bmad-module-skill-forge 0.2.0

package/src/workflows/audit-skill/validation-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,545 @@
+---
+validationDate: 2026-02-27
+workflowName: audit-skill
+workflowPath: _bmad-output/bmb-creations/workflows/audit-skill
+validationStatus: COMPLETE
+completionDate: 2026-02-27
+---
+
+# Validation Report: audit-skill
+
+**Validation Started:** 2026-02-27
+**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System
+**Standards Version:** BMAD Workflow Standards
+
+---
+
+## File Structure & Size
+
+### Folder Structure
+
+```
+audit-skill/
+├── workflow.md                          (63 lines)
+├── data/
+│   ├── drift-report-template.md         (62 lines)
+│   └── severity-rules.md               (52 lines)
+├── steps-c/
+│   ├── step-01-init.md                  (196 lines)
+│   ├── step-02-re-index.md              (191 lines)
+│   ├── step-03-structural-diff.md       (194 lines)
+│   ├── step-04-semantic-diff.md         (199 lines)
+│   ├── step-05-severity-classify.md     (210 lines)
+│   └── step-06-report.md               (217 lines)
+└── workflow-plan-audit-skill.md         (plan document)
+```
+
+### Structure Assessment
+
+| Check | Status |
+|-------|--------|
+| workflow.md exists | ✅ PASS |
+| steps-c/ folder organized | ✅ PASS |
+| data/ folder organized | ✅ PASS |
+| Sequential numbering (01-06) | ✅ PASS |
+| No numbering gaps | ✅ PASS |
+| Final step exists (step-06) | ✅ PASS |
+| Folder names make sense | ✅ PASS |
+
+### File Size Analysis
+
+| File | Lines | Status |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | 196 | ✅ Good (< 200) |
+| step-02-re-index.md | 191 | ✅ Good (< 200) |
+| step-03-structural-diff.md | 194 | ✅ Good (< 200) |
+| step-04-semantic-diff.md | 199 | ✅ Good (< 200) |
+| step-05-severity-classify.md | 210 | ⚠️ Approaching limit (200-250) |
+| step-06-report.md | 217 | ⚠️ Approaching limit (200-250) |
+| workflow.md | 63 | ✅ Good |
+| drift-report-template.md | 62 | ✅ Good |
+| severity-rules.md | 52 | ✅ Good |
+
+### Size Findings
+
+- 4 of 6 step files within recommended limit (< 200 lines)
+- 2 step files approaching limit but within absolute maximum (< 250):
+  - step-05-severity-classify.md (210 lines) — Contains full classification tables and rules
+  - step-06-report.md (217 lines) — Final step with remediation templates and provenance section
+- Both files have dense structured content (tables, templates) that justifies the size
+- **Recommendation:** Acceptable as-is. Could extract remediation templates to data/ if size becomes an issue during future edits.
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (with 2 warnings)
+
+---
+
+## Frontmatter Validation
+
+### Per-File Analysis
+
+| File | Declared Vars (excl name/desc) | All Used? | Path Format | Forbidden Patterns | Status |
+|------|-------------------------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | nextStepFile, outputFile, templateFile, severityRulesFile | ❌ `severityRulesFile` unused | ✅ Correct | ✅ None | ❌ FAIL |
+| step-02-re-index.md | nextStepFile, outputFile | ✅ All used | ✅ Correct | ✅ None | ✅ PASS |
+| step-03-structural-diff.md | nextStepFile, outputFile | ✅ All used | ✅ Correct | ✅ None | ✅ PASS |
+| step-04-semantic-diff.md | nextStepFile, outputFile | ✅ All used | ✅ Correct | ✅ None | ✅ PASS |
+| step-05-severity-classify.md | nextStepFile, outputFile, severityRulesFile | ✅ All used | ✅ Correct | ✅ None | ✅ PASS |
+| step-06-report.md | outputFile | ✅ All used | ✅ Correct | ✅ None | ✅ PASS |
+
+### Violations Found
+
+**1. step-01-init.md — Unused Variable**
+- `severityRulesFile: '../data/severity-rules.md'` is declared in frontmatter but never referenced as `{severityRulesFile}` in the step body
+- This variable belongs in step-05-severity-classify.md (where it IS correctly used)
+- **Fix:** Remove `severityRulesFile` from step-01-init.md frontmatter
+
+### Notes
+
+- Composite variables in outputFile values (`{forge_data_folder}`, `{skill_name}`, `{timestamp}`) are resolved from SKF module config — this is the standard BMAD pattern for output paths
+- Template placeholders inside markdown code blocks (e.g., `{count}`, `{finding}`, `{severity}`) are instructional templates, not frontmatter variables
+- `{communication_language}` referenced in universal rules is a standard BMAD config variable, not a frontmatter variable
+
+### Overall: ❌ FAIL (1 violation — easily fixable)
+
+## Critical Path Violations
+
+### Config Variables (Exceptions)
+
+From workflow.md Configuration Loading: `{project-root}`, plus SKF module variables: `{project_name}`, `{output_folder}`, `{skills_output_folder}`, `{forge_data_folder}`, `{sidecar_path}`, `{communication_language}`, `{document_output_language}`
+
+### Content Path Violations
+
+No hardcoded `{project-root}/` paths found in any step body content. All path references use frontmatter variables correctly.
+
+### Dead Links
+
+All relative file references resolve correctly:
+
+| Source File | Reference | Target | Status |
+|-------------|-----------|--------|--------|
+| step-01 | `./step-02-re-index.md` | steps-c/step-02-re-index.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+| step-01 | `../data/drift-report-template.md` | data/drift-report-template.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+| step-01 | `../data/severity-rules.md` | data/severity-rules.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+| step-02 | `./step-03-structural-diff.md` | steps-c/step-03-structural-diff.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+| step-03 | `./step-04-semantic-diff.md` | steps-c/step-04-semantic-diff.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+| step-04 | `./step-05-severity-classify.md` | steps-c/step-05-severity-classify.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+| step-05 | `./step-06-report.md` | steps-c/step-06-report.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+| step-05 | `../data/severity-rules.md` | data/severity-rules.md | ✅ EXISTS |
+
+Output file paths using `{forge_data_folder}` correctly skipped (won't exist until workflow runs).
+
+### Module Awareness
+
+No bmb-specific path assumptions found. Workflow correctly uses SKF module variables.
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (0 violations)
+
+## Menu Handling Validation
+
+### Per-File Menu Analysis
+
+| File | Menu Type | Handler Section | Execution Rules | Halt & Wait | Non-C Redisplay | A/P Appropriate | Status |
+|------|-----------|----------------|-----------------|-------------|----------------|-----------------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | C-only (user gate) | ✅ Present | ✅ Present | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | ✅ No A/P (init) | ✅ PASS |
+| step-02-re-index.md | Auto-proceed | ✅ Auto-proceed handler | ✅ "No user choices" | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ No A/P | ✅ PASS |
+| step-03-structural-diff.md | Auto-proceed | ✅ Auto-proceed handler | ✅ "No user choices" | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ No A/P | ✅ PASS |
+| step-04-semantic-diff.md | Auto-proceed | ✅ Auto-proceed handler | ✅ "No user choices" | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ No A/P | ✅ PASS |
+| step-05-severity-classify.md | Auto-proceed | ✅ Auto-proceed handler | ✅ "No user choices" | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ No A/P | ✅ PASS |
+| step-06-report.md | Final step (no menu) | N/A (final) | N/A (final) | N/A | N/A | ✅ No A/P | ✅ PASS |
+
+### Findings
+
+- Step-01 correctly uses C-only menu (init step — no A/P)
+- Steps 02-05 correctly use auto-proceed (deterministic analysis — no user choices needed)
+- Step-06 correctly has no menu (final step — presents results)
+- No reserved letter violations
+- Menu pattern matches design: 1 user gate at init, 4 auto-proceed analysis steps, 1 final presentation
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (0 violations)
+
+## Step Type Validation
+
+### Per-File Type Analysis
+
+| File | Expected Type | Actual Type | Pattern Match | Status |
+|------|--------------|-------------|---------------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | Init with Input Discovery | Init with Input Discovery | ✅ Input discovery (skill, provenance, tier), creates output from template, C-only user gate | ✅ PASS |
+| step-02-re-index.md | Middle (Simple), Auto-proceed | Middle (Simple), Auto-proceed | ✅ No A/P, auto-proceed handler, mandatory rules | ✅ PASS |
+| step-03-structural-diff.md | Middle (Simple), Auto-proceed | Middle (Simple), Auto-proceed | ✅ No A/P, auto-proceed handler, mandatory rules | ✅ PASS |
+| step-04-semantic-diff.md | Middle (Simple) + Conditional Skip | Middle (Simple) + Conditional Skip | ✅ Tier check first, skip logic for Quick/Forge, auto-proceed | ✅ PASS |
+| step-05-severity-classify.md | Middle (Simple), Auto-proceed | Middle (Simple), Auto-proceed | ✅ Loads rules, classifies findings, auto-proceed | ✅ PASS |
+| step-06-report.md | Final Step | Final Step | ✅ No nextStepFile, completion message, no menu | ✅ PASS |
+
+### Type-Specific Checks
+
+**Init (step-01):**
+- ✅ Creates output from template (`{templateFile}`)
+- ✅ C-only menu (no A/P — appropriate for init)
+- ✅ Input discovery: loads SKILL.md, metadata.json, provenance-map.json, forge-tier.yaml
+- ✅ User gate with baseline summary before analysis
+
+**Auto-Proceed Steps (02-05):**
+- ✅ All have "auto-proceed analysis step with no user choices" execution rules
+- ✅ All auto-load next step after completion
+- ✅ None have A/P menus (correct for deterministic analysis)
+
+**Conditional Skip (step-04):**
+- ✅ Tier check is FIRST instruction
+- ✅ Skip path appends skip notice and auto-proceeds
+- ✅ Deep tier path executes full semantic analysis
+
+**Final Step (step-06):**
+- ✅ No nextStepFile in frontmatter
+- ✅ Presents final report summary to user
+- ✅ Includes next-workflow recommendation
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (0 violations)
+
+## Output Format Validation
+
+### Document Production
+
+- **Produces document:** Yes (drift report)
+- **Template type:** Structured (required sections with clear headers)
+- **Template location:** `data/drift-report-template.md` (62 lines)
+- **Pattern:** Direct-to-Final (progressive append)
+
+### Template Assessment
+
+| Check | Status |
+|-------|--------|
+| `stepsCompleted: []` in frontmatter | ✅ Present |
+| `lastStep: ''` in frontmatter | ✅ Present |
+| `date: ''` in frontmatter | ✅ Present |
+| `user_name: ''` in frontmatter | ✅ Present |
+| Workflow chaining (`previousWorkflow`, `nextWorkflow`) | ✅ Present |
+| Clear section headers | ✅ 6 sections defined |
+| Section placeholders with comments | ✅ Each section has step attribution comment |
+
+### Final Polish Evaluation
+
+- **Required:** No (structured template, not free-form)
+- **Justification:** Each section is appended by a specific step with structured table format. No free-form progressive writing that needs polish.
+
+### Step-to-Output Mapping
+
+| Step | Output Action | Has outputFile | Saves Before Next | Status |
+|------|--------------|----------------|-------------------|--------|
+| step-01-init | Creates report from template, populates frontmatter | ✅ | ✅ (menu C: "Save baseline") | ✅ PASS |
+| step-02-re-index | Internal state only, updates frontmatter | ✅ | ✅ (updates stepsCompleted) | ✅ PASS |
+| step-03-structural-diff | Appends ## Structural Drift section | ✅ | ✅ (auto-proceed after append) | ✅ PASS |
+| step-04-semantic-diff | Appends ## Semantic Drift (or skip notice) | ✅ | ✅ (auto-proceed after append) | ✅ PASS |
+| step-05-severity-classify | Appends ## Severity Classification | ✅ | ✅ (auto-proceed after append) | ✅ PASS |
+| step-06-report | Completes Summary, appends Remediation + Provenance | ✅ | ✅ (final step) | ✅ PASS |
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (0 violations)
+
+## Validation Design Check
+
+### Validation Requirement Assessment
+
+- **Workflow type:** Quality assurance (drift detection)
+- **Domain:** Developer tooling — not compliance/regulatory/safety-critical
+- **Output:** Drift report (informational — user reviews and decides action)
+- **Classification:** Create-only (no steps-v/ folder by design)
+
+**Validation critical:** No
+
+**Reasoning:** The audit-skill workflow IS itself a validation tool (it audits skills against source code). Its output is an informational drift report with remediation suggestions. The user reviews the report and decides whether to act. No formal compliance gates are needed. Each audit is a fresh run (create-only), making edit/validate modes unnecessary.
+
+### Validation Steps
+
+- **steps-v/ folder:** Not present (correct — create-only workflow)
+- **Inline validation:** Step 05 (severity-classify) loads classification rules from `data/severity-rules.md` and applies deterministic classification — this provides systematic quality control of the analysis
+
+### Validation Data Files
+
+| File | Purpose | Status |
+|------|---------|--------|
+| `data/severity-rules.md` | Classification criteria (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) | ✅ Present, well-structured |
+| `data/drift-report-template.md` | Structured output template | ✅ Present, well-structured |
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (N/A — validation not required for this workflow type)
+
+## Instruction Style Check
+
+### Workflow Domain Assessment
+
+- **Domain:** Developer tooling / quality assurance (drift detection)
+- **Appropriate style:** Prescriptive (deterministic analysis with exact methodology)
+- **Design specification:** "Instruction Style: Prescriptive"
+
+**Justification:** Drift detection is algorithmic — same input must produce same output. Zero-hallucination principle requires precise instructions. AST analysis and severity classification follow deterministic rules, not creative facilitation.
+
+### Per-Step Style Analysis
+
+| File | Classification | Domain Match | Status |
+|------|---------------|--------------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | Prescriptive (load specifics) + intent (user gate) | ✅ Appropriate — init needs exact file loading | ✅ PASS |
+| step-02-re-index.md | Prescriptive (exact extraction methodology) | ✅ Appropriate — AST extraction is algorithmic | ✅ PASS |
+| step-03-structural-diff.md | Prescriptive (exact comparison categories) | ✅ Appropriate — diff is deterministic | ✅ PASS |
+| step-04-semantic-diff.md | Prescriptive (conditional logic + QMD queries) | ✅ Appropriate — tier-aware with exact skip logic | ✅ PASS |
+| step-05-severity-classify.md | Prescriptive (deterministic classification rules) | ✅ Appropriate — severity rules are exact | ✅ PASS |
+| step-06-report.md | Prescriptive (exact report sections + templates) | ✅ Appropriate — report format is structured | ✅ PASS |
+
+### Positive Findings
+
+- Consistent prescriptive style across all steps — matches the deterministic analysis domain
+- Each step has exact instructions for what to load, compare, and output
+- Role reinforcement ("zero-hallucination principle") aligns with prescriptive approach
+- No steps inappropriately use creative/exploratory language for analysis tasks
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (style appropriate for domain)
+
+## Collaborative Experience Check
+
+### Workflow Interaction Design
+
+- **Goal:** Drift detection — deterministic analysis
+- **User:** Developer auditing their skill against source code
+- **Designed interaction:** Mostly autonomous with 1 user gate at init
+
+### Per-Step Analysis
+
+**step-01-init.md:**
+- Question style: ✅ Progressive (asks for skill path, then presents summary, then confirms)
+- Conversation flow: ✅ Natural — clear explanation, then decision point
+- Role clarity: ✅ "Skill auditor operating in Ferris Audit mode"
+- Error handling: ✅ Missing provenance → degraded mode offer; missing tier → helpful error
+- Status: ✅ PASS
+
+**step-02-re-index.md:**
+- Interaction: Auto-proceed (no user input)
+- Progress messaging: ✅ "Scanning source files..." / "Extraction complete" with metrics table
+- Status: ✅ PASS (appropriate — extraction is autonomous)
+
+**step-03-structural-diff.md:**
+- Interaction: Auto-proceed
+- Progress messaging: ✅ "Structural diff complete. {total} drift items found."
+- Status: ✅ PASS
+
+**step-04-semantic-diff.md:**
+- Interaction: Auto-proceed (with conditional skip notice)
+- Progress messaging: ✅ Skip notice explains why and how to enable, or reports findings count
+- Status: ✅ PASS
+
+**step-05-severity-classify.md:**
+- Interaction: Auto-proceed
+- Progress messaging: ✅ "Severity classification complete. Overall drift score: {score}"
+- Status: ✅ PASS
+
+**step-06-report.md:**
+- Interaction: Final presentation to user
+- Completion quality: ✅ Comprehensive summary with severity counts, drift score, next steps
+- Actionable guidance: ✅ Clear workflow recommendations based on findings
+- Status: ✅ PASS
+
+### Progression and Arc
+
+- ✅ Clear progression: Load → Scan → Diff → Classify → Report
+- ✅ Each step builds on previous (provenance → extraction → comparison → classification → synthesis)
+- ✅ User knows where they are (progress messages at each step)
+- ✅ Satisfying completion with actionable summary and clear next steps
+
+### User Experience Assessment
+
+**This workflow feels like:** A collaborative partner working WITH the user — confirms inputs at init, then performs expert analysis autonomously, and delivers a comprehensive report.
+
+**Appropriate for domain:** Yes — drift detection benefits from autonomous expert analysis rather than interactive collaboration. One user gate ensures correct inputs before committing to analysis.
+
+### Overall: ✅ GOOD (appropriate interaction level for deterministic analysis)
+
+## Subprocess Optimization Opportunities
+
+**Total Opportunities:** 4 implemented | **High Priority:** 0 missed | **Estimated Context Savings:** Significant per-file extraction offloading
+
+### Current Subprocess Usage
+
+| Step | Pattern | Description | Fallback | Status |
+|------|---------|-------------|----------|--------|
+| step-01 | None | Init — loads artifacts directly | N/A | ✅ Appropriate |
+| step-02 | Pattern 2 (per-file) | AST extraction per source file | ✅ "Perform extraction in main thread, processing each file sequentially" | ✅ PASS |
+| step-03 | Pattern 4 (parallel) | Parallel comparison of export categories (added/removed/changed) | ✅ "Iterate current exports, check against provenance map set" | ✅ PASS |
+| step-04 | Pattern 3 (data ops) | QMD collection queries for semantic context | ✅ "Query QMD in main thread" | ✅ PASS |
+| step-05 | Pattern 3 (data ops) | Load severity rules, classify findings | ✅ "Load rules directly in main thread" | ✅ PASS |
+| step-06 | None | Final synthesis — no offloading needed | N/A | ✅ Appropriate |
+
+### Subprocess Compliance
+
+- ✅ All 4 subprocess-using steps include graceful fallback instructions
+- ✅ Pattern types match the operation characteristics
+- ✅ Fallback instructions clearly describe alternative approach
+- ✅ "If subprocess unavailable" language present in all 4 steps
+
+### Summary by Pattern
+
+- **Pattern 1 (grep/regex):** 0 — Not applicable (no multi-file text search needed)
+- **Pattern 2 (per-file):** 1 (step-02) — per-source-file AST extraction
+- **Pattern 3 (data ops):** 2 (steps 04, 05) — QMD queries and rules loading
+- **Pattern 4 (parallel):** 1 (step-03) — parallel diff categories
+
+### Additional Opportunities
+
+No missed opportunities identified. The workflow appropriately uses subprocess optimization where context offloading benefits performance (extraction, comparison, classification) and avoids unnecessary subprocess overhead for simple operations (init, final report).
+
+### Overall: ✅ PASS (well-optimized subprocess usage)
+
+## Cohesive Review
+
+### Overall Assessment: Excellent
+
+The audit-skill workflow is a well-designed, cohesive 6-step pipeline that achieves its goal of detecting and reporting drift between skills and source code.
+
+### Quality Evaluation
+
+| Dimension | Rating | Notes |
+|-----------|--------|-------|
+| Goal clarity | Excellent | Clear purpose stated in workflow.md and step-01 |
+| Logical flow | Excellent | Load → Scan → Compare → Classify → Report |
+| Data flow | Excellent | Provenance → extraction → diff → classification → synthesis |
+| Consistency | Excellent | Same voice (Ferris Audit), same patterns (tables, citations, tiers) |
+| User experience | Good | 1 gate at init, autonomous analysis, clear final report |
+| Error handling | Good | Degraded mode, missing provenance, tier fallbacks |
+| Completion | Excellent | Actionable summary with next-step recommendations |
+
+### Cohesiveness Analysis
+
+**Flow:** Strong linear progression where each step builds directly on the previous. No disconnected jumps.
+
+**Progression:** User provides skill name → system discovers everything → performs analysis → presents findings. The user knows exactly what's happening at each point.
+
+**Voice and Tone:** Consistent Ferris Audit mode throughout. Zero-hallucination principle, AST citations, structured evidence-based reporting.
+
+### Strengths
+
+1. **Zero-hallucination principle** enforced consistently — every finding traces to actual code
+2. **Graceful degradation** at every level — tier-aware (Quick/Forge/Deep), missing provenance (degraded mode)
+3. **Structured output** with file:line citations and confidence tier labels on all findings
+4. **Actionable remediation** — specific suggestions per finding (what to change, where, why)
+5. **Workflow chaining** — update-skill recommendation when CRITICAL/HIGH drift found
+6. **Clean separation of concerns** — each step does exactly one thing
+7. **Subprocess optimization** — well-chosen patterns with graceful fallbacks
+
+### Weaknesses
+
+1. **Minor:** `severityRulesFile` unused in step-01 frontmatter (flagged in Frontmatter Validation)
+2. **Minor:** Steps 05-06 slightly above 200 line recommended limit (210, 217) — acceptable given dense table content
+3. **Observation:** No explicit handling for very large codebases in step-02 (many source files could slow extraction) — acceptable for initial version
+
+### Recommendation
+
+**Ready to use.** This workflow exemplifies BMAD best practices for deterministic analysis workflows. The one frontmatter violation is trivially fixable. The workflow demonstrates strong tier-aware design, clean data flow, and well-chosen subprocess patterns.
+
+## Plan Quality Validation
+
+**Plan file:** `workflow-plan-audit-skill.md`
+**Total requirements extracted:** 25+
+
+### Discovery/Vision Validation
+
+| Requirement | Implemented | Quality | Status |
+|-------------|-------------|---------|--------|
+| Drift detection between skill and source | workflow.md + all 6 steps | High | ✅ |
+| Ferris Audit mode | workflow.md + all step role reinforcements | High | ✅ |
+| Tier-aware depth (Quick/Forge/Deep) | Steps 01-04 adapt per tier | High | ✅ |
+| Drift report with severity levels | Steps 03-06 build categorized report | High | ✅ |
+
+### Classification Validation
+
+| Attribute | Specified | Implemented | Status |
+|-----------|-----------|-------------|--------|
+| Document output | true | ✅ drift-report-template.md + progressive build | ✅ |
+| Module affiliation | SKF | ✅ workflow.md loads skf/config.yaml | ✅ |
+| Session type | single-session | ✅ create-only, no continuation | ✅ |
+| Lifecycle | create-only | ✅ steps-c/ folder only | ✅ |
+
+### Requirements Validation
+
+| Requirement | Specified | Implemented | Quality | Status |
+|-------------|-----------|-------------|---------|--------|
+| Linear flow + conditional skip | Step 04 Deep-only | ✅ Tier check first, skip notice for Quick/Forge | High | ✅ |
+| 1 user gate at init | Step 01 confirmation | ✅ C-only menu after baseline summary | High | ✅ |
+| Skill path + source code inputs | Required | ✅ Step 01 discovers both, validates existence | High | ✅ |
+| Structured drift report | 6 sections | ✅ Template with all sections, progressive append | High | ✅ |
+| AST file:line citations | All findings | ✅ Every table has file:line + confidence columns | High | ✅ |
+| Confidence tier labels (T1/T2) | All findings | ✅ T1/T1-low/T2 labels throughout | High | ✅ |
+| Graceful degradation | Quick→Forge→Deep | ✅ Three tiers + degraded mode for missing provenance | High | ✅ |
+| Remediation suggestions | Per finding | ✅ Step 06 generates specific actionable suggestions | High | ✅ |
+| Overall drift score | CLEAN/MINOR/SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL | ✅ Step 05 calculates, Step 06 presents | High | ✅ |
+| Update-skill chaining | If CRITICAL/HIGH | ✅ Step 06 sets nextWorkflow in frontmatter | High | ✅ |
+
+### Design Validation
+
+| Design Element | Specified | Present | Status |
+|---------------|-----------|---------|--------|
+| step-01-init (Init + Input Discovery) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| step-02-re-index (Middle, Auto-proceed) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| step-03-structural-diff (Middle, Auto-proceed) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| step-04-semantic-diff (Middle + Skip, Auto-proceed) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| step-05-severity-classify (Middle, Auto-proceed) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| step-06-report (Final Step) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| data/severity-rules.md | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| data/drift-report-template.md | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+
+### Tools Validation
+
+| Tool | Specified | Configured | Status |
+|------|-----------|------------|--------|
+| File I/O | Required | ✅ All steps read/write files | ✅ |
+| Sub-Processes | Included | ✅ 4 steps with patterns 2/3/4 + fallbacks | ✅ |
+| ast_bridge | Forge/Deep tier | ✅ Steps 02-03 reference AST extraction | ✅ |
+| gh_bridge | All tiers | ✅ Steps 01-02 reference file reading | ✅ |
+| qmd_bridge | Deep tier only | ✅ Step 04 references QMD queries | ✅ |
+| skills_ref | Included | ✅ Step 01 references skill format validation | ✅ |
+
+### Implementation Gaps
+
+None identified. All requirements from the plan are fully implemented.
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+- **Plan implementation score:** 100%
+- **Overall status:** Fully Implemented
+- **Quality:** High across all requirement areas
+
+## Summary
+
+**Validation Completed:** 2026-02-27
+**Overall Status:** ✅ PASS (1 minor violation)
+
+### Validation Steps Completed
+
+| # | Validation Step | Result |
+|---|----------------|--------|
+| 1 | File Structure & Size | ✅ PASS (2 warnings: steps 05-06 at 210/217 lines) |
+| 2 | Frontmatter Validation | ❌ FAIL (1 violation: unused `severityRulesFile` in step-01) |
+| 2b | Critical Path Violations | ✅ PASS (0 violations, all links verified) |
+| 3 | Menu Handling Validation | ✅ PASS (1 gate + 4 auto-proceed + 1 final) |
+| 4 | Step Type Validation | ✅ PASS (all 6 steps match design types) |
+| 5 | Output Format Validation | ✅ PASS (structured template, correct step-to-output mapping) |
+| 6 | Validation Design Check | ✅ PASS (N/A — validation not required for this workflow type) |
+| 7 | Instruction Style Check | ✅ PASS (prescriptive style appropriate for domain) |
+| 8 | Collaborative Experience | ✅ GOOD (appropriate interaction for deterministic analysis) |
+| 8b | Subprocess Optimization | ✅ PASS (4 patterns well-chosen with fallbacks) |
+| 9 | Cohesive Review | ✅ EXCELLENT (strong progression, consistent voice, clear completion) |
+| 11 | Plan Quality Validation | ✅ 100% implementation (all requirements met) |
+
+### Issues to Fix
+
+**Critical:** 0
+**Warnings:** 1
+
+1. **step-01-init.md** — Remove unused `severityRulesFile: '../data/severity-rules.md'` from frontmatter (line 8). This variable belongs in step-05 only.
+
+### Key Strengths
+
+- Zero-hallucination principle enforced consistently throughout
+- Graceful tier-aware degradation (Quick/Forge/Deep)
+- Well-chosen subprocess patterns with graceful fallbacks
+- Clean data flow: provenance → extraction → diff → classification → report
+- Actionable remediation suggestions with workflow chaining
+- 100% plan implementation coverage
+
+### Recommendation
+
+**Ready to use** after fixing the 1 minor frontmatter violation. The workflow exemplifies BMAD best practices for deterministic analysis workflows.