wize-dev-kit 0.16.0 → 0.17.0

package/src/method-skills/2-plan-workflows/wize-edit-prd/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+---
+
+code: wize-edit-prd
+description: "Use quando o PRD existir e precisar de alteração pontual com registro de changelog."
+name: Edit PRD
+phase: 2-plan
+owner: wize-agent-pm   # Maria Hill
+status: ready
+---
+
+# Edit PRD
+
+**Goal.** Update `.wize/planning/prd.md` without rewriting from scratch. Every change is recorded in `.wize/planning/prd-changelog.md` so the team can see *what* changed, *when*, *why*, and *by whom*.
+
+Maria Hill drives. Peggy polishes prose on the diff. Wizer is on call for cross-cutting impacts (architecture, NFR, scope).
+
+## When to run
+
+- A new AC is needed (new requirement from the user, market shift, regulator).
+- An AC is no longer correct (validated learning, scoping mistake).
+- An item moves in-scope ↔ out-of-scope.
+- A non-goal is added or removed.
+- A new decision is made that affects the PRD (e.g., cut a feature).
+
+## When NOT to run
+
+- Rewriting the PRD from scratch → use `/wize-create-prd`.
+- Validating the PRD → use `/wize-validate-prd`.
+
+## Inputs
+
+- `.wize/planning/prd.md` (current)
+- A free-form change request from the user.
+
+## Output
+
+- Updated `.wize/planning/prd.md`.
+- New row in `.wize/planning/prd-changelog.md` (one row per change).
+
+## Steps
+
+### 1. Read the current PRD
+
+Parse the PRD frontmatter (`status`, `owner`, `created`, `last_updated`) and the body. Confirm the change is in scope of "edit" (not a rewrite). If the change touches > 25% of the PRD, route to `/wize-create-prd` instead.
+
+### 2. Classify the edit
+
+Pick exactly one type:
+
+- **A** — Add or change an AC.
+- **B** — Move item in-scope ↔ out-of-scope.
+- **C** — Add or remove a non-goal.
+- **D** — Register a decision that affects the PRD (link to ADR or sprint decision).
+
+One edit per run. Re-run for additional edits.
+
+### 3. Apply the edit
+
+Make the change in `prd.md`. Mark the changed section with a trailing note: `(edited 2026-06-15, see changelog row 4)`.
+
+Update frontmatter: `last_updated` to today; `status` stays the same (only `/wize-validate-prd` flips it to `validated`).
+
+### 4. Append to changelog
+
+Add a row to `prd-changelog.md`:
+
+```markdown
+| Date | Type | Section | Change | Author |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 2026-06-15 | A | AC-04-2 | Added: "rate limit per team" | Hill |
+| 2026-06-15 | B | Out of scope | Removed "bulk invite" (now in scope per E04-S02) | Hill |
+```
+
+### 5. Cross-cutting check
+
+Wizer flags any downstream impact:
+
+- New AC → check that the epic + stories covering it exist. If not, route to `/wize-create-epics-and-stories`.
+- New non-goal → check that no in-flight story assumes the opposite. If yes, flag the story.
+- In-scope move → trigger a fresh `/wize-sprint-planning` consideration.
+
+### 6. Hand off
+
+Notify the next workflow:
+
+- If AC changed → `/wize-validate-prd` to confirm consistency.
+- If epic + stories need refresh → `/wize-create-epics-and-stories`.
+- If sprint needs re-prioritization → `/wize-sprint-planning`.
+
+## Output template — `prd-changelog.md`
+
+```markdown
+# PRD changelog
+
+| # | Date | Type | Section | Change | Author |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | 2026-06-15 | A | AC-04-2 | Added: "rate limit per team" | Hill |
+| 2 | 2026-06-15 | B | Out of scope | Removed "bulk invite" | Hill |
+```
+
+## Anti-patterns Hill rejects
+
+- Editing the PRD without recording the change in the changelog. (Source-of-truth drift.)
+- Bundling 4 edits in one run. (One edit per run keeps blame clean.)
+- Editing the PRD without checking downstream impact. (Wizer’s cross-cutting step is mandatory.)
+- Re-running `/wize-create-prd` to "keep things tidy." The changelog exists for that.
+
+## Hand-off
+
+> "PRD updated at `.wize/planning/prd.md`. Changelog row N appended. Next: `/wize-validate-prd` (re-validate) or `/wize-create-epics-and-stories` (refresh stories)."

package/src/method-skills/2-plan-workflows/wize-ux-design/workflow.md

@@ -1,66 +1,172 @@
 ---
+
 code: wize-ux-design
+description: "Use quando os cenários UX estiverem prontos e precisar produzir especificações página por página para arquitetura e implementação."
 name: UX Design
 phase: 2-plan
 owner: wize-agent-ux-designer   # Mantis
 absorbs: "WDS Freya — Phase 4 (Page Specs)"
-status: stub
+status: ready
 ---
 
 # UX Design
 
-**Goal.** Page-by-page specifications. Each screen documents layout, content, interactions, edge/empty/error states.
+**Goal.** Turn scenarios into page-by-page specifications Tony can architect against and Shuri can implement. One spec per screen. Every spec answers: purpose, primary action, layout, content, interactions, states (loading/empty/error/success/disabled), accessibility, and metrics.
+
+Mantis drives. Output lands in `.wize/planning/ux/ux-design/{screen-name}.md`.
 
 ## Inputs
-- `.wize/planning/ux/ux-scenarios.md`
-- `.wize/planning/prd.md`
+
+- `.wize/planning/ux/ux-scenarios.md` (every screen traces back to ≥ 1 scenario)
+- `.wize/planning/prd.md` (every screen advances at least one AC)
+- `.wize/solutioning/design-system/` (when Mantis already wrote tokens; otherwise this runs in parallel with `wize-design-system`)
+- Overlay playbooks if active:
+  - `web-overlay/playbooks/wcag-aa.md`, `responsive-breakpoints.md`, `semantic-html.md`
+  - `app-overlay/playbooks/apple-hig.md`, `material-design-3.md`, `touch-targets-and-gestures.md`, `permissions-ux.md`
 
 ## Outputs
+
 - `.wize/planning/ux/ux-design/{screen-name}.md` (one per screen)
+- `.wize/planning/ux/ux-design/index.md` (map of screens → scenarios → PRD ACs)
+
+## Steps
+
+### 1. Enumerate the screens
+
+From the scenarios, list every screen needed to deliver the moment-of-truth. Name them by role + state: `signup-empty.md`, `signup-error.md`, `team-list-with-members.md`, `team-list-empty.md`. Empty/error/loading states are screens.
+
+### 2. Per screen: fill the spec template
 
-## Per-screen template
+For each screen, write the spec below. Stay disciplined; if a section is empty, ask why.
+
+### 3. Write the index
+
+`index.md` is a single table mapping screen → scenarios touched → PRD ACs advanced. Tony reads this first; Hawkeye references it in `tea-design.md`.
+
+### 4. Hand off
+
+Mark `status: ready-for-architecture` on each spec. Notify Wizer; Tony reads next.
+
+## Spec template (one file per screen)
 
 ```markdown
 ---
-screen: {{name}}
-linked_scenario: ux-scenarios.md#scenario-N
+screen: signup-empty
+status: ready-for-architecture
+owner: Mantis
+linked_scenarios: [S1]
+linked_acs: [AC-01-1, AC-01-2]
 ---
 
-# {{Screen name}}
+# Sign up (empty state)
 
 ## Purpose
-…
+First contact: a manager wants to create an account. The goal of *this* screen is to collect work email + password with minimum friction, in service of scenario S1 moment-of-truth (3 invites within 5 minutes).
 
 ## Primary user action
-…
+Submit the form (CTA: "Create account").
+
+## Layout (ASCII or Mermaid)
 
-## Layout (ASCII wireframe or description)
+(web overlay)
 ```
-┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
-│ Header                                │
-├───────────────────────────────────────┤
-│ Content                               │
-└───────────────────────────────────────┘
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│ Wize logo                          [Sign in →]  │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                                 │
+│           Create your team's account            │
+│           ──────────────────────────            │
+│           [ Work email           ]              │
+│           [ Password (12+)       ]              │
+│                                                 │
+│           [    Create account    ]              │
+│                                                 │
+│           Already a member? Sign in              │
+│                                                 │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
 ```
 
-## Content
-- Headline: …
-- Body: …
-- CTA: …
+(app overlay note: stacked, top-aligned, system back disabled.)
+
+## Content (copy)
+
+- Headline: "Create your team's account"
+- Sub: (none — keep the screen empty for focus)
+- Field 1 label: "Work email"
+- Field 1 placeholder: "name@yourcompany.com"
+- Field 2 label: "Password"
+- Field 2 helper text: "At least 12 characters."
+- CTA: "Create account"
+- Secondary: "Already a member? Sign in" → routes to /signin
 
 ## Interactions
-- Click {{element}} → {{outcome}}
+
+- Click CTA with valid form → submit; show loading state; redirect on success.
+- Click CTA with invalid form → set focus to first invalid field; show error region.
+- Tab order: email → password → CTA → "Sign in" link.
+- Enter on either field submits if both are valid.
 
 ## States
-- Loading: …
-- Empty: …
-- Error: …
-- Success: …
+
+- **Loading:** CTA shows spinner; button is disabled; inputs remain editable.
+- **Empty (this state):** placeholders visible; CTA disabled until both fields non-empty.
+- **Error (inline per field):** error region appears under each field, `role="alert"`, identifies the rule and the fix.
+- **Error (global):** Banner above headline if the back-end fails with a non-field error; provides a "retry" action.
+- **Success:** redirect; no flash. The next screen owns acknowledgement.
+- **Disabled:** CTA opacity 0.4; aria-disabled="true"; tooltip *"Fill both fields to continue"*.
 
 ## Accessibility notes
-- (web-overlay) WCAG …
-- (app-overlay) HIG / Material …
+
+(web overlay)
+- Both inputs have visible persistent labels (no placeholder-only).
+- `lang="en"` on `<html>`.
+- Error region: per-field `aria-describedby`, ALL `role="alert"` after first submit only.
+- Contrast pairs all ≥ 4.5:1 in light mode, ≥ 4.5:1 in dark mode.
+- 200% zoom: no horizontal scroll on 360px viewport.
+- Skip link absent (no main nav before).
+
+(app overlay)
+- Apple HIG / Material 3 systemic input components.
+- Dynamic Type / font scale: layout reflows at largest accessibility size; CTA pinned to bottom-safe-area.
+- Touch targets ≥ 44pt (iOS) / 48dp (Android).
+- VoiceOver order: headline → email → password → CTA → secondary link.
+
+## Metrics
+
+- Event `signup_completed` (Q7 success quote): fires after redirect.
+- Event `signup_error_shown {rule}`: fires on inline error.
+- Event `signup_abandoned`: fires on `beforeunload` if form had focus and CTA never fired.
+
+## Open questions for Tony
+
+- Should we use Auth0 hosted UI or our own form? (UX-decision is to keep our own; Tony decides feasibility.)
+- Magic-link as an alternative path? Out of scope per PRD; Mantis recommends putting in *Out*.
 ```
 
+## Index template
+
+```markdown
+# UX Design — index
+
+| Screen | Scenarios | PRD ACs |
+|---|---|---|
+| signup-empty | S1 | AC-01-1, AC-01-2 |
+| signup-error | S1 | AC-01-2 |
+| onboarding-step-1 | S1 | AC-02-1 |
+| team-list-empty | S1, S2 | AC-03-1 |
+| team-list-with-members | S1, S2 | AC-03-2, AC-03-3 |
+| invite-modal | S1, S2 | AC-02-2, AC-02-3 |
+```
+
+## Anti-patterns Mantis rejects
+
+- **Specs without states.** A screen with no empty/error spec is half a spec.
+- **Copy as marketing tone.** Use the user's voice. Cut "world-class," "delightful," "seamless."
+- **Mystery icons.** Icons need accessible labels; if you can't name it, draw a word next to it.
+- **Hover-only affordances on touch.** Spec the non-hover equivalent.
+- **Touch targets < platform minimum.** 24×24 CSS px on web (WCAG 2.5.8), 44pt iOS, 48dp Android — non-negotiable.
+- **Screens that don't trace to scenarios + PRD ACs.** If you can't fill the index row, the screen isn't justified.
+
 ## Hand-off
-"Tony, screen specs in `.wize/planning/ux/ux-design/`. Architecture time."
+
+> UX specs are at `.wize/planning/ux/ux-design/`. Index points screen → scenario → AC. Tony, you can start `wize-create-architecture` now; the moment-of-truth lines in scenarios tell you which interactions are load-bearing. Hawkeye, `tea-design.md` should index by screen to keep test design and UI aligned.

package/src/method-skills/2-plan-workflows/wize-ux-scenarios/workflow.md

@@ -1,48 +1,126 @@
 ---
+
 code: wize-ux-scenarios
+description: "Use quando o PRD estiver validado e precisar produzir o mapa de cenários UX que ancora todo o design."
 name: UX Scenarios
 phase: 2-plan
 owner: wize-agent-ux-designer   # Mantis (absorbs WDS Freya)
 absorbs: "WDS Freya — Phase 3 (8-question dialog)"
-status: stub
+status: ready
 ---
 
 # UX Scenarios
 
-**Goal.** Produce the scenario map that anchors all UX work. Eight focused questions; one answer each.
+**Goal.** Produce a scenario map that anchors all UX work. Eight focused questions; one short answer each. Scenarios are pieces of behavior, not personas — they're how *this* user, in *this* state, tries to accomplish *that* JTBD.
+
+Mantis drives. Output lands in `.wize/planning/ux/ux-scenarios.md`. It's the bridge from PM intent (PRD) to designer concreteness (next workflow: `wize-ux-design`).
 
 ## Inputs
-- `.wize/planning/prd.md`
-- `.wize/planning/ux/trigger-map.md`
+
+- `.wize/planning/prd.md` (validated)
+- `.wize/planning/ux/trigger-map.md` (Pepper)
 - `.wize/planning/brief.md`
 
 ## Outputs
+
 - `.wize/planning/ux/ux-scenarios.md`
 
-## The 8 questions (WDS dialog)
+## Steps
+
+### 1. Identify the scenarios
+
+A scenario = one (user, state, JTBD) tuple where the product earns or loses. Aim for **3–8 scenarios** that, taken together, cover all backbone stories in the PRD.
+
+Rules:
+- One sentence each at this stage.
+- Verb-led. *"New manager onboards their first team."* Not *"Manager onboarding."*
+- Distinct. If two scenarios share trigger + state, collapse them.
+
+### 2. Run the 8-question dialog per scenario (WDS Freya)
+
+For each scenario, answer the eight questions. One paragraph per answer. No filler. Cite trigger-map row when relevant.
 
 1. **Who is the user, in one sentence?**
-2. **What state are they in when they arrive?** (emotional, contextual)
-3. **What are they trying to accomplish?** (job-to-be-done)
+   Role + context. *"A 38-year-old engineering manager at a 25-person SaaS, primarily on desktop, sometimes phone."*
+
+2. **What state are they in when they arrive?**
+   Emotion + situational context. *"It's Monday morning. They just got CTO's request to onboard 3 hires this sprint. They're alt-tabbing between Slack and Linear."*
+
+3. **What are they trying to accomplish?** (JTBD)
+   *"Add three teammates and assign each to the right project before the team standup at 10am."* Concrete.
+
 4. **What would they do without our product today?**
+   *"Slack screenshots of the project list to each new hire; have them sign up individually; cross-check who landed where."*
+
 5. **What's the moment of truth — when they decide it works?**
+   *"The first time they see all three names in the team list with the right project tags, in under 5 minutes."*
+
 6. **What's the failure mode — when do they walk away?**
+   *"If they can't tell whether the invite arrived. If the invite email looks like spam. If they have to leave the page to find someone's email."*
+
 7. **What does success look like to them, in their words?**
+   *"It just worked. I sent the invites, they signed up, they were on the right project."* (Imagine the future quote.)
+
 8. **What's the next thing we want them to do?**
+   *"Open the project where the first teammate landed and verify the access works."*
 
-## Output structure
+### 3. Cross-link to the PRD
+
+For each scenario, list the **backbone story IDs** + **AC IDs** it touches. Mantis won't write specs for a scenario the PRD doesn't cover (it'd be scope creep); Hill won't sign off on a story the scenarios don't surface (it'd be over-spec).
+
+### 4. Hand off to UX Design
+
+Mark `status: ready-for-design`. Wizer pings Mantis to start `wize-ux-design`, where each scenario becomes one or more page specs.
+
+## Output template
 
 ```markdown
-# UX Scenarios
+---
+status: ready-for-design
+owner: Mantis
+created: YYYY-MM-DD
+covers_prd_stories: [E01, E02, E04]
+---
+
+# UX Scenarios — {{project_name}}
 
-## Scenario 1: {{name}}
+## Scenario 1: New manager onboards their first team
 
-- Q1 …
-- Q2 …
-- …
+- **Trigger-map row:** 1 (Sign up), 2 (Invite first teammate)
+- **PRD stories:** E01, E02
+- **AC IDs touched:** AC-01-1, AC-01-2, AC-02-1, AC-02-3
 
-## Scenario N: …
+**Q1 — Who:** A 38-year-old engineering manager at a 25-person SaaS, primarily on desktop, sometimes phone.
+**Q2 — State:** It's Monday morning. They just got CTO's request to onboard 3 hires this sprint. They're alt-tabbing between Slack and Linear.
+**Q3 — JTBD:** Add three teammates and assign each to the right project before the team standup at 10am.
+**Q4 — Today:** Slack screenshots of the project list to each new hire; have them sign up individually; cross-check who landed where.
+**Q5 — Moment of truth:** The first time they see all three names in the team list with the right project tags, under 5 minutes.
+**Q6 — Failure mode:** Can't tell whether the invite arrived; the email looks like spam; they have to leave the page to find someone's email.
+**Q7 — Success in their words:** "It just worked. I sent the invites, they signed up, they were on the right project."
+**Q8 — Next thing:** Open the project where the first teammate landed and verify access.
+
+## Scenario 2: Returning admin adds a fourth member months later
+
+(…)
+
+## Coverage check
+
+| PRD story | Scenarios |
+|---|---|
+| E01 (Sign up) | S1 |
+| E02 (Invite) | S1, S2 |
+| E03 (Switch project) | S2 |
+| E04 (Dashboard) | S1 |
 ```
 
+## Anti-patterns Mantis rejects
+
+- **Personas instead of scenarios.** Mantis cares what people *do*, not who they are in the abstract.
+- **Scenarios with no emotion or context.** "User wants to sign up." — that's a backbone story restated. The point is the *state*.
+- **JTBD written as features.** "Wants the dashboard." Wrong layer. Reword to the goal: "Wants to know if the team is healthy at a glance."
+- **Q5 ("moment of truth") that's actually a feature description.** It should be the user's perception, not the UI.
+- **More than 8 scenarios.** Two of them are duplicates. Find which.
+
 ## Hand-off
-"Mantis → Mantis": run `wize-ux-design` next.
+
+> Scenarios are in `.wize/planning/ux/ux-scenarios.md`. They cover E01–E04. Next: page specs in `.wize/planning/ux/ux-design/` (one per screen). Tony, when you read these, the moment-of-truth lines tell you which interactions are load-bearing.

package/src/method-skills/2-plan-workflows/wize-validate-prd/workflow.md

@@ -1,27 +1,123 @@
 ---
+
 code: wize-validate-prd
+description: "Use quando o PRD estiver pronto para validação e precisar decidir se ele pode avançar para Solutioning."
 name: Validate PRD
 phase: 2-plan
-owner: wize-agent-pm   # Maria Hill (with Pepper + Mantis + Fury input)
-status: stub
+owner: wize-agent-pm   # Maria Hill (with Pepper, Mantis, Fury input)
+status: ready
 ---
 
 # Validate PRD
 
-**Goal.** Make sure the PRD is ready to leave Plan and enter Solutioning. Catch ambiguity before architecture is wasted on it.
+**Goal.** Decide whether the PRD is ready to leave Plan and enter Solutioning. Catch ambiguity before architecture is wasted on it. Cheap step; saves multiples of itself downstream.
+
+Maria Hill chairs. Pepper, Mantis, Fury contribute. Output is either `validated: true` written to `prd.md` or a punch list routed back to authors.
+
+## When to run
+
+After `wize-create-prd` produces `status: ready-for-validation`. Run once per major PRD change.
 
 ## Inputs
+
 - `.wize/planning/prd.md`
+- `.wize/planning/brief.md`
+- `.wize/planning/ux/trigger-map.md`
+- `.wize/planning/research.md` (when present)
+- `.wize/planning/tech-vision.md` (when Fury already wrote one)
 
 ## Outputs
-- Inline edits + a validation log appended to `prd.md`.
 
-## Checklist
-- [ ] Every scope item has measurable ACs.
-- [ ] No "TBD" in goals or constraints.
-- [ ] Mantis confirms UX is addressable.
-- [ ] Fury approves stack-family direction (or has explicit reason not to yet).
-- [ ] No open questions with `blocker` priority remain.
+- In-place edits to `prd.md` (validators add a "Validation log" section).
+- If validated: `prd.md` frontmatter flips to `status: validated`.
+- If not: a punch list, each item routed back to the owning agent.
+
+## Checklist (Maria Hill runs this)
+
+### Completeness
+- [ ] Vision sentence present and matches the brief.
+- [ ] 3–5 goals; each measurable; each tied to a trigger-map row.
+- [ ] Scope `In` and `Out` both populated; `Out` items have reasons.
+- [ ] Backbone stories cover every In-scope item.
+- [ ] Every In-scope item has 3–7 ACs.
+- [ ] Constraints + Assumptions + Dependencies all named.
+- [ ] NFR pointer present.
+- [ ] Open questions: each has an owner + deadline.
+
+### Quality
+- [ ] Every AC is observable (testable by Hawkeye without ambiguity).
+- [ ] No AC contains the word "easy", "intuitive", "responsive" without a numeric criterion.
+- [ ] INVEST: every backbone story passes (independent, negotiable, valuable, small, testable) — "Estimable" is dropped; we don't estimate, we only check it fits one PR.
+- [ ] No goal repeats a brief constraint as if it were a goal.
+
+### Cross-checks
+- [ ] **Pepper:** every goal anchors on a row of the trigger map.
+- [ ] **Mantis:** every screen implied by the ACs is addressable in UX (no AC requires a UI the team hasn't agreed exists).
+- [ ] **Fury:** the PRD's NFR pointer doesn't contradict the tech-vision.
+- [ ] **Hawkeye preview:** at least the gate strategy is mentioned (advisory vs enforcing) for visibility.
+
+### Risk
+- [ ] No open question is marked `blocker` AND has a deadline past the PRD validation date.
+- [ ] Any assumption that, if wrong, kills > 30% of the scope has a verification plan.
+
+## Decision
+
+After the checklist:
+
+- **Validated** → flip frontmatter to `status: validated`. Append a Validation log block to `prd.md` with date + each signatory.
+- **Concerns** → write specific fix-asks per agent. Each fix-ask is concrete (line ref + what to change).
+- **Reject** → rare. Use when the brief itself is wrong; loop back to Pepper.
+
+## Validation log template (appended to `prd.md`)
+
+```markdown
+## Validation log — YYYY-MM-DD
+
+**Status:** validated
+
+**Signatories**
+- Maria Hill (PM)  — concerns: none
+- Pepper Potts (Analyst) — concerns: trigger-map row 3 needs a stronger signal name, will update.
+- Mantis (UX) — concerns: none, UX work starts next.
+- Fury (Solution Strategy) — concerns: none. NFR pointer confirmed.
+
+**Notes**
+- Open question "Brazil-only beta?" was answered by sales lead — added to *Out of scope: global launch* with rationale.
+```
+
+## Punch-list template (when not validated)
+
+```markdown
+## Validation punch list — YYYY-MM-DD
+
+**Status:** changes required
+
+**By Maria Hill — author rewrites:**
+- `AC-02-3`: "loads fast" is not observable. Rewrite with numeric target tied to Fury's NFRs.
+- Backbone story E04 fails INVEST-S (too large). Split into 2 stories.
+
+**By Pepper:**
+- Goal 2 is not anchored on a trigger-map row. Add row reference or remove.
+
+**By Mantis:**
+- AC-01-4 implies a "preview" screen that isn't in any UX list. Either spec the screen or cut the AC.
+
+**By Fury:**
+- NFR pointer cites old version of nfr-principles.md. Update.
+```
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- "Looks good to me" with no checklist run. The validation only counts if checked.
+- Validating to keep the schedule, knowing concerns are open. Document the concern.
+- Validating with no Hawkeye preview at all. Even a one-line gate strategy reference matters.
+
+## Hand-off
+
+If validated:
+
+> PRD validated. Mantis, you're up: `wize-ux-scenarios`. Fury, write or refresh `tech-vision.md` so Tony can read both.
+
+If not:
 
-## Outcome
-Either `validated: true` (timestamp + signatories) or list of fix-asks routed back to the right agent.
+> PRD not yet validated. Punch list lives at the bottom of `prd.md`. {{Author}} fixes by {{date}}; we re-run validation.