Add PRD validation report - all 12 checks passed (4/5 rating)
Ran full BMAD validation pipeline against the polished PRD: - Format: BMAD Standard (6/6 core sections) - Density, Traceability, Implementation Leakage: Pass (0 violations) - Brief Coverage: ~98%, Domain/Project-Type Compliance: 100% - SMART Requirements: avg 4.5/5.0, 90% scoring >=4 - Holistic Quality: Good (4/5), 6.5/7 BMAD principles met - 3 minor findings, 0 critical — approved for downstream work https://claude.ai/code/session_01CvrcMDqfCKWV2hC3xpRbx3
This commit is contained in:
Claude
parent
2b82aa5746
commit
c915dc87a7
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,456 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
validationTarget: 'prd.md'
|
||||
validationDate: '2026-03-08'
|
||||
inputDocuments: [product-brief.md, brainstorm.md, research.md, 01-prompt-library.md, 02-calculadora-juridica.md, 03-dashboard-produtividade.md, 04-comunidade-prompts.md]
|
||||
validationStepsCompleted: [v-01-discovery, v-02-format, v-03-density, v-04-brief-coverage, v-05-measurability, v-06-traceability, v-07-implementation-leakage, v-08-domain-compliance, v-09-project-type, v-10-smart, v-11-holistic, v-12-completeness]
|
||||
validationStatus: COMPLETE
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# PRD Validation Report
|
||||
|
||||
**PRD Being Validated:** prd.md
|
||||
**Validation Date:** 2026-03-08
|
||||
|
||||
## Input Documents
|
||||
|
||||
- PRD: prd.md ✓
|
||||
- Product Brief: product-brief.md ✓
|
||||
- Brainstorm: brainstorm.md ✓
|
||||
- Research: research.md ✓
|
||||
- Project Docs: 01-prompt-library.md, 02-calculadora-juridica.md, 03-dashboard-produtividade.md, 04-comunidade-prompts.md ✓
|
||||
|
||||
## Format Detection
|
||||
|
||||
**PRD Structure (## Level 2 Headers):**
|
||||
1. Executive Summary
|
||||
2. Success Criteria
|
||||
3. Project Classification
|
||||
4. User Journeys
|
||||
5. Domain-Specific Requirements
|
||||
6. Web App Specific Requirements
|
||||
7. Project Scoping & Phased Development
|
||||
8. Functional Requirements
|
||||
9. Non-Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**BMAD Core Sections Present:**
|
||||
- Executive Summary: Present ✓
|
||||
- Success Criteria: Present ✓
|
||||
- Product Scope: Present (absorbed into "Project Scoping & Phased Development") ✓
|
||||
- User Journeys: Present ✓
|
||||
- Functional Requirements: Present ✓
|
||||
- Non-Functional Requirements: Present ✓
|
||||
|
||||
**Format Classification:** BMAD Standard
|
||||
**Core Sections Present:** 6/6
|
||||
|
||||
## Information Density Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-Pattern Violations:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Conversational Filler:** 0 occurrences
|
||||
No instances of "The system will allow users to...", "It is important to note that...", "In order to", or Portuguese equivalents found. FRs use direct "Advogado pode" / "Sistema [verbo]" format.
|
||||
|
||||
**Wordy Phrases:** 0 occurrences
|
||||
No instances of "Due to the fact that", "In the event of", "For the purpose of" or equivalents.
|
||||
|
||||
**Redundant Phrases:** 0 occurrences
|
||||
No redundant constructions found.
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Violations:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity Assessment:** Pass
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** PRD demonstrates excellent information density. Every sentence carries weight. Portuguese jurídico writing style is direct and concise throughout.
|
||||
|
||||
## Product Brief Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
**Product Brief:** product-brief.md
|
||||
|
||||
### Coverage Map
|
||||
|
||||
**Vision Statement:** Fully Covered
|
||||
Executive Summary captures: assistente web gratuito, fluxos guiados, URL parametrizada, elimina ciclo tentativa-e-erro.
|
||||
|
||||
**Target Users:** Fully Covered
|
||||
Personas Carla, Rafael e Marcos aparecem como protagonistas das 4 User Journeys. Características de perfil embutidas nas narrativas.
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem Statement:** Fully Covered
|
||||
Executive Summary: "79% nunca se capacitaram", "gap entre ter acesso à ferramenta e extrair valor real".
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Features:** Fully Covered
|
||||
All 5 core features from brief (fluxo híbrido, 10 fluxos, redirect URL, zero fricção, analytics) covered in MVP Feature Set.
|
||||
|
||||
**Goals/Objectives:** Fully Covered
|
||||
Success Criteria tables replicate and expand brief's metrics. North Star (1.000 redirects), taxa de conclusão (>60%), tempo (<5 min).
|
||||
|
||||
**Differentiators:** Fully Covered
|
||||
"What Makes This Special" covers: interatividade condicional, base verificada 90M+ decisões, Stanford hallucination rates. All 6 differentiators from brief represented.
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints/Out of Scope:** Fully Covered
|
||||
"Explicitamente fora do MVP" list matches brief's "Out of Scope for MVP".
|
||||
|
||||
**Party Mode Insights:** Fully Covered
|
||||
URL limit → FR20-22 (overflow handling). Custo IA → Risk table. Mobile-first → NFR11. Nome "Start Kit" → document title.
|
||||
|
||||
### Coverage Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Coverage:** ~98%
|
||||
**Critical Gaps:** 0
|
||||
**Moderate Gaps:** 0
|
||||
**Informational Gaps:** 1 — "Conversão redirect → assinante Jus IA" listed in brief's Business Objectives is explicitly excluded in PRD's "O que NÃO medimos" (intentional scoping decision)
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** PRD provides excellent coverage of Product Brief content. The one intentional exclusion is well-justified.
|
||||
|
||||
## Measurability Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Total FRs Analyzed:** 31
|
||||
|
||||
**Format Violations:** 0
|
||||
All FRs follow "[Actor] pode [capability]" or "Sistema [capability]" pattern consistently.
|
||||
|
||||
**Subjective Adjectives Found:** 1
|
||||
- FR30 (line ~360): "comunica claramente" — "claramente" is subjective. Suggest: "comunica com mensagem visível que o tipo de tarefa não está disponível"
|
||||
|
||||
**Vague Quantifiers Found:** 0
|
||||
Quantifiers are specific: "10 fluxos" (FR10), "limite de caracteres" (FR20).
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation Leakage:** 0
|
||||
URL format `ia.jusbrasil.com.br/conversa?q=...&send` in FR18 is an integration spec (capability-relevant), not implementation detail.
|
||||
|
||||
**FR Violations Total:** 1
|
||||
|
||||
### Non-Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Total NFRs Analyzed:** 12
|
||||
|
||||
**Missing Metrics:** 2
|
||||
- NFR1 (line ~367): "tempo razoável em conexão 3G/4G mobile" — "razoável" is unmeasurable. However, this is an intentional MVP decision (Technical Success: "sem meta rígida"). Informational, not critical.
|
||||
- NFR3 (line ~369): "sem delay perceptível além do carregamento da página" — defined by MPA architecture constraint, borderline acceptable.
|
||||
|
||||
**Incomplete Template:** 0
|
||||
NFRs follow consistent format with clear conditions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Missing Context:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**NFR Violations Total:** 2
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Requirements:** 43 (31 FRs + 12 NFRs)
|
||||
**Total Violations:** 3
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass (< 5 violations)
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Requirements demonstrate good measurability. The 3 violations are minor — 2 are intentional MVP decisions documented in Success Criteria ("sem meta rígida"). Only FR30's "claramente" would benefit from a concrete revision.
|
||||
|
||||
## Traceability Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Chain Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Executive Summary → Success Criteria:** Intact ✓
|
||||
- "elimina barreira" → User Success: >70% sem reformulação
|
||||
- "estratégia de expansão de GTM" → Business Success: 1.000 redirects
|
||||
- "sem login, sem dados retidos" → Technical Success: stateless, best-effort
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Criteria → User Journeys:** Intact ✓
|
||||
- >60% conclusão → Jornada 1 (happy path completa em 4 min)
|
||||
- <5 min → Jornada 1 ("4 minutos"), Jornada 2 ("3 minutos")
|
||||
- >70% sem reformulação → Jornada 2 ("resultado sai melhor que qualquer tentativa anterior")
|
||||
- >30% referral → Jornada 1 (WhatsApp), Jornada 4 (grupo WhatsApp escritório)
|
||||
- Go/No-Go → Todas as jornadas demonstram fluxo completo
|
||||
|
||||
**User Journeys → Functional Requirements:** Intact ✓
|
||||
|
||||
| Jornada | Capabilities | FRs Correspondentes |
|
||||
|---------|-------------|-------------------|
|
||||
| 1 (Carla happy path) | Seleção, perguntas, IA, redirect, sharing | FR1-5, FR6-9, FR11-14, FR15-19, FR23-24 |
|
||||
| 2 (Rafael frustrado) | Fluxos especializados, fundamentação | FR6, FR10, FR16 |
|
||||
| 3 (Carla overflow) | Detecção overflow, fallback | FR20-22 |
|
||||
| 4 (Marcos escritório) | Deep links, governança | FR4, FR24 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope → FR Alignment:** Intact ✓
|
||||
All 11 must-have capabilities from MVP Feature Set map to specific FRs.
|
||||
|
||||
### Orphan Elements
|
||||
|
||||
**Orphan Functional Requirements:** 0
|
||||
All FRs trace to at least one user journey or explicitly documented business need.
|
||||
|
||||
**Unsupported Success Criteria:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**User Journeys Without FRs:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Traceability Issues:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Traceability chain is intact. Every FR traces to a user journey or business objective. No orphan requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Leakage Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Leakage by Category
|
||||
|
||||
**Frontend Frameworks:** 0 violations
|
||||
**Backend Frameworks:** 0 violations
|
||||
**Databases:** 0 violations
|
||||
**Cloud Platforms:** 0 violations
|
||||
**Infrastructure:** 0 violations
|
||||
**Libraries:** 0 violations
|
||||
|
||||
**Other Implementation Details:** 0 true violations
|
||||
|
||||
Terms found but capability-relevant (not leakage):
|
||||
- "LLM" in FR11, FR13, NFR2, NFR5 — describes AI capability component, no specific LLM named
|
||||
- "URL parametrizada" / `ia.jusbrasil.com.br/conversa?q=...&send` in FR18, NFR7 — integration specification
|
||||
- "OG tags" in FR23, NFR12 — web standard capability for WhatsApp sharing
|
||||
- "Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge" in NFR10 — browser compatibility requirement
|
||||
- "3G/4G" in NFR1 — connectivity context
|
||||
- "MPA" in Web App Requirements section (not in FRs/NFRs)
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Implementation Leakage Violations:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** No implementation leakage found. Requirements properly specify WHAT without HOW. Technology terms present are capability-relevant integration specifications.
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain Compliance Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Domain:** Legaltech
|
||||
**Complexity:** High (regulated)
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Special Sections (from domain-complexity.csv)
|
||||
|
||||
| Requirement | Status | Notes |
|
||||
|-------------|--------|-------|
|
||||
| ethics_compliance | Addressed | "ética OAB / disclaimer de IA: responsabilidade do Jus IA" — explicitly delegated to destination product |
|
||||
| data_retention | Addressed | "dados transitam pelo backend apenas para refinamento por IA e são descartados após redirect" + NFR4-5 |
|
||||
| confidentiality_measures | Addressed | Stateless architecture: sem login, sem cookies, sem persistência. NFR6 |
|
||||
| court_integration | Addressed | "Integração com tribunais: inexistente — redirect unidirecional apenas" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Domain-Specific Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
The PRD explicitly addresses each legaltech concern from the CSV and explains WHY it doesn't apply to this specific product (stateless, no persistence, unidirectional redirect). This is excellent domain awareness — acknowledging concerns and documenting the reasoning for non-applicability rather than ignoring them.
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraint residual** correctly identified: templates require legal expertise (domainKnowledge = high), impacting content creation cost, not architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Sections Present:** 4/4 addressed
|
||||
**Compliance Gaps:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** All domain compliance sections are addressed. The PRD demonstrates strong domain awareness by explicitly explaining why each legaltech concern is either delegated (to Jus IA) or not applicable (stateless architecture).
|
||||
|
||||
## Project-Type Compliance Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Project Type:** web_app
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Sections (from project-types.csv)
|
||||
|
||||
| Section | Status | Notes |
|
||||
|---------|--------|-------|
|
||||
| browser_matrix | Present ✓ | NFR10: Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge (evergreen) |
|
||||
| responsive_design | Present ✓ | Responsive Design section + NFR11 mobile-first |
|
||||
| performance_targets | Present ✓ | Performance Targets table (razoável em mobile) |
|
||||
| seo_strategy | Present ✓ | "SEO: Não é prioridade — OG tags para WhatsApp preview" |
|
||||
| accessibility_level | Present ✓ | "Acessibilidade: Não é prioridade no MVP" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Excluded Sections (Should Not Be Present)
|
||||
|
||||
| Section | Status |
|
||||
|---------|--------|
|
||||
| native_features | Absent ✓ |
|
||||
| cli_commands | Absent ✓ |
|
||||
|
||||
### Compliance Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Sections:** 5/5 present
|
||||
**Excluded Sections Present:** 0 (should be 0)
|
||||
**Compliance Score:** 100%
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** All required sections for web_app are present. No excluded sections found. SEO and accessibility are acknowledged and deprioritized with reasoning — valid for MVP.
|
||||
|
||||
## SMART Requirements Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Functional Requirements:** 31
|
||||
|
||||
### Scoring Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**All scores ≥ 3:** 100% (31/31)
|
||||
**All scores ≥ 4:** 90% (28/31)
|
||||
**Overall Average Score:** 4.5/5.0
|
||||
|
||||
### Low-Scoring FRs (any dimension < 4)
|
||||
|
||||
| FR | Dimension | Score | Issue | Suggestion |
|
||||
|----|-----------|-------|-------|-----------|
|
||||
| FR12 | Specific | 3 | "perguntas adicionais geradas pela IA" — quais tipos de perguntas? | Adicionar: "ex: clarificação de fatos, perguntas de contexto" |
|
||||
| FR16 | Specific | 3 | "fundamentação jurídica relevante" — quais critérios de relevância? | O critério é definido pelo template por subtipo, não pela FR genérica. Aceitável para PRD level. |
|
||||
| FR30 | Measurable | 3 | "comunica claramente" — subjetivo | Reescrever: "exibe mensagem informando que o tipo de tarefa não está disponível" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass (< 10% flagged)
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Functional Requirements demonstrate strong SMART quality. 90% score ≥ 4 across all dimensions. Only FR30 needs a concrete revision to remove subjectivity. FR12 and FR16 have inherent variability (AI-generated content, legal domain) that makes hyper-specificity at PRD level impractical.
|
||||
|
||||
## Holistic Quality Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Document Flow & Coherence
|
||||
|
||||
**Assessment:** Good (4/5)
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths:**
|
||||
- Narrative flow from vision → metrics → journeys → requirements is logical and compelling
|
||||
- User journeys are vivid and concrete — stakeholders can visualize the product
|
||||
- "What Makes This Special" section immediately differentiates
|
||||
- Go/No-Go criteria are clear and actionable
|
||||
- Portuguese jurídico writing style is authentic and domain-appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
**Areas for Improvement:**
|
||||
- "Project Classification" between Success Criteria and User Journeys interrupts the narrative slightly (minor)
|
||||
- Domain Requirements section is very concise — correct for this product but could feel sparse to readers unfamiliar with the reasoning
|
||||
|
||||
### Dual Audience Effectiveness
|
||||
|
||||
**For Humans:**
|
||||
- Executive-friendly: Excellent — Executive Summary + Go/No-Go give clear decision framework
|
||||
- Developer clarity: Good — FRs are clear capabilities, NFRs define constraints
|
||||
- Designer clarity: Good — User Journeys provide interaction flow context
|
||||
- Stakeholder decision-making: Excellent — metrics, Go/No-Go, explicit exclusions
|
||||
|
||||
**For LLMs:**
|
||||
- Machine-readable structure: Excellent — consistent ## headers, tables, numbered FRs
|
||||
- UX readiness: Good — journeys provide flow context, but no wireframe-level detail (appropriate for PRD)
|
||||
- Architecture readiness: Good — stateless, MPA, LLM backend, analytics clearly specified
|
||||
- Epic/Story readiness: Good — FRs map cleanly to stories, capabilities table provides natural epic boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
**Dual Audience Score:** 4/5
|
||||
|
||||
### BMAD PRD Principles Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
| Principle | Status | Notes |
|
||||
|-----------|--------|-------|
|
||||
| Information Density | Met | Zero filler, dense writing, every sentence carries weight |
|
||||
| Measurability | Partial | 40/43 requirements measurable. NFR1 "razoável" is intentional MVP softness |
|
||||
| Traceability | Met | Complete chain: vision → criteria → journeys → FRs, zero orphans |
|
||||
| Domain Awareness | Met | Legaltech concerns explicitly addressed with reasoning |
|
||||
| Zero Anti-Patterns | Met | No filler, no vague quantifiers, no conversational padding |
|
||||
| Dual Audience | Met | Works for humans (narrative) and LLMs (structured) |
|
||||
| Markdown Format | Met | Clean ## structure, consistent tables, proper formatting |
|
||||
|
||||
**Principles Met:** 6.5/7 (Measurability is partial due to 3 soft NFRs)
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Quality Rating
|
||||
|
||||
**Rating:** 4/5 - Good
|
||||
|
||||
Strong PRD with minor improvements needed. Ready for downstream work (UX, Architecture, Epics) with high confidence.
|
||||
|
||||
### Top 3 Improvements
|
||||
|
||||
1. **FR30: Remove "claramente"**
|
||||
Replace with concrete behavior: "exibe mensagem informando que o tipo de tarefa não está disponível, com sugestão de fluxos disponíveis"
|
||||
|
||||
2. **NFR1: Add loose performance target**
|
||||
Even "best-effort" benefits from a sanity check. Suggest: "Páginas carregam em <5s em 3G e <2s em 4G como guideline (não blocker)"
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Add explicit persona summary before journeys**
|
||||
The PRD relies on journeys to introduce personas. A 3-line persona summary table before journeys would improve LLM parseability for downstream UX work without adding significant content.
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**This PRD is:** a well-crafted, information-dense document that tells a compelling product story while providing precise requirements for downstream work. Minor refinements would elevate it from Good to Excellent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Template Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
**Template Variables Found:** 0
|
||||
No template variables remaining ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### Content Completeness by Section
|
||||
|
||||
| Section | Status |
|
||||
|---------|--------|
|
||||
| Executive Summary | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| Success Criteria | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| Project Classification | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| User Journeys | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| Domain-Specific Requirements | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| Web App Specific Requirements | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| Project Scoping & Phased Development | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| Functional Requirements | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
| Non-Functional Requirements | Complete ✓ |
|
||||
|
||||
### Section-Specific Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Criteria Measurability:** All measurable ✓ (with loose targets documented as intentional)
|
||||
**User Journeys Coverage:** Yes — covers primary (Carla, Rafael) and secondary (Marcos) users, plus edge case ✓
|
||||
**FRs Cover MVP Scope:** Yes — all 11 must-have capabilities have corresponding FRs ✓
|
||||
**NFRs Have Specific Criteria:** All except NFR1 (intentional) ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### Frontmatter Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
| Field | Status |
|
||||
|-------|--------|
|
||||
| stepsCompleted | Present ✓ (12 steps) |
|
||||
| classification | Present ✓ (projectType, domain, complexity, domainKnowledge, projectContext) |
|
||||
| inputDocuments | Present ✓ (7 documents) |
|
||||
| date | Present ✓ (2026-03-08) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Frontmatter Completeness:** 4/4
|
||||
|
||||
### Completeness Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Completeness:** 100% (9/9 sections complete)
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Gaps:** 0
|
||||
**Minor Gaps:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** PRD is complete with all required sections and content present. Frontmatter properly populated. No template variables remaining.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Summary
|
||||
|
||||
### Results by Check
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Validation Check | Severity | Issues |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|
|
||||
| V-02 | Format Detection | BMAD Standard | 6/6 core sections |
|
||||
| V-03 | Information Density | **Pass** | 0 violations |
|
||||
| V-04 | Product Brief Coverage | **Pass** | ~98% coverage, 0 critical gaps |
|
||||
| V-05 | Measurability | **Pass** | 3 minor violations (1 FR + 2 NFR) |
|
||||
| V-06 | Traceability | **Pass** | 0 issues, chain intact |
|
||||
| V-07 | Implementation Leakage | **Pass** | 0 violations |
|
||||
| V-08 | Domain Compliance | **Pass** | 4/4 concerns addressed |
|
||||
| V-09 | Project-Type Compliance | **Pass** | 100% compliance |
|
||||
| V-10 | SMART Requirements | **Pass** | 90% score ≥4, avg 4.5/5.0 |
|
||||
| V-11 | Holistic Quality | **Good (4/5)** | 6.5/7 BMAD principles met |
|
||||
| V-12 | Completeness | **Pass** | 100% complete, 0 template vars |
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
**PRD Status: APPROVED FOR DOWNSTREAM WORK**
|
||||
|
||||
**Rating: 4/5 — Good**
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Findings:** 3 minor, 0 critical
|
||||
|
||||
### Action Items (Optional Refinements)
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Finding | Severity | Recommendation |
|
||||
|---|---------|----------|----------------|
|
||||
| 1 | FR30 "claramente" subjective | Minor | Rewrite with concrete behavior |
|
||||
| 2 | NFR1 "razoável" unmeasurable | Minor/Intentional | Add loose guideline target |
|
||||
| 3 | No persona summary table | Minor | Add 3-line table before journeys |
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue