kiro-validate-design

# Technical Design Validation <background_information> - **Mission**: Conduct interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation - **Success Criteria**: - Critical issues identified (maximum 3 most important concerns) - Balanced assessment with strengths recognized - Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale - Actionable feedback for improvements if needed </background_information> <instructions> ## Core Task Interactive design quality review for feature **$1** based on approved requirements and design document. ## Execution Steps 1. **Gather Context**: - Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/spec.json` for language and metadata - Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/requirements.md` for requirements - Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/design.md` for design document - Core steering context: `product.md`, `tech.md`, `structure.md` - Additional steering files only when directly relevant to architecture boundaries, integrations, runtime prerequisites, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect implementation readiness - Relevant local agent skills or playbooks only when they clearly match the feature's host environment or use case and provide review-relevant context #### Parallel Research The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel: 1. **Context & rules loading**: Spec documents, core steering, task-relevant extra steering, relevant local agent skills/playbooks, and `rules/design-review.md` from this skill's directory for review criteria 2. **Codebase pattern survey**: Gather existing architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structure from the codebase to use as reference during review If multi-agent is enabled, spawn sub-agents for each area above. Otherwise execute sequentially. After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings for review. 2. **Execute Design Review**: - Reference conversation history when available: leverage prior requirements discussion and user's stated design intent - Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO - Limit to 3 most important concerns - Engage interactively with user — ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives - Use language specified in spec.json for output 3. **Decision and Next Steps**: - Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale - Provide specific actionable next steps (see Next Phase below) ## Important Constraints - **Quality assurance, not perfection seeking**: Accept acceptable risk - **Critical focus only**: Maximum 3 issues, only those significantly impacting success - **Conversation-aware**: Leverage discussion history for requirements context and user intent when available - **Interactive approach**: Engage in dialogue, ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives - **Balanced assessment**: Recognize both strengths and weaknesses - **Actionable feedback**: All suggestions must be implementable - **Context Discipline**: Start with core steering and expand only with review-relevant steering or use-case-aligned local agent skills/playbooks </instructions> ## Tool Guidance - **Read first**: Load spec, core steering, relevant local playbooks/agent skills, and rules before review - **Grep if needed**: Search codebase for pattern validation or integration checks - **Interactive**: Engage with user throughout the review process ## Output Description Provide output in the language specified in spec.json with: 1. **Review Summary**: Brief overview (2-3 sentences) of design quality and readiness 2. **Critical Issues**: Maximum 3, following design-review.md format 3. **Design Strengths**: 1-2 positive aspects 4. **Final Assessment**: GO/NO-GO decision with rationale and next steps **Format Requirements**: - Use Markdown headings for clarity - Follow design-review.md output format - Keep summary concise ## Safety & Fallback ### Error Scenarios - **Missing Design**: If design.md doesn't exist, stop with message: "Run `/kiro-spec-design $1` first to generate design document" - **Design Not Generated**: If design phase not marked as generated in spec.json, warn but proceed with review - **Empty Steering Directory**: Warn user that project context is missing and may affect review quality - **Language Undefined**: Default to English (`en`) if spec.json doesn't specify language ### Next Phase: Task Generation **If Design Passes Validation (GO Decision)**: - Review feedback and apply changes if needed - Run `/kiro-spec-tasks $1` to generate implementation tasks - Or `/kiro-spec-tasks $1 -y` to auto-approve and proceed directly **If Design Needs Revision (NO-GO Decision)**: - Address critical issues identified - Re-run `/kiro-spec-design $1` with improvements - Re-validate with `/kiro-validate-design $1` **Note**: Design validation is recommended but optional. Quality review helps catch issues early.