bmad-module-skill-forge 0.2.0

package/src/workflows/analyze-source/validation-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,657 @@
+---
+validationDate: 2026-02-27
+workflowName: analyze-source
+workflowPath: _bmad-output/bmb-creations/workflows/analyze-source
+validationStatus: COMPLETE
+completionDate: 2026-02-27
+---
+
+# Validation Report: analyze-source
+
+**Validation Started:** 2026-02-27
+**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System
+**Standards Version:** BMAD Workflow Standards
+
+---
+
+## File Structure & Size
+
+### Folder Structure
+
+```
+analyze-source/
+├── workflow.md                          ✅ Entry point present
+├── workflow-plan-analyze-source.md      ✅ Plan file present
+├── data/
+│   ├── skill-brief-schema.md            ✅ Schema reference
+│   └── unit-detection-heuristics.md     ✅ Detection rules
+├── templates/
+│   └── analysis-report-template.md      ✅ Output template
+└── steps-c/
+    ├── step-01-init.md                  ✅
+    ├── step-01b-continue.md             ✅
+    ├── step-02-scan-project.md          ✅
+    ├── step-03-identify-units.md        ✅
+    ├── step-04-map-and-detect.md        ✅
+    ├── step-05-recommend.md             ✅
+    └── step-06-generate-briefs.md       ✅
+```
+
+**Assessment:** Structure is clean and well-organized. All required folders present (steps-c/, data/, templates/). Non-step reference files properly organized.
+
+### File Size Analysis
+
+| File | Lines | Status |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | 191 | ✅ Good |
+| step-01b-continue.md | 144 | ✅ Good |
+| step-02-scan-project.md | 208 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-03-identify-units.md | 199 | ✅ Good |
+| step-04-map-and-detect.md | 222 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-05-recommend.md | 236 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-06-generate-briefs.md | 239 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| workflow.md | 61 | ✅ Good |
+| data/skill-brief-schema.md | 75 | ✅ Good |
+| data/unit-detection-heuristics.md | 88 | ✅ Good |
+| templates/analysis-report-template.md | 41 | ✅ Good |
+
+**Size Issues:**
+- 4 step files are in the 200-250 warning zone (step-02: 208, step-04: 222, step-05: 236, step-06: 239)
+- None exceed the 250-line absolute maximum
+- Recommendation: Consider extracting presentation templates or table structures to data/ files to reduce step-05 and step-06 below 200 lines
+
+### Step Presence Verification
+
+From workflow plan design, expected 7 step files:
+
+| Expected | File | Status |
+|----------|------|--------|
+| step-01-init | step-01-init.md | ✅ Present |
+| step-01b-continue | step-01b-continue.md | ✅ Present |
+| step-02-scan-project | step-02-scan-project.md | ✅ Present |
+| step-03-identify-units | step-03-identify-units.md | ✅ Present |
+| step-04-map-and-detect | step-04-map-and-detect.md | ✅ Present |
+| step-05-recommend | step-05-recommend.md | ✅ Present |
+| step-06-generate-briefs | step-06-generate-briefs.md | ✅ Present |
+
+- Sequential numbering: ✅ No gaps (01, 01b, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06)
+- Final step exists: ✅ step-06-generate-briefs.md
+- All design steps have files: ✅ 7/7
+
+**Overall: PASS (with warnings)**
+- All files present and correctly structured
+- 4 files approaching size limit but none exceeding it
+
+---
+
+## Frontmatter Validation
+
+### Per-File Analysis
+
+| File | name | description | Variables | All Used | Paths | Forbidden | Status |
+|------|------|-------------|-----------|----------|-------|-----------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, continueFile, outputFile, templateFile | ✅ 4/4 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
+| step-01b-continue.md | ✅ | ✅ | outputFile, nextStepOptions | ✅ 2/2 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
+| step-02-scan-project.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, heuristicsFile | ✅ 3/3 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
+| step-03-identify-units.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, heuristicsFile | ✅ 3/3 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
+| step-04-map-and-detect.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, heuristicsFile | ✅ 3/3 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
+| step-05-recommend.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, schemaFile, advancedElicitationTask, partyModeWorkflow | ✅ 5/5 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
+| step-06-generate-briefs.md | ✅ | ✅ | outputFile, schemaFile | ✅ 2/2 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
+
+### Path Format Verification
+
+| Pattern | Expected | Found | Status |
+|---------|----------|-------|--------|
+| Step-to-step (same folder) | `./step-XX.md` | All nextStepFile use `./step-XX.md` | ✅ |
+| Parent folder references | `../folder/file.md` | templateFile, heuristicsFile, schemaFile use `../` | ✅ |
+| Output file paths | `{variable}/...` | All outputFile use `{output_folder}/...` | ✅ |
+| External references | `{project-root}/...` | advancedElicitationTask, partyModeWorkflow | ✅ |
+
+### Forbidden Pattern Check
+
+| Pattern | Found | Status |
+|---------|-------|--------|
+| `workflow_path` variable | Not found | ✅ |
+| `thisStepFile` variable | Not found | ✅ |
+| `workflowFile` variable | Not found | ✅ |
+| `{workflow_path}/templates/...` | Not found | ✅ |
+| `{workflow_path}/data/...` | Not found | ✅ |
+
+### Violations Found: 0
+
+**Overall: PASS**
+- All 7 step files have correct frontmatter
+- Every frontmatter variable is used in its step body
+- All paths follow correct format conventions
+- No forbidden patterns detected
+
+## Critical Path Violations
+
+### Config Variables (Exceptions)
+
+From workflow.md Configuration Loading section:
+`project_name`, `output_folder`, `user_name`, `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `forge_data_folder`, `skills_output_folder`
+
+### Content Path Violations
+
+Checked all 7 step files for hardcoded `{project-root}/` paths in body content (after frontmatter):
+- Only occurrences found are in step-05-recommend.md **frontmatter** (lines 8-9) — these are properly declared as `advancedElicitationTask` and `partyModeWorkflow` variables using `{project-root}` for external references. ✅ Valid.
+- **No hardcoded paths in body content.**
+
+### Dead Links
+
+| Reference | Source | Target | Status |
+|-----------|--------|--------|--------|
+| nextStepFile | step-01-init | ./step-02-scan-project.md | ✅ Exists |
+| continueFile | step-01-init | ./step-01b-continue.md | ✅ Exists |
+| templateFile | step-01-init | ../templates/analysis-report-template.md | ✅ Exists |
+| nextStepOptions | step-01b | ./step-02 through ./step-06 | ✅ All exist |
+| nextStepFile | step-02 | ./step-03-identify-units.md | ✅ Exists |
+| heuristicsFile | steps 02-04 | ../data/unit-detection-heuristics.md | ✅ Exists |
+| nextStepFile | step-03 | ./step-04-map-and-detect.md | ✅ Exists |
+| nextStepFile | step-04 | ./step-05-recommend.md | ✅ Exists |
+| nextStepFile | step-05 | ./step-06-generate-briefs.md | ✅ Exists |
+| schemaFile | steps 05-06 | ../data/skill-brief-schema.md | ✅ Exists |
+| advancedElicitationTask | step-05 | {project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml | ✅ Exists |
+| partyModeWorkflow | step-05 | {project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md | ✅ Exists |
+
+Output file paths using `{output_folder}` and `{forge_data_folder}` correctly skipped (runtime config variables).
+
+### Module Awareness
+
+- Workflow targets SKF module (`_bmad/skf/workflows/analyze-source/`)
+- No BMB-specific path assumptions found (`{project-root}/_bmad/bmb/` not referenced)
+- ✅ Module-aware
+
+### Summary
+
+- **CRITICAL:** 0 violations
+- **HIGH:** 0 violations
+- **MEDIUM:** 0 violations
+
+**Status: ✅ PASS — No violations**
+
+## Menu Handling Validation
+
+### Per-File Menu Analysis
+
+| File | Menu Type | Handler | Exec Rules | Halt/Wait | Redisplay | C Sequence | A/P Appropriate | Status |
+|------|-----------|---------|------------|-----------|-----------|------------|-----------------|--------|
+| step-01-init | Auto-proceed | ✅ | ✅ | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ Auto-loads next | ✅ No A/P (init) | PASS |
+| step-01b-continue | Auto-proceed | ✅ | ✅ | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ Routes to step | ✅ No A/P (continuation) | PASS |
+| step-02-scan-project | C-only | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ "Redisplay Menu" | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ No A/P (simple) | PASS |
+| step-03-identify-units | C-only | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ "Redisplay Menu" | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ No A/P (simple) | PASS |
+| step-04-map-and-detect | C-only | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ "Redisplay Menu" | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ No A/P (simple) | PASS |
+| step-05-recommend | A/P/C | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ A/P/other redisplay | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ A/P at gate (correct) | PASS |
+| step-06-generate-briefs | None (Final) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A (final step) | PASS |
+
+### Detailed Findings
+
+**step-05-recommend (A/P/C menu):**
+- A option: Executes `{advancedElicitationTask}`, then redisplays menu ✅
+- P option: Executes `{partyModeWorkflow}`, then redisplays menu ✅
+- C option: Save → update frontmatter → load → execute next step ✅
+- Other input: Help user → redisplay menu ✅
+- A/P placement justified: This is the primary collaborative gate where user confirms/rejects units — quality improvement tools appropriate here
+
+**step-06-generate-briefs (Final step):**
+- No menu section — correct for final step
+- Has Y/N/M confirmation for file writing (section 4) which is appropriate interactive gate, not a step-transition menu
+
+### Violations Found: 0
+
+**Overall: PASS**
+- All menu types match their step types (Auto-proceed for init/continue, C-only for simple middle, A/P/C for standard gate, None for final)
+- All handler sections present and correctly structured
+- All execution rules include appropriate halt/proceed instructions
+- Reserved letters used correctly: A (Advanced Elicitation), P (Party Mode), C (Continue)
+
+## Step Type Validation
+
+### Per-File Type Analysis
+
+| File | Expected Type | Actual Type | Pattern Match | Key Checks | Status |
+|------|--------------|-------------|---------------|------------|--------|
+| step-01-init | Init (Continuable) | Init (Continuable) | ✅ | continueFile ref ✅, template creation ✅, continuation detection ✅, no A/P ✅ | PASS |
+| step-01b-continue | Continuation | Continuation | ✅ | nextStepOptions ✅, reads stepsCompleted ✅, routes to step ✅ | PASS |
+| step-02-scan-project | Middle (Simple) | Middle (Simple) | ✅ | C-only menu ✅, no A/P ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅ | PASS |
+| step-03-identify-units | Middle (Simple) | Middle (Simple) | ✅ | C-only menu ✅, no A/P ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅ | PASS |
+| step-04-map-and-detect | Middle (Simple) | Middle (Simple) | ✅ | C-only menu ✅, no A/P ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅ | PASS |
+| step-05-recommend | Middle (Standard) | Middle (Standard) | ✅ | A/P/C menu ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅, collaborative gate ✅ | PASS |
+| step-06-generate-briefs | Final | Final | ✅ | No nextStepFile ✅, completion message ✅, no next step ✅ | PASS |
+
+### Type-Specific Validation Details
+
+**Init (Continuable) — step-01-init:**
+- Has `continueFile` reference to `./step-01b-continue.md` ✅
+- Section 1 checks for existing report (continuation detection) ✅
+- Creates output document from template (section 6) ✅
+- Auto-proceed menu (no user choice at init) ✅
+
+**Continuation — step-01b-continue:**
+- `nextStepOptions` in frontmatter maps all 5 resume targets ✅
+- Reads `stepsCompleted` array from report (section 2) ✅
+- Mapping table routes to correct next step (section 4) ✅
+- Presents progress summary before routing (section 3) ✅
+
+**Final — step-06-generate-briefs:**
+- No `nextStepFile` in frontmatter ✅
+- Completion summary with "This analysis is complete" message ✅
+- Marks workflow complete in frontmatter (`stepsCompleted` fully populated) ✅
+
+### Violations Found: 0
+
+**Overall: PASS**
+- All 7 step files match their designated type patterns from the workflow design
+- Every type-specific requirement satisfied
+
+## Output Format Validation
+
+### Document Production
+
+- **Produces documents:** Yes — two types
+  1. Analysis summary report (Structured template) → `{output_folder}/analyze-source-report-{project_name}.md`
+  2. skill-brief.yaml files (Strict format) → `{forge_data_folder}/{unit-name}/skill-brief.yaml`
+
+### Template Assessment
+
+**analysis-report-template.md (Structured):**
+- Frontmatter: ✅ `stepsCompleted: []`, `lastStep: ''`, `date: ''`, `user_name: ''`, plus workflow-specific tracking (`confirmed_units`, `stack_skill_candidates`, `existing_skills`)
+- Section headers: ✅ 6 clear sections (Project Scan, Identified Units, Export Map, Integration Points, Recommendations, Generation Results)
+- Section placeholders: ✅ `[Appended by step-XX]` for each section
+- Progressive append pattern: ✅ Each step replaces its placeholder
+
+**skill-brief-schema.md (Strict):**
+- 9 required fields defined ✅
+- Validation rules specified (6 rules) ✅
+- YAML template provided ✅
+- Scope object structure documented ✅
+
+### Final Polish Evaluation
+
+- Template type: Structured (not free-form)
+- Final polish step: Not required for structured templates ✅
+- Step-06 serves as final step with completion summary, not polish
+
+### Step-to-Output Mapping
+
+| Step | Output Action | Saves Before Next | Section Created | Status |
+|------|--------------|-------------------|-----------------|--------|
+| step-01 | Creates report from template | ✅ Auto-proceed after create | Title + frontmatter | PASS |
+| step-02 | Appends "## Project Scan" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Project Scan | PASS |
+| step-03 | Appends "## Identified Units" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Identified Units | PASS |
+| step-04 | Appends "## Export Map" + "## Integration Points" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Export Map + ## Integration Points | PASS |
+| step-05 | Appends "## Recommendations" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Recommendations | PASS |
+| step-06 | Appends "## Generation Results" + writes YAML files | ✅ Final step completes | ## Generation Results + N x skill-brief.yaml | PASS |
+
+**Section order matches template:** ✅ Steps produce sections in exact template order
+
+### Issues Found: 0
+
+**Overall: PASS**
+- Template types match design (Structured report + Strict YAML)
+- No final polish needed (structured template)
+- All steps save output before proceeding
+- Section order matches template exactly
+
+## Validation Design Check
+
+### Validation Requirement Assessment
+
+- **Workflow type:** Code analysis and skill decomposition (brownfield onboarding)
+- **Lifecycle support:** Create-only (no edit or validate modes)
+- **Domain:** Developer tooling — not compliance, safety, or regulatory
+- **User gate:** Step 05 provides explicit confirmation gate before generation
+- **Output validation:** Step 06 validates each brief against schema before writing
+
+**Determination: Validation NOT critical**
+
+This is a code analysis workflow where:
+- Output quality is ensured by evidence-based recommendations (step 05 collaborative gate)
+- Schema validation is built into step 06 (pre-write validation)
+- User explicitly confirms each unit before brief generation
+- No compliance, safety, or regulatory requirements
+
+### Validation Steps Found: 0 (by design)
+
+- No `steps-v/` folder — correct for create-only lifecycle
+- Inline quality gates exist at step 05 (user confirmation) and step 06 (schema validation)
+- These inline gates are appropriate for non-critical workflows
+
+### Validation Data Files
+
+Data files in `data/` support the workflow's inline validation:
+- `skill-brief-schema.md` — used by step 06 for brief validation (9 required fields, 6 validation rules) ✅
+- `unit-detection-heuristics.md` — used by steps 02-04 for systematic detection ✅
+
+**Overall: N/A (validation not required) — inline quality gates appropriate**
+
+## Instruction Style Check
+
+### Workflow Domain Assessment
+
+- **Domain:** Technical code analysis and decomposition
+- **Agent:** Ferris in Architect mode — prescriptive precision
+- **Appropriate style:** Prescriptive (by design choice)
+- **Justification:** Zero-hallucination requirement, evidence-based claims with file:line citations, schema compliance for output, systematic detection heuristic application
+
+### Per-Step Instruction Style
+
+| File | Style | Appropriate | Key Language | Status |
+|------|-------|-------------|--------------|--------|
+| step-01-init | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Check forge-tier.yaml", "HARD HALT", "Validate the path" | PASS |
+| step-01b-continue | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Read frontmatter", "Map last completed step to next step" | PASS |
+| step-02-scan-project | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Map top-level directory tree", "Identify workspace configs", "Detect service boundaries" | PASS |
+| step-03-identify-units | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Count detection signals", "Classify boundary type", "Check disqualification rules" | PASS |
+| step-04-map-and-detect | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Scan unit's directory for export files", "Count and categorize exports", "Build cross-reference matrix" | PASS |
+| step-05-recommend | Mixed (Prescriptive + Collaborative) | ✅ | Prescriptive card format + collaborative Y/N/M gate | PASS |
+| step-06-generate-briefs | Prescriptive | ✅ | Exact field mapping table, "Validate each brief", "Check against schema" | PASS |
+
+### Style Consistency Assessment
+
+- **Consistent across steps:** ✅ All steps maintain prescriptive evidence-based style
+- **Appropriate for domain:** ✅ Code analysis requires systematic precision
+- **Collaborative elements where needed:** ✅ Step 05 adds collaborative discussion on top of prescriptive presentation
+- **Zero-hallucination principle maintained:** ✅ "Only report what is found" language throughout
+
+### Issues Found: 0
+
+**Overall: PASS**
+- Prescriptive style appropriate for technical analysis workflow
+- Consistent application of Ferris Architect mode across all steps
+- Collaborative gate at step 05 adds user agency without breaking prescriptive precision
+
+## Collaborative Experience Check
+
+**Overall Facilitation Quality:** Good
+
+**Design Intent:** Mixed — mostly autonomous discovery (steps 02-04) with collaborative gates (step 05) and confirmation gates (step 06)
+
+### Step-by-Step Analysis
+
+| Step | Question Style | Conversation Flow | Role Clarity | Error Handling | Status |
+|------|---------------|-------------------|--------------|----------------|--------|
+| step-01-init | Progressive (path, then scope) | ✅ Natural welcome | ✅ Ferris Architect | ✅ Path validation, hard halt | PASS |
+| step-01b-continue | N/A (auto-route) | ✅ Progress summary | ✅ | ✅ All-complete case | PASS |
+| step-02-scan-project | Single open-ended question | ✅ Present → confirm | ✅ | ✅ User can request rescans | PASS |
+| step-03-identify-units | Single open-ended question | ✅ Present → confirm | ✅ | ✅ Adjustments accepted | PASS |
+| step-04-map-and-detect | Single open-ended question | ✅ Present → confirm | ✅ | ✅ Further investigation offered | PASS |
+| step-05-recommend | Y/N/M per unit + "why?" | ✅ Evidence-based discussion | ✅ | ✅ Modifications supported | PASS |
+| step-06-generate-briefs | Y/N/M confirmation | ✅ Preview before writing | ✅ | ✅ Empty units guard clause | PASS |
+
+### Collaborative Strengths
+
+- **step-05-recommend:** Excellent collaborative gate — presents evidence-based recommendation cards, user can confirm (Y), reject (N), modify (M), or ask "why?" with file citation explanations
+- **Progressive interaction:** Steps 02-04 do autonomous analysis then present single open-ended questions, not laundry lists
+- **step-01-init:** Collects inputs progressively (path first, scope hints second) not all at once
+- **All discovery steps:** "Wait for user feedback. Adjust based on user input." — genuine back-and-forth
+
+### Collaborative Issues Found
+
+- **None critical.** The prescriptive style is appropriate for code analysis where evidence-based precision matters more than open-ended facilitation
+
+### Progression and Arc
+
+- ✅ Clear 3-phase progression: Discovery (02-04) → Decision (05) → Generation (06)
+- ✅ Each step builds on previous: scan → classify → map → recommend → generate
+- ✅ User knows location: step presentations include completion headers ("Project Scan Complete", etc.)
+- ✅ Satisfying completion: final summary with file paths, results, and next workflow recommendations
+
+### User Experience Assessment
+
+- [x] A collaborative partner working WITH the user
+- [ ] A form collecting data FROM the user
+- [ ] An interrogation extracting information
+- [ ] A mix - depends on step
+
+**Overall Collaborative Rating:** 4/5
+
+**Status: PASS**
+- Autonomous phases present findings naturally, not interrogation
+- Collaborative gate at step 05 is genuinely collaborative with Y/N/M + "why?" support
+- Minor deduction: steps 02-04 are heavily autonomous with minimal user input (by design for code analysis)
+
+## Subprocess Optimization Opportunities
+
+**Total Opportunities:** 5 | **Already Designed:** 2 | **Additional:** 3
+
+### Already Designed Subprocess Optimizations
+
+**step-02-scan-project — Pattern 1 (Grep/Regex):**
+- Scans directory structure for manifests, entry points, service configs across entire project
+- Fallback: Sequential file reads in main thread
+- ✅ Well-designed, appropriate pattern
+
+**step-04-map-and-detect — Pattern 2 (Per-file analysis):**
+- Per-unit export mapping and integration detection
+- Fallback: Analyze units sequentially in main thread
+- ✅ Well-designed, appropriate pattern
+
+### Additional Optimization Opportunities
+
+**step-01-init — Pattern 1 (Grep/Regex):**
+- **Current:** Scans forge_data_folder for existing skill-brief.yaml files
+- **Suggested:** Single grep subprocess to find all skill-brief.yaml files recursively
+- **Impact:** Low — one-time init scan, small file set
+- **Priority:** LOW
+
+**step-03-identify-units — Pattern 2 (Per-file analysis):**
+- **Current:** Applies detection heuristics to each boundary sequentially
+- **Suggested:** Per-boundary subprocess for parallel classification
+- **Impact:** Medium — reduces context for large monorepos with many boundaries
+- **Priority:** MEDIUM
+
+**step-06-generate-briefs — Pattern 2 + Pattern 4 (Per-file + Parallel):**
+- **Current:** Generates N skill-brief.yaml files sequentially
+- **Suggested:** Per-unit subprocess for brief generation and validation, optionally parallel
+- **Impact:** Medium — independent units can generate in parallel
+- **Priority:** MEDIUM
+
+### Subprocess Fallback Rule
+
+All steps include: "TOOL/SUBPROCESS FALLBACK: If any instruction references a subprocess, subagent, or tool you do not have access to, you MUST still achieve the outcome in your main context thread" ✅
+
+### Summary by Pattern
+
+- **Pattern 1 (grep/regex):** 2 opportunities (step-01 LOW, step-02 designed ✅)
+- **Pattern 2 (per-file):** 3 opportunities (step-03 MEDIUM, step-04 designed ✅, step-06 MEDIUM)
+- **Pattern 3 (data ops):** 0 opportunities
+- **Pattern 4 (parallel):** 1 opportunity (step-06 MEDIUM — parallel brief generation)
+
+### Implementation Recommendations
+
+- **Quick Wins:** None needed — the 2 designed optimizations cover the highest-impact steps
+- **Strategic:** step-03 per-boundary analysis for large monorepo projects
+- **Future:** step-06 parallel brief generation if batch sizes are large
+
+**Status: ✅ Complete — well-optimized for v1**
+
+## Cohesive Review
+
+### Overall Assessment: GOOD — Ready for Use
+
+### Quality Evaluation
+
+| Dimension | Rating | Notes |
+|-----------|--------|-------|
+| Goal Clarity | 5/5 | "Analyze repo, identify skillable units, produce skill-brief.yaml files" — crystal clear |
+| Logical Flow | 5/5 | scan → classify → map → recommend → generate — perfect progression |
+| Facilitation Quality | 4/5 | Autonomous phases efficient, collaborative gate well-placed |
+| User Experience | 4/5 | Clear progression, good error handling, satisfying completion |
+| Goal Achievement | 5/5 | Produces validated, actionable briefs ready for downstream workflows |
+
+### Cohesiveness Analysis
+
+**Flow:** Each step's output directly feeds the next step's input through the analysis report (progressive append). The 3-phase structure (Discovery → Decision → Generation) creates a natural arc.
+
+**Progression:** Perfect data flow:
+1. step-01: Creates empty report with config
+2. step-02: Populates boundaries, manifests, entry points
+3. step-03: Classifies boundaries into skillable units
+4. step-04: Maps exports and integration points per unit
+5. step-05: Presents evidence-based recommendations, user confirms
+6. step-06: Generates validated YAML files for confirmed units
+
+**Voice and Tone:** Consistent Ferris Architect mode throughout — prescriptive precision with zero-hallucination principle. Collaborative tone at step 05 gate adds warmth without breaking analytical rigor.
+
+### Strengths
+
+- **Evidence-based approach** — every recommendation backed by specific file citations
+- **Well-placed collaborative gate** (step 05) — user has agency without slowing autonomous analysis
+- **Complete data flow** — no orphaned data, every piece feeds forward
+- **Tier-aware analysis depth** — adapts to Quick/Forge/Deep
+- **Continuation support** — large repo analysis can resume across sessions
+- **Stack skill candidate detection** — value beyond individual skills
+- **Schema validation before writing** — prevents downstream workflow failures
+- **Next workflow recommendations** — clear path forward after analysis
+- **Existing skill detection** — avoids duplicates, suggests update-skill
+
+### Weaknesses / Improvement Opportunities
+
+- **File sizes approaching limits** — 4 steps in 200-250 warning zone; extracting presentation templates to data/ would help
+- **Steps 02-04 heavily autonomous** — by design for code analysis, but some users might want additional checkpoints on large repos
+- **No Party Mode in discovery phase** — excluded by design (evidence-based analysis), but could optionally allow at step 04 for architectural discussion
+
+### Critical Issues: 0
+
+No show-stopper problems. The workflow would function correctly end-to-end.
+
+### User Experience Forecast
+
+A developer onboarding a brownfield project would experience:
+1. Quick setup with clear prerequisites
+2. Automated deep analysis without manual work
+3. Clear, evidence-based findings presented for review
+4. Genuine collaborative decision-making on which units to skill
+5. Validated, downstream-ready output files
+6. Clear next steps for continuing the skill creation pipeline
+
+**Recommendation:** Workflow is solid and ready for use. Minor file size optimization recommended for longevity.
+
+## Plan Quality Validation
+
+**Plan file:** workflow-plan-analyze-source.md ✅ Found
+**Total requirements extracted:** 28
+
+### Implementation Coverage
+
+#### Discovery/Vision Validation
+
+| Requirement | Implemented | Quality | Status |
+|-------------|------------|---------|--------|
+| Decomposition engine goal | ✅ workflow.md goal statement | High | ✅ |
+| Brownfield entry point positioning | ✅ workflow.md meta-context | High | ✅ |
+| Output: N x skill-brief.yaml + analysis report | ✅ schema + template defined | High | ✅ |
+
+#### Classification Validation
+
+| Attribute | Specified | Implemented | Status |
+|-----------|----------|-------------|--------|
+| Document Output: true | ✅ Template + schema | ✅ |
+| Module Affiliation: SKF | ✅ workflow.md loads `_bmad/skf/config.yaml` | ✅ |
+| Continuable | ✅ step-01 continuation detection + step-01b resume | ✅ |
+| Create-only | ✅ Only steps-c/ folder exists | ✅ |
+
+#### Requirements Validation
+
+| Requirement | Specified | Implemented | Quality | Status |
+|-------------|----------|-------------|---------|--------|
+| Linear flow + strategic gate | 3 phases | ✅ Discovery → Decision → Generation | High | ✅ |
+| Mixed interaction | Autonomous + collaborative | ✅ Steps 02-04 autonomous, step 05 gate | High | ✅ |
+| Project root input | Required | ✅ step-01 section 3 | High | ✅ |
+| SKF config loading | Required | ✅ workflow.md init sequence | High | ✅ |
+| Forge-tier check | Required | ✅ step-01 section 2 (hard halt) | High | ✅ |
+| Scope hints | Optional | ✅ step-01 section 4 | High | ✅ |
+| Existing skill detection | Required | ✅ step-01 section 5 | High | ✅ |
+| Structured report output | Plan-then-Build | ✅ Progressive append template | High | ✅ |
+| Strict YAML output | Per schema | ✅ skill-brief-schema.md (9 fields, 6 rules) | High | ✅ |
+| Prescriptive style | Ferris Architect | ✅ All steps maintain prescriptive mode | High | ✅ |
+
+#### Design Validation
+
+| Element | Planned | Implemented | Status |
+|---------|---------|-------------|--------|
+| 7 step files (5 + 01b + 01) | ✅ | 7 files in steps-c/ | ✅ |
+| Step sequence matches design table | ✅ | All steps match | ✅ |
+| Data flow: scan→classify→map→recommend→generate | ✅ | Sections appended in order | ✅ |
+| File structure: workflow.md, data/, templates/, steps-c/ | ✅ | All folders present | ✅ |
+| Subprocess Pattern 1 (step-02) | ✅ | Documented in step-02 | ✅ |
+| Subprocess Pattern 2 (step-04) | ✅ | Documented in step-04 | ✅ |
+| Workflow chaining | ✅ | step-06 recommends next workflows | ✅ |
+| Error handling (5 scenarios) | ✅ | Handled across steps | ✅ |
+
+#### Tools Validation
+
+| Tool | Specified | Implemented | Status |
+|------|----------|-------------|--------|
+| Advanced Elicitation at step 05 | ✅ | ✅ step-05 has A option | ✅ |
+| Party Mode excluded | Excluded in tools config | ⚠️ step-05 includes P option | MINOR |
+| Brainstorming excluded | ✅ | ✅ Not referenced | ✅ |
+| File I/O included | ✅ | ✅ All steps use file operations | ✅ |
+| Continuable memory | stepsCompleted tracking | ✅ Template + all steps update | ✅ |
+| No external integrations | ✅ | ✅ No external refs | ✅ |
+
+### Implementation Gaps: 0 critical
+
+### Quality Issues
+
+**Minor Plan Inconsistency:**
+- Tools section specifies "Party Mode: excluded" but step-05 design (approved later) uses standard A/P/C menu pattern which includes Party Mode. The design decision overrides the earlier tools configuration. Including Party Mode at the recommendation gate is reasonable — users may want to consult agents about unit boundary decisions.
+
+### Plan-Reality Alignment
+
+- **28/28 requirements implemented** (100% coverage)
+- **1 minor inconsistency** (Party Mode — tools config vs design spec)
+- **0 critical gaps**
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+- **Plan Implementation Score:** 100% (all requirements present, 1 minor inconsistency)
+- **Quality Rating:** High across all requirement areas
+- **Status: Fully Implemented**
+
+## Summary
+
+**Validation Completed:** 2026-02-27
+**Overall Status: PASS (with minor warnings)**
+
+### Validation Results
+
+| # | Validation Step | Result | Issues |
+|---|----------------|--------|--------|
+| 1 | File Structure & Size | ✅ PASS (warnings) | 4 files in 200-250 warning zone |
+| 2 | Frontmatter Validation | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
+| 2b | Critical Path Violations | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
+| 3 | Menu Handling | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
+| 4 | Step Type Validation | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
+| 5 | Output Format | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
+| 6 | Validation Design Check | N/A | Create-only, inline gates appropriate |
+| 7 | Instruction Style | ✅ PASS | Prescriptive style appropriate |
+| 8 | Collaborative Experience | ✅ PASS | 4/5 rating |
+| 8b | Subprocess Optimization | ✅ PASS | 2 designed, 3 additional opportunities |
+| 9 | Cohesive Review | ✅ GOOD | Ready for use |
+| 11 | Plan Quality | ✅ Fully Implemented | 28/28 requirements, 1 minor inconsistency |
+
+### Critical Issues: 0
+
+### Warnings: 5
+
+1. **step-02-scan-project.md** — 208 lines (approaching 250 limit)
+2. **step-04-map-and-detect.md** — 222 lines (approaching 250 limit)
+3. **step-05-recommend.md** — 236 lines (approaching 250 limit)
+4. **step-06-generate-briefs.md** — 239 lines (approaching 250 limit)
+5. **Party Mode inclusion** — step-05 includes P option despite tools config specifying "excluded" (design override, reasonable)
+
+### Key Strengths
+
+- Complete evidence-based analysis pipeline with zero-hallucination principle
+- Well-placed collaborative gate at step 05 with Y/N/M + "why?" support
+- Perfect data flow — every step builds on previous work
+- Tier-aware analysis depth (Quick/Forge/Deep)
+- Continuation support for interrupted sessions
+- Schema validation before file writing
+- Clear downstream workflow recommendations
+
+### Recommendation
+
+**Ready for use.** The workflow is well-designed, fully implements the plan, and would provide a good user experience for brownfield onboarding. Minor file size optimization recommended for steps approaching the 250-line limit — consider extracting presentation templates or table structures to data/ files.