| name | regulatory-templates-gate2 |
| description | Gate 2 sub-skill - validates uncertain mappings from Gate 1 and confirms
all field specifications through testing.
|
| trigger | - Gate 1 PASSED
- Need to validate mappings before template generation
|
| skip_when | - Gate 1 not passed → complete Gate 1 first
- Gate 2 already passed → proceed to Gate 3
|
| sequence | {"after":["regulatory-templates-gate1"],"before":["regulatory-templates-gate3"]} |
Regulatory Templates - Gate 2: Technical Validation
Overview
This sub-skill executes Gate 2 of the regulatory template workflow: validating uncertain mappings from Gate 1 and confirming all field specifications through testing.
Parent skill: regulatory-templates
Prerequisites:
- Gate 1 PASSED
- Context object with Gate 1 results
Output: Validated mappings with test results and validation rules
Foundational Principle
Validation is the checkpoint that prevents incorrect mappings from reaching production.
Gate 2 is the quality gate between analysis (Gate 1) and implementation (Gate 3):
- All uncertainties resolved: Gate 1 analysis ≠ Gate 2 validation. MEDIUM/LOW uncertainties often hide critical issues
- 100% mandatory validation: 95% = 5% of mandatory data could be wrong in BACEN submission
- >90% test pass rate: Test data reveals transformation bugs, data type mismatches, edge cases
- Confirmed mappings: Prevents Gate 3 from generating templates based on assumptions
- Validation rules defined: Gate 3 needs explicit validation logic for template generation
Skipping validation in Gate 2 means:
- Gate 1 assumptions become Gate 3 implementation (no verification layer)
- Uncertainties propagate to production (BACEN submission failures)
- Low-confidence mappings generate incorrect templates (compliance violations)
- No test data validation = edge cases break in production
Gate 2 is not redundant - it's the firewall between analysis and implementation.
When to Use
Called by: regulatory-templates skill after Gate 1 passes
Purpose: Resolve uncertainties, validate field mappings, test transformations, define validation rules
NO EXCEPTIONS - Validation Requirements Are Mandatory
Gate 2 validation requirements have ZERO exceptions. This is the quality firewall before template generation.
Common Pressures You Must Resist
| Pressure | Your Thought | Reality |
|---|
| Pragmatism | "Critical uncertainties only, skip MEDIUM/LOW" | PASS criteria: ALL uncertainties resolved. MEDIUM/LOW cascade to mandatory failures |
| Efficiency | "88% test pass rate is excellent" | Threshold is >90%. 12% failure = edge cases that break in production |
| Complexity | "Validation dashboard is redundant" | Mandatory validation = 100% required. Dashboard catches missing validations |
| Confidence | "Mappings look correct, skip testing" | Visual inspection ≠ test validation. Test data reveals hidden bugs |
| Authority | "95% mandatory validation is outstanding" | 100% is non-negotiable. 5% gap = 5% of mandatory data wrong in BACEN |
| Frustration | "Use workarounds for rejected fields" | FAIL criteria: Cannot find alternatives. Workarounds bypass validation |
Validation Requirements (Non-Negotiable)
All Uncertainties Resolved:
- ✅ REQUIRED: Resolve ALL Gate 1 uncertainties (CRITICAL + MEDIUM + LOW)
- ❌ FORBIDDEN: "Fix critical only", "Skip low-priority items"
- Why: MEDIUM/LOW uncertainties often reveal systemic issues, cascade to mandatory failures
Test Data Validation:
- ✅ REQUIRED: Test pass rate >90%
- ❌ FORBIDDEN: "88% is close enough", "Skip testing, looks correct"
- Why: Test data reveals transformation bugs, data type mismatches, edge cases
Mandatory Field Validation:
- ✅ REQUIRED: 100% mandatory fields validated
- ❌ FORBIDDEN: "95% is outstanding", "Edge cases don't matter"
- Why: Each 1% gap = potential BACEN submission failure on mandatory data
Alternative Mappings:
- ✅ REQUIRED: Find alternatives for ALL rejected fields
- ❌ FORBIDDEN: "Use workarounds", "Keep original with patches"
- Why: Rejected mappings fail validation for a reason - workarounds bypass the firewall
The Bottom Line
Partial validation = no validation.
Gate 2 exists to catch what Gate 1 missed. Lowering thresholds or skipping validation defeats the purpose. Every PASS criterion exists because production incidents occurred without it.
If you're tempted to skip ANY validation, ask yourself: Am I willing to defend this shortcut during a BACEN audit?
Rationalization Table - Know the Excuses
Every rationalization below has been used to justify skipping validation. ALL are invalid.
| Excuse | Why It's Wrong | Correct Response |
|---|
| "Critical uncertainties only, MEDIUM/LOW can wait" | ALL uncertainties = all 8. MEDIUM cascade to mandatory failures | Resolve ALL uncertainties |
| "88% is excellent, 2% gap is edge cases" | >90% threshold exists for production edge cases | Fix to reach >90% |
| "Validation dashboard is redundant with Gate 1" | Gate 1 = mapping, Gate 2 = validation. Different purposes | Run dashboard, ensure 100% |
| "Mappings look correct, testing is busywork" | Visual inspection missed bugs testing would catch | Run test data validation |
| "95% is outstanding, 5% isn't worth 2 hours" | 100% is binary requirement. 95% ≠ 100% | Fix to reach 100% |
| "Rejected fields can use workarounds" | Workarounds bypass validation layer | Find valid alternatives |
| "Gate 2 rarely finds issues after 50 templates" | Experience doesn't exempt from validation | Run full validation |
| "Following spirit not letter" | Validation thresholds ARE the spirit | Meet all thresholds |
| "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" | Thresholds prevent regulatory incidents | Rigor is pragmatism |
| "Fix in next sprint if issues arise" | Regulatory submissions are final, can't patch | Fix now before Gate 3 |
If You Find Yourself Making These Excuses
STOP. You are rationalizing.
The validation exists to prevent these exact thoughts from allowing errors into production. If validation seems "redundant," that's evidence it's working - catching what analysis missed.
Gate 2 Process
Check for Template-Specific Validation Rules
Check for template-specific sub-skill at skills/regulatory-{template}/SKILL.md containing:
- Validation rules (VR001, VR002...), business rules (BR001, BR002...)
- Format rules, test data with expected outputs
Agent Dispatch with Gate 1 Context
Dispatch: Task(subagent_type: "finops-analyzer", model: "opus")
CRITICAL: ⚠️ DO NOT MAKE MCP API CALLS - use Gate 1 context ONLY
Prompt structure:
| Section | Content |
|---|
| Context | Full Gate 1 context (field mappings, uncertainties) |
| Uncertain Mappings | For each: field_code, current_mapping, doubt, confidence, action_needed |
| Validation Tasks | 1. Use Gate 1 mapping 2. Validate transformations 3. Check business logic 4. Confirm data types 5. Mark CONFIRMED/REJECTED |
| Output | Per field: code, resolution, alternative (if rejected), test_result |
Output: Field resolutions + validation rules + cross-field logic + test data
Validation Process
⚠️ All validation uses Gate 1 context ONLY - no MCP API calls.
1. Field Validation
Per uncertain field: field_code, original_doubt, validation_steps (5), resolution (confirmed/rejected), transformation, test_data (input/expected/actual/status)
2. Validation Rules Definition
| Rule Type | Example | Formula |
|---|
| field_format | CNPJ 8 digits | length(field_001) == 8 |
| cross_field | CPF/CNPJ check | length(field_001) IN (11, 14) |
| date_range | Within period | field_020 >= period_start AND field_020 <= period_end |
3. Test Results Documentation
Per test: field, test_name, input, transformation, output, expected, passed (true/false)
Example: Field 001 CNPJ extraction: "12345678000190" → slice:':8' → "12345678" ✓
Capture Gate 2 Response
Merge with Gate 1: validated_mappings[], validation_rules[], all_uncertainties_resolved, test_summary (total/passed/failed/success_rate)
Red Flags - STOP Immediately
If you catch yourself thinking ANY of these, STOP and re-read the NO EXCEPTIONS section:
Partial Resolution
- "Resolve critical only, skip MEDIUM/LOW"
- "Fix most uncertainties, good enough"
- "ALL is unrealistic, most is pragmatic"
Threshold Degradation
- "88% is close to 90%"
- "95% mandatory validation is outstanding"
- "Close enough to pass"
- "The gap isn't material"
Skip Validation Steps
- "Validation dashboard is redundant"
- "Mappings look correct visually"
- "Testing is busywork"
- "We'll catch issues in Gate 3"
Workaround Thinking
- "Use workarounds for rejected fields"
- "Patch it in Gate 3"
- "Fix in next sprint"
- "This is an edge case"
Justification Language
- "Being pragmatic"
- "Following spirit not letter"
- "Outstanding is good enough"
- "Rarely finds issues anyway"
- "Experience says this is fine"
If You See These Red Flags
- Acknowledge the rationalization ("I'm trying to skip LOW uncertainties")
- Read the NO EXCEPTIONS section (understand why ALL means ALL)
- Read the Rationalization Table (see your exact excuse refuted)
- Meet the threshold completely (100%, >90%, ALL)
Validation thresholds are binary gates, not aspirational goals.
Pass/Fail Criteria
PASS Criteria
- ✅ All Gate 1 uncertainties resolved (confirmed or alternatives found)
- ✅ Test data validates successfully (>90% pass rate)
- ✅ No new Critical/High issues
- ✅ All mandatory fields have confirmed mappings
- ✅ Validation rules defined for all critical fields
FAIL Criteria
- ❌ Uncertainties remain unresolved
- ❌ Test failures on mandatory fields
- ❌ Cannot find alternative mappings for rejected fields
- ❌ Data type mismatches that can't be transformed
- ❌ Mandatory fields validation < 100%
Mandatory Fields Final Validation
CRITICAL: Execute before Gate 2 completion
Per mandatory field, check:
- mapped (in gate1.field_mappings)
- confidence_ok (≥80%)
- validated (in gate2.validated_mappings)
- tested (in gate2.test_results)
- transformation_ok (works correctly)
Status: All checks PASS → field PASS; any FAIL → field FAIL
Gate 2 Pass Condition: all_mandatory_fields_valid == true required. Coverage must be 100%.
State Tracking
PASS: SKILL: regulatory-templates-gate2 | GATE: 2 | STATUS: PASSED | RESOLVED: {n} uncertainties | RULES: {n} defined | TESTS: {passed}/{total} | NEXT: → Gate 3
FAIL: SKILL: regulatory-templates-gate2 | GATE: 2 | STATUS: FAILED | UNRESOLVED: {n} | TEST_FAILURES: {n} | BLOCKERS: {description}
Technical Validation Checklist
| Category | Validations |
|---|
| Field Naming | snake_case (not camelCase), check MCP API Dog naming |
| Data Types | String (length, UTF-8), Number (precision), Date (format), Boolean, Enum |
| Transformations | CNPJ/CPF slice, date timezone, decimal format, string trim/uppercase/padding, null defaults |
| Cross-Field | Dependent consistency, date ranges, calculated fields, conditional logic |
Common Validation Patterns
| Pattern | Input → Transformation → Output |
|---|
| CNPJ extraction | "12345678000190" → slice:':8' → "12345678" |
| Date format | "2025-01-15T10:30:00Z" → date_format:'%Y/%m' → "2025/01" |
| Decimal precision | 1234.5678 → floatformat:2 → "1234.57" |
| Conditional | tipoRemessa == "I" → include all; "S" → approved only |
Output to Parent Skill
Return: gate2_passed, gate2_context (merged), all_uncertainties_resolved, validation_rules_count, test_success_rate, next_action (proceed_to_gate3 | fix_validations_and_retry)
