Merge pull request #1988 from bmad-code-org/convert-validate-prd-skill

refactor(skills): convert validate-prd to native skill directory

src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ agent:
       description: "[CP] Create PRD: Expert led facilitation to produce your Product Requirements Document"
 
     - trigger: VP or fuzzy match on validate-prd
-      exec: "{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md"
+      exec: "skill:bmad-validate-prd"
       description: "[VP] Validate PRD: Validate a Product Requirements Document is comprehensive, lean, well organized and cohesive"
 
     - trigger: EP or fuzzy match on edit-prd

src/bmm/module-help.csv

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ bmm,1-analysis,Domain Research,DR,21,skill:bmad-domain-research,bmad-bmm-domain-
 bmm,1-analysis,Technical Research,TR,22,skill:bmad-technical-research,bmad-bmm-technical-research,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Technical feasibility architecture options and implementation approaches","planning_artifacts|project_knowledge","research documents",
 bmm,1-analysis,Create Brief,CB,30,skill:bmad-create-product-brief,bmad-bmm-create-product-brief,false,analyst,Create Mode,"A guided experience to nail down your product idea",planning_artifacts,"product brief",
 bmm,2-planning,Create PRD,CP,10,skill:bmad-create-prd,bmad-bmm-create-prd,true,pm,Create Mode,"Expert led facilitation to produce your Product Requirements Document",planning_artifacts,prd,
-bmm,2-planning,Validate PRD,VP,20,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md,bmad-bmm-validate-prd,false,pm,Validate Mode,"Validate PRD is comprehensive lean well organized and cohesive",planning_artifacts,"prd validation report",
+bmm,2-planning,Validate PRD,VP,20,skill:bmad-validate-prd,bmad-bmm-validate-prd,false,pm,Validate Mode,"Validate PRD is comprehensive lean well organized and cohesive",planning_artifacts,"prd validation report",
 bmm,2-planning,Edit PRD,EP,25,skill:bmad-edit-prd,bmad-bmm-edit-prd,false,pm,Edit Mode,"Improve and enhance an existing PRD",planning_artifacts,"updated prd",
 bmm,2-planning,Create UX,CU,30,skill:bmad-create-ux-design,bmad-bmm-create-ux-design,false,ux-designer,Create Mode,"Guidance through realizing the plan for your UX, strongly recommended if a UI is a primary piece of the proposed project",planning_artifacts,"ux design",
 bmm,3-solutioning,Create Architecture,CA,10,skill:bmad-create-architecture,bmad-bmm-create-architecture,true,architect,Create Mode,"Guided Workflow to document technical decisions",planning_artifacts,architecture,

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+name: bmad-validate-prd
+description: 'Validate a PRD against standards. Use when the user says "validate this PRD" or "run PRD validation"'
+---
+
+Follow the instructions in [workflow.md](workflow.md).

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+type: skill

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/domain-complexity.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+domain,signals,complexity,key_concerns,required_knowledge,suggested_workflow,web_searches,special_sections
+healthcare,"medical,diagnostic,clinical,FDA,patient,treatment,HIPAA,therapy,pharma,drug",high,"FDA approval;Clinical validation;HIPAA compliance;Patient safety;Medical device classification;Liability","Regulatory pathways;Clinical trial design;Medical standards;Data privacy;Integration requirements","domain-research","FDA software medical device guidance {date};HIPAA compliance software requirements;Medical software standards {date};Clinical validation software","clinical_requirements;regulatory_pathway;validation_methodology;safety_measures"
+fintech,"payment,banking,trading,investment,crypto,wallet,transaction,KYC,AML,funds,fintech",high,"Regional compliance;Security standards;Audit requirements;Fraud prevention;Data protection","KYC/AML requirements;PCI DSS;Open banking;Regional laws (US/EU/APAC);Crypto regulations","domain-research","fintech regulations {date};payment processing compliance {date};open banking API standards;cryptocurrency regulations {date}","compliance_matrix;security_architecture;audit_requirements;fraud_prevention"
+govtech,"government,federal,civic,public sector,citizen,municipal,voting",high,"Procurement rules;Security clearance;Accessibility (508);FedRAMP;Privacy;Transparency","Government procurement;Security frameworks;Accessibility standards;Privacy laws;Open data requirements","domain-research","government software procurement {date};FedRAMP compliance requirements;section 508 accessibility;government security standards","procurement_compliance;security_clearance;accessibility_standards;transparency_requirements"
+edtech,"education,learning,student,teacher,curriculum,assessment,K-12,university,LMS",medium,"Student privacy (COPPA/FERPA);Accessibility;Content moderation;Age verification;Curriculum standards","Educational privacy laws;Learning standards;Accessibility requirements;Content guidelines;Assessment validity","domain-research","educational software privacy {date};COPPA FERPA compliance;WCAG education requirements;learning management standards","privacy_compliance;content_guidelines;accessibility_features;curriculum_alignment"
+aerospace,"aircraft,spacecraft,aviation,drone,satellite,propulsion,flight,radar,navigation",high,"Safety certification;DO-178C compliance;Performance validation;Simulation accuracy;Export controls","Aviation standards;Safety analysis;Simulation validation;ITAR/export controls;Performance requirements","domain-research + technical-model","DO-178C software certification;aerospace simulation standards {date};ITAR export controls software;aviation safety requirements","safety_certification;simulation_validation;performance_requirements;export_compliance"
+automotive,"vehicle,car,autonomous,ADAS,automotive,driving,EV,charging",high,"Safety standards;ISO 26262;V2X communication;Real-time requirements;Certification","Automotive standards;Functional safety;V2X protocols;Real-time systems;Testing requirements","domain-research","ISO 26262 automotive software;automotive safety standards {date};V2X communication protocols;EV charging standards","safety_standards;functional_safety;communication_protocols;certification_requirements"
+scientific,"research,algorithm,simulation,modeling,computational,analysis,data science,ML,AI",medium,"Reproducibility;Validation methodology;Peer review;Performance;Accuracy;Computational resources","Scientific method;Statistical validity;Computational requirements;Domain expertise;Publication standards","technical-model","scientific computing best practices {date};research reproducibility standards;computational modeling validation;peer review software","validation_methodology;accuracy_metrics;reproducibility_plan;computational_requirements"
+legaltech,"legal,law,contract,compliance,litigation,patent,attorney,court",high,"Legal ethics;Bar regulations;Data retention;Attorney-client privilege;Court system integration","Legal practice rules;Ethics requirements;Court filing systems;Document standards;Confidentiality","domain-research","legal technology ethics {date};law practice management software requirements;court filing system standards;attorney client privilege technology","ethics_compliance;data_retention;confidentiality_measures;court_integration"
+insuretech,"insurance,claims,underwriting,actuarial,policy,risk,premium",high,"Insurance regulations;Actuarial standards;Data privacy;Fraud detection;State compliance","Insurance regulations by state;Actuarial methods;Risk modeling;Claims processing;Regulatory reporting","domain-research","insurance software regulations {date};actuarial standards software;insurance fraud detection;state insurance compliance","regulatory_requirements;risk_modeling;fraud_detection;reporting_compliance"
+energy,"energy,utility,grid,solar,wind,power,electricity,oil,gas",high,"Grid compliance;NERC standards;Environmental regulations;Safety requirements;Real-time operations","Energy regulations;Grid standards;Environmental compliance;Safety protocols;SCADA systems","domain-research","energy sector software compliance {date};NERC CIP standards;smart grid requirements;renewable energy software standards","grid_compliance;safety_protocols;environmental_compliance;operational_requirements"
+process_control,"industrial automation,process control,PLC,SCADA,DCS,HMI,operational technology,OT,control system,cyberphysical,MES,historian,instrumentation,I&C,P&ID",high,"Functional safety;OT cybersecurity;Real-time control requirements;Legacy system integration;Process safety and hazard analysis;Environmental compliance and permitting;Engineering authority and PE requirements","Functional safety standards;OT security frameworks;Industrial protocols;Process control architecture;Plant reliability and maintainability","domain-research + technical-model","IEC 62443 OT cybersecurity requirements {date};functional safety software requirements {date};industrial process control architecture;ISA-95 manufacturing integration","functional_safety;ot_security;process_requirements;engineering_authority"
+building_automation,"building automation,BAS,BMS,HVAC,smart building,lighting control,fire alarm,fire protection,fire suppression,life safety,elevator,access control,DDC,energy management,sequence of operations,commissioning",high,"Life safety codes;Building energy standards;Multi-trade coordination and interoperability;Commissioning and ongoing operational performance;Indoor environmental quality and occupant comfort;Engineering authority and PE requirements","Building automation protocols;HVAC and mechanical controls;Fire alarm, fire protection, and life safety design;Commissioning process and sequence of operations;Building codes and energy standards","domain-research","smart building software architecture {date};BACnet integration best practices;building automation cybersecurity {date};ASHRAE building standards","life_safety;energy_compliance;commissioning_requirements;engineering_authority"
+gaming,"game,player,gameplay,level,character,multiplayer,quest",redirect,"REDIRECT TO GAME WORKFLOWS","Game design","game-brief","NA","NA"
+general,"",low,"Standard requirements;Basic security;User experience;Performance","General software practices","continue","software development best practices {date}","standard_requirements"

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/prd-purpose.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+# BMAD PRD Purpose
+
+**The PRD is the top of the required funnel that feeds all subsequent product development work in rhw BMad Method.**
+
+---
+
+## What is a BMAD PRD?
+
+A dual-audience document serving:
+1. **Human Product Managers and builders** - Vision, strategy, stakeholder communication
+2. **LLM Downstream Consumption** - UX Design → Architecture → Epics → Development AI Agents
+
+Each successive document becomes more AI-tailored and granular.
+
+---
+
+## Core Philosophy: Information Density
+
+**High Signal-to-Noise Ratio**
+
+Every sentence must carry information weight. LLMs consume precise, dense content efficiently.
+
+**Anti-Patterns (Eliminate These):**
+- ❌ "The system will allow users to..." → ✅ "Users can..."
+- ❌ "It is important to note that..." → ✅ State the fact directly
+- ❌ "In order to..." → ✅ "To..."
+- ❌ Conversational filler and padding → ✅ Direct, concise statements
+
+**Goal:** Maximum information per word. Zero fluff.
+
+---
+
+## The Traceability Chain
+
+**PRD starts the chain:**
+```
+Vision → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements → (future: User Stories)
+```
+
+**In the PRD, establish:**
+- Vision → Success Criteria alignment
+- Success Criteria → User Journey coverage
+- User Journey → Functional Requirement mapping
+- All requirements traceable to user needs
+
+**Why:** Each downstream artifact (UX, Architecture, Epics, Stories) must trace back to documented user needs and business objectives. This chain ensures we build the right thing.
+
+---
+
+## What Makes Great Functional Requirements?
+
+### FRs are Capabilities, Not Implementation
+
+**Good FR:** "Users can reset their password via email link"
+**Bad FR:** "System sends JWT via email and validates with database" (implementation leakage)
+
+**Good FR:** "Dashboard loads in under 2 seconds for 95th percentile"
+**Bad FR:** "Fast loading time" (subjective, unmeasurable)
+
+### SMART Quality Criteria
+
+**Specific:** Clear, precisely defined capability
+**Measurable:** Quantifiable with test criteria
+**Attainable:** Realistic within constraints
+**Relevant:** Aligns with business objectives
+**Traceable:** Links to source (executive summary or user journey)
+
+### FR Anti-Patterns
+
+**Subjective Adjectives:**
+- ❌ "easy to use", "intuitive", "user-friendly", "fast", "responsive"
+- ✅ Use metrics: "completes task in under 3 clicks", "loads in under 2 seconds"
+
+**Implementation Leakage:**
+- ❌ Technology names, specific libraries, implementation details
+- ✅ Focus on capability and measurable outcomes
+
+**Vague Quantifiers:**
+- ❌ "multiple users", "several options", "various formats"
+- ✅ "up to 100 concurrent users", "3-5 options", "PDF, DOCX, TXT formats"
+
+**Missing Test Criteria:**
+- ❌ "The system shall provide notifications"
+- ✅ "The system shall send email notifications within 30 seconds of trigger event"
+
+---
+
+## What Makes Great Non-Functional Requirements?
+
+### NFRs Must Be Measurable
+
+**Template:**
+```
+"The system shall [metric] [condition] [measurement method]"
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+- ✅ "The system shall respond to API requests in under 200ms for 95th percentile as measured by APM monitoring"
+- ✅ "The system shall maintain 99.9% uptime during business hours as measured by cloud provider SLA"
+- ✅ "The system shall support 10,000 concurrent users as measured by load testing"
+
+### NFR Anti-Patterns
+
+**Unmeasurable Claims:**
+- ❌ "The system shall be scalable" → ✅ "The system shall handle 10x load growth through horizontal scaling"
+- ❌ "High availability required" → ✅ "99.9% uptime as measured by cloud provider SLA"
+
+**Missing Context:**
+- ❌ "Response time under 1 second" → ✅ "API response time under 1 second for 95th percentile under normal load"
+
+---
+
+## Domain-Specific Requirements
+
+**Auto-Detect and Enforce Based on Project Context**
+
+Certain industries have mandatory requirements that must be present:
+
+- **Healthcare:** HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules, PHI encryption, audit logging, MFA
+- **Fintech:** PCI-DSS Level 1, AML/KYC compliance, SOX controls, financial audit trails
+- **GovTech:** NIST framework, Section 508 accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA), FedRAMP, data residency
+- **E-Commerce:** PCI-DSS for payments, inventory accuracy, tax calculation by jurisdiction
+
+**Why:** Missing these requirements in the PRD means they'll be missed in architecture and implementation, creating expensive rework. During PRD creation there is a step to cover this - during validation we want to make sure it was covered. For this purpose steps will utilize a domain-complexity.csv and project-types.csv.
+
+---
+
+## Document Structure (Markdown, Human-Readable)
+
+### Required Sections
+1. **Executive Summary** - Vision, differentiator, target users
+2. **Success Criteria** - Measurable outcomes (SMART)
+3. **Product Scope** - MVP, Growth, Vision phases
+4. **User Journeys** - Comprehensive coverage
+5. **Domain Requirements** - Industry-specific compliance (if applicable)
+6. **Innovation Analysis** - Competitive differentiation (if applicable)
+7. **Project-Type Requirements** - Platform-specific needs
+8. **Functional Requirements** - Capability contract (FRs)
+9. **Non-Functional Requirements** - Quality attributes (NFRs)
+
+### Formatting for Dual Consumption
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Clear, professional language
+- Logical flow from vision to requirements
+- Easy for stakeholders to review and approve
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- ## Level 2 headers for all main sections (enables extraction)
+- Consistent structure and patterns
+- Precise, testable language
+- High information density
+
+---
+
+## Downstream Impact
+
+**How the PRD Feeds Next Artifacts:**
+
+**UX Design:**
+- User journeys → interaction flows
+- FRs → design requirements
+- Success criteria → UX metrics
+
+**Architecture:**
+- FRs → system capabilities
+- NFRs → architecture decisions
+- Domain requirements → compliance architecture
+- Project-type requirements → platform choices
+
+**Epics & Stories (created after architecture):**
+- FRs → user stories (1 FR could map to 1-3 stories potentially)
+- Acceptance criteria → story acceptance tests
+- Priority → sprint sequencing
+- Traceability → stories map back to vision
+
+**Development AI Agents:**
+- Precise requirements → implementation clarity
+- Test criteria → automated test generation
+- Domain requirements → compliance enforcement
+- Measurable NFRs → performance targets
+
+---
+
+## Summary: What Makes a Great BMAD PRD?
+
+✅ **High Information Density** - Every sentence carries weight, zero fluff
+✅ **Measurable Requirements** - All FRs and NFRs are testable with specific criteria
+✅ **Clear Traceability** - Each requirement links to user need and business objective
+✅ **Domain Awareness** - Industry-specific requirements auto-detected and included
+✅ **Zero Anti-Patterns** - No subjective adjectives, implementation leakage, or vague quantifiers
+✅ **Dual Audience Optimized** - Human-readable AND LLM-consumable
+✅ **Markdown Format** - Professional, clean, accessible to all stakeholders
+
+---
+
+**Remember:** The PRD is the foundation. Quality here ripples through every subsequent phase. A dense, precise, well-traced PRD makes UX design, architecture, epic breakdown, and AI development dramatically more effective.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/project-types.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+project_type,detection_signals,key_questions,required_sections,skip_sections,web_search_triggers,innovation_signals
+api_backend,"API,REST,GraphQL,backend,service,endpoints","Endpoints needed?;Authentication method?;Data formats?;Rate limits?;Versioning?;SDK needed?","endpoint_specs;auth_model;data_schemas;error_codes;rate_limits;api_docs","ux_ui;visual_design;user_journeys","framework best practices;OpenAPI standards","API composition;New protocol"
+mobile_app,"iOS,Android,app,mobile,iPhone,iPad","Native or cross-platform?;Offline needed?;Push notifications?;Device features?;Store compliance?","platform_reqs;device_permissions;offline_mode;push_strategy;store_compliance","desktop_features;cli_commands","app store guidelines;platform requirements","Gesture innovation;AR/VR features"
+saas_b2b,"SaaS,B2B,platform,dashboard,teams,enterprise","Multi-tenant?;Permission model?;Subscription tiers?;Integrations?;Compliance?","tenant_model;rbac_matrix;subscription_tiers;integration_list;compliance_reqs","cli_interface;mobile_first","compliance requirements;integration guides","Workflow automation;AI agents"
+developer_tool,"SDK,library,package,npm,pip,framework","Language support?;Package managers?;IDE integration?;Documentation?;Examples?","language_matrix;installation_methods;api_surface;code_examples;migration_guide","visual_design;store_compliance","package manager best practices;API design patterns","New paradigm;DSL creation"
+cli_tool,"CLI,command,terminal,bash,script","Interactive or scriptable?;Output formats?;Config method?;Shell completion?","command_structure;output_formats;config_schema;scripting_support","visual_design;ux_principles;touch_interactions","CLI design patterns;shell integration","Natural language CLI;AI commands"
+web_app,"website,webapp,browser,SPA,PWA","SPA or MPA?;Browser support?;SEO needed?;Real-time?;Accessibility?","browser_matrix;responsive_design;performance_targets;seo_strategy;accessibility_level","native_features;cli_commands","web standards;WCAG guidelines","New interaction;WebAssembly use"
+game,"game,player,gameplay,level,character","REDIRECT TO USE THE BMad Method Game Module Agent and Workflows - HALT","game-brief;GDD","most_sections","game design patterns","Novel mechanics;Genre mixing"
+desktop_app,"desktop,Windows,Mac,Linux,native","Cross-platform?;Auto-update?;System integration?;Offline?","platform_support;system_integration;update_strategy;offline_capabilities","web_seo;mobile_features","desktop guidelines;platform requirements","Desktop AI;System automation"
+iot_embedded,"IoT,embedded,device,sensor,hardware","Hardware specs?;Connectivity?;Power constraints?;Security?;OTA updates?","hardware_reqs;connectivity_protocol;power_profile;security_model;update_mechanism","visual_ui;browser_support","IoT standards;protocol specs","Edge AI;New sensors"
+blockchain_web3,"blockchain,crypto,DeFi,NFT,smart contract","Chain selection?;Wallet integration?;Gas optimization?;Security audit?","chain_specs;wallet_support;smart_contracts;security_audit;gas_optimization","traditional_auth;centralized_db","blockchain standards;security patterns","Novel tokenomics;DAO structure"

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-01-discovery'
+description: 'Document Discovery & Confirmation - Handle fresh context validation, confirm PRD path, discover input documents'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-02-format-detection.md'
+advancedElicitationTask: 'skill:bmad-advanced-elicitation'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/bmad-party-mode/workflow.md'
+prdPurpose: '../data/prd-purpose.md'
+---
+
+# Step 1: Document Discovery & Confirmation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Handle fresh context validation by confirming PRD path, discovering and loading input documents from frontmatter, and initializing the validation report.
+
+## 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 systematic validation expertise and analytical rigor
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and specific PRD context
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on discovering PRD and input documents, not validating yet
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform any validation checks in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic discovery with clear reporting to user
+- 🚪 This is the setup step - get everything ready for validation
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Discover and confirm PRD to validate
+- 💾 Load PRD and all input documents from frontmatter
+- 📖 Initialize validation report next to PRD
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until user confirms setup
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD path (user-specified or discovered), workflow configuration
+- Focus: Document discovery and setup only
+- Limits: Don't perform validation, don't skip discovery
+- Dependencies: Configuration loaded from PRD workflow.md initialization
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load PRD Purpose and Standards
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{prdPurpose}`
+
+This file contains the BMAD PRD philosophy, standards, and validation criteria that will guide all validation checks. Internalize this understanding - it defines what makes a great BMAD PRD.
+
+### 2. Discover PRD to Validate
+
+**If PRD path provided as invocation parameter:**
+- Use provided path
+
+**If no PRD path provided, auto-discover:**
+- Search `{planning_artifacts}` for files matching `*prd*.md`
+- Also check for sharded PRDs: `{planning_artifacts}/*prd*/*.md`
+
+**If exactly ONE PRD found:**
+- Use it automatically
+- Inform user: "Found PRD: {discovered_path} — using it for validation."
+
+**If MULTIPLE PRDs found:**
+- List all discovered PRDs with numbered options
+- "I found multiple PRDs. Which one would you like to validate?"
+- Wait for user selection
+
+**If NO PRDs found:**
+- "I couldn't find any PRD files in {planning_artifacts}. Please provide the path to the PRD file you want to validate."
+- Wait for user to provide PRD path.
+
+### 3. Validate PRD Exists and Load
+
+Once PRD path is provided:
+
+- Check if PRD file exists at specified path
+- If not found: "I cannot find a PRD at that path. Please check the path and try again."
+- If found: Load the complete PRD file including frontmatter
+
+### 4. Extract Frontmatter and Input Documents
+
+From the loaded PRD frontmatter, extract:
+
+- `inputDocuments: []` array (if present)
+- Any other relevant metadata (classification, date, etc.)
+
+**If no inputDocuments array exists:**
+Note this and proceed with PRD-only validation
+
+### 5. Load Input Documents
+
+For each document listed in `inputDocuments`:
+
+- Attempt to load the document
+- Track successfully loaded documents
+- Note any documents that fail to load
+
+**Build list of loaded input documents:**
+- Product Brief (if present)
+- Research documents (if present)
+- Other reference materials (if present)
+
+### 6. Ask About Additional Reference Documents
+
+"**I've loaded the following documents from your PRD frontmatter:**
+
+{list loaded documents with file names}
+
+**Are there any additional reference documents you'd like me to include in this validation?**
+
+These could include:
+- Additional research or context documents
+- Project documentation not tracked in frontmatter
+- Standards or compliance documents
+- Competitive analysis or benchmarks
+
+Please provide paths to any additional documents, or type 'none' to proceed."
+
+**Load any additional documents provided by user.**
+
+### 7. Initialize Validation Report
+
+Create validation report at: `{validationReportPath}`
+
+**Initialize with frontmatter:**
+```yaml
+---
+validationTarget: '{prd_path}'
+validationDate: '{current_date}'
+inputDocuments: [list of all loaded documents]
+validationStepsCompleted: []
+validationStatus: IN_PROGRESS
+---
+```
+
+**Initial content:**
+```markdown
+# PRD Validation Report
+
+**PRD Being Validated:** {prd_path}
+**Validation Date:** {current_date}
+
+## Input Documents
+
+{list all documents loaded for validation}
+
+## Validation Findings
+
+[Findings will be appended as validation progresses]
+```
+
+### 8. Present Discovery Summary
+
+"**Setup Complete!**
+
+**PRD to Validate:** {prd_path}
+
+**Input Documents Loaded:**
+- PRD: {prd_name} ✓
+- Product Brief: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none found){/if}
+- Research: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none found){/if}
+- Additional References: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none){/if}
+
+**Validation Report:** {validationReportPath}
+
+**Ready to begin validation.**"
+
+### 9. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display: **Select an Option:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Format Detection
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- User can ask questions or add more documents - always respond and redisplay menu
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF A: Read fully and follow: {advancedElicitationTask}, and when finished redisplay the menu
+- IF P: Read fully and follow: {partyModeWorkflow}, and when finished redisplay the menu
+- IF C: Read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} to begin format detection
+- IF user provides additional document: Load it, update report, redisplay summary
+- IF Any other: help user, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- PRD path discovered and confirmed
+- PRD file exists and loads successfully
+- All input documents from frontmatter loaded
+- Additional reference documents (if any) loaded
+- Validation report initialized next to PRD
+- User clearly informed of setup status
+- Menu presented and user input handled correctly
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Proceeding with non-existent PRD file
+- Not loading input documents from frontmatter
+- Creating validation report in wrong location
+- Proceeding without user confirming setup
+- Not handling missing input documents gracefully
+
+**Master Rule:** Complete discovery and setup BEFORE validation. This step ensures everything is in place for systematic validation checks.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02-format-detection.md

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-02-format-detection'
+description: 'Format Detection & Structure Analysis - Classify PRD format and route appropriately'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-03-density-validation.md'
+altStepFile: './step-v-02b-parity-check.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 2: Format Detection & Structure Analysis
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Detect if PRD follows BMAD format and route appropriately - classify as BMAD Standard / BMAD Variant / Non-Standard, with optional parity check for non-standard formats.
+
+## 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 systematic validation expertise and pattern recognition
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on detecting format and classifying structure
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Analytical and systematic, clear reporting of findings
+- 🚪 This is a branch step - may route to parity check for non-standard PRDs
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Analyze PRD structure systematically
+- 💾 Append format findings to validation report
+- 📖 Route appropriately based on format classification
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip format detection or proceed without classification
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file loaded in step 1, validation report initialized
+- Focus: Format detection and classification only
+- Limits: Don't perform other validation, don't skip classification
+- Dependencies: Step 1 completed - PRD loaded and report initialized
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Extract PRD Structure
+
+Load the complete PRD file and extract:
+
+**All Level 2 (##) headers:**
+- Scan through entire PRD document
+- Extract all ## section headers
+- List them in order
+
+**PRD frontmatter:**
+- Extract classification.domain if present
+- Extract classification.projectType if present
+- Note any other relevant metadata
+
+### 2. Check for BMAD PRD Core Sections
+
+Check if the PRD contains the following BMAD PRD core sections:
+
+1. **Executive Summary** (or variations: ## Executive Summary, ## Overview, ## Introduction)
+2. **Success Criteria** (or: ## Success Criteria, ## Goals, ## Objectives)
+3. **Product Scope** (or: ## Product Scope, ## Scope, ## In Scope, ## Out of Scope)
+4. **User Journeys** (or: ## User Journeys, ## User Stories, ## User Flows)
+5. **Functional Requirements** (or: ## Functional Requirements, ## Features, ## Capabilities)
+6. **Non-Functional Requirements** (or: ## Non-Functional Requirements, ## NFRs, ## Quality Attributes)
+
+**Count matches:**
+- How many of these 6 core sections are present?
+- Which specific sections are present?
+- Which are missing?
+
+### 3. Classify PRD Format
+
+Based on core section count, classify:
+
+**BMAD Standard:**
+- 5-6 core sections present
+- Follows BMAD PRD structure closely
+
+**BMAD Variant:**
+- 3-4 core sections present
+- Generally follows BMAD patterns but may have structural differences
+- Missing some sections but recognizable as BMAD-style
+
+**Non-Standard:**
+- Fewer than 3 core sections present
+- Does not follow BMAD PRD structure
+- May be completely custom format, legacy format, or from another framework
+
+### 4. Report Format Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Format Detection
+
+**PRD Structure:**
+[List all ## Level 2 headers found]
+
+**BMAD Core Sections Present:**
+- Executive Summary: [Present/Missing]
+- Success Criteria: [Present/Missing]
+- Product Scope: [Present/Missing]
+- User Journeys: [Present/Missing]
+- Functional Requirements: [Present/Missing]
+- Non-Functional Requirements: [Present/Missing]
+
+**Format Classification:** [BMAD Standard / BMAD Variant / Non-Standard]
+**Core Sections Present:** [count]/6
+```
+
+### 5. Route Based on Format Classification
+
+**IF format is BMAD Standard or BMAD Variant:**
+
+Display: "**Format Detected:** {classification}
+
+Proceeding to systematic validation checks..."
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-03-density-validation.md)
+
+**IF format is Non-Standard (< 3 core sections):**
+
+Display: "**Format Detected:** Non-Standard PRD
+
+This PRD does not follow BMAD standard structure (only {count}/6 core sections present).
+
+You have options:"
+
+Present MENU OPTIONS below for user selection
+
+### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS (Non-Standard PRDs Only)
+
+**[A] Parity Check** - Analyze gaps and estimate effort to reach BMAD PRD parity
+**[B] Validate As-Is** - Proceed with validation using current structure
+**[C] Exit** - Exit validation and review format findings
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF A (Parity Check): Read fully and follow: {altStepFile} (step-v-02b-parity-check.md)
+- IF B (Validate As-Is): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then read fully and follow: {nextStepFile}
+- IF C (Exit): Display format findings summary and exit validation
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All ## Level 2 headers extracted successfully
+- BMAD core sections checked systematically
+- Format classified correctly based on section count
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- BMAD Standard/Variant PRDs proceed directly to next validation step
+- Non-Standard PRDs pause and present options to user
+- User can choose parity check, validate as-is, or exit
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not extracting all headers before classification
+- Incorrect format classification
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not pausing for non-standard PRDs
+- Proceeding without user decision for non-standard formats
+
+**Master Rule:** Format detection determines validation path. Non-standard PRDs require user choice before proceeding.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-02b-parity-check'
+description: 'Document Parity Check - Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity'
+
+# 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.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-03-density-validation'
+description: 'Information Density Check - Scan for anti-patterns that violate information density principles'
+
+# 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.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation'
+description: 'Product Brief Coverage Check - Validate PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if used as input)'
+
+# 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.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-05-measurability-validation'
+description: 'Measurability Validation - Validate that all requirements (FRs and NFRs) are measurable and testable'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-06-traceability-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 5: Measurability Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate that all Functional Requirements (FRs) and Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) are measurable, testable, and follow proper format without implementation details.
+
+## 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 requirements engineering expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR and NFR measurability
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic requirement-by-requirement analysis
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Extract all FRs and NFRs from PRD
+- 💾 Validate each for measurability and format
+- 📖 Append 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
+- Focus: FR and NFR measurability only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-4 completed - initial validation checks 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 measurability validation on this PRD:
+
+**Functional Requirements (FRs):**
+1. Extract all FRs from Functional Requirements section
+2. Check each FR for:
+   - '[Actor] can [capability]' format compliance
+   - No subjective adjectives (easy, fast, simple, intuitive, etc.)
+   - No vague quantifiers (multiple, several, some, many, etc.)
+   - No implementation details (technology names, library names, data structures unless capability-relevant)
+3. Document violations with line numbers
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs):**
+1. Extract all NFRs from Non-Functional Requirements section
+2. Check each NFR for:
+   - Specific metrics with measurement methods
+   - Template compliance (criterion, metric, measurement method, context)
+   - Context included (why this matters, who it affects)
+3. Document violations with line numbers
+
+Return structured findings with violation counts and examples."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Functional Requirements Analysis:**
+
+Extract all FRs and check each for:
+
+**Format compliance:**
+- Does it follow "[Actor] can [capability]" pattern?
+- Is actor clearly defined?
+- Is capability actionable and testable?
+
+**No subjective adjectives:**
+- Scan for: easy, fast, simple, intuitive, user-friendly, responsive, quick, efficient (without metrics)
+- Note line numbers
+
+**No vague quantifiers:**
+- Scan for: multiple, several, some, many, few, various, number of
+- Note line numbers
+
+**No implementation details:**
+- Scan for: React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, Docker, Kubernetes, Redux, etc.
+- Unless capability-relevant (e.g., "API consumers can access...")
+- Note line numbers
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements Analysis:**
+
+Extract all NFRs and check each for:
+
+**Specific metrics:**
+- Is there a measurable criterion? (e.g., "response time < 200ms", not "fast response")
+- Can this be measured or tested?
+
+**Template compliance:**
+- Criterion defined?
+- Metric specified?
+- Measurement method included?
+- Context provided?
+
+### 3. Tally Violations
+
+**FR Violations:**
+- Format violations: count
+- Subjective adjectives: count
+- Vague quantifiers: count
+- Implementation leakage: count
+- Total FR violations: sum
+
+**NFR Violations:**
+- Missing metrics: count
+- Incomplete template: count
+- Missing context: count
+- Total NFR violations: sum
+
+**Total violations:** FR violations + NFR violations
+
+### 4. Report Measurability Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Measurability Validation
+
+### Functional Requirements
+
+**Total FRs Analyzed:** {count}
+
+**Format Violations:** {count}
+[If violations exist, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Subjective Adjectives Found:** {count}
+[If found, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Vague Quantifiers Found:** {count}
+[If found, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Implementation Leakage:** {count}
+[If found, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**FR Violations Total:** {total}
+
+### Non-Functional Requirements
+
+**Total NFRs Analyzed:** {count}
+
+**Missing Metrics:** {count}
+[If missing, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Incomplete Template:** {count}
+[If incomplete, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Missing Context:** {count}
+[If missing, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**NFR Violations Total:** {total}
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+**Total Requirements:** {FRs + NFRs}
+**Total Violations:** {FR violations + NFR violations}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >10 violations, Warning if 5-10, Pass if <5]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Many requirements are not measurable or testable. Requirements must be revised to be testable for downstream work."
+[If Warning] "Some requirements need refinement for measurability. Focus on violating requirements above."
+[If Pass] "Requirements demonstrate good measurability with minimal issues."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Measurability Validation Complete**
+
+Total Violations: {count} ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-06-traceability-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All FRs extracted and analyzed for measurability
+- All NFRs extracted and analyzed for measurability
+- Violations documented with line numbers
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not analyzing all FRs and NFRs
+- Missing line numbers for violations
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not assessing severity
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Requirements must be testable to be useful. Validate every requirement for measurability, document violations, auto-proceed.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-06-traceability-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-06-traceability-validation'
+description: 'Traceability Validation - Validate the traceability chain from vision → success → journeys → FRs is intact'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 6: Traceability Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate the traceability chain from Executive Summary → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements is intact, ensuring every requirement traces back to a user need or business objective.
+
+## 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 matrix expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on traceability chain validation
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic chain validation and orphan detection
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Build and validate traceability matrix
+- 💾 Identify broken chains and orphan requirements
+- 📖 Append 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
+- Focus: Traceability chain validation only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-5 completed - initial validations 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 traceability validation on this PRD:
+
+1. Extract content from Executive Summary (vision, goals)
+2. Extract Success Criteria
+3. Extract User Journeys (user types, flows, outcomes)
+4. Extract Functional Requirements (FRs)
+5. Extract Product Scope (in-scope items)
+
+**Validate chains:**
+- Executive Summary → Success Criteria: Does vision align with defined success?
+- Success Criteria → User Journeys: Are success criteria supported by user journeys?
+- User Journeys → Functional Requirements: Does each FR trace back to a user journey?
+- Scope → FRs: Do MVP scope FRs align with in-scope items?
+
+**Identify orphans:**
+- FRs not traceable to any user journey or business objective
+- Success criteria not supported by user journeys
+- User journeys without supporting FRs
+
+Build traceability matrix and identify broken chains and orphan FRs.
+
+Return structured findings with chain status and orphan list."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Step 1: Extract key elements**
+- Executive Summary: Note vision, goals, objectives
+- Success Criteria: List all criteria
+- User Journeys: List user types and their flows
+- Functional Requirements: List all FRs
+- Product Scope: List in-scope items
+
+**Step 2: Validate Executive Summary → Success Criteria**
+- Does Executive Summary mention the success dimensions?
+- Are Success Criteria aligned with vision?
+- Note any misalignment
+
+**Step 3: Validate Success Criteria → User Journeys**
+- For each success criterion, is there a user journey that achieves it?
+- Note success criteria without supporting journeys
+
+**Step 4: Validate User Journeys → FRs**
+- For each user journey/flow, are there FRs that enable it?
+- List FRs with no clear user journey origin
+- Note orphan FRs (requirements without traceable source)
+
+**Step 5: Validate Scope → FR Alignment**
+- Does MVP scope align with essential FRs?
+- Are in-scope items supported by FRs?
+- Note misalignments
+
+**Step 6: Build traceability matrix**
+- Map each FR to its source (journey or business objective)
+- Note orphan FRs
+- Identify broken chains
+
+### 3. Tally Traceability Issues
+
+**Broken chains:**
+- Executive Summary → Success Criteria gaps: count
+- Success Criteria → User Journeys gaps: count
+- User Journeys → FRs gaps: count
+- Scope → FR misalignments: count
+
+**Orphan elements:**
+- Orphan FRs (no traceable source): count
+- Unsupported success criteria: count
+- User journeys without FRs: count
+
+**Total issues:** Sum of all broken chains and orphans
+
+### 4. Report Traceability Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Traceability Validation
+
+### Chain Validation
+
+**Executive Summary → Success Criteria:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
+{If gaps: List specific misalignments}
+
+**Success Criteria → User Journeys:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
+{If gaps: List unsupported success criteria}
+
+**User Journeys → Functional Requirements:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
+{If gaps: List journeys without supporting FRs}
+
+**Scope → FR Alignment:** [Intact/Misaligned]
+{If misaligned: List specific issues}
+
+### Orphan Elements
+
+**Orphan Functional Requirements:** {count}
+{List orphan FRs with numbers}
+
+**Unsupported Success Criteria:** {count}
+{List unsupported criteria}
+
+**User Journeys Without FRs:** {count}
+{List journeys without FRs}
+
+### Traceability Matrix
+
+{Summary table showing traceability coverage}
+
+**Total Traceability Issues:** {total}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if orphan FRs exist, Warning if gaps, Pass if intact]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Orphan requirements exist - every FR must trace back to a user need or business objective."
+[If Warning] "Traceability gaps identified - strengthen chains to ensure all requirements are justified."
+[If Pass] "Traceability chain is intact - all requirements trace to user needs or business objectives."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Traceability Validation Complete**
+
+Total Issues: {count} ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All traceability chains validated systematically
+- Orphan FRs identified with numbers
+- Broken chains documented
+- Traceability matrix built
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not validating all traceability chains
+- Missing orphan FR detection
+- Not building traceability matrix
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Every requirement should trace to a user need or business objective. Orphan FRs indicate broken traceability that must be fixed.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation'
+description: 'Implementation Leakage Check - Ensure FRs and NFRs don\'t include implementation details'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 7: Implementation Leakage Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Ensure Functional Requirements and Non-Functional Requirements don't include implementation details - they should specify WHAT, not HOW.
+
+## 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 separation of concerns expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on implementation leakage detection
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning for technology and implementation terms
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Scan FRs and NFRs for implementation terms
+- 💾 Distinguish capability-relevant vs leakage
+- 📖 Append 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
+- Focus: Implementation leakage detection only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-6 completed - initial validations 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 implementation leakage validation on this PRD:
+
+**Scan for:**
+1. Technology names (React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, GCP, Azure, Docker, Kubernetes, etc.)
+2. Library names (Redux, axios, lodash, Express, Django, Rails, Spring, etc.)
+3. Data structures (JSON, XML, CSV) unless relevant to capability
+4. Architecture patterns (MVC, microservices, serverless) unless business requirement
+5. Protocol names (HTTP, REST, GraphQL, WebSockets) - check if capability-relevant
+
+**For each term found:**
+- Is this capability-relevant? (e.g., 'API consumers can access...' - API is capability)
+- Or is this implementation detail? (e.g., 'React component for...' - implementation)
+
+Document violations with line numbers and explanation.
+
+Return structured findings with leakage counts and examples."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Implementation leakage terms to scan for:**
+
+**Frontend Frameworks:**
+React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Solid, Next.js, Nuxt, etc.
+
+**Backend Frameworks:**
+Express, Django, Rails, Spring, Laravel, FastAPI, etc.
+
+**Databases:**
+PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Redis, DynamoDB, Cassandra, etc.
+
+**Cloud Platforms:**
+AWS, GCP, Azure, Cloudflare, Vercel, Netlify, etc.
+
+**Infrastructure:**
+Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, etc.
+
+**Libraries:**
+Redux, Zustand, axios, fetch, lodash, jQuery, etc.
+
+**Data Formats:**
+JSON, XML, YAML, CSV (unless capability-relevant)
+
+**For each term found in FRs/NFRs:**
+- Determine if it's capability-relevant or implementation leakage
+- Example: "API consumers can access data via REST endpoints" - API/REST is capability
+- Example: "React components fetch data using Redux" - implementation leakage
+
+**Count violations and note line numbers**
+
+### 3. Tally Implementation Leakage
+
+**By category:**
+- Frontend framework leakage: count
+- Backend framework leakage: count
+- Database leakage: count
+- Cloud platform leakage: count
+- Infrastructure leakage: count
+- Library leakage: count
+- Other implementation details: count
+
+**Total implementation leakage violations:** sum
+
+### 4. Report Implementation Leakage Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Implementation Leakage Validation
+
+### Leakage by Category
+
+**Frontend Frameworks:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Backend Frameworks:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Databases:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Cloud Platforms:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Infrastructure:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Libraries:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Other Implementation Details:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+### Summary
+
+**Total Implementation Leakage Violations:** {total}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >5 violations, Warning if 2-5, Pass if <2]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Extensive implementation leakage found. Requirements specify HOW instead of WHAT. Remove all implementation details - these belong in architecture, not PRD."
+[If Warning] "Some implementation leakage detected. Review violations and remove implementation details from requirements."
+[If Pass] "No significant implementation leakage found. Requirements properly specify WHAT without HOW."
+
+**Note:** API consumers, GraphQL (when required), and other capability-relevant terms are acceptable when they describe WHAT the system must do, not HOW to build it.
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Implementation Leakage Validation Complete**
+
+Total Violations: {count} ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Scanned FRs and NFRs for all implementation term categories
+- Distinguished capability-relevant from implementation leakage
+- Violations documented with line numbers and explanations
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scanning all implementation term categories
+- Not distinguishing capability-relevant from leakage
+- Missing line numbers for violations
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Requirements specify WHAT, not HOW. Implementation details belong in architecture documents, not PRDs.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation'
+description: 'Domain Compliance Validation - Validate domain-specific requirements are present for high-complexity domains'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-09-project-type-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+domainComplexityData: '../data/domain-complexity.csv'
+---
+
+# Step 8: Domain Compliance Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate domain-specific requirements are present for high-complexity domains (Healthcare, Fintech, GovTech, etc.), ensuring regulatory and compliance requirements are properly documented.
+
+## 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 domain expertise and compliance knowledge
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on domain-specific compliance requirements
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Conditional validation based on domain classification
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check classification.domain from PRD frontmatter
+- 💬 If low complexity (general): Skip detailed checks
+- 🎯 If high complexity: Validate required special sections
+- 💾 Append compliance 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 with frontmatter classification, validation report
+- Focus: Domain compliance only (conditional on domain complexity)
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, conditional execution
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-7 completed - format and requirements validation done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load Domain Complexity Data
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{domainComplexityData}` (../data/domain-complexity.csv)
+
+This CSV contains:
+- Domain classifications and complexity levels (high/medium/low)
+- Required special sections for each domain
+- Key concerns and requirements for regulated industries
+
+Internalize this data - it drives which domains require special compliance sections.
+
+### 2. Extract Domain Classification
+
+From PRD frontmatter, extract:
+- `classification.domain` - what domain is this PRD for?
+
+**If no domain classification found:**
+Treat as "general" (low complexity) and proceed to step 4
+
+### 2. Determine Domain Complexity
+
+**Low complexity domains (skip detailed checks):**
+- General
+- Consumer apps (standard e-commerce, social, productivity)
+- Content websites
+- Business tools (standard)
+
+**High complexity domains (require special sections):**
+- Healthcare / Healthtech
+- Fintech / Financial services
+- GovTech / Public sector
+- EdTech (educational records, accredited courses)
+- Legal tech
+- Other regulated domains
+
+### 3. For High-Complexity Domains: Validate Required Special Sections
+
+**Attempt subprocess validation:**
+
+"Perform domain compliance validation for {domain}:
+
+Based on {domain} requirements, check PRD for:
+
+**Healthcare:**
+- Clinical Requirements section
+- Regulatory Pathway (FDA, HIPAA, etc.)
+- Safety Measures
+- HIPAA Compliance (data privacy, security)
+- Patient safety considerations
+
+**Fintech:**
+- Compliance Matrix (SOC2, PCI-DSS, GDPR, etc.)
+- Security Architecture
+- Audit Requirements
+- Fraud Prevention measures
+- Financial transaction handling
+
+**GovTech:**
+- Accessibility Standards (WCAG 2.1 AA, Section 508)
+- Procurement Compliance
+- Security Clearance requirements
+- Data residency requirements
+
+**Other regulated domains:**
+- Check for domain-specific regulatory sections
+- Compliance requirements
+- Special considerations
+
+For each required section:
+- Is it present in PRD?
+- Is it adequately documented?
+- Note any gaps
+
+Return compliance matrix with presence/adequacy assessment."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually check for required sections based on domain
+- List present sections and missing sections
+- Assess adequacy of documentation
+
+### 5. For Low-Complexity Domains: Skip Detailed Checks
+
+Append to validation report:
+```markdown
+## Domain Compliance Validation
+
+**Domain:** {domain}
+**Complexity:** Low (general/standard)
+**Assessment:** N/A - No special domain compliance requirements
+
+**Note:** This PRD is for a standard domain without regulatory compliance requirements.
+```
+
+Display: "**Domain Compliance Validation Skipped**
+
+Domain: {domain} (low complexity)
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile}
+
+### 6. Report Compliance Findings (High-Complexity Domains)
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Domain Compliance Validation
+
+**Domain:** {domain}
+**Complexity:** High (regulated)
+
+### Required Special Sections
+
+**{Section 1 Name}:** [Present/Missing/Adequate]
+{If missing or inadequate: Note specific gaps}
+
+**{Section 2 Name}:** [Present/Missing/Adequate]
+{If missing or inadequate: Note specific gaps}
+
+[Continue for all required sections]
+
+### Compliance Matrix
+
+| Requirement | Status | Notes |
+|-------------|--------|-------|
+| {Requirement 1} | [Met/Partial/Missing] | {Notes} |
+| {Requirement 2} | [Met/Partial/Missing] | {Notes} |
+[... continue for all requirements]
+
+### Summary
+
+**Required Sections Present:** {count}/{total}
+**Compliance Gaps:** {count}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if missing regulatory sections, Warning if incomplete, Pass if complete]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD is missing required domain-specific compliance sections. These are essential for {domain} products."
+[If Warning] "Some domain compliance sections are incomplete. Strengthen documentation for full compliance."
+[If Pass] "All required domain compliance sections are present and adequately documented."
+```
+
+### 7. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Domain Compliance Validation Complete**
+
+Domain: {domain} ({complexity})
+Compliance Status: {status}
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-09-project-type-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Domain classification extracted correctly
+- Complexity assessed appropriately
+- Low complexity domains: Skipped with clear "N/A" documentation
+- High complexity domains: All required sections checked
+- Compliance matrix built with status for each requirement
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking domain classification before proceeding
+- Performing detailed checks on low complexity domains
+- For high complexity: missing required section checks
+- Not building compliance matrix
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Domain compliance is conditional. High-complexity domains require special sections - low complexity domains skip these checks.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-09-project-type-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-09-project-type-validation'
+description: 'Project-Type Compliance Validation - Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-10-smart-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+projectTypesData: '../data/project-types.csv'
+---
+
+# Step 9: Project-Type Compliance Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented - different project types (api_backend, web_app, mobile_app, etc.) have different required and excluded sections.
+
+## 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 project type expertise and architectural knowledge
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on project-type compliance
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Validate required sections present, excluded sections absent
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check classification.projectType from PRD frontmatter
+- 🎯 Validate required sections for that project type are present
+- 🎯 Validate excluded sections for that project type are absent
+- 💾 Append compliance 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 with frontmatter classification, validation report
+- Focus: Project-type compliance only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-8 completed - domain and requirements validation done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load Project Types Data
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{projectTypesData}` (../data/project-types.csv)
+
+This CSV contains:
+- Detection signals for each project type
+- Required sections for each project type
+- Skip/excluded sections for each project type
+- Innovation signals
+
+Internalize this data - it drives what sections must be present or absent for each project type.
+
+### 2. Extract Project Type Classification
+
+From PRD frontmatter, extract:
+- `classification.projectType` - what type of project is this?
+
+**Common project types:**
+- api_backend
+- web_app
+- mobile_app
+- desktop_app
+- data_pipeline
+- ml_system
+- library_sdk
+- infrastructure
+- other
+
+**If no projectType classification found:**
+Assume "web_app" (most common) and note in findings
+
+### 3. Determine Required and Excluded Sections from CSV Data
+
+**From loaded project-types.csv data, for this project type:**
+
+**Required sections:** (from required_sections column)
+These MUST be present in the PRD
+
+**Skip sections:** (from skip_sections column)
+These MUST NOT be present in the PRD
+
+**Example mappings from CSV:**
+- api_backend: Required=[endpoint_specs, auth_model, data_schemas], Skip=[ux_ui, visual_design]
+- mobile_app: Required=[platform_reqs, device_permissions, offline_mode], Skip=[desktop_features, cli_commands]
+- cli_tool: Required=[command_structure, output_formats, config_schema], Skip=[visual_design, ux_principles, touch_interactions]
+- etc.
+
+### 4. Validate Against CSV-Based Requirements
+
+**Based on project type, determine:**
+
+**api_backend:**
+- Required: Endpoint Specs, Auth Model, Data Schemas, API Versioning
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections, mobile-specific sections
+
+**web_app:**
+- Required: User Journeys, UX/UI Requirements, Responsive Design
+- Excluded: None typically
+
+**mobile_app:**
+- Required: Mobile UX, Platform specifics (iOS/Android), Offline mode
+- Excluded: Desktop-specific sections
+
+**desktop_app:**
+- Required: Desktop UX, Platform specifics (Windows/Mac/Linux)
+- Excluded: Mobile-specific sections
+
+**data_pipeline:**
+- Required: Data Sources, Data Transformation, Data Sinks, Error Handling
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections
+
+**ml_system:**
+- Required: Model Requirements, Training Data, Inference Requirements, Model Performance
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections (unless ML UI)
+
+**library_sdk:**
+- Required: API Surface, Usage Examples, Integration Guide
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections, deployment sections
+
+**infrastructure:**
+- Required: Infrastructure Components, Deployment, Monitoring, Scaling
+- Excluded: Feature requirements (this is infrastructure, not product)
+
+### 4. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+"Perform project-type compliance validation for {projectType}:
+
+**Check that required sections are present:**
+{List required sections for this project type}
+For each: Is it present in PRD? Is it adequately documented?
+
+**Check that excluded sections are absent:**
+{List excluded sections for this project type}
+For each: Is it absent from PRD? (Should not be present)
+
+Build compliance table showing:
+- Required sections: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Excluded sections: [Absent/Present] (Present = violation)
+
+Return compliance table with findings."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually check PRD for required sections
+- Manually check PRD for excluded sections
+- Build compliance table
+
+### 5. Build Compliance Table
+
+**Required sections check:**
+- For each required section: Present / Missing / Incomplete
+- Count: Required sections present vs total required
+
+**Excluded sections check:**
+- For each excluded section: Absent / Present (violation)
+- Count: Excluded sections present (violations)
+
+**Total compliance score:**
+- Required: {present}/{total}
+- Excluded violations: {count}
+
+### 6. Report Project-Type Compliance Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Project-Type Compliance Validation
+
+**Project Type:** {projectType}
+
+### Required Sections
+
+**{Section 1}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps}
+
+**{Section 2}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps}
+
+[Continue for all required sections]
+
+### Excluded Sections (Should Not Be Present)
+
+**{Section 1}:** [Absent/Present] ✓
+{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}}
+
+**{Section 2}:** [Absent/Present] ✓
+{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}}
+
+[Continue for all excluded sections]
+
+### Compliance Summary
+
+**Required Sections:** {present}/{total} present
+**Excluded Sections Present:** {violations} (should be 0)
+**Compliance Score:** {percentage}%
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if required sections missing, Warning if incomplete, Pass if complete]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD is missing required sections for {projectType}. Add missing sections to properly specify this type of project."
+[If Warning] "Some required sections for {projectType} are incomplete. Strengthen documentation."
+[If Pass] "All required sections for {projectType} are present. No excluded sections found."
+```
+
+### 7. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Project-Type Compliance Validation Complete**
+
+Project Type: {projectType}
+Compliance: {score}%
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-10-smart-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Project type extracted correctly (or default assumed)
+- Required sections validated for presence and completeness
+- Excluded sections validated for absence
+- Compliance table built with status for all sections
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking project type before proceeding
+- Missing required section checks
+- Missing excluded section checks
+- Not building compliance table
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Different project types have different requirements. API PRDs don't need UX sections - validate accordingly.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-10-smart-validation'
+description: 'SMART Requirements Validation - Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 10: SMART Requirements Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable), ensuring high-quality requirements.
+
+## 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}`
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_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 requirements engineering expertise and quality assessment
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR quality assessment using SMART framework
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Score each FR on SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Extract all FRs from PRD
+- 🎯 Score each FR on SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable)
+- 💾 Flag FRs with score < 3 in any category
+- 📖 Append scoring table and suggestions 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
+- Focus: FR quality assessment only using SMART framework
+- Limits: Don't validate NFRs or other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-9 completed - comprehensive validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Extract All Functional Requirements
+
+From the PRD's Functional Requirements section, extract:
+- All FRs with their FR numbers (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
+- Count total FRs
+
+### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform SMART requirements validation on these Functional Requirements:
+
+{List all FRs}
+
+**For each FR, score on SMART criteria (1-5 scale):**
+
+**Specific (1-5):**
+- 5: Clear, unambiguous, well-defined
+- 3: Somewhat clear but could be more specific
+- 1: Vague, ambiguous, unclear
+
+**Measurable (1-5):**
+- 5: Quantifiable metrics, testable
+- 3: Partially measurable
+- 1: Not measurable, subjective
+
+**Attainable (1-5):**
+- 5: Realistic, achievable with constraints
+- 3: Probably achievable but uncertain
+- 1: Unrealistic, technically infeasible
+
+**Relevant (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly aligned with user needs and business objectives
+- 3: Somewhat relevant but connection unclear
+- 1: Not relevant, doesn't align with goals
+
+**Traceable (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly traces to user journey or business objective
+- 3: Partially traceable
+- 1: Orphan requirement, no clear source
+
+**For each FR with score < 3 in any category:**
+- Provide specific improvement suggestions
+
+Return scoring table with all FR scores and improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually score each FR on SMART criteria
+- Note FRs with low scores
+- Provide improvement suggestions
+
+### 3. Build Scoring Table
+
+For each FR:
+- FR number
+- Specific score (1-5)
+- Measurable score (1-5)
+- Attainable score (1-5)
+- Relevant score (1-5)
+- Traceable score (1-5)
+- Average score
+- Flag if any category < 3
+
+**Calculate overall FR quality:**
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 3
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 4
+- Average score across all FRs and categories
+
+### 4. Report SMART Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## SMART Requirements Validation
+
+**Total Functional Requirements:** {count}
+
+### Scoring Summary
+
+**All scores ≥ 3:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**All scores ≥ 4:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**Overall Average Score:** {average}/5.0
+
+### Scoring Table
+
+| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag |
+|------|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----------|--------|------|
+| FR-001 | {s1} | {m1} | {a1} | {r1} | {t1} | {avg1} | {X if any <3} |
+| FR-002 | {s2} | {m2} | {a2} | {r2} | {t2} | {avg2} | {X if any <3} |
+[Continue for all FRs]
+
+**Legend:** 1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent
+**Flag:** X = Score < 3 in one or more categories
+
+### Improvement Suggestions
+
+**Low-Scoring FRs:**
+
+**FR-{number}:** {specific suggestion for improvement}
+[For each FR with score < 3 in any category]
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >30% flagged FRs, Warning if 10-30%, Pass if <10%]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Many FRs have quality issues. Revise flagged FRs using SMART framework to improve clarity and testability."
+[If Warning] "Some FRs would benefit from SMART refinement. Focus on flagged requirements above."
+[If Pass] "Functional Requirements demonstrate good SMART quality overall."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**SMART Requirements Validation Complete**
+
+FR Quality: {percentage}% with acceptable scores ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All FRs extracted from PRD
+- Each FR scored on all 5 SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- FRs with scores < 3 flagged for improvement
+- Improvement suggestions provided for low-scoring FRs
+- Scoring table built with all FR scores
+- Overall quality assessment calculated
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scoring all FRs on all SMART criteria
+- Missing improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs
+- Not building scoring table
+- Not calculating overall quality metrics
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** FRs should be high-quality, not just present. SMART framework provides objective quality measure.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation'
+description: 'Holistic Quality Assessment - Assess PRD as cohesive, compelling document - is it a good PRD?'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-12-completeness-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+advancedElicitationTask: 'skill:bmad-advanced-elicitation'
+---
+
+# Step 11: Holistic Quality Assessment
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Assess the PRD as a cohesive, compelling document - evaluating document flow, dual audience effectiveness (humans and LLMs), BMAD PRD principles compliance, and overall quality rating.
+
+## 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}`
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_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 document quality expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+- ✅ Uses Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on holistic document quality assessment
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate individual components (done in previous steps)
+- 💬 Approach: Multi-perspective evaluation using Advanced Elicitation
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Use Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective assessment
+- 🎯 Evaluate document flow, dual audience, BMAD principles
+- 💾 Append comprehensive assessment to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Complete PRD file, validation report with findings from steps 1-10
+- Focus: Holistic quality - the WHOLE document
+- Limits: Don't re-validate individual components, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 1-10 completed - all systematic checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process with Advanced Elicitation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess using Advanced Elicitation:**
+
+"Perform holistic quality assessment on this PRD using multi-perspective evaluation:
+
+**Read fully and follow the Advanced Elicitation workflow:**
+{advancedElicitationTask}
+
+**Evaluate the PRD from these perspectives:**
+
+**1. Document Flow & Coherence:**
+- Read entire PRD
+- Evaluate narrative flow - does it tell a cohesive story?
+- Check transitions between sections
+- Assess consistency - is it coherent throughout?
+- Evaluate readability - is it clear and well-organized?
+
+**2. Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Executive-friendly: Can executives understand vision and goals quickly?
+- Developer clarity: Do developers have clear requirements to build from?
+- Designer clarity: Do designers understand user needs and flows?
+- Stakeholder decision-making: Can stakeholders make informed decisions?
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- Machine-readable structure: Is the PRD structured for LLM consumption?
+- UX readiness: Can an LLM generate UX designs from this?
+- Architecture readiness: Can an LLM generate architecture from this?
+- Epic/Story readiness: Can an LLM break down into epics and stories?
+
+**3. BMAD PRD Principles Compliance:**
+- Information density: Every sentence carries weight?
+- Measurability: Requirements testable?
+- Traceability: Requirements trace to sources?
+- Domain awareness: Domain-specific considerations included?
+- Zero anti-patterns: No filler or wordiness?
+- Dual audience: Works for both humans and LLMs?
+- Markdown format: Proper structure and formatting?
+
+**4. Overall Quality Rating:**
+Rate the PRD on 5-point scale:
+- Excellent (5/5): Exemplary, ready for production use
+- Good (4/5): Strong with minor improvements needed
+- Adequate (3/5): Acceptable but needs refinement
+- Needs Work (2/5): Significant gaps or issues
+- Problematic (1/5): Major flaws, needs substantial revision
+
+**5. Top 3 Improvements:**
+Identify the 3 most impactful improvements to make this a great PRD
+
+Return comprehensive assessment with all perspectives, rating, and top 3 improvements."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool or Advanced Elicitation unavailable):**
+- Perform holistic assessment directly in current context
+- Read complete PRD
+- Evaluate document flow, coherence, transitions
+- Assess dual audience effectiveness
+- Check BMAD principles compliance
+- Assign overall quality rating
+- Identify top 3 improvements
+
+### 2. Synthesize Assessment
+
+**Compile findings from multi-perspective evaluation:**
+
+**Document Flow & Coherence:**
+- Overall assessment: [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
+- Key strengths: [list]
+- Key weaknesses: [list]
+
+**Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
+- For Humans: [assessment]
+- For LLMs: [assessment]
+- Overall dual audience score: [1-5]
+
+**BMAD Principles Compliance:**
+- Principles met: [count]/7
+- Principles with issues: [list]
+
+**Overall Quality Rating:** [1-5 with label]
+
+**Top 3 Improvements:**
+1. [Improvement 1]
+2. [Improvement 2]
+3. [Improvement 3]
+
+### 3. Report Holistic Quality Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Holistic Quality Assessment
+
+### Document Flow & Coherence
+
+**Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
+
+**Strengths:**
+{List key strengths}
+
+**Areas for Improvement:**
+{List key weaknesses}
+
+### Dual Audience Effectiveness
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Executive-friendly: [assessment]
+- Developer clarity: [assessment]
+- Designer clarity: [assessment]
+- Stakeholder decision-making: [assessment]
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- Machine-readable structure: [assessment]
+- UX readiness: [assessment]
+- Architecture readiness: [assessment]
+- Epic/Story readiness: [assessment]
+
+**Dual Audience Score:** {score}/5
+
+### BMAD PRD Principles Compliance
+
+| Principle | Status | Notes |
+|-----------|--------|-------|
+| Information Density | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Measurability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Traceability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Domain Awareness | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Zero Anti-Patterns | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Dual Audience | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Markdown Format | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+
+**Principles Met:** {count}/7
+
+### Overall Quality Rating
+
+**Rating:** {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Scale:**
+- 5/5 - Excellent: Exemplary, ready for production use
+- 4/5 - Good: Strong with minor improvements needed
+- 3/5 - Adequate: Acceptable but needs refinement
+- 2/5 - Needs Work: Significant gaps or issues
+- 1/5 - Problematic: Major flaws, needs substantial revision
+
+### Top 3 Improvements
+
+1. **{Improvement 1}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+2. **{Improvement 2}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+3. **{Improvement 3}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+### Summary
+
+**This PRD is:** {one-sentence overall assessment}
+
+**To make it great:** Focus on the top 3 improvements above.
+```
+
+### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Holistic Quality Assessment Complete**
+
+Overall Rating: {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Proceeding to final validation checks...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-12-completeness-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Advanced Elicitation used for multi-perspective evaluation (or graceful degradation)
+- Document flow & coherence assessed
+- Dual audience effectiveness evaluated (humans and LLMs)
+- BMAD PRD principles compliance checked
+- Overall quality rating assigned (1-5 scale)
+- Top 3 improvements identified
+- Comprehensive assessment reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not using Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
+- Missing document flow assessment
+- Missing dual audience evaluation
+- Not checking all BMAD principles
+- Not assigning overall quality rating
+- Missing top 3 improvements
+- Not reporting comprehensive assessment to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** This evaluates the WHOLE document, not just components. Answers "Is this a good PRD?" and "What would make it great?"

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-12-completeness-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-12-completeness-validation'
+description: 'Completeness Check - Final comprehensive completeness check before report generation'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-13-report-complete.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 12: Completeness Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Final comprehensive completeness check - validate no template variables remain, each section has required content, section-specific completeness, and frontmatter is properly populated.
+
+## 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 attention to detail and completeness verification
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on completeness verification
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate quality (done in step 11) or other aspects
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic checklist-style verification
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check template completeness (no variables remaining)
+- 🎯 Validate content completeness (each section has required content)
+- 🎯 Validate section-specific completeness
+- 🎯 Validate frontmatter completeness
+- 💾 Append completeness matrix to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to final step..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Complete PRD file, frontmatter, validation report
+- Focus: Completeness verification only (final gate)
+- Limits: Don't assess quality, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 1-11 completed - all validation checks 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 completeness validation on this PRD - final gate check:
+
+**1. Template Completeness:**
+- Scan PRD for any remaining template variables
+- Look for: {variable}, {{variable}}, {placeholder}, [placeholder], etc.
+- List any found with line numbers
+
+**2. Content Completeness:**
+- Executive Summary: Has vision statement? ({key content})
+- Success Criteria: All criteria measurable? ({metrics present})
+- Product Scope: In-scope and out-of-scope defined? ({both present})
+- User Journeys: User types identified? ({users listed})
+- Functional Requirements: FRs listed with proper format? ({FRs present})
+- Non-Functional Requirements: NFRs with metrics? ({NFRs present})
+
+For each section: Is required content present? (Yes/No/Partial)
+
+**3. Section-Specific Completeness:**
+- Success Criteria: Each has specific measurement method?
+- User Journeys: Cover all user types?
+- Functional Requirements: Cover MVP scope?
+- Non-Functional Requirements: Each has specific criteria?
+
+**4. Frontmatter Completeness:**
+- stepsCompleted: Populated?
+- classification: Present (domain, projectType)?
+- inputDocuments: Tracked?
+- date: Present?
+
+Return completeness matrix with status for each check."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually scan for template variables
+- Manually check each section for required content
+- Manually verify frontmatter fields
+- Build completeness matrix
+
+### 2. Build Completeness Matrix
+
+**Template Completeness:**
+- Template variables found: count
+- List if any found
+
+**Content Completeness by Section:**
+- Executive Summary: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Success Criteria: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Product Scope: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- User Journeys: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Non-Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Other sections: [List completeness]
+
+**Section-Specific Completeness:**
+- Success criteria measurable: All / Some / None
+- Journeys cover all users: Yes / Partial / No
+- FRs cover MVP scope: Yes / Partial / No
+- NFRs have specific criteria: All / Some / None
+
+**Frontmatter Completeness:**
+- stepsCompleted: Present / Missing
+- classification: Present / Missing
+- inputDocuments: Present / Missing
+- date: Present / Missing
+
+**Overall completeness:**
+- Sections complete: X/Y
+- Critical gaps: [list if any]
+
+### 3. Report Completeness Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Completeness Validation
+
+### Template Completeness
+
+**Template Variables Found:** {count}
+{If count > 0, list variables with line numbers}
+{If count = 0, note: No template variables remaining ✓}
+
+### Content Completeness by Section
+
+**Executive Summary:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Success Criteria:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Product Scope:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**User Journeys:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+### Section-Specific Completeness
+
+**Success Criteria Measurability:** [All/Some/None] measurable
+{If Some or None, note which criteria lack metrics}
+
+**User Journeys Coverage:** [Yes/Partial/No] - covers all user types
+{If Partial or No, note missing user types}
+
+**FRs Cover MVP Scope:** [Yes/Partial/No]
+{If Partial or No, note scope gaps}
+
+**NFRs Have Specific Criteria:** [All/Some/None]
+{If Some or None, note which NFRs lack specificity}
+
+### Frontmatter Completeness
+
+**stepsCompleted:** [Present/Missing]
+**classification:** [Present/Missing]
+**inputDocuments:** [Present/Missing]
+**date:** [Present/Missing]
+
+**Frontmatter Completeness:** {complete_fields}/4
+
+### Completeness Summary
+
+**Overall Completeness:** {percentage}% ({complete_sections}/{total_sections})
+
+**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+**Minor Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if template variables exist or critical sections missing, Warning if minor gaps, Pass if complete]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD has completeness gaps that must be addressed before use. Fix template variables and complete missing sections."
+[If Warning] "PRD has minor completeness gaps. Address minor gaps for complete documentation."
+[If Pass] "PRD is complete with all required sections and content present."
+```
+
+### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Completeness Validation Complete**
+
+Overall Completeness: {percentage}% ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to final step...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-13-report-complete.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Scanned for template variables systematically
+- Validated each section for required content
+- Validated section-specific completeness (measurability, coverage, scope)
+- Validated frontmatter completeness
+- Completeness matrix built with all checks
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to final step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scanning for template variables
+- Missing section-specific completeness checks
+- Not validating frontmatter
+- Not building completeness matrix
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Final gate to ensure document is complete before presenting findings. Template variables or critical gaps must be fixed.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-13-report-complete'
+description: 'Validation Report Complete - Finalize report, summarize findings, present to user, offer next steps'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 13: Validation Report Complete
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Finalize validation report, summarize all findings from steps 1-12, present summary to user conversationally, and offer actionable next steps.
+
+## 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}`
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_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 synthesis and summary expertise
+- ✅ This is the FINAL step - requires user interaction
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on summarizing findings and presenting options
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform additional validation
+- 💬 Approach: Conversational summary with clear next steps
+- 🚪 This is the final step - no next step after this
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Load complete validation report
+- 🎯 Summarize all findings from steps 1-12
+- 🎯 Update report frontmatter with final status
+- 💬 Present summary to user conversationally
+- 💬 Offer menu options for next actions
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Complete validation report with findings from all validation steps
+- Focus: Summary and presentation only (no new validation)
+- Limits: Don't add new findings, just synthesize existing
+- Dependencies: Steps 1-12 completed - all validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load Complete Validation Report
+
+Read the entire validation report from {validationReportPath}
+
+Extract all findings from:
+- Format Detection (Step 2)
+- Parity Analysis (Step 2B, if applicable)
+- Information Density (Step 3)
+- Product Brief Coverage (Step 4)
+- Measurability (Step 5)
+- Traceability (Step 6)
+- Implementation Leakage (Step 7)
+- Domain Compliance (Step 8)
+- Project-Type Compliance (Step 9)
+- SMART Requirements (Step 10)
+- Holistic Quality (Step 11)
+- Completeness (Step 12)
+
+### 2. Update Report Frontmatter with Final Status
+
+Update validation report frontmatter:
+
+```yaml
+---
+validationTarget: '{prd_path}'
+validationDate: '{current_date}'
+inputDocuments: [list of documents]
+validationStepsCompleted: ['step-v-01-discovery', 'step-v-02-format-detection', 'step-v-03-density-validation', 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation', 'step-v-05-measurability-validation', 'step-v-06-traceability-validation', 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation', 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation', 'step-v-09-project-type-validation', 'step-v-10-smart-validation', 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation', 'step-v-12-completeness-validation']
+validationStatus: COMPLETE
+holisticQualityRating: '{rating from step 11}'
+overallStatus: '{Pass/Warning/Critical based on all findings}'
+---
+```
+
+### 3. Create Summary of Findings
+
+**Overall Status:**
+- Determine from all validation findings
+- **Pass:** All critical checks pass, minor warnings acceptable
+- **Warning:** Some issues found but PRD is usable
+- **Critical:** Major issues that prevent PRD from being fit for purpose
+
+**Quick Results Table:**
+- Format: [classification]
+- Information Density: [severity]
+- Measurability: [severity]
+- Traceability: [severity]
+- Implementation Leakage: [severity]
+- Domain Compliance: [status]
+- Project-Type Compliance: [compliance score]
+- SMART Quality: [percentage]
+- Holistic Quality: [rating/5]
+- Completeness: [percentage]
+
+**Critical Issues:** List from all validation steps
+**Warnings:** List from all validation steps
+**Strengths:** List positives from all validation steps
+
+**Holistic Quality Rating:** From step 11
+**Top 3 Improvements:** From step 11
+
+**Recommendation:** Based on overall status
+
+### 4. Present Summary to User Conversationally
+
+Display:
+
+"**✓ PRD Validation Complete**
+
+**Overall Status:** {Pass/Warning/Critical}
+
+**Quick Results:**
+{Present quick results table with key findings}
+
+**Critical Issues:** {count or "None"}
+{If any, list briefly}
+
+**Warnings:** {count or "None"}
+{If any, list briefly}
+
+**Strengths:**
+{List key strengths}
+
+**Holistic Quality:** {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Top 3 Improvements:**
+1. {Improvement 1}
+2. {Improvement 2}
+3. {Improvement 3}
+
+**Recommendation:**
+{Based on overall status:
+- Pass: "PRD is in good shape. Address minor improvements to make it great."
+- Warning: "PRD is usable but has issues that should be addressed. Review warnings and improve where needed."
+- Critical: "PRD has significant issues that should be fixed before use. Focus on critical issues above."}
+
+**What would you like to do next?**"
+
+### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display:
+
+**[R] Review Detailed Findings** - Walk through validation report section by section
+**[E] Use Edit Workflow** - Use validation report with Edit workflow for systematic improvements
+**[F] Fix Simpler Items** - Immediate fixes for simple issues (anti-patterns, leakage, missing headers)
+**[X] Exit** - Exit and Suggest Next Steps.
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- **IF R (Review Detailed Findings):**
+  - Walk through validation report section by section
+  - Present findings from each validation step
+  - Allow user to ask questions
+  - After review, return to menu
+
+- **IF E (Use Edit Workflow):**
+  - Explain: "The Edit workflow (steps-e/) can use this validation report to systematically address issues. Edit mode will guide you through discovering what to edit, reviewing the PRD, and applying targeted improvements."
+  - Offer: "Would you like to launch Edit mode now? It will help you fix validation findings systematically."
+  - If yes: Read fully and follow: steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md
+  - If no: Return to menu
+
+- **IF F (Fix Simpler Items):**
+  - Offer immediate fixes for:
+    - Template variables (fill in with appropriate content)
+    - Conversational filler (remove wordy phrases)
+    - Implementation leakage (remove technology names from FRs/NFRs)
+    - Missing section headers (add ## headers)
+  - Ask: "Which simple fixes would you like me to make?"
+  - If user specifies fixes, make them and update validation report
+  - Return to menu
+
+- **IF X (Exit):**
+  - Display: "**Validation Report Saved:** {validationReportPath}"
+  - Display: "**Summary:** {overall status} - {recommendation}"
+  - PRD Validation complete. Invoke the `bmad-help` skill.
+
+- **IF Any other:** Help user, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Complete validation report loaded successfully
+- All findings from steps 1-12 summarized
+- Report frontmatter updated with final status
+- Overall status determined correctly (Pass/Warning/Critical)
+- Quick results table presented
+- Critical issues, warnings, and strengths listed
+- Holistic quality rating included
+- Top 3 improvements presented
+- Clear recommendation provided
+- Menu options presented with clear explanations
+- User can review findings, get help, or exit
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not loading complete validation report
+- Missing summary of findings
+- Not updating report frontmatter
+- Not determining overall status
+- Missing menu options
+- Unclear next steps
+
+**Master Rule:** User needs clear summary and actionable next steps. Edit workflow is best for complex issues; immediate fixes available for simpler ones.

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+main_config: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml'
+validateWorkflow: './steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md'
+---
+
+# PRD Validate Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Validate existing PRDs against BMAD standards through comprehensive review.
+
+**Your Role:** Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist.
+
+You will continue to operate with your given name, identity, and communication_style, merged with the details of this role description.
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:
+
+### Core Principles
+
+- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is a self contained instruction file that is a part of an overall workflow that must be followed exactly
+- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only the current step file is in memory - never load future step files until told to do so
+- **Sequential Enforcement**: Sequence within the step files must be completed in order, no skipping or optimization allowed
+- **State Tracking**: Document progress in output file frontmatter using `stepsCompleted` array when a workflow produces a document
+- **Append-Only Building**: Build documents by appending content as directed to the output file
+
+### Step Processing Rules
+
+1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Always read the entire step file before taking any action
+2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute all numbered sections in order, never deviate
+3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: If a menu is presented, halt and wait for user selection
+4. **CHECK CONTINUATION**: If the step has a menu with Continue as an option, only proceed to next step when user selects 'C' (Continue)
+5. **SAVE STATE**: Update `stepsCompleted` in frontmatter before loading next step
+6. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, read fully and follow the next step file
+
+### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS)
+
+- 🛑 **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously
+- 📖 **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution
+- 🚫 **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence
+- 💾 **ALWAYS** update frontmatter of output files when writing the final output for a specific step
+- 🎯 **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file
+- ⏸️ **ALWAYS** halt at menus and wait for user input
+- 📋 **NEVER** create mental todo lists from future steps
+
+## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
+
+### 1. Configuration Loading
+
+Load and read full config from {main_config} and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `output_folder`, `planning_artifacts`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
+- `date` as system-generated current datetime
+
+✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the configured `{communication_language}`.
+✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}`.
+
+### 2. Route to Validate Workflow
+
+"**Validate Mode: Validating an existing PRD against BMAD standards.**"
+
+Then read fully and follow: `{validateWorkflow}` (steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md)

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
-workflow-validate-prd.md:
-  canonicalId: bmad-validate-prd
-  type: workflow
-  description: "Validate a PRD against standards. Use when the user says 'validate this PRD' or 'run PRD validation'"

src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: validate-prd
 description: 'Validate a PRD against standards. Use when the user says "validate this PRD" or "run PRD validation"'
+standalone: false
 main_config: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml'
 validateWorkflow: './steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md'
 ---