| name | validation-report-generator |
| description | Generate structured 8-section validation reports with verdict (GOOD/BAD/NEEDS MAJOR WORK), strengths, critical flaws, blindspots, and concrete path forward. Use after strategic-cto-mentor has completed validation analysis and needs to produce final deliverable. |
Validation Report Generator
Transforms validation analysis into structured, actionable reports that provide clear verdicts and specific guidance.
When to Use
- After completing validation analysis of a plan, proposal, or architecture
- When producing final deliverable for strategic-cto-mentor
- When formalizing feedback into a consistent, comprehensive format
- Before handing off validated/rejected work back to the requester
Report Structure
Every validation report follows the 8-Section Format:
Section 1: Verdict
Purpose: Unambiguous assessment with confidence level
Options:
- GOOD: Ready for implementation (may have minor suggestions)
- NEEDS MAJOR WORK: Fundamentally sound but has significant gaps
- BAD: Should not proceed without fundamental rethinking
Include:
- Clear verdict (one of the three options)
- Confidence level (High/Medium/Low)
- One-sentence summary of why
Section 2: What You Got Right
Purpose: Acknowledge genuine strengths (builds trust for criticism)
Include:
- 2-3 specific things done well
- Why each matters
- What to preserve in revisions
Avoid:
- Generic praise ("good work!")
- Inflating minor positives
- Praising the obvious
Section 3: Critical Flaws
Purpose: Expose fatal or near-fatal weaknesses
Format for each flaw:
**Flaw**: [What's wrong]
**Why It Matters**: [Business/technical impact]
**Consequence**: [What happens if not addressed]
Include:
- Prioritized list (most critical first)
- Specific evidence, not vague concerns
- Impact quantification where possible
Section 4: What You're Not Considering
Purpose: Surface blindspots and hidden assumptions
Types of blindspots:
- Unstated assumptions (treated as facts)
- Ignored failure modes
- Missing stakeholders
- External dependencies not accounted for
- Scale implications not considered
Include:
- What was assumed vs. what should be validated
- Questions that should have been asked
- Scenarios that weren't explored
Section 5: The Real Question
Purpose: Reframe if solving wrong problem
When to use:
- Problem definition is too narrow/broad
- Symptoms treated instead of root cause
- Constraint accepted that should be challenged
- Solution in search of a problem
Format:
"You're asking [stated question], but the real question might be [reframed question]."
Skip if: The problem is correctly framed (state this explicitly)
Section 6: What Bulletproof Looks Like
Purpose: Define success criteria for revision
Include:
- Specific criteria for acceptable solution
- Measurable outcomes
- What evidence would prove the concerns addressed
Format:
For this to be ready for implementation:
- [ ] [Criterion 1]
- [ ] [Criterion 2]
- [ ] [Criterion 3]
Section 7: Recommended Path Forward
Purpose: Concrete next steps
If GOOD:
- Any minor improvements before proceeding
- What to monitor during implementation
- Validation checkpoints
If NEEDS MAJOR WORK:
- Specific areas to revise
- Suggested approach for each
- Whether to route back to architect
If BAD:
- Alternative approaches to consider
- What fundamental rethinking is needed
- Whether to restart with different framing
Section 8: Questions You Need to Answer First
Purpose: Information gaps blocking progress
Include:
- Questions that must be answered before proceeding
- Who can answer each question
- What decisions are blocked until answered
Generating the Report
Step 1: Gather Analysis
Before generating report, ensure you have completed:
Step 2: Determine Verdict
Use the Verdict Criteria to classify:
GOOD if:
- Core assumptions are valid
- Timeline is realistic
- Budget is appropriate
- Team can execute
- Risks are manageable
- No fundamental anti-patterns
NEEDS MAJOR WORK if:
- Core approach is sound but...
- Significant gaps exist in 2+ areas
- Timeline/budget needs adjustment
- Some assumptions need validation
BAD if:
- Core assumptions are invalid
- Fundamental anti-pattern detected
- Timeline is fantasy
- Budget is unrealistic by >50%
- Team cannot execute
- Wrong problem being solved
Step 3: Gather Evidence
For each section, cite specific evidence:
- Quote from the proposal
- Data points that contradict claims
- Industry benchmarks
- Historical precedent
Step 4: Calibrate Tone
Match tone to verdict:
| Verdict | Tone |
|---|
| GOOD | Affirming with minor suggestions |
| NEEDS MAJOR WORK | Constructive but direct |
| BAD | Brutally honest but respectful |
Step 5: Write Report
Use the Report Template to structure output.
Output Format
# Validation Report: [Title]
**Date**: [Date]
**Validated By**: strategic-cto-mentor
**Subject**: [What was validated]
---
## 1. Verdict
### VERDICT: [GOOD / NEEDS MAJOR WORK / BAD]
**Confidence**: [High / Medium / Low]
[One-sentence summary of why this verdict]
---
## 2. What You Got Right
[2-3 specific strengths with explanation of why they matter]
---
## 3. Critical Flaws
### Flaw 1: [Title]
**Why It Matters**: [Impact]
**Consequence**: [What happens if not addressed]
### Flaw 2: [Title]
...
---
## 4. What You're Not Considering
[Blindspots, hidden assumptions, ignored scenarios]
---
## 5. The Real Question
[Reframe if needed, or state "Problem is correctly framed"]
---
## 6. What Bulletproof Looks Like
For this to be ready for implementation:
- [ ] [Criterion 1]
- [ ] [Criterion 2]
- [ ] [Criterion 3]
---
## 7. Recommended Path Forward
[Specific next steps based on verdict]
---
## 8. Questions You Need to Answer First
| Question | Who Can Answer | Blocks |
|----------|---------------|--------|
| [Question 1] | [Person/Team] | [Decision blocked] |
---
*This validation was conducted by strategic-cto-mentor using standard validation protocol.*
Quality Checklist
Before delivering report, verify:
References
