anti-legacy-prd

name

anti-legacy:prd

description

Render a detailed, stakeholder-facing Product Requirements Document from the requirements graph (the resolved-or-flagged spine) plus the coverage report — domains, per-requirement business rules / validations / error paths, entity tables, the explicit dropped-scope list, a coverage-&-gaps section, and a req_id → legacy_components → rule-id traceability appendix. Deterministically derived (no LLM prose), registered as a manifest artifact, never advances the phase. Use when: "generate the PRD", "product requirements document", "detailed requirements deliverable".

anti-legacy:prd

The PRD is a deliverable: a polished, product-/business-facing rendering of what the pipeline already decided. It is the readable face of requirements_graph.json — one document a product owner, BA, or sponsor can read end-to-end to see every capability the target system will implement, the business rules behind it, what was deliberately cut, and where the analysis is still soft.

Mental model

This skill does not think. It renders. The requirements graph (produced by anti-legacy:graph-translator) is the source of truth; the PRD is a deterministic projection of it for humans. Every requirement-bearing line traces back the same thread the rest of the pipeline uses — req_id → legacy_components → business-rule ids (AGENTS.md §2). There is no free-written prose: edit the upstream artifacts and re-render, never hand-edit the PRD.

It is a complement to anti-legacy:review-packet (which feeds GATE_1), not a replacement — the review packet is the gate's working document; the PRD is the standing stakeholder deliverable. It lands under .anti-legacy/deliverables/ and registers itself; it never calls manifest advance (phase advancement is owned by the phase skills).

The voice is factual (AGENTS.md §6): the Out of scope (dropped) section names every dropped requirement WITH its reason, and the Coverage & gaps section names requirements with no business rules, anything flagged review / unresolvable, and every low-confidence rule. A clean-looking PRD that hides holes is wrong.

Cross-Platform Notes

Pure standard-library Python via from antilegacy_core import deliverables as D. Every path is built with os.path; no shell-isms. Runs identically on macOS, Linux, WSL, and Windows. The output is plain Markdown with GitHub-flavored tables — readable in any viewer, git diff, or text editor.

When it runs & prerequisites

Run it once the graph is ready — i.e. after .anti-legacy/requirements/requirements_graph.json exists (post graph-translate). Coverage and config are optional enrichments:

• Required: requirements_graph.json with ≥ 1 requirement. Without it the skill exits non-zero — it will not write a hollow PRD.
• Optional: coverage-report.json (executive-summary coverage % + mean_confidence; absent → "coverage not yet computed"), config.json (project name, migration_mode, coverage.resolve_threshold for the low-confidence flag — defaults to 0.75).

Confirm the graph is registered:

python3 .anti-legacy/run.py manifest status

You want to see requirements-graph listed. (Coverage is produced earlier by anti-legacy:extraction; if it is not present yet, the PRD still renders.)

Parameters

The script reads the standard .anti-legacy/... locations by default; override only when pointing at a non-standard path.

• --requirements — path to requirements_graph.json (default .anti-legacy/requirements/requirements_graph.json).
• --coverage — path to coverage-report.json (default .anti-legacy/coverage-report.json).
• --config — path to config.json (default .anti-legacy/config.json).
• --no-register — write the PRD but do not touch the manifest (dry run / preview).

Step 1: Render the PRD

Run through the dispatcher. With no flags it reads the standard inputs, writes the PRD, and registers it:

python3 .anti-legacy/run.py prd

Dry run (no manifest write) while you eyeball the output first:

python3 .anti-legacy/run.py prd --no-register

Step 2: Read what was produced

Open .anti-legacy/deliverables/product-requirements.md and confirm:

• Header names the project, the migration_mode, the graph it was generated from, and the timestamp.
• Executive summary reports the domain count and the requirement counts (active / dropped / unresolvable) and, when coverage-report.json is present, the coverage % + mean rule confidence. If it reads "coverage not yet computed", run anti-legacy:extraction first if you want that line populated.
• Requirements by domain — one section per domain; per active requirement a title, description, Legacy components (the mandatory trace), a Business rules table (RULE id · statement · confidence, with ⚠ on any confidence below the resolve threshold), and Validations / Error paths tables where present; plus an Entities table per domain.
• Out of scope (dropped) lists every dropped requirement with its disposition_reason.
• Coverage & gaps names the soft spots: active requirements with no business rules, anything review / unresolvable, and every low-confidence rule.
• Appendix: traceability tabulates req_id → legacy_components → rule ids.

python3 .anti-legacy/run.py manifest status | grep deliverable-prd

Done-gate

Assert BEFORE trusting the deliverable:

• requirements_graph.json exists and has ≥ 1 requirement. If not, the script prints a stderr error and exits non-zero — it does not write a PRD. (Do not paper over this: produce the graph with anti-legacy:graph-translator first.)
• The written product-requirements.md is non-empty before registration; the script re-checks file size and refuses to register an empty file.
• With registration on (no --no-register), the manifest carries a deliverable-prd artifact (fmt markdown, depends_on: ["requirements-graph"]) and audit.jsonl has gained one anti-legacy:artifact-registered row. The phase is unchanged — a deliverable never advances the pipeline.

If any assertion fails, surface the gap and stop — do not register a partial or hollow document.

Output

• File: .anti-legacy/deliverables/product-requirements.md
• Artifact: deliverable-prd (fmt markdown, status: final, produced_by: anti-legacy:prd, depends_on: ["requirements-graph"]).

Still not done (callers should not assume)

• The PRD is only as rich as the graph. Thin business_rules or missing legacy_components upstream yield a thin PRD — the Coverage & gaps section names exactly what is missing. Fix the graph (re-run extraction / graph-translator) and re-render rather than editing the PRD.
• The PRD does not gate anything and does not replace GATE_1's review packet (anti-legacy:review-packet). It is a stakeholder artifact, not a sign-off.
• Coverage numbers come from coverage-report.json; if that file is absent the PRD says so rather than inventing a figure.

Failure cases

• "no requirements graph … (or it has no domains)" — the graph is missing or empty. Run anti-legacy:graph-translator (after extraction) and re-run.
• "requirements graph … has 0 requirements" — the graph parsed but contains no requirement nodes. The upstream translate produced nothing to document — investigate graph-translator before re-running.
• "manifest absent — PRD written but not registered" — you ran outside a workspace (no .anti-legacy/manifest.json). The PRD was still written; run from an initialized workspace to register it.
• Executive summary says "coverage not yet computed" — coverage-report.json is absent. This is graceful, not a failure; run anti-legacy:extraction to populate the coverage line.