siesa-agents 2.1.78 → 2.1.80

package/claude/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md

@@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
+---
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-03-density-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 2B: Document Parity Check
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity, presenting user with options for how to proceed.
+
+## 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 collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring BMAD PRD standards expertise and gap analysis
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on analyzing gaps and estimating parity effort
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic gap analysis with clear recommendations
+- 🚪 This is an optional branch step - user chooses next action
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Analyze each BMAD PRD section for gaps
+- 💾 Append parity analysis to validation report
+- 📖 Present options and await user decision
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Non-standard PRD from step 2, validation report in progress
+- Focus: Parity analysis only - what's missing, what's needed
+- Limits: Don't perform validation checks, don't auto-proceed
+- Dependencies: Step 2 classified PRD as non-standard and user chose parity check
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Analyze Each BMAD PRD Section
+
+For each of the 6 BMAD PRD core sections, analyze:
+
+**Executive Summary:**
+- Does PRD have vision/overview?
+- Is problem statement clear?
+- Are target users identified?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- Are measurable goals defined?
+- Is success clearly defined?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Product Scope:**
+- Is scope clearly defined?
+- Are in-scope items listed?
+- Are out-of-scope items listed?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**User Journeys:**
+- Are user types/personas identified?
+- Are user flows documented?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Functional Requirements:**
+- Are features/capabilities listed?
+- Are requirements structured?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements:**
+- Are quality attributes defined?
+- Are performance/security/etc. requirements documented?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+### 2. Estimate Effort to Reach Parity
+
+For each missing or incomplete section, estimate:
+
+**Effort Level:**
+- Minimal - Section exists but needs minor enhancements
+- Moderate - Section missing but content exists elsewhere in PRD
+- Significant - Section missing, requires new content creation
+
+**Total Parity Effort:**
+- Based on individual section estimates
+- Classify overall: Quick / Moderate / Substantial effort
+
+### 3. Report Parity Analysis to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Parity Analysis (Non-Standard PRD)
+
+### Section-by-Section Gap Analysis
+
+**Executive Summary:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Product Scope:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**User Journeys:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Functional Requirements:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+### Overall Parity Assessment
+
+**Overall Effort to Reach BMAD Standard:** [Quick/Moderate/Substantial]
+**Recommendation:** [Brief recommendation based on analysis]
+```
+
+### 4. Present Parity Analysis and Options
+
+Display:
+
+"**Parity Analysis Complete**
+
+Your PRD is missing {count} of 6 core BMAD PRD sections. The overall effort to reach BMAD standard is: **{effort level}**
+
+**Quick Summary:**
+[2-3 sentence summary of key gaps]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+{recommendation from analysis}
+
+**How would you like to proceed?**"
+
+### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+**[C] Continue Validation** - Proceed with validation using current structure
+**[E] Exit & Review** - Exit validation and review parity report
+**[S] Save & Exit** - Save parity report and exit
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF C (Continue): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then read fully and follow: {nextStepFile}
+- IF E (Exit): Display parity summary and exit validation
+- IF S (Save): Confirm saved, display summary, exit
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All 6 BMAD PRD sections analyzed for gaps
+- Effort estimates provided for each gap
+- Overall parity effort assessed correctly
+- Parity analysis reported to validation report
+- Clear summary presented to user
+- User can choose to continue validation, exit, or save report
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not analyzing all 6 sections systematically
+- Missing effort estimates
+- Not reporting parity analysis to validation report
+- Auto-proceeding without user decision
+- Unclear recommendations
+
+**Master Rule:** Parity check informs user of gaps and effort, but user decides whether to proceed with validation or address gaps first.

package/claude/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+---
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 3: Information Density Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate PRD meets BMAD information density standards by scanning for conversational filler, wordy phrases, and redundant expressions that violate conciseness principles.
+
+## 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 analytical rigor and attention to detail
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on information density anti-patterns
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning and categorization
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Scan PRD for density anti-patterns systematically
+- 💾 Append density findings 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 with format findings
+- Focus: Information density validation only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Step 2 completed - format classification 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 information density validation on this PRD:
+
+1. Load the PRD file
+2. Scan for the following anti-patterns:
+   - Conversational filler phrases (examples: 'The system will allow users to...', 'It is important to note that...', 'In order to')
+   - Wordy phrases (examples: 'Due to the fact that', 'In the event of', 'For the purpose of')
+   - Redundant phrases (examples: 'Future plans', 'Absolutely essential', 'Past history')
+3. Count violations by category with line numbers
+4. Classify severity: Critical (>10 violations), Warning (5-10), Pass (<5)
+
+Return structured findings with counts and examples."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Scan for conversational filler patterns:**
+- "The system will allow users to..."
+- "It is important to note that..."
+- "In order to"
+- "For the purpose of"
+- "With regard to"
+- Count occurrences and note line numbers
+
+**Scan for wordy phrases:**
+- "Due to the fact that" (use "because")
+- "In the event of" (use "if")
+- "At this point in time" (use "now")
+- "In a manner that" (use "how")
+- Count occurrences and note line numbers
+
+**Scan for redundant phrases:**
+- "Future plans" (just "plans")
+- "Past history" (just "history")
+- "Absolutely essential" (just "essential")
+- "Completely finish" (just "finish")
+- Count occurrences and note line numbers
+
+### 3. Classify Severity
+
+**Calculate total violations:**
+- Conversational filler count
+- Wordy phrases count
+- Redundant phrases count
+- Total = sum of all categories
+
+**Determine severity:**
+- **Critical:** Total > 10 violations
+- **Warning:** Total 5-10 violations
+- **Pass:** Total < 5 violations
+
+### 4. Report Density Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Information Density Validation
+
+**Anti-Pattern Violations:**
+
+**Conversational Filler:** {count} occurrences
+[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Wordy Phrases:** {count} occurrences
+[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Redundant Phrases:** {count} occurrences
+[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Total Violations:** {total}
+
+**Severity Assessment:** [Critical/Warning/Pass]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD requires significant revision to improve information density. Every sentence should carry weight without filler."
+[If Warning] "PRD would benefit from reducing wordiness and eliminating filler phrases."
+[If Pass] "PRD demonstrates good information density with minimal violations."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Information Density Validation Complete**
+
+Severity: {Critical/Warning/Pass}
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- PRD scanned for all three anti-pattern categories
+- Violations counted with line numbers
+- Severity classified correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scanning all anti-pattern categories
+- Missing severity classification
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Pausing for user input (should auto-proceed)
+- Not attempting subprocess architecture
+
+**Master Rule:** Information density validation runs autonomously. Scan, classify, report, auto-proceed. No user interaction needed.

package/claude/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+---
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-05-measurability-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+productBrief: '{product_brief_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 4: Product Brief Coverage Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate that PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if brief was used as input), mapping brief content to PRD sections and identifying gaps.
+
+## 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 analytical rigor and traceability expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on Product Brief coverage (conditional on brief existence)
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic mapping and gap analysis
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check if Product Brief exists in input documents
+- 💬 If no brief: Skip this check and report "N/A - No Product Brief"
+- 🎯 If brief exists: Map brief content to PRD sections
+- 💾 Append coverage findings 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, input documents from step 1, validation report
+- Focus: Product Brief coverage only (conditional)
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, conditional execution
+- Dependencies: Step 1 completed - input documents loaded
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Check for Product Brief
+
+Check if Product Brief was loaded in step 1's inputDocuments:
+
+**IF no Product Brief found:**
+Append to validation report:
+```markdown
+## Product Brief Coverage
+
+**Status:** N/A - No Product Brief was provided as input
+```
+
+Display: "**Product Brief Coverage: Skipped** (No Product Brief provided)
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile}
+
+**IF Product Brief exists:** Continue to step 2 below
+
+### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform Product Brief coverage validation:
+
+1. Load the Product Brief
+2. Extract key content:
+   - Vision statement
+   - Target users/personas
+   - Problem statement
+   - Key features
+   - Goals/objectives
+   - Differentiators
+   - Constraints
+3. For each item, search PRD for corresponding coverage
+4. Classify coverage: Fully Covered / Partially Covered / Not Found / Intentionally Excluded
+5. Note any gaps with severity: Critical / Moderate / Informational
+
+Return structured coverage map with classifications."
+
+### 3. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Extract from Product Brief:**
+- Vision: What is this product?
+- Users: Who is it for?
+- Problem: What problem does it solve?
+- Features: What are the key capabilities?
+- Goals: What are the success criteria?
+- Differentiators: What makes it unique?
+
+**For each item, search PRD:**
+- Scan Executive Summary for vision
+- Check User Journeys or user personas
+- Look for problem statement
+- Review Functional Requirements for features
+- Check Success Criteria section
+- Search for differentiators
+
+**Classify coverage:**
+- **Fully Covered:** Content present and complete
+- **Partially Covered:** Content present but incomplete
+- **Not Found:** Content missing from PRD
+- **Intentionally Excluded:** Content explicitly out of scope
+
+### 4. Assess Coverage and Severity
+
+**For each gap (Partially Covered or Not Found):**
+- Is this Critical? (Core vision, primary users, main features)
+- Is this Moderate? (Secondary features, some goals)
+- Is this Informational? (Nice-to-have features, minor details)
+
+**Note:** Some exclusions may be intentional (valid scoping decisions)
+
+### 5. Report Coverage Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Product Brief Coverage
+
+**Product Brief:** {brief_file_name}
+
+### Coverage Map
+
+**Vision Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Target Users:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Problem Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Key Features:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: List specific features with severity]
+
+**Goals/Objectives:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Differentiators:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+### Coverage Summary
+
+**Overall Coverage:** [percentage or qualitative assessment]
+**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+**Moderate Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+**Informational Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If critical gaps exist] "PRD should be revised to cover critical Product Brief content."
+[If moderate gaps] "Consider addressing moderate gaps for complete coverage."
+[If minimal gaps] "PRD provides good coverage of Product Brief content."
+```
+
+### 6. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Product Brief Coverage Validation Complete**
+
+Overall Coverage: {assessment}
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-05-measurability-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Checked for Product Brief existence correctly
+- If no brief: Reported "N/A" and skipped gracefully
+- If brief exists: Mapped all key brief content to PRD sections
+- Coverage classified appropriately (Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded)
+- Severity assessed for gaps (Critical/Moderate/Informational)
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking for brief existence before attempting validation
+- If brief exists: not mapping all key content areas
+- Missing coverage classifications
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Product Brief coverage is conditional - skip if no brief, validate thoroughly if brief exists. Always auto-proceed.