siesa-agents 2.1.2 → 2.1.3-dev.0

package/bmad-core/checklists/pm-checklist.md

@@ -1,372 +1,372 @@
-<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
-
-# Product Manager (PM) Requirements Checklist
-
-This checklist serves as a comprehensive framework to ensure the Product Requirements Document (PRD) and Epic definitions are complete, well-structured, and appropriately scoped for MVP development. The PM should systematically work through each item during the product definition process.
-
-[[LLM: INITIALIZATION INSTRUCTIONS - PM CHECKLIST
-
-Before proceeding with this checklist, ensure you have access to:
-
-1. prd.md - The Product Requirements Document (check docs/prd.md)
-2. Any user research, market analysis, or competitive analysis documents
-3. Business goals and strategy documents
-4. Any existing epic definitions or user stories
-
-IMPORTANT: If the PRD is missing, immediately ask the user for its location or content before proceeding.
-
-VALIDATION APPROACH:
-
-1. User-Centric - Every requirement should tie back to user value
-2. MVP Focus - Ensure scope is truly minimal while viable
-3. Clarity - Requirements should be unambiguous and testable
-4. Completeness - All aspects of the product vision are covered
-5. Feasibility - Requirements are technically achievable
-
-EXECUTION MODE:
-Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:
-
-- Section by section (interactive mode) - Review each section, present findings, get confirmation before proceeding
-- All at once (comprehensive mode) - Complete full analysis and present comprehensive report at end]]
-
-## 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION & CONTEXT
-
-[[LLM: The foundation of any product is a clear problem statement. As you review this section:
-
-1. Verify the problem is real and worth solving
-2. Check that the target audience is specific, not "everyone"
-3. Ensure success metrics are measurable, not vague aspirations
-4. Look for evidence of user research, not just assumptions
-5. Confirm the problem-solution fit is logical]]
-
-### 1.1 Problem Statement
-
-- [ ] Clear articulation of the problem being solved
-- [ ] Identification of who experiences the problem
-- [ ] Explanation of why solving this problem matters
-- [ ] Quantification of problem impact (if possible)
-- [ ] Differentiation from existing solutions
-
-### 1.2 Business Goals & Success Metrics
-
-- [ ] Specific, measurable business objectives defined
-- [ ] Clear success metrics and KPIs established
-- [ ] Metrics are tied to user and business value
-- [ ] Baseline measurements identified (if applicable)
-- [ ] Timeframe for achieving goals specified
-
-### 1.3 User Research & Insights
-
-- [ ] Target user personas clearly defined
-- [ ] User needs and pain points documented
-- [ ] User research findings summarized (if available)
-- [ ] Competitive analysis included
-- [ ] Market context provided
-
-## 2. MVP SCOPE DEFINITION
-
-[[LLM: MVP scope is critical - too much and you waste resources, too little and you can't validate. Check:
-
-1. Is this truly minimal? Challenge every feature
-2. Does each feature directly address the core problem?
-3. Are "nice-to-haves" clearly separated from "must-haves"?
-4. Is the rationale for inclusion/exclusion documented?
-5. Can you ship this in the target timeframe?]]
-
-### 2.1 Core Functionality
-
-- [ ] Essential features clearly distinguished from nice-to-haves
-- [ ] Features directly address defined problem statement
-- [ ] Each Epic ties back to specific user needs
-- [ ] Features and Stories are described from user perspective
-- [ ] Minimum requirements for success defined
-
-### 2.2 Scope Boundaries
-
-- [ ] Clear articulation of what is OUT of scope
-- [ ] Future enhancements section included
-- [ ] Rationale for scope decisions documented
-- [ ] MVP minimizes functionality while maximizing learning
-- [ ] Scope has been reviewed and refined multiple times
-
-### 2.3 MVP Validation Approach
-
-- [ ] Method for testing MVP success defined
-- [ ] Initial user feedback mechanisms planned
-- [ ] Criteria for moving beyond MVP specified
-- [ ] Learning goals for MVP articulated
-- [ ] Timeline expectations set
-
-## 3. USER EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
-
-[[LLM: UX requirements bridge user needs and technical implementation. Validate:
-
-1. User flows cover the primary use cases completely
-2. Edge cases are identified (even if deferred)
-3. Accessibility isn't an afterthought
-4. Performance expectations are realistic
-5. Error states and recovery are planned]]
-
-### 3.1 User Journeys & Flows
-
-- [ ] Primary user flows documented
-- [ ] Entry and exit points for each flow identified
-- [ ] Decision points and branches mapped
-- [ ] Critical path highlighted
-- [ ] Edge cases considered
-
-### 3.2 Usability Requirements
-
-- [ ] Accessibility considerations documented
-- [ ] Platform/device compatibility specified
-- [ ] Performance expectations from user perspective defined
-- [ ] Error handling and recovery approaches outlined
-- [ ] User feedback mechanisms identified
-
-### 3.3 UI Requirements
-
-- [ ] Information architecture outlined
-- [ ] Critical UI components identified
-- [ ] Visual design guidelines referenced (if applicable)
-- [ ] Content requirements specified
-- [ ] High-level navigation structure defined
-
-## 4. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
-
-[[LLM: Functional requirements must be clear enough for implementation. Check:
-
-1. Requirements focus on WHAT not HOW (no implementation details)
-2. Each requirement is testable (how would QA verify it?)
-3. Dependencies are explicit (what needs to be built first?)
-4. Requirements use consistent terminology
-5. Complex features are broken into manageable pieces]]
-
-### 4.1 Feature Completeness
-
-- [ ] All required features for MVP documented
-- [ ] Features have clear, user-focused descriptions
-- [ ] Feature priority/criticality indicated
-- [ ] Requirements are testable and verifiable
-- [ ] Dependencies between features identified
-
-### 4.2 Requirements Quality
-
-- [ ] Requirements are specific and unambiguous
-- [ ] Requirements focus on WHAT not HOW
-- [ ] Requirements use consistent terminology
-- [ ] Complex requirements broken into simpler parts
-- [ ] Technical jargon minimized or explained
-
-### 4.3 User Stories & Acceptance Criteria
-
-- [ ] Stories follow consistent format
-- [ ] Acceptance criteria are testable
-- [ ] Stories are sized appropriately (not too large)
-- [ ] Stories are independent where possible
-- [ ] Stories include necessary context
-- [ ] Local testability requirements (e.g., via CLI) defined in ACs for relevant backend/data stories
-
-## 5. NON-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
-
-### 5.1 Performance Requirements
-
-- [ ] Response time expectations defined
-- [ ] Throughput/capacity requirements specified
-- [ ] Scalability needs documented
-- [ ] Resource utilization constraints identified
-- [ ] Load handling expectations set
-
-### 5.2 Security & Compliance
-
-- [ ] Data protection requirements specified
-- [ ] Authentication/authorization needs defined
-- [ ] Compliance requirements documented
-- [ ] Security testing requirements outlined
-- [ ] Privacy considerations addressed
-
-### 5.3 Reliability & Resilience
-
-- [ ] Availability requirements defined
-- [ ] Backup and recovery needs documented
-- [ ] Fault tolerance expectations set
-- [ ] Error handling requirements specified
-- [ ] Maintenance and support considerations included
-
-### 5.4 Technical Constraints
-
-- [ ] Platform/technology constraints documented
-- [ ] Integration requirements outlined
-- [ ] Third-party service dependencies identified
-- [ ] Infrastructure requirements specified
-- [ ] Development environment needs identified
-
-## 6. EPIC & STORY STRUCTURE
-
-### 6.1 Epic Definition
-
-- [ ] Epics represent cohesive units of functionality
-- [ ] Epics focus on user/business value delivery
-- [ ] Epic goals clearly articulated
-- [ ] Epics are sized appropriately for incremental delivery
-- [ ] Epic sequence and dependencies identified
-
-### 6.2 Story Breakdown
-
-- [ ] Stories are broken down to appropriate size
-- [ ] Stories have clear, independent value
-- [ ] Stories include appropriate acceptance criteria
-- [ ] Story dependencies and sequence documented
-- [ ] Stories aligned with epic goals
-
-### 6.3 First Epic Completeness
-
-- [ ] First epic includes all necessary setup steps
-- [ ] Project scaffolding and initialization addressed
-- [ ] Core infrastructure setup included
-- [ ] Development environment setup addressed
-- [ ] Local testability established early
-
-## 7. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
-
-### 7.1 Architecture Guidance
-
-- [ ] Initial architecture direction provided
-- [ ] Technical constraints clearly communicated
-- [ ] Integration points identified
-- [ ] Performance considerations highlighted
-- [ ] Security requirements articulated
-- [ ] Known areas of high complexity or technical risk flagged for architectural deep-dive
-
-### 7.2 Technical Decision Framework
-
-- [ ] Decision criteria for technical choices provided
-- [ ] Trade-offs articulated for key decisions
-- [ ] Rationale for selecting primary approach over considered alternatives documented (for key design/feature choices)
-- [ ] Non-negotiable technical requirements highlighted
-- [ ] Areas requiring technical investigation identified
-- [ ] Guidance on technical debt approach provided
-
-### 7.3 Implementation Considerations
-
-- [ ] Development approach guidance provided
-- [ ] Testing requirements articulated
-- [ ] Deployment expectations set
-- [ ] Monitoring needs identified
-- [ ] Documentation requirements specified
-
-## 8. CROSS-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
-
-### 8.1 Data Requirements
-
-- [ ] Data entities and relationships identified
-- [ ] Data storage requirements specified
-- [ ] Data quality requirements defined
-- [ ] Data retention policies identified
-- [ ] Data migration needs addressed (if applicable)
-- [ ] Schema changes planned iteratively, tied to stories requiring them
-
-### 8.2 Integration Requirements
-
-- [ ] External system integrations identified
-- [ ] API requirements documented
-- [ ] Authentication for integrations specified
-- [ ] Data exchange formats defined
-- [ ] Integration testing requirements outlined
-
-### 8.3 Operational Requirements
-
-- [ ] Deployment frequency expectations set
-- [ ] Environment requirements defined
-- [ ] Monitoring and alerting needs identified
-- [ ] Support requirements documented
-- [ ] Performance monitoring approach specified
-
-## 9. CLARITY & COMMUNICATION
-
-### 9.1 Documentation Quality
-
-- [ ] Documents use clear, consistent language
-- [ ] Documents are well-structured and organized
-- [ ] Technical terms are defined where necessary
-- [ ] Diagrams/visuals included where helpful
-- [ ] Documentation is versioned appropriately
-
-### 9.2 Stakeholder Alignment
-
-- [ ] Key stakeholders identified
-- [ ] Stakeholder input incorporated
-- [ ] Potential areas of disagreement addressed
-- [ ] Communication plan for updates established
-- [ ] Approval process defined
-
-## PRD & EPIC VALIDATION SUMMARY
-
-[[LLM: FINAL PM CHECKLIST REPORT GENERATION
-
-Create a comprehensive validation report that includes:
-
-1. Executive Summary
-   - Overall PRD completeness (percentage)
-   - MVP scope appropriateness (Too Large/Just Right/Too Small)
-   - Readiness for architecture phase (Ready/Nearly Ready/Not Ready)
-   - Most critical gaps or concerns
-
-2. Category Analysis Table
-   Fill in the actual table with:
-   - Status: PASS (90%+ complete), PARTIAL (60-89%), FAIL (<60%)
-   - Critical Issues: Specific problems that block progress
-
-3. Top Issues by Priority
-   - BLOCKERS: Must fix before architect can proceed
-   - HIGH: Should fix for quality
-   - MEDIUM: Would improve clarity
-   - LOW: Nice to have
-
-4. MVP Scope Assessment
-   - Features that might be cut for true MVP
-   - Missing features that are essential
-   - Complexity concerns
-   - Timeline realism
-
-5. Technical Readiness
-   - Clarity of technical constraints
-   - Identified technical risks
-   - Areas needing architect investigation
-
-6. Recommendations
-   - Specific actions to address each blocker
-   - Suggested improvements
-   - Next steps
-
-After presenting the report, ask if the user wants:
-
-- Detailed analysis of any failed sections
-- Suggestions for improving specific areas
-- Help with refining MVP scope]]
-
-### Category Statuses
-
-| Category                         | Status | Critical Issues |
-| -------------------------------- | ------ | --------------- |
-| 1. Problem Definition & Context  | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 2. MVP Scope Definition          | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 3. User Experience Requirements  | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 4. Functional Requirements       | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 5. Non-Functional Requirements   | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 6. Epic & Story Structure        | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 7. Technical Guidance            | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 8. Cross-Functional Requirements | _TBD_  |                 |
-| 9. Clarity & Communication       | _TBD_  |                 |
-
-### Critical Deficiencies
-
-(To be populated during validation)
-
-### Recommendations
-
-(To be populated during validation)
-
-### Final Decision
-
-- **READY FOR ARCHITECT**: The PRD and epics are comprehensive, properly structured, and ready for architectural design.
-- **NEEDS REFINEMENT**: The requirements documentation requires additional work to address the identified deficiencies.
+<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
+
+# Product Manager (PM) Requirements Checklist
+
+This checklist serves as a comprehensive framework to ensure the Product Requirements Document (PRD) and Epic definitions are complete, well-structured, and appropriately scoped for MVP development. The PM should systematically work through each item during the product definition process.
+
+[[LLM: INITIALIZATION INSTRUCTIONS - PM CHECKLIST
+
+Before proceeding with this checklist, ensure you have access to:
+
+1. prd.md - The Product Requirements Document (check docs/prd.md)
+2. Any user research, market analysis, or competitive analysis documents
+3. Business goals and strategy documents
+4. Any existing epic definitions or user stories
+
+IMPORTANT: If the PRD is missing, immediately ask the user for its location or content before proceeding.
+
+VALIDATION APPROACH:
+
+1. User-Centric - Every requirement should tie back to user value
+2. MVP Focus - Ensure scope is truly minimal while viable
+3. Clarity - Requirements should be unambiguous and testable
+4. Completeness - All aspects of the product vision are covered
+5. Feasibility - Requirements are technically achievable
+
+EXECUTION MODE:
+Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:
+
+- Section by section (interactive mode) - Review each section, present findings, get confirmation before proceeding
+- All at once (comprehensive mode) - Complete full analysis and present comprehensive report at end]]
+
+## 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION & CONTEXT
+
+[[LLM: The foundation of any product is a clear problem statement. As you review this section:
+
+1. Verify the problem is real and worth solving
+2. Check that the target audience is specific, not "everyone"
+3. Ensure success metrics are measurable, not vague aspirations
+4. Look for evidence of user research, not just assumptions
+5. Confirm the problem-solution fit is logical]]
+
+### 1.1 Problem Statement
+
+- [ ] Clear articulation of the problem being solved
+- [ ] Identification of who experiences the problem
+- [ ] Explanation of why solving this problem matters
+- [ ] Quantification of problem impact (if possible)
+- [ ] Differentiation from existing solutions
+
+### 1.2 Business Goals & Success Metrics
+
+- [ ] Specific, measurable business objectives defined
+- [ ] Clear success metrics and KPIs established
+- [ ] Metrics are tied to user and business value
+- [ ] Baseline measurements identified (if applicable)
+- [ ] Timeframe for achieving goals specified
+
+### 1.3 User Research & Insights
+
+- [ ] Target user personas clearly defined
+- [ ] User needs and pain points documented
+- [ ] User research findings summarized (if available)
+- [ ] Competitive analysis included
+- [ ] Market context provided
+
+## 2. MVP SCOPE DEFINITION
+
+[[LLM: MVP scope is critical - too much and you waste resources, too little and you can't validate. Check:
+
+1. Is this truly minimal? Challenge every feature
+2. Does each feature directly address the core problem?
+3. Are "nice-to-haves" clearly separated from "must-haves"?
+4. Is the rationale for inclusion/exclusion documented?
+5. Can you ship this in the target timeframe?]]
+
+### 2.1 Core Functionality
+
+- [ ] Essential features clearly distinguished from nice-to-haves
+- [ ] Features directly address defined problem statement
+- [ ] Each Epic ties back to specific user needs
+- [ ] Features and Stories are described from user perspective
+- [ ] Minimum requirements for success defined
+
+### 2.2 Scope Boundaries
+
+- [ ] Clear articulation of what is OUT of scope
+- [ ] Future enhancements section included
+- [ ] Rationale for scope decisions documented
+- [ ] MVP minimizes functionality while maximizing learning
+- [ ] Scope has been reviewed and refined multiple times
+
+### 2.3 MVP Validation Approach
+
+- [ ] Method for testing MVP success defined
+- [ ] Initial user feedback mechanisms planned
+- [ ] Criteria for moving beyond MVP specified
+- [ ] Learning goals for MVP articulated
+- [ ] Timeline expectations set
+
+## 3. USER EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
+
+[[LLM: UX requirements bridge user needs and technical implementation. Validate:
+
+1. User flows cover the primary use cases completely
+2. Edge cases are identified (even if deferred)
+3. Accessibility isn't an afterthought
+4. Performance expectations are realistic
+5. Error states and recovery are planned]]
+
+### 3.1 User Journeys & Flows
+
+- [ ] Primary user flows documented
+- [ ] Entry and exit points for each flow identified
+- [ ] Decision points and branches mapped
+- [ ] Critical path highlighted
+- [ ] Edge cases considered
+
+### 3.2 Usability Requirements
+
+- [ ] Accessibility considerations documented
+- [ ] Platform/device compatibility specified
+- [ ] Performance expectations from user perspective defined
+- [ ] Error handling and recovery approaches outlined
+- [ ] User feedback mechanisms identified
+
+### 3.3 UI Requirements
+
+- [ ] Information architecture outlined
+- [ ] Critical UI components identified
+- [ ] Visual design guidelines referenced (if applicable)
+- [ ] Content requirements specified
+- [ ] High-level navigation structure defined
+
+## 4. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
+
+[[LLM: Functional requirements must be clear enough for implementation. Check:
+
+1. Requirements focus on WHAT not HOW (no implementation details)
+2. Each requirement is testable (how would QA verify it?)
+3. Dependencies are explicit (what needs to be built first?)
+4. Requirements use consistent terminology
+5. Complex features are broken into manageable pieces]]
+
+### 4.1 Feature Completeness
+
+- [ ] All required features for MVP documented
+- [ ] Features have clear, user-focused descriptions
+- [ ] Feature priority/criticality indicated
+- [ ] Requirements are testable and verifiable
+- [ ] Dependencies between features identified
+
+### 4.2 Requirements Quality
+
+- [ ] Requirements are specific and unambiguous
+- [ ] Requirements focus on WHAT not HOW
+- [ ] Requirements use consistent terminology
+- [ ] Complex requirements broken into simpler parts
+- [ ] Technical jargon minimized or explained
+
+### 4.3 User Stories & Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Stories follow consistent format
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria are testable
+- [ ] Stories are sized appropriately (not too large)
+- [ ] Stories are independent where possible
+- [ ] Stories include necessary context
+- [ ] Local testability requirements (e.g., via CLI) defined in ACs for relevant backend/data stories
+
+## 5. NON-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
+
+### 5.1 Performance Requirements
+
+- [ ] Response time expectations defined
+- [ ] Throughput/capacity requirements specified
+- [ ] Scalability needs documented
+- [ ] Resource utilization constraints identified
+- [ ] Load handling expectations set
+
+### 5.2 Security & Compliance
+
+- [ ] Data protection requirements specified
+- [ ] Authentication/authorization needs defined
+- [ ] Compliance requirements documented
+- [ ] Security testing requirements outlined
+- [ ] Privacy considerations addressed
+
+### 5.3 Reliability & Resilience
+
+- [ ] Availability requirements defined
+- [ ] Backup and recovery needs documented
+- [ ] Fault tolerance expectations set
+- [ ] Error handling requirements specified
+- [ ] Maintenance and support considerations included
+
+### 5.4 Technical Constraints
+
+- [ ] Platform/technology constraints documented
+- [ ] Integration requirements outlined
+- [ ] Third-party service dependencies identified
+- [ ] Infrastructure requirements specified
+- [ ] Development environment needs identified
+
+## 6. EPIC & STORY STRUCTURE
+
+### 6.1 Epic Definition
+
+- [ ] Epics represent cohesive units of functionality
+- [ ] Epics focus on user/business value delivery
+- [ ] Epic goals clearly articulated
+- [ ] Epics are sized appropriately for incremental delivery
+- [ ] Epic sequence and dependencies identified
+
+### 6.2 Story Breakdown
+
+- [ ] Stories are broken down to appropriate size
+- [ ] Stories have clear, independent value
+- [ ] Stories include appropriate acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Story dependencies and sequence documented
+- [ ] Stories aligned with epic goals
+
+### 6.3 First Epic Completeness
+
+- [ ] First epic includes all necessary setup steps
+- [ ] Project scaffolding and initialization addressed
+- [ ] Core infrastructure setup included
+- [ ] Development environment setup addressed
+- [ ] Local testability established early
+
+## 7. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
+
+### 7.1 Architecture Guidance
+
+- [ ] Initial architecture direction provided
+- [ ] Technical constraints clearly communicated
+- [ ] Integration points identified
+- [ ] Performance considerations highlighted
+- [ ] Security requirements articulated
+- [ ] Known areas of high complexity or technical risk flagged for architectural deep-dive
+
+### 7.2 Technical Decision Framework
+
+- [ ] Decision criteria for technical choices provided
+- [ ] Trade-offs articulated for key decisions
+- [ ] Rationale for selecting primary approach over considered alternatives documented (for key design/feature choices)
+- [ ] Non-negotiable technical requirements highlighted
+- [ ] Areas requiring technical investigation identified
+- [ ] Guidance on technical debt approach provided
+
+### 7.3 Implementation Considerations
+
+- [ ] Development approach guidance provided
+- [ ] Testing requirements articulated
+- [ ] Deployment expectations set
+- [ ] Monitoring needs identified
+- [ ] Documentation requirements specified
+
+## 8. CROSS-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
+
+### 8.1 Data Requirements
+
+- [ ] Data entities and relationships identified
+- [ ] Data storage requirements specified
+- [ ] Data quality requirements defined
+- [ ] Data retention policies identified
+- [ ] Data migration needs addressed (if applicable)
+- [ ] Schema changes planned iteratively, tied to stories requiring them
+
+### 8.2 Integration Requirements
+
+- [ ] External system integrations identified
+- [ ] API requirements documented
+- [ ] Authentication for integrations specified
+- [ ] Data exchange formats defined
+- [ ] Integration testing requirements outlined
+
+### 8.3 Operational Requirements
+
+- [ ] Deployment frequency expectations set
+- [ ] Environment requirements defined
+- [ ] Monitoring and alerting needs identified
+- [ ] Support requirements documented
+- [ ] Performance monitoring approach specified
+
+## 9. CLARITY & COMMUNICATION
+
+### 9.1 Documentation Quality
+
+- [ ] Documents use clear, consistent language
+- [ ] Documents are well-structured and organized
+- [ ] Technical terms are defined where necessary
+- [ ] Diagrams/visuals included where helpful
+- [ ] Documentation is versioned appropriately
+
+### 9.2 Stakeholder Alignment
+
+- [ ] Key stakeholders identified
+- [ ] Stakeholder input incorporated
+- [ ] Potential areas of disagreement addressed
+- [ ] Communication plan for updates established
+- [ ] Approval process defined
+
+## PRD & EPIC VALIDATION SUMMARY
+
+[[LLM: FINAL PM CHECKLIST REPORT GENERATION
+
+Create a comprehensive validation report that includes:
+
+1. Executive Summary
+   - Overall PRD completeness (percentage)
+   - MVP scope appropriateness (Too Large/Just Right/Too Small)
+   - Readiness for architecture phase (Ready/Nearly Ready/Not Ready)
+   - Most critical gaps or concerns
+
+2. Category Analysis Table
+   Fill in the actual table with:
+   - Status: PASS (90%+ complete), PARTIAL (60-89%), FAIL (<60%)
+   - Critical Issues: Specific problems that block progress
+
+3. Top Issues by Priority
+   - BLOCKERS: Must fix before architect can proceed
+   - HIGH: Should fix for quality
+   - MEDIUM: Would improve clarity
+   - LOW: Nice to have
+
+4. MVP Scope Assessment
+   - Features that might be cut for true MVP
+   - Missing features that are essential
+   - Complexity concerns
+   - Timeline realism
+
+5. Technical Readiness
+   - Clarity of technical constraints
+   - Identified technical risks
+   - Areas needing architect investigation
+
+6. Recommendations
+   - Specific actions to address each blocker
+   - Suggested improvements
+   - Next steps
+
+After presenting the report, ask if the user wants:
+
+- Detailed analysis of any failed sections
+- Suggestions for improving specific areas
+- Help with refining MVP scope]]
+
+### Category Statuses
+
+| Category                         | Status | Critical Issues |
+| -------------------------------- | ------ | --------------- |
+| 1. Problem Definition & Context  | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 2. MVP Scope Definition          | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 3. User Experience Requirements  | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 4. Functional Requirements       | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 5. Non-Functional Requirements   | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 6. Epic & Story Structure        | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 7. Technical Guidance            | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 8. Cross-Functional Requirements | _TBD_  |                 |
+| 9. Clarity & Communication       | _TBD_  |                 |
+
+### Critical Deficiencies
+
+(To be populated during validation)
+
+### Recommendations
+
+(To be populated during validation)
+
+### Final Decision
+
+- **READY FOR ARCHITECT**: The PRD and epics are comprehensive, properly structured, and ready for architectural design.
+- **NEEDS REFINEMENT**: The requirements documentation requires additional work to address the identified deficiencies.