# Implementation Readiness Validation Criteria # Defines systematic validation rules by project level validation_rules: # Level 0-1 Projects (Simple, minimal planning) level_0_1: required_documents: - tech_spec - stories_or_tasks validations: - name: "Tech Spec Completeness" checks: - "All features defined with implementation approach" - "Technical dependencies identified" - "API contracts defined if applicable" - "Data models specified" - name: "Story Coverage" checks: - "All tech spec features have corresponding stories" - "Stories are sequenced logically" - "Technical tasks are defined" - "No critical gaps in coverage" # Level 2 Projects (PRD + Tech Spec, no separate architecture) level_2: required_documents: - prd - tech_spec # Includes architecture decisions - epics_and_stories validations: - name: "PRD to Tech Spec Alignment" checks: - "All PRD requirements addressed in tech spec" - "Architecture embedded in tech spec covers PRD needs" - "Non-functional requirements are specified" - "Technical approach supports business goals" - name: "Story Coverage and Alignment" checks: - "Every PRD requirement has story coverage" - "Stories align with tech spec approach" - "Epic breakdown is complete" - "Acceptance criteria match PRD success criteria" - name: "Sequencing Validation" checks: - "Foundation stories come first" - "Dependencies are properly ordered" - "Iterative delivery is possible" - "No circular dependencies" # Level 3-4 Projects (Full planning with separate architecture) level_3_4: required_documents: - prd - architecture - epics_and_stories validations: - name: "PRD Completeness" checks: - "User requirements fully documented" - "Success criteria are measurable" - "Scope boundaries clearly defined" - "Priorities are assigned" - name: "Architecture Coverage" checks: - "All PRD requirements have architectural support" - "System design is complete" - "Integration points defined" - "Security architecture specified" - "Performance considerations addressed" - "If architecture.md: Implementation patterns defined" - "If architecture.md: Technology versions verified and current" - "If architecture.md: Starter template command documented (if applicable)" - name: "PRD-Architecture Alignment" checks: - "No architecture gold-plating beyond PRD" - "NFRs from PRD reflected in architecture" - "Technology choices support requirements" - "Scalability matches expected growth" - "If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements" - "If UX spec exists: Component library supports interaction patterns" - name: "Story Implementation Coverage" checks: - "All architectural components have stories" - "Infrastructure setup stories exist" - "Integration implementation planned" - "Security implementation stories present" - name: "Comprehensive Sequencing" checks: - "Infrastructure before features" - "Authentication before protected resources" - "Core features before enhancements" - "Dependencies properly ordered" - "Allows for iterative releases" # Special validation contexts special_contexts: greenfield: additional_checks: - "Project initialization stories exist" - "If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization" - "Development environment setup documented" - "CI/CD pipeline stories included" - "Initial data/schema setup planned" - "Deployment infrastructure stories present" ux_workflow_active: additional_checks: - "UX requirements in PRD" - "UX implementation stories exist" - "Accessibility requirements covered" - "Responsive design addressed" - "User flow continuity maintained" api_heavy: additional_checks: - "API contracts fully defined" - "Versioning strategy documented" - "Authentication/authorization specified" - "Rate limiting considered" - "API documentation stories included" # Severity definitions severity_levels: critical: description: "Must be resolved before implementation" examples: - "Missing stories for core requirements" - "Conflicting technical approaches" - "No infrastructure setup for greenfield" - "Security requirements not addressed" high: description: "Should be addressed to reduce risk" examples: - "Incomplete acceptance criteria" - "Unclear story dependencies" - "Missing error handling coverage" - "Performance requirements not validated" medium: description: "Consider addressing for smoother implementation" examples: - "Documentation gaps" - "Test strategy not defined" - "Monitoring approach unclear" - "Minor sequencing improvements possible" low: description: "Minor improvements for consideration" examples: - "Formatting inconsistencies" - "Optional enhancements identified" - "Style guide compliance" - "Nice-to-have features noted" # Readiness decision criteria readiness_decisions: ready: criteria: - "No critical issues found" - "All required documents present" - "Core alignments validated" - "Story sequencing logical" - "Team can begin implementation" ready_with_conditions: criteria: - "Only high/medium issues found" - "Mitigation plans identified" - "Core path to MVP clear" - "Issues won't block initial stories" not_ready: criteria: - "Critical issues identified" - "Major gaps in coverage" - "Conflicting approaches found" - "Required documents missing" - "Blocking dependencies unresolved"