pm-verification

name	pm-verification
description	Internal skill. Use cc-p4p-router for all PM tasks.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob

PM Verification

Overview

Claiming PM work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.

Core principle: Evidence of completeness before claims, always.

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF COMPLETENESS

If you haven't checked the deliverable against criteria, you cannot claim it's done.

The Gate Function

BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:

1. IDENTIFY: What criteria prove this claim?
2. CHECK: Verify each criterion against the deliverable
3. SCORE: sections_present / sections_required
4. VERIFY: Does the score justify the claim?
   - If NO: State actual status with gaps
   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim

Skip any step = incomplete work

Per-Workflow Checklists

SPEC Verification

Check	Criteria	Required?
Problem statement	Present, 2-3 sentences, evidence-grounded	YES
Goals	3-5 measurable outcomes listed	YES
Non-goals	3-5 explicit exclusions with rationale	YES
User stories	Standard format with specific user types	YES
P0 requirements	Must-haves clearly identified	YES
Success metrics	Leading + lagging with targets	YES
Open questions	Tagged with owner (eng/design/legal/data)	YES
Acceptance criteria	Given/When/Then or checklist format	RECOMMENDED
Timeline	Hard deadlines and phasing noted	OPTIONAL

Completeness score: Count YES criteria present / total YES criteria required. Pass threshold: 6/7 (all YES criteria) = SPEC_COMPLETE. Missing any = NEEDS_CLARIFICATION.

RESEARCH Verification

Check	Criteria	Required?
Sources cited	Each finding has named sources	YES
Evidence graded	Strong (3+) / Medium (1-2) / Weak (assumption) for each theme	YES
Themes triangulated	Multiple data points per theme	YES
Opportunities sized	Users affected x frequency x severity	YES
Methodology stated	How data was collected and analyzed	YES
Contradictions noted	Where sources disagree, documented	RECOMMENDED
Personas identified	If data supports, behavioral clusters described	OPTIONAL

Pass threshold: 5/5 = SYNTHESIS_COMPLETE. Missing any = NEEDS_MORE_DATA.

ROADMAP Verification

Check	Criteria	Required?
Items scored	Each item scored with chosen framework	YES
Dependencies mapped	Owner + need-by date for each dependency	YES
Capacity considered	Items fit within team capacity constraints	YES
Strategy-aligned	Each item serves a stated goal/OKR	YES
Now/Next/Later clear	Clear differentiation between time horizons	YES
Shipped acknowledged	Recent completions documented	RECOMMENDED

Pass threshold: 5/5 = ROADMAP_UPDATED. Missing any = NEEDS_CLARIFICATION.

COMMUNICATE Verification

Check	Criteria	Required?
Audience matched	Tone, detail level, format match audience	YES
No jargon leaks	Internal terms not in customer comms	YES
Actionable	Clear next steps or asks	YES
Status justified	Green/Yellow/Red backed by evidence	YES (if status update)
Length appropriate	Under limits (exec: 200 words, eng: flexible)	YES

Pass threshold: 4/4 (or 5/5 for status updates) = DRAFT_READY.

Evidence Grounding

For every claim in a PM deliverable, ask: "What data supports this?"

Strong Evidence

• User research data (interviews, surveys, analytics)
• Competitive analysis with feature comparison
• Metrics with statistical significance
• Multiple independent sources agreeing

Medium Evidence

• Expert opinion from domain SMEs
• Single data source (one survey, one analysis)
• Customer feedback from small sample
• Industry benchmarks

Weak Evidence (Flag These)

• Assumptions without data
• "Common sense" claims
• Extrapolation from unrelated contexts
• Single anecdote

Rule: Every finding should state its evidence strength. Weak evidence must be flagged explicitly.

Red Flags — STOP

If you find yourself using:

• "Seems fine" — What specifically is fine? Check the list.
• "Probably" — Based on what evidence?
• "Should work" — For whom? Verified how?
• "Users will love it" — What data supports this?
• "This is obvious" — Obvious to whom? Document it anyway.

STOP. Check against the appropriate workflow checklist above.

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"It's good enough"	Check the completeness score. Is it really?
"We can refine later"	Ship complete, refine content. Don't ship incomplete structure.
"The PM will know"	Document explicitly. Context gets lost.
"Minor gaps don't matter"	Minor gaps become major confusion in implementation.
"I'm confident"	Confidence does not equal completeness. Check the list.

Completeness Scoring

COMPLETENESS = sections_present / sections_required

SPEC:      [X/7]  — Problem, Goals, Non-Goals, Stories, P0 Reqs, Metrics, Questions
RESEARCH:  [X/5]  — Sources, Grading, Triangulation, Sizing, Methodology
ROADMAP:   [X/5]  — Scored, Dependencies, Capacity, Strategy, Horizons
COMMS:     [X/4+] — Audience, Jargon, Actionable, Length (+Status if applicable)

Self-Critique Gate (BEFORE Router Contract)

MANDATORY: Check these BEFORE writing Router Contract:

Deliverable Quality

• Meets all required criteria for this workflow type?
• Evidence strength stated for key claims?
• No placeholder text or TODOs remaining?
• Saved to correct output location?

Self-Critique Verdict

PROCEED: [YES/NO] CONFIDENCE: [High/Medium/Low] COMPLETENESS: [X/Y]

• If NO — Fix gaps before writing Router Contract
• If YES — Proceed to Router Contract

Output Format

## Verification Summary

### Workflow
[SPEC | RESEARCH | ROADMAP | COMMUNICATE]

### Criteria Checked
| Check | Status | Evidence |
|-------|--------|----------|
| [Criterion] | PASS/FAIL | [What was verified] |

### Completeness
[X/Y] criteria met

### Gaps (if any)
- [Missing element] — [Severity: Blocking/Non-blocking]

### Verdict
COMPLETE — All required criteria verified