps",
+		"Improve error messaging for user clarity",
+		"Add loading indicators for better UX",
+		"Re-run /review-functional after fixes"
+	],
+	"estimated_fix_time": "2-4 hours"
+}
+```
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+- ✅ Executive summary provides quick overview
+- ✅ All critical functional gaps highlighted
+- ✅ Requirements validation matrix clear
+- ✅ Workflow validation results documented
+- ✅ UX assessment from user perspective
+- ✅ Recommendations prioritized by user impact
+- ✅ Clear go/no-go decision with justification
+- ✅ Next steps actionable
+
+## Rules
+
+**DO**:
+
+- ✅ Frame issues from user perspective
+- ✅ Link issues to specific acceptance criteria
+- ✅ Provide reproduction steps for functional issues
+- ✅ Quantify user impact
+- ✅ Balance criticism with achievements
+- ✅ Be specific about what needs fixing
+
+**DON'T**:
+
+- ❌ Don't conflate functional issues with code quality
+- ❌ Don't approve with unmet P0 requirements
+- ❌ Don't use technical jargon for user impact
+- ❌ Don't skip reproduction steps
+- ❌ Don't overlook workflow failures
+
+**Decision Guidelines**:
+
+- **APPROVE**: ≥90% completeness, all P0 met, critical workflows pass
+- **REQUEST CHANGES**: 70-89% completeness, minor P0 gaps, high-priority issues
+- **BLOCK**: <70% completeness, major P0 gaps, critical workflows broken
+
+**Tone**: User-centric, constructive, actionable, clear about business impact