| name | prd-completeness-auditor |
| version | 2.0 |
| description | Systematic completeness audit of Product Requirements Documents using 100+ item MECE checklist, severity-classified gap detection, and anti-pattern scanning. PROACTIVELY activate for: (1) PRD review before development handoff, (2) Requirements completeness assessment, (3) Identifying ambiguous requirements, (4) PRD template validation, (5) Finding missing stakeholder needs, (6) Detecting inconsistent acceptance criteria. Triggers: "audit PRD", "review requirements", "check PRD completeness", "validate requirements document", "PRD review", "requirements audit", "find gaps in PRD", "requirements completeness check", "PRD quality check"
|
PRD Completeness Auditor
A systematic audit system that evaluates Product Requirements Documents against a comprehensive 116-item checklist, detecting gaps, classifying severity, identifying anti-patterns, and generating actionable remediation plans. Implements the GAP-AUDIT pattern (PATTERN-08) to produce CONTRACT-07 compliant GAP-INVENTORY output.
1. Purpose
This skill provides 12 core capabilities:
| # | Capability | Phase | Description |
|---|
| 1 | Reference Load | 1 | Load PRD checklist and calibrate to document type |
| 2 | Document Parse | 1 | Extract PRD structure and section boundaries |
| 3 | MECE Map | 2 | Apply 10-dimension coverage framework to PRD sections |
| 4 | Item-by-Item Verify | 3 | Check each of 116 checklist items against PRD content |
| 5 | Gap Detect | 3 | Identify missing, incomplete, or ambiguous elements |
| 6 | Classify Gap Type | 4 | Categorize gaps using 6-type taxonomy |
| 7 | Score Severity | 4 | Apply RUBRIC-07 (impact, likelihood, detectability) |
| 8 | Anti-Pattern Scan | 4 | Detect 15+ known PRD anti-patterns |
| 9 | Evidence Cite | 4 | Link each gap to specific PRD location with evidence |
| 10 | Impact Assess | 5 | Evaluate downstream development impact per gap |
| 11 | Remediate Suggest | 5 | Generate fix recommendations from pattern catalog |
| 12 | Synthesize Report | 6 | Produce GAP-INVENTORY + executive summary + remediation plan |
2. When to Use
Ideal for:
- Reviewing PRDs before development handoff
- Assessing requirements completeness for sprint planning
- Validating PRD against organizational standards
- Pre-flight check before stakeholder sign-off
- Identifying gaps that could cause scope creep
- Auditing legacy PRDs for maintenance or migration
- Quality gate before technical design phase
Avoid when:
- PRD is in early ideation phase (too early for formal audit)
- Document is not a PRD (use appropriate auditor)
- PRD author is unavailable for clarification on gaps
- Quick brainstorm or exploration (formal audit adds overhead)
- Document is a technical spec, not product requirements
3. Parameters
| Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description |
|---|
prd_content | string | yes | — | PRD document content or file reference |
prd_type | enum | no | feature | feature | epic | product | initiative |
audit_depth | enum | no | standard | quick | standard | comprehensive |
severity_threshold | enum | no | all | critical_only | high_and_above | all |
focus_areas | list | no | all | Specific sections to emphasize in audit |
include_anti_patterns | boolean | no | true | Whether to scan for PRD anti-patterns |
output_format | enum | no | full | full | executive | remediation_only |
PRD Type Effects
| Type | Checklist Items | Focus Areas |
|---|
| feature | 106 items | User stories, acceptance criteria, functional requirements |
| epic | 106 items | Cross-feature dependencies, phasing, rollout strategy |
| product | 100 items | Strategic alignment, market context, success metrics |
| initiative | 92 items | Business case, organizational impact, stakeholders |
Audit Depth Effects
| Depth | Behavior |
|---|
| quick | High-priority items only (40 items), structural gaps, no anti-patterns |
| standard | Full checklist, anti-patterns, standard remediation |
| comprehensive | Full checklist, deep anti-pattern analysis, detailed remediation with templates |
4. Six-Phase Workflow
Phase 1: Reference Loading & Context
Purpose: Load checklist and establish audit context.
Steps:
- Receive PRD content (inline or file reference)
- Load
prd-requirements-checklist.md reference
- Calibrate checklist based on
prd_type:
- Filter items by applicability matrix
- Adjust severity levels for document type
- Set critical items that must be present
- Parse PRD to identify structure:
- Extract section headers and hierarchy
- Identify section boundaries
- Note document format (markdown, docx, wiki)
- Load
mece-coverage-framework.md for structural validation
- Initialize gap tracking structure with empty findings
Techniques Used:
document_structure_extraction - Parse document hierarchychecklist_calibration - Adjust criteria for context
Quality Gate: Checklist calibrated for PRD type; PRD structure parsed with sections identified
Output: Calibrated checklist (N items) + PRD structure map
Phase 2: MECE Scope Mapping
Purpose: Map PRD sections to coverage dimensions and identify structural gaps.
Steps:
- Load 10 MECE coverage dimensions from
mece-coverage-framework.md:
- D1: Problem Space
- D2: User Context
- D3: Business Context
- D4: Solution Requirements
- D5: User Experience
- D6: Quality Criteria
- D7: Dependencies
- D8: Risk Landscape
- D9: Execution Context
- D10: Technical Fit
- Map each PRD section to exactly one dimension:
- Assign based on content, not just header
- Flag orphan sections (don't fit any dimension)
- Flag missing dimensions (no sections mapped)
- Identify structural gaps:
- Dimension with no coverage = CRITICAL structural gap
- Dimension with partial coverage = SIGNIFICANT structural gap
- Note sections present but outside standard structure
- Calculate initial coverage score per dimension
Techniques Used:
mece_gap_detection (CAT-PR-GA) - Identify coverage gaps in structurecompleteness_verification (CAT-PR-GA) - Verify all dimensions addressed
Quality Gate: All 10 MECE dimensions assessed; structural gaps flagged
Output: Coverage mapping with dimension scores and structural gap list
Phase 3: Item-by-Item Verification
Purpose: Verify each checklist item against PRD content.
Steps:
For each checklist item (PC-01 through TC-08):
1. LOCATE RELEVANT SECTION
└─ Based on dimension mapping from Phase 2
2. ASSESS PRESENCE
├─ PRESENT: Item clearly addressed
├─ PARTIAL: Item mentioned but incomplete
└─ ABSENT: No evidence of item
3. EVALUATE QUALITY (if present)
├─ CLEAR: Unambiguous and actionable
├─ AMBIGUOUS: Multiple interpretations possible
├─ INCONSISTENT: Contradicts other content
├─ INCOMPLETE: Missing key details
└─ OUTDATED: Stale information
4. RECORD EVIDENCE
├─ Location: Section/line reference
├─ Quote: Supporting text from PRD
└─ Assessment: Pass/fail with rationale
5. FLAG FOR GAP CLASSIFICATION (if needed)
└─ Any non-PRESENT or non-CLEAR items
Verification Rules by Section:
| Section | Items | Critical Items | Verification Approach |
|---|
| Problem & Context | PC-01 to PC-15 | PC-01, PC-02, PC-05 | Check for evidence-backed problem |
| User & Stakeholder | US-01 to US-12 | US-01, US-02, US-05 | Verify persona specificity |
| Goals & Success | GS-01 to GS-10 | GS-01, GS-02, GS-03 | Check measurability |
| Requirements | RQ-01 to RQ-18 | RQ-01, RQ-02, RQ-05 | Verify testability |
| User Stories | ST-01 to ST-14 | ST-01, ST-02 | Check INVEST compliance |
| Acceptance Criteria | AC-01 to AC-12 | AC-01, AC-02, AC-03 | Verify Gherkin-like structure |
| Dependencies | DP-01 to DP-08 | DP-01, DP-02 | Check bidirectional links |
| Risks & Assumptions | RA-01 to RA-10 | RA-01, RA-02 | Verify mitigation plans |
| Timeline & Scope | TS-01 to TS-09 | TS-01, TS-04, TS-05 | Check explicit boundaries |
| Technical | TC-01 to TC-08 | TC-01 (if applicable) | Verify feasibility notes |
Techniques Used:
completeness_verification (CAT-PR-GA) - Check presence of each itemnegative_space_analysis (CAT-PR-GA) - Identify what's NOT saidexhaustive_edge_case_enumeration (CAT-PR-CE) - Find uncovered scenarios
Quality Gate: 100% of applicable checklist items evaluated
Output: Verification matrix with item-level results and evidence
Phase 4: Gap Classification & Severity Scoring
Purpose: Classify detected gaps and score severity using RUBRIC-07.
Steps:
4.1 Gap Classification
For each gap identified in Phase 3, apply gap taxonomy (from gap-taxonomy.md):
IS ELEMENT PRESENT?
├─ NO → MISSING
└─ YES
├─ IS IT COMPLETE?
│ ├─ NO → INCOMPLETE
│ └─ YES
│ ├─ DOES IT CONTRADICT OTHER CONTENT?
│ │ ├─ YES → INCONSISTENT
│ │ └─ NO
│ │ ├─ IS IT CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS?
│ │ │ ├─ NO → AMBIGUOUS
│ │ │ └─ YES
│ │ │ ├─ IS IT FACTUALLY CORRECT?
│ │ │ │ ├─ NO → INCORRECT
│ │ │ │ └─ YES
│ │ │ │ └─ IS IT CURRENT?
│ │ │ │ ├─ NO → OUTDATED
│ │ │ │ └─ YES → No gap
4.2 Severity Scoring
Apply SEVERITY-SCORING (RUBRIC-07) with three dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Scale |
|---|
| Impact | 0.5 | 1=Low, 2=Medium, 3=High, 4=Critical |
| Likelihood | 0.3 | 1=Rare, 2=Possible, 3=Likely, 4=Certain |
| Detectability | 0.2 | 1=Obvious, 2=Moderate, 3=Difficult, 4=Hidden |
Calculation:
severity_score = (impact × 0.5) + (likelihood × 0.3) + (detectability × 0.2)
CRITICAL: score >= 3.5
HIGH: 2.5 <= score < 3.5
MEDIUM: 1.5 <= score < 2.5
LOW: score < 1.5
4.3 Anti-Pattern Scan
If include_anti_patterns is true, scan for 15+ patterns from anti-patterns-catalog.md:
| ID | Anti-Pattern | Severity | Detection Signal |
|---|
| AP-01 | Scope Creep Enabler | HIGH | No "Out of Scope" section |
| AP-02 | Solution Contamination | CRITICAL | HOW before WHAT |
| AP-03 | Stakeholder Soup | MEDIUM | Undefined decision authority |
| AP-04 | Metric-Free Zone | HIGH | No success metrics |
| AP-05 | Assumption Blindness | HIGH | No assumptions listed |
| AP-06 | Edge Case Avoidance | MEDIUM | Happy path only |
| AP-07 | Dependency Denial | CRITICAL | No external dependencies |
| AP-08 | Timeline Fantasy | HIGH | Unrealistic milestones |
| AP-09 | Acceptance Vagueness | CRITICAL | Non-testable criteria |
| AP-10 | User Story Stuffing | MEDIUM | Giant epics as stories |
| AP-11 | Risk Minimization | HIGH | No risk register |
| AP-12 | Technical Debt Deferral | MEDIUM | No technical constraints |
| AP-13 | Stakeholder Exclusion | HIGH | Missing key personas |
| AP-14 | Scope Definition Deficit | CRITICAL | No explicit boundaries |
| AP-15 | Priority Inflation | MEDIUM | Everything is P0 |
4.4 Evidence Linking
For each gap and anti-pattern:
- Cite specific PRD location (section, line)
- Quote relevant text as evidence
- Note what's missing vs. what's present
- Link to checklist item ID
Techniques Used:
severity_scoring (RUBRIC-07) - Score gaps by impactfull_consistency_matrix (CAT-PR-ECR) - Cross-reference for inconsistenciesanti_pattern_detection - Match known failure patterns
Quality Gate: All gaps classified with type and severity; anti-patterns checked
Output: Classified gap list with severity scores and evidence
Phase 5: Impact Assessment & Remediation
Purpose: Assess downstream impact and generate remediation recommendations.
Steps:
5.1 Impact Assessment
For each gap, assess development impact:
| Impact Type | Description | Example |
|---|
| BLOCKING | Cannot proceed to development | No user definition |
| DEGRADING | Will cause rework or quality issues | Vague acceptance criteria |
| COSMETIC | Minor polish, can address later | Formatting inconsistencies |
5.2 Remediation Matching
Match each gap to remediation pattern from remediation-patterns.md:
| Gap Type | Primary Pattern | Action |
|---|
| MISSING | Add Content | Write new section using template |
| INCOMPLETE | Expand Content | Fill in missing details |
| INCONSISTENT | Reconcile Content | Resolve contradictions |
| AMBIGUOUS | Clarify Content | Add specificity/metrics |
| INCORRECT | Correct Content | Fix factual errors |
| OUTDATED | Update Content | Refresh stale information |
5.3 Effort Estimation
Estimate remediation effort:
| Effort Level | Definition | Time Range |
|---|
| trivial | Quick fix, obvious solution | < 30 min |
| small | Clear scope, single section | 30 min - 2 hours |
| medium | Multiple sections or research needed | 2 - 8 hours |
| large | Significant rework or stakeholder input | 1+ days |
5.4 Priority Assignment
Assign remediation priority:
| Priority | Criteria | Timeline |
|---|
| immediate | CRITICAL gaps, blocks development | Before any dev work |
| short_term | HIGH gaps, causes significant rework | Before sprint start |
| long_term | MEDIUM gaps, degrades quality | During development |
| optional | LOW gaps, nice-to-have | When convenient |
5.5 Blocking Issues Identification
Flag blocking issues that MUST be resolved:
- All CRITICAL severity gaps
- Any gap that prevents scope understanding
- Dependencies that can't be validated
- Acceptance criteria that can't be tested
Techniques Used:
impact_chain_analysis - Trace downstream effectsremediation_pattern_matching - Match to fix templates
Quality Gate: All CRITICAL and HIGH gaps have remediation paths
Output: Remediation recommendations per gap with effort and priority
Phase 6: Synthesis & Output Generation
Purpose: Produce final GAP-INVENTORY artifact and optional summaries.
Steps:
6.1 GAP-INVENTORY Compilation
Compile all findings into CONTRACT-07 compliant structure:
- Populate
source_reference with PRD identifier
- Set
source_type to "document"
- Build
audit_criteria with checklist reference
- Compile
gaps array with all classified gaps
- Add
anti_patterns array if detected
- Calculate
summary statistics
6.2 Summary Statistics
Generate:
total_gaps: Count of all gapsby_severity: {critical: N, high: N, medium: N, low: N}by_category: {missing: N, incomplete: N, inconsistent: N, ...}overall_assessment: Based on gap profileblocking_issues: List of gap IDs that must be fixedcoverage_score: Percentage of checklist items passed
Assessment Thresholds:
| Assessment | Criteria |
|---|
| critical_issues | Any CRITICAL gap OR >5 HIGH gaps |
| significant_gaps | No CRITICAL but >3 HIGH gaps |
| minor_issues | No CRITICAL, <=3 HIGH, some MEDIUM/LOW |
| acceptable | No CRITICAL/HIGH, only MEDIUM/LOW |
| excellent | <5 total gaps, all LOW |
6.3 Executive Summary (if requested)
Generate stakeholder-friendly summary:
- At-a-glance metrics table
- Traffic light status by section
- Top 3 strengths
- Top 3 critical issues
- Recommended next actions
6.4 Remediation Plan (if requested)
Generate prioritized action plan:
- Priority 1: Immediate (blocking issues)
- Priority 2: Short-term (before development)
- Priority 3: During development
- Priority 4: Optional improvements
- Tracking table with owners and status
6.5 Output Selection
Based on output_format parameter:
- full: GAP-INVENTORY + Executive Summary + Remediation Plan
- executive: Executive Summary only
- remediation_only: Remediation Plan only
Techniques Used:
artifact_synthesis - Compile structured outputstakeholder_communication - Tailor for audience
Quality Gate: Output validates against CONTRACT-07 schema
Output: GAP-INVENTORY artifact + requested summaries
5. Gap Taxonomy
The 6 Gap Types
| # | Type | Definition | Detection Signal | Remediation |
|---|
| 1 | MISSING | Required element completely absent | No section/content found | Add content |
| 2 | INCOMPLETE | Present but lacking required detail | TBD, TODO, truncated | Expand content |
| 3 | INCONSISTENT | Contradicts other PRD sections | Conflicting statements | Reconcile content |
| 4 | AMBIGUOUS | Multiple interpretations possible | Vague terms, no metrics | Clarify content |
| 5 | INCORRECT | Factually wrong information | Technical impossibilities | Correct content |
| 6 | OUTDATED | Was correct but no longer current | References deprecated items | Update content |
Reference: See references/gap-taxonomy.md for detailed detection heuristics and examples.
6. Output Specifications
6.1 GAP-INVENTORY Format
Aligns with CONTRACT-07 from artifact-contracts.yaml.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<gap_inventory contract="CONTRACT-07" version="1.0">
<metadata>
<artifact_id>GI-[YYYY-MM-DD]-[5-char-hash]</artifact_id>
<contract_type>GAP-INVENTORY</contract_type>
<created_at>[ISO 8601]</created_at>
<created_by>prd-completeness-auditor</created_by>
<confidence>[0.0-1.0]</confidence>
<provenance>
<source_artifact>[PRD identifier]</source_artifact>
<audit_date>[ISO 8601 date]</audit_date>
<audit_depth>[quick|standard|comprehensive]</audit_depth>
<prd_type>[feature|epic|product|initiative]</prd_type>
<checklist_version>1.0</checklist_version>
<items_checked>[N]</items_checked>
</provenance>
</metadata>
<source_reference>[PRD document identifier]</source_reference>
<source_type>document</source_type>
<audit_criteria>
<checklist_reference>prd-requirements-checklist.md v1.0</checklist_reference>
<criteria_list>
<criterion id="[PC-01]">[Item description]</criterion>
</criteria_list>
<coverage_scope>[What this audit covered]</coverage_scope>
</audit_criteria>
<gaps>
<gap id="GAP-001">
<category>[missing|incomplete|inconsistent|ambiguous|incorrect|outdated]</category>
<severity>[critical|high|medium|low]</severity>
<severity_score>
<impact>[1-4]</impact>
<likelihood>[1-4]</likelihood>
<detectability>[1-4]</detectability>
<composite>[calculated]</composite>
</severity_score>
<checklist_ref>[PC-01]</checklist_ref>
<location>[PRD section/line]</location>
<description>[Gap description]</description>
<evidence>[What indicates this gap]</evidence>
<impact>[Consequence if not addressed]</impact>
<remediation>
<recommendation>[How to fix]</recommendation>
<pattern_ref>[RP-PC-01]</pattern_ref>
<effort>[trivial|small|medium|large]</effort>
<priority>[immediate|short_term|long_term|optional]</priority>
</remediation>
</gap>
</gaps>
<anti_patterns>
<pattern id="AP-02">
<name>Solution Contamination</name>
<instances>
<instance location="[section]">[Quote]</instance>
</instances>
<remediation>[How to address]</remediation>
</pattern>
</anti_patterns>
<summary>
<total_gaps>[N]</total_gaps>
<by_severity>
<critical>[N]</critical>
<high>[N]</high>
<medium>[N]</medium>
<low>[N]</low>
</by_severity>
<by_category>
<missing>[N]</missing>
<incomplete>[N]</incomplete>
<inconsistent>[N]</inconsistent>
<ambiguous>[N]</ambiguous>
<incorrect>[N]</incorrect>
<outdated>[N]</outdated>
</by_category>
<anti_patterns_detected>[N]</anti_patterns_detected>
<overall_assessment>[critical_issues|significant_gaps|minor_issues|acceptable|excellent]</overall_assessment>
<blocking_issues>
<issue ref="GAP-001">[Brief description]</issue>
</blocking_issues>
<coverage_score>
<items_passed>[N]</items_passed>
<items_total>[N]</items_total>
<percentage>[X%]</percentage>
</coverage_score>
</summary>
</gap_inventory>
6.2 Executive Summary Format
# PRD Audit Summary: [PRD Title]
**Audit Date:** [Date]
**PRD Type:** [Type]
**Overall Assessment:** [STATUS]
## At a Glance
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Gaps | [N] |
| Critical Issues | [N] |
| Blocking Issues | [N] |
| Checklist Coverage | [X%] |
| Ready for Development | [YES/NO/WITH CONDITIONS] |
## Key Findings
### Strengths
1. **[Strength]:** [Description]
2. **[Strength]:** [Description]
### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
1. **[Issue]:** [Description] — Fix: [Action]
## Recommendation
[Next steps summary]
6.3 Remediation Plan Format
# PRD Remediation Plan: [PRD Title]
## Priority 1: Immediate
| # | Gap | Category | Effort | Action |
|---|-----|----------|--------|--------|
| 1 | GAP-XXX | [type] | [effort] | [action] |
### Detailed Actions
[Per-gap remediation with templates]
## Priority 2: Short-Term
[Same structure]
## Tracking
| Gap ID | Priority | Target Date | Owner | Status |
|--------|----------|-------------|-------|--------|
Reference: See templates/ directory for complete templates with examples.
7. Quality Gates
| # | Gate | Criterion | Phase |
|---|
| 1 | Checklist Calibrated | Checklist adjusted for PRD type with applicable items identified | 1 |
| 2 | PRD Parsed | All sections identified with structure map created | 1 |
| 3 | MECE Mapped | All 10 coverage dimensions assessed with scores | 2 |
| 4 | Items Verified | 100% of applicable checklist items evaluated | 3 |
| 5 | Gaps Classified | All gaps assigned type from 6-type taxonomy | 4 |
| 6 | Severity Scored | All gaps scored using 3-dimension RUBRIC-07 | 4 |
| 7 | Anti-Patterns Scanned | All 15+ anti-patterns checked (if enabled) | 4 |
| 8 | Remediation Assigned | All CRITICAL/HIGH gaps have remediation paths | 5 |
| 9 | Output Validated | GAP-INVENTORY conforms to CONTRACT-07 schema | 6 |
8. Workflow Integration
This skill serves as a quality gate in the product development workflow:
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PRD COMPLETENESS AUDITOR │ ◀── THIS SKILL
│ │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
│ Input: PRD Document
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 1: Reference Loading │
│ • Load prd-requirements-checklist │
│ • Calibrate for prd_type │
│ • Parse PRD structure │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 2: MECE Scope Mapping │
│ • Apply 10-dimension framework │
│ • Map sections to dimensions │
│ • Flag structural gaps │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 3: Item-by-Item Verification │ ◀── Perfect Recall techniques
│ • Check 116 checklist items │ mece_gap_detection
│ • Record presence and quality │ completeness_verification
│ • Cite evidence locations │ negative_space_analysis
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 4: Gap Classification │ ◀── RUBRIC-07 severity scoring
│ • Apply 6-type gap taxonomy │
│ • Score severity (3 dimensions) │
│ • Scan for 15+ anti-patterns │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 5: Impact & Remediation │
│ • Assess development impact │
│ • Match to remediation patterns │
│ • Identify blocking issues │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase 6: Synthesis │ ◀── CONTRACT-07 output
│ • Compile GAP-INVENTORY │
│ • Generate executive summary │
│ • Create remediation plan │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ OUTPUT: GAP-INVENTORY │
│ + Executive Summary │
│ + Remediation Plan │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
Artifact Flow
| This Skill Produces | Consumed By |
|---|
| GAP-INVENTORY (CONTRACT-07) | Product owner review, development planning |
| Executive Summary | Stakeholder communication, go/no-go decisions |
| Remediation Plan | PRD author, product team action items |
Integration Points
| Upstream | This Skill | Downstream |
|---|
| PRD authoring | Audit | Technical design |
| Requirements gathering | Validate | Sprint planning |
| Stakeholder interviews | Check quality | Development handoff |
9. Behavioral Guidelines
- Systematic not judgmental: Report gaps objectively, not as criticism
- Evidence-based: Every gap must have cited evidence from the PRD
- Constructive: Focus on remediation, not just problems
- Calibrated: Severity reflects actual development impact
- Complete: Check every applicable item, don't skip
- Efficient: Match audit depth to context needs
- Actionable: Every gap should have a clear path to resolution
10. References
| File | Purpose |
|---|
references/prd-requirements-checklist.md | 116 checklist items organized by PRD section |
references/severity-classification.md | RUBRIC-07 implementation with scoring dimensions |
references/gap-taxonomy.md | 6 gap types with detection heuristics |
references/remediation-patterns.md | Fix patterns catalog by gap type and section |
references/anti-patterns-catalog.md | 15+ PRD anti-patterns with detection signals |
references/mece-coverage-framework.md | 10 coverage dimensions for PRD audits |
External References
| File | Purpose |
|---|
@core/artifact-contracts.yaml | CONTRACT-07 (GAP-INVENTORY) schema |
@core/scoring-rubrics.yaml | RUBRIC-07 (SEVERITY-SCORING) specification |
@core/technique-taxonomy.yaml | Perfect Recall techniques (CAT-PR-GA) |
@core/skill-patterns.yaml | GAP-AUDIT pattern (PATTERN-08) |
11. Templates
| File | Purpose |
|---|
templates/gap-inventory-output.md | CONTRACT-07 compliant XML template with field guidance |
templates/executive-summary-output.md | Stakeholder summary template with traffic lights |
templates/remediation-plan-output.md | Prioritized action plan template with tracking |
12. Examples
Example 1: Standard Feature PRD Audit
input:
prd_content: "[Feature PRD for checkout optimization - 2500 words]"
prd_type: feature
audit_depth: standard
include_anti_patterns: true
output_format: full
flow:
phase_1:
- Loaded feature checklist (106 items applicable)
- Parsed PRD: 12 sections identified
- Structure: Problem → Users → Goals → Requirements → Stories → AC
phase_2:
- Mapped to 10 MECE dimensions
- D7 (Dependencies) has no coverage → structural gap
- D8 (Risk Landscape) minimal coverage → structural gap
phase_3:
- Verified 106 items
- 78 PRESENT + CLEAR
- 12 PARTIAL
- 16 ABSENT
phase_4:
- 28 gaps classified
- 2 CRITICAL: No acceptance criteria for error handling (AC-05), No dependencies listed (DP-01)
- 5 HIGH: Vague success metrics (GS-03), Missing edge cases (RQ-08, ST-07)
- 9 MEDIUM: Incomplete user personas (US-03, US-04)
- 12 LOW: Minor formatting, optional items
- Anti-patterns: AP-07 (Dependency Denial), AP-06 (Edge Case Avoidance)
phase_5:
- 2 blocking issues identified
- Remediation assigned to all CRITICAL/HIGH
- Total remediation effort: ~6 hours
phase_6:
- Generated GAP-INVENTORY (CONTRACT-07 compliant)
- Generated Executive Summary
- Generated Remediation Plan with 4 priority tiers
output:
total_gaps: 28
by_severity: { critical: 2, high: 5, medium: 9, low: 12 }
blocking_issues: 2
overall_assessment: significant_gaps
coverage_score: 73%
recommendation: "Address 2 critical gaps before development. Estimated effort: 2-3 hours for blocking issues."
Example 2: Comprehensive Epic PRD Audit
input:
prd_content: "[Epic PRD for payment platform redesign - 8000 words]"
prd_type: epic
audit_depth: comprehensive
include_anti_patterns: true
output_format: full
flow:
phase_1:
- Loaded epic checklist (106 items)
- Parsed PRD: 18 sections, complex hierarchy
- Noted: Multiple phased releases defined
phase_2:
- All 10 dimensions covered
- D4 (Solution Requirements) heavily weighted
- Cross-phase dependencies complex
phase_3:
- Verified 106 items
- 82 PRESENT
- 14 PARTIAL
- 10 ABSENT
phase_4:
- 24 gaps classified
- 1 CRITICAL: Phase 2 dependencies on Phase 1 unclear (DP-03)
- 7 HIGH: Rollback strategy missing (RA-05), Migration path vague (TC-04)
- 10 MEDIUM: User stories too large (ST-08), Success metrics per phase unclear
- 6 LOW: Documentation gaps
- Anti-patterns: AP-10 (User Story Stuffing), AP-01 (Scope Creep Enabler)
phase_5:
- 1 blocking issue
- Comprehensive remediation with templates
- Recommended: Break Phase 2 into sub-phases
phase_6:
- Full GAP-INVENTORY with 24 detailed entries
- Executive Summary with phase-by-phase assessment
- Detailed Remediation Plan with 15 action items
output:
total_gaps: 24
by_severity: { critical: 1, high: 7, medium: 10, low: 6 }
anti_patterns_detected: 2
blocking_issues: 1
overall_assessment: significant_gaps
coverage_score: 77%
recommendation: "Critical: Clarify Phase 1→2 dependencies before architecture work begins."
Example 3: Quick Focused Audit
input:
prd_content: "[Product PRD for mobile app v2.0 - 4000 words]"
prd_type: product
audit_depth: quick
focus_areas: [acceptance_criteria, success_metrics]
include_anti_patterns: false
output_format: executive
flow:
phase_1:
- Loaded quick checklist (40 high-priority items)
- Filtered to focus areas: AC-01 to AC-12, GS-01 to GS-10 (22 items)
phase_2:
- Quick dimension scan
- D6 (Quality Criteria) and D3 (Business Context) targeted
phase_3:
- Verified 22 items in focus areas
- 14 PRESENT
- 5 PARTIAL
- 3 ABSENT
phase_4:
- 8 gaps in focus areas
- 0 CRITICAL
- 2 HIGH: Success metrics not measurable (GS-03), AC missing for API endpoints (AC-07)
- 4 MEDIUM
- 2 LOW
phase_5:
- Quick remediation notes
- Estimated effort: 2-3 hours
phase_6:
- Executive Summary only (per output_format)
output:
total_gaps: 8
focus_areas_checked: [acceptance_criteria, success_metrics]
by_severity: { critical: 0, high: 2, medium: 4, low: 2 }
overall_assessment: minor_issues
coverage_score: 64% (in focus areas)
recommendation: "Good foundation. Refine success metrics with quantifiable targets before launch planning."
Quick Start
/prd-completeness-auditor
prd_content: "[Paste PRD or provide file path]"
prd_type: feature
audit_depth: standard
