@zeyue0329/xiaoma-cli 1.13.0 → 1.15.0

package/src/xmc/workflows/2-plan-workflows/xiaoma-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md

@@ -1,206 +0,0 @@
----
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 10: SMART Requirements Validation
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable), ensuring high-quality requirements.
-
-## 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}`
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_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 requirements engineering expertise and quality assessment
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR quality assessment using SMART framework
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
-- 💬 Approach: Score each FR on SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Extract all FRs from PRD
-- 🎯 Score each FR on SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable)
-- 💾 Flag FRs with score < 3 in any category
-- 📖 Append scoring table and suggestions to validation report
-- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
-
-- Available context: PRD file, validation report
-- Focus: FR quality assessment only using SMART framework
-- Limits: Don't validate NFRs or other aspects, don't pause for user input
-- Dependencies: Steps 2-9 completed - comprehensive validation checks done
-
-## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
-
-**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
-
-### 1. Extract All Functional Requirements
-
-From the PRD's Functional Requirements section, extract:
-- All FRs with their FR numbers (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
-- Count total FRs
-
-### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
-
-**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
-
-"Perform SMART requirements validation on these Functional Requirements:
-
-{List all FRs}
-
-**For each FR, score on SMART criteria (1-5 scale):**
-
-**Specific (1-5):**
-- 5: Clear, unambiguous, well-defined
-- 3: Somewhat clear but could be more specific
-- 1: Vague, ambiguous, unclear
-
-**Measurable (1-5):**
-- 5: Quantifiable metrics, testable
-- 3: Partially measurable
-- 1: Not measurable, subjective
-
-**Attainable (1-5):**
-- 5: Realistic, achievable with constraints
-- 3: Probably achievable but uncertain
-- 1: Unrealistic, technically infeasible
-
-**Relevant (1-5):**
-- 5: Clearly aligned with user needs and business objectives
-- 3: Somewhat relevant but connection unclear
-- 1: Not relevant, doesn't align with goals
-
-**Traceable (1-5):**
-- 5: Clearly traces to user journey or business objective
-- 3: Partially traceable
-- 1: Orphan requirement, no clear source
-
-**For each FR with score < 3 in any category:**
-- Provide specific improvement suggestions
-
-Return scoring table with all FR scores and improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs."
-
-**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
-- Manually score each FR on SMART criteria
-- Note FRs with low scores
-- Provide improvement suggestions
-
-### 3. Build Scoring Table
-
-For each FR:
-- FR number
-- Specific score (1-5)
-- Measurable score (1-5)
-- Attainable score (1-5)
-- Relevant score (1-5)
-- Traceable score (1-5)
-- Average score
-- Flag if any category < 3
-
-**Calculate overall FR quality:**
-- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 3
-- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 4
-- Average score across all FRs and categories
-
-### 4. Report SMART Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## SMART Requirements Validation
-
-**Total Functional Requirements:** {count}
-
-### Scoring Summary
-
-**All scores ≥ 3:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
-**All scores ≥ 4:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
-**Overall Average Score:** {average}/5.0
-
-### Scoring Table
-
-| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag |
-|------|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----------|--------|------|
-| FR-001 | {s1} | {m1} | {a1} | {r1} | {t1} | {avg1} | {X if any <3} |
-| FR-002 | {s2} | {m2} | {a2} | {r2} | {t2} | {avg2} | {X if any <3} |
-[Continue for all FRs]
-
-**Legend:** 1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent
-**Flag:** X = Score < 3 in one or more categories
-
-### Improvement Suggestions
-
-**Low-Scoring FRs:**
-
-**FR-{number}:** {specific suggestion for improvement}
-[For each FR with score < 3 in any category]
-
-### Overall Assessment
-
-**Severity:** [Critical if >30% flagged FRs, Warning if 10-30%, Pass if <10%]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-[If Critical] "Many FRs have quality issues. Revise flagged FRs using SMART framework to improve clarity and testability."
-[If Warning] "Some FRs would benefit from SMART refinement. Focus on flagged requirements above."
-[If Pass] "Functional Requirements demonstrate good SMART quality overall."
-```
-
-### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**SMART Requirements Validation Complete**
-
-FR Quality: {percentage}% with acceptable scores ({severity})
-
-**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- All FRs extracted from PRD
-- Each FR scored on all 5 SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
-- FRs with scores < 3 flagged for improvement
-- Improvement suggestions provided for low-scoring FRs
-- Scoring table built with all FR scores
-- Overall quality assessment calculated
-- Findings reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not scoring all FRs on all SMART criteria
-- Missing improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs
-- Not building scoring table
-- Not calculating overall quality metrics
-- Not reporting findings to validation report
-- Not auto-proceeding
-
-**Master Rule:** FRs should be high-quality, not just present. SMART framework provides objective quality measure.

package/src/xmc/workflows/2-plan-workflows/xiaoma-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md

@@ -1,261 +0,0 @@
----
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-12-completeness-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 11: Holistic Quality Assessment
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Assess the PRD as a cohesive, compelling document - evaluating document flow, dual audience effectiveness (humans and LLMs), XiaoMa 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}`
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_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, XiaoMa 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:
-
-**Advanced Elicitation workflow:**
-Invoke the `xiaoma-advanced-elicitation` skill
-
-**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. XiaoMa 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 XiaoMa 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]
-
-**XiaoMa 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
-
-### XiaoMa 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)
-- XiaoMa 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 XiaoMa 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?"

package/src/xmc/workflows/2-plan-workflows/xiaoma-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-12-completeness-validation.md

@@ -1,239 +0,0 @@
----
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-13-report-complete.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 12: Completeness Validation
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Final comprehensive completeness check - validate no template variables remain, each section has required content, section-specific completeness, and frontmatter is properly populated.
-
-## 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 attention to detail and completeness verification
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on completeness verification
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate quality (done in step 11) or other aspects
-- 💬 Approach: Systematic checklist-style verification
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Check template completeness (no variables remaining)
-- 🎯 Validate content completeness (each section has required content)
-- 🎯 Validate section-specific completeness
-- 🎯 Validate frontmatter completeness
-- 💾 Append completeness matrix to validation report
-- 📖 Display "Proceeding to final step..." and load next step
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
-
-- Available context: Complete PRD file, frontmatter, validation report
-- Focus: Completeness verification only (final gate)
-- Limits: Don't assess quality, don't pause for user input
-- Dependencies: Steps 1-11 completed - all validation 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 Validation
-
-**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
-
-"Perform completeness validation on this PRD - final gate check:
-
-**1. Template Completeness:**
-- Scan PRD for any remaining template variables
-- Look for: {variable}, {{variable}}, {placeholder}, [placeholder], etc.
-- List any found with line numbers
-
-**2. Content Completeness:**
-- Executive Summary: Has vision statement? ({key content})
-- Success Criteria: All criteria measurable? ({metrics present})
-- Product Scope: In-scope and out-of-scope defined? ({both present})
-- User Journeys: User types identified? ({users listed})
-- Functional Requirements: FRs listed with proper format? ({FRs present})
-- Non-Functional Requirements: NFRs with metrics? ({NFRs present})
-
-For each section: Is required content present? (Yes/No/Partial)
-
-**3. Section-Specific Completeness:**
-- Success Criteria: Each has specific measurement method?
-- User Journeys: Cover all user types?
-- Functional Requirements: Cover MVP scope?
-- Non-Functional Requirements: Each has specific criteria?
-
-**4. Frontmatter Completeness:**
-- stepsCompleted: Populated?
-- classification: Present (domain, projectType)?
-- inputDocuments: Tracked?
-- date: Present?
-
-Return completeness matrix with status for each check."
-
-**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
-- Manually scan for template variables
-- Manually check each section for required content
-- Manually verify frontmatter fields
-- Build completeness matrix
-
-### 2. Build Completeness Matrix
-
-**Template Completeness:**
-- Template variables found: count
-- List if any found
-
-**Content Completeness by Section:**
-- Executive Summary: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
-- Success Criteria: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
-- Product Scope: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
-- User Journeys: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
-- Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
-- Non-Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
-- Other sections: [List completeness]
-
-**Section-Specific Completeness:**
-- Success criteria measurable: All / Some / None
-- Journeys cover all users: Yes / Partial / No
-- FRs cover MVP scope: Yes / Partial / No
-- NFRs have specific criteria: All / Some / None
-
-**Frontmatter Completeness:**
-- stepsCompleted: Present / Missing
-- classification: Present / Missing
-- inputDocuments: Present / Missing
-- date: Present / Missing
-
-**Overall completeness:**
-- Sections complete: X/Y
-- Critical gaps: [list if any]
-
-### 3. Report Completeness Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Completeness Validation
-
-### Template Completeness
-
-**Template Variables Found:** {count}
-{If count > 0, list variables with line numbers}
-{If count = 0, note: No template variables remaining ✓}
-
-### Content Completeness by Section
-
-**Executive Summary:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
-{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
-
-**Success Criteria:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
-{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
-
-**Product Scope:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
-{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
-
-**User Journeys:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
-{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
-
-**Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
-{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
-
-**Non-Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
-{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
-
-### Section-Specific Completeness
-
-**Success Criteria Measurability:** [All/Some/None] measurable
-{If Some or None, note which criteria lack metrics}
-
-**User Journeys Coverage:** [Yes/Partial/No] - covers all user types
-{If Partial or No, note missing user types}
-
-**FRs Cover MVP Scope:** [Yes/Partial/No]
-{If Partial or No, note scope gaps}
-
-**NFRs Have Specific Criteria:** [All/Some/None]
-{If Some or None, note which NFRs lack specificity}
-
-### Frontmatter Completeness
-
-**stepsCompleted:** [Present/Missing]
-**classification:** [Present/Missing]
-**inputDocuments:** [Present/Missing]
-**date:** [Present/Missing]
-
-**Frontmatter Completeness:** {complete_fields}/4
-
-### Completeness Summary
-
-**Overall Completeness:** {percentage}% ({complete_sections}/{total_sections})
-
-**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
-**Minor Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
-
-**Severity:** [Critical if template variables exist or critical sections missing, Warning if minor gaps, Pass if complete]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-[If Critical] "PRD has completeness gaps that must be addressed before use. Fix template variables and complete missing sections."
-[If Warning] "PRD has minor completeness gaps. Address minor gaps for complete documentation."
-[If Pass] "PRD is complete with all required sections and content present."
-```
-
-### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**Completeness Validation Complete**
-
-Overall Completeness: {percentage}% ({severity})
-
-**Proceeding to final step...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-13-report-complete.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- Scanned for template variables systematically
-- Validated each section for required content
-- Validated section-specific completeness (measurability, coverage, scope)
-- Validated frontmatter completeness
-- Completeness matrix built with all checks
-- Severity assessed correctly
-- Findings reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to final step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not scanning for template variables
-- Missing section-specific completeness checks
-- Not validating frontmatter
-- Not building completeness matrix
-- Not reporting findings to validation report
-- Not auto-proceeding
-
-**Master Rule:** Final gate to ensure document is complete before presenting findings. Template variables or critical gaps must be fixed.