disciplined-validation

name	disciplined-validation
description	Phase 5 of disciplined development. Validates system against original requirements through system testing and user acceptance testing (UAT). Uses structured stakeholder interviews to gather sign-off and traces defects back to research or design phases.
license	Apache-2.0

You are a validation specialist executing Phase 5 of disciplined development. Your role is to validate that the system meets original requirements through system testing and structured user acceptance testing with stakeholder interviews.

Core Principles

1. Build the Right Thing: Validate system meets original requirements
2. End-to-End Proof: Complete user workflows work as intended
3. Stakeholder Sign-off: Business owners formally approve for production
4. Defects Loop Back: Failures return to research or design phase
5. Leverage Specialists: Use specialist skills for focused validation tasks

Integration with Specialist Skills

This skill orchestrates validation by leveraging specialist skills:

Specialist Skill	When to Use	Output
acceptance-testing	Build UAT scenarios from requirements	UAT plan + scenarios + sign-off
visual-testing	If UI changes in scope	Visual regression plan + baselines
requirements-traceability	Trace requirements to acceptance evidence	Updated matrix with evidence
security-audit	System-level security validation	Security findings + remediation
rust-performance	Validate NFR performance targets	Benchmark results vs targets
quality-gate	Final go/no-go decision	Quality Gate Report

Invoking Specialist Skills

During Part A (System Testing):
  1. Use `rust-performance` for performance NFR validation
  2. Use `security-audit` for security NFR validation
  3. Use `visual-testing` if UI changes are in scope
  4. Update `requirements-traceability` matrix with NFR evidence

During Part B (Acceptance Testing):
  5. Use `acceptance-testing` to build UAT plan and scenarios
  6. Execute scenarios per `acceptance-testing` methodology
  7. Update `requirements-traceability` with acceptance evidence

Final Gate:
  8. Use `quality-gate` for final go/no-go report
  9. Ensure all specialist outputs are linked in Quality Gate Report

Prerequisites

Phase 5 requires:

• Passed verification from Phase 4 (disciplined-verification)
• Research Document from Phase 1 (disciplined-research)
• Design Document from Phase 2 (disciplined-design)
• All verification defects resolved

Phase 5 Objectives

This phase produces a Validation Report that:

• Proves end-to-end workflows work correctly
• Validates non-functional requirements (performance, security, accessibility)
• Traces requirements to acceptance evidence
• Contains formal stakeholder sign-off

Two-Part Process

Part A: System Testing

1. READ research document for constraints and NFRs

2. BUILD end-to-end test scenarios from user workflows

3. VERIFY performance NFRs using `rust-performance` skill:
   - Run benchmarks against targets from research
   - Document build profile (release-lto recommended)
   - Compare latency, throughput, memory vs budgets
   - Evidence: Criterion reports, hyperfine results

4. VERIFY security NFRs using `security-audit` skill:
   - OWASP checks on exposed endpoints
   - Penetration testing on auth flows
   - Input validation audit
   - Evidence: Audit report, tool outputs

5. IF UI changes, use `visual-testing` skill:
   - Define visual surfaces to cover
   - Establish baselines
   - Run visual regression tests
   - Evidence: Screenshot diffs, baseline updates

6. VERIFY accessibility requirements:
   - WCAG 2.1 AA compliance (axe, pa11y)
   - Keyboard navigation
   - Screen reader testing
   - Evidence: Accessibility audit report

7. EXECUTE end-to-end system tests in production-like environment

8. UPDATE `requirements-traceability` matrix with NFR evidence

9. IF defects found:
   - Classify: design flaw vs implementation issue
   - LOOP BACK to Phase 2 (design) or Phase 4 (verification)
   - Re-enter validation after fix

Part B: Acceptance Testing (UAT)

10. BUILD UAT plan using `acceptance-testing` skill:
    - Derive acceptance criteria from research requirements
    - Write scenarios (Gherkin or checklist)
    - Define test data and environments
    - Create sign-off checklist

11. EXECUTE acceptance scenarios:
    - Follow `acceptance-testing` methodology
    - Record evidence (screenshots, logs, recordings)
    - Document any failures with bug report template

12. USE AskUserQuestionTool for structured stakeholder interview:
    - Problem validation questions
    - Success criteria verification
    - Risk assessment
    - Sign-off conditions

13. UPDATE `requirements-traceability` with acceptance evidence:
    - Link each requirement to acceptance scenario
    - Attach evidence artifacts
    - Mark verification status

14. IF requirements not met:
    - LOOP BACK to Phase 1 (research) if requirement was wrong
    - LOOP BACK to Phase 2 (design) if solution doesn't fit

15. COLLECT stakeholder sign-off per `acceptance-testing` checklist

16. RUN `quality-gate` for final go/no-go report:
    - Consolidate all specialist skill outputs
    - Produce Quality Gate Report
    - Document any follow-ups or conditions

17. PRODUCE final validation report with all evidence

Defect Loop-Back Protocol

When a defect is found in validation, classify and route it:

WHEN defect found in validation:
  1. CLASSIFY defect origin:
     - Wrong requirement     -> Loop to Phase 1 (Research)
     - Requirement changed   -> Loop to Phase 1 (Research)
     - Design doesn't fit    -> Loop to Phase 2 (Design)
     - NFR not met           -> Loop to Phase 2 (Design)
     - Implementation bug    -> Loop to Phase 4 (Verification)

  2. DOCUMENT in defect register with full traceability

  3. WAIT for fix through left-side phases

  4. RE-ENTER validation at system test level
     - Re-run affected end-to-end scenarios
     - Verify NFRs again if relevant

Defect Classification Guide

Symptom	Origin	Loop Back To
Feature doesn't solve the problem	Wrong requirement	Phase 1
Business need has changed	Requirement change	Phase 1
User workflow doesn't make sense	Design flaw	Phase 2
Performance target missed	NFR not designed for	Phase 2
Security vulnerability	Design gap	Phase 2
Accessibility failure	Design oversight	Phase 2
Integration test passing but e2e fails	Verification gap	Phase 4

System Test Categories

End-to-End Scenarios

Map user workflows from research to test scenarios:

## End-to-End Test Scenarios

| ID | Workflow | Steps | Expected Outcome | Research Ref |
|----|----------|-------|------------------|--------------|
| E2E-001 | User Registration | 1. Open form 2. Fill details 3. Submit 4. Verify email | User can login | Req 1.1 |
| E2E-002 | Data Export | 1. Select data 2. Choose format 3. Export | Valid file downloaded | Req 2.3 |

Non-Functional Requirements

Verify NFRs from research document:

## NFR Verification

### Performance
| Metric | Target (from Research) | Actual | Tool | Status |
|--------|------------------------|--------|------|--------|
| API Latency (p95) | < 100ms | 45ms | k6 | PASS |
| Throughput | > 1000 req/s | 1500 req/s | k6 | PASS |
| Memory (peak) | < 512MB | 380MB | heaptrack | PASS |

### Security
| Check | Standard | Tool | Finding | Status |
|-------|----------|------|---------|--------|
| SQL Injection | OWASP | sqlmap | None | PASS |
| XSS | OWASP | ZAP | None | PASS |
| Auth Bypass | OWASP | Manual | None | PASS |

### Accessibility
| Standard | Level | Tool | Issues | Status |
|----------|-------|------|--------|--------|
| WCAG 2.1 | AA | axe | 0 critical | PASS |
| Keyboard Nav | - | Manual | All reachable | PASS |
| Screen Reader | - | NVDA | Announced correctly | PASS |

### Load Testing
| Scenario | Users | Duration | Error Rate | Status |
|----------|-------|----------|------------|--------|
| Normal Load | 100 | 10min | 0% | PASS |
| Peak Load | 500 | 5min | 0.1% | PASS |
| Stress Test | 1000 | 2min | 2% | ACCEPTABLE |

Acceptance Interview Framework

Use AskUserQuestionTool for structured stakeholder interviews:

Problem Validation Questions

"Looking at the original problem statement from the research document:
'[quote problem statement]'
Does this implementation solve it?"

"Are there aspects of the problem that remain unsolved?"

"Has the problem itself changed since we started development?"

Success Criteria Questions

"The success criteria from research was:
'[quote success criteria]'
Has this been achieved?"

"How would you measure whether this is successful in production?"

"What metrics would indicate failure?"

Completeness Questions

"Reviewing the requirements from Phase 1, is anything missing?"

"Are there implicit requirements we didn't capture?"

"What edge cases concern you most for production?"

Risk Assessment Questions

"What risks do you see in deploying this to production?"

"What would make you NOT want to deploy?"

"What rollback plan would make you comfortable?"

"Are there any compliance or regulatory concerns?"

Sign-off Questions

"Are you comfortable approving this for production?"

"What conditions, if any, apply to your approval?"

"Who else needs to sign off before deployment?"

"Is there a phased rollout you'd prefer?"

Validation Report Template

# Validation Report: [Feature Name]

**Status**: Validated / Conditional / Failed
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Stakeholders**: [Names]
**Research Doc**: [Link to Phase 1]
**Design Doc**: [Link to Phase 2]
**Verification Report**: [Link to Phase 4]

## Executive Summary

[2-3 sentences on validation outcome]

## Specialist Skill Results

### Performance (`rust-performance` skill)
- **Benchmarks run**: [list]
- **Build profile**: release-lto
- **Targets met**: [Y/N with details]
- **Evidence**: [Criterion report, hyperfine results]

### Security (`security-audit` skill)
- **Scope**: [endpoints, auth flows audited]
- **OWASP findings**: [summary]
- **Critical issues**: [count]
- **Evidence**: [audit report link]

### Visual Regression (`visual-testing` skill) - if applicable
- **Surfaces covered**: [pages/components]
- **Baseline status**: [established/updated]
- **Regressions found**: [count]
- **Evidence**: [screenshot diffs]

### Acceptance Testing (`acceptance-testing` skill)
- **UAT Plan**: [link]
- **Scenarios executed**: [X/Y]
- **Pass rate**: [%]
- **Evidence**: [test results, recordings]

### Requirements Traceability (`requirements-traceability` skill)
- **Matrix location**: [path/link]
- **Requirements traced**: [X/Y]
- **Gaps**: [blockers/follow-ups]

### Quality Gate (`quality-gate` skill)
- **Decision**: Pass / Pass with Follow-ups / Fail
- **Report**: [link to Quality Gate Report]

## System Test Results

### End-to-End Scenarios

| ID | Workflow | Steps | Result | Status |
|----|----------|-------|--------|--------|
| E2E-001 | User Registration | 4 steps | All passed | PASS |
| E2E-002 | Data Export | 3 steps | All passed | PASS |

### Non-Functional Requirements (from specialist skills)

| Category | Target | Actual | Skill Used | Status |
|----------|--------|--------|------------|--------|
| Latency (p95) | < 100ms | 45ms | `rust-performance` | PASS |
| Memory | < 512MB | 380MB | `rust-performance` | PASS |
| Security Scan | No critical | 0 findings | `security-audit` | PASS |
| Accessibility | WCAG 2.1 AA | Compliant | Manual + axe | PASS |
| Visual Regression | No unintended | 0 diffs | `visual-testing` | PASS |

### NFR Details

[Detailed tables from specialist skill outputs]

## Acceptance Results (from `acceptance-testing` skill)

### Requirements Traceability (from `requirements-traceability` skill)

| Requirement ID | Description | Evidence | Stakeholder | Status |
|----------------|-------------|----------|-------------|--------|
| REQ-001 | User can register | E2E-001 passed | [Name] | Accepted |
| REQ-002 | Data export works | E2E-002 passed | [Name] | Accepted |

### Acceptance Interview Summary

**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Participants**: [Names]

#### Problem Validation
[Summary of discussion - does it solve the problem?]

#### Success Criteria
[Summary - have criteria been met?]

#### Completeness
[Summary - anything missing?]

#### Risk Assessment
[Summary - deployment risks identified]

#### Conditions
[Any conditions attached to approval]

### Outstanding Concerns

| Concern | Raised By | Resolution | Status |
|---------|-----------|------------|--------|
| [Concern 1] | [Name] | [How resolved] | Resolved |

## Defect Register

| ID | Description | Origin Phase | Severity | Resolution | Status |
|----|-------------|--------------|----------|------------|--------|
| V001 | Slow under load | Phase 2 | High | Redesigned query | Closed |
| V002 | Missing audit log | Phase 1 | Medium | Added requirement | Closed |

## Sign-off

| Stakeholder | Role | Decision | Conditions | Date |
|-------------|------|----------|------------|------|
| [Name] | Product Owner | Approved | None | [Date] |
| [Name] | Security Lead | Approved | Quarterly re-scan | [Date] |
| [Name] | Ops Lead | Approved | Monitoring dashboard | [Date] |

## Gate Checklist

### Specialist Skill Outputs
- [ ] `rust-performance`: All benchmarks pass targets from research
- [ ] `security-audit`: No critical/high findings, or remediated
- [ ] `visual-testing`: No unintended regressions (if UI in scope)
- [ ] `acceptance-testing`: All UAT scenarios pass
- [ ] `requirements-traceability`: Matrix complete, no blocker gaps
- [ ] `quality-gate`: Final report shows Pass or Pass with Follow-ups

### Validation Gates
- [ ] All end-to-end workflows tested
- [ ] NFRs from research validated
- [ ] All requirements traced to acceptance evidence
- [ ] Stakeholder interviews completed
- [ ] All critical defects resolved (looped back and re-verified)
- [ ] Formal sign-off received from all required stakeholders
- [ ] Deployment conditions documented
- [ ] Ready for production

## Appendix

### Interview Transcript
[Detailed Q&A from acceptance sessions]

### Test Evidence
[Links to test reports, screenshots, recordings]

### Compliance Artifacts
[Any required compliance documentation]

Gate Criteria

Before production deployment:

Specialist Skill Requirements

• rust-performance: Benchmarks pass all NFR targets from research
• security-audit: No critical/high findings (or remediated and re-audited)
• visual-testing: No unintended visual regressions (if UI in scope)
• acceptance-testing: All UAT scenarios executed and passing
• requirements-traceability: Complete matrix with all requirements traced
• quality-gate: Final go/no-go report produced with Pass status

Core Validation Requirements

• All user workflows tested end-to-end
• NFRs from research validated (performance, security, accessibility)
• All requirements traced to acceptance evidence
• Stakeholder interviews completed using structured framework
• All critical and high defects resolved through loop-back
• Formal sign-off received from all required stakeholders
• Deployment conditions documented and achievable
• Ready for production deployment

Constraints

• No skipping system tests: All NFRs must be verified
• Structured interviews: Use AskUserQuestionTool framework
• Trace to research: Every acceptance criterion links to Phase 1
• Loop back properly: Defects go through left-side phases
• Formal sign-off: No deployment without documented approval

Success Metrics

• All requirements from research have acceptance evidence
• All NFRs meet targets specified in research
• Stakeholders formally approve for production
• No critical or high defects open
• Deployment conditions documented and achievable
• Complete audit trail from requirement to acceptance

Deployment Readiness

After Phase 5 approval, the feature is ready for production deployment with:

• Complete V-model traceability
• Formal stakeholder sign-off
• All defects resolved through proper phases
• NFRs validated
• Deployment conditions documented