brd

name	brd
description	[Internal pipeline stage — run by /build; invoke directly only as a power user.] Create a Business Requirements Document — from a Socratic interview, or grounded in a Functional Requirements Document via --frd (with a deterministic net-new/dropped gate). First step in the SDLC pipeline.
context	fork
agent	planner

BRD Skill — Business Requirements Document

Usage

/brd                              # interview-from-scratch
/brd --frd path/to/frd.md         # ground the BRD in a Functional Requirements Document
/brd --prd path/to/prd.md         # alias for --frd: a PRD is the grounding baseline
/brd --delta path/to/prd-sprintN.md    # ground sprint N's PRD against the prior sprint's requirement spine

Two modes:

• Document-grounded (recommended for greenfield): pass --frd <path> (or its alias --prd <path>) to a Functional/Product Requirements Document. --prd and --frd are treated identically — the document becomes the immutable grounding baseline, extracted into the same requirements spine (frd-requirements.json); only the input flag name differs. For the canonical PRD shape this skill grounds best against, see docs/prd-format.md. The document becomes the immutable grounding baseline — Claude interrogates it for gaps, then generates a BRD in which every requirement traces back to a source section or to a confirmed clarification. A deterministic gate (Step 4.4) hard-blocks anything invented or dropped relative to the source before you ever see it for approval.
• Interview-from-scratch: no argument — an interactive Socratic interview gathers requirements from nothing. Use only when there is no source document.

---

Overview

This is the first gate in the SDLC pipeline, and the origin of the whole grounding chain (BRD → /spec → /design → /test → /auto). Mistakes here cascade through every downstream phase, so the BRD must invent nothing the business did not state. With --frd, the FRD plus the human's confirmed interrogation answers are the only sanctioned sources of content; with no FRD, the confirmed interview answers are. Either way the planner interviews the human across five dimensions to surface the full problem space — Socratic: ask clarifying questions, probe assumptions, reflect answers back for confirmation before moving on.

---

Delta Mode (--delta)

Invoked by /sprint for sprint N (N >= 2). Grounds a new PRD against the prior sprint's approved requirement spine, not against nothing — this is what proves the new PRD's requirements are new/changed/carried, and flags anything it silently drops. See docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-04-sprint-delta-lane-design.md.

Step Δ0 — Locate the prior spine and resolve N

List specs/brd/sprint-*/ directories; let prev be the highest number found. If none exist, the prior spine is the flat legacy specs/brd/brd-requirements.json (sprint 1 predates sprint-numbered directories) and N = 2. If sprint directories exist, N = prev + 1. If neither the flat file nor any sprint directory exists, halt — --delta requires a prior sprint; use --frd/--prd for the very first sprint.

Step Δ1 — Run Steps 0.0 through 4 unchanged, writing to specs/brd/sprint-N/

Run the FRD-grounded flow (Steps 0.0, 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 2.8, 3, 4) exactly as written above, with one change: every output path becomes specs/brd/sprint-N/ (e.g. specs/brd/sprint-N/brd.md, specs/brd/sprint-N/brd-requirements.json, specs/brd/sprint-N/clarification-log.json). When writing brd-requirements.json, any requirement that carries forward a prior-sprint requirement unchanged (or with only minor edits) must include that prior sprint's BR id in its traces array alongside this sprint's own FRD/clarification traces — this is what lets Step Δ2's classification tell "carried forward" apart from "silently dropped."

Step Δ2 — Requirements-delta classification [HARD BLOCK]

Step 4.4's grounding gate still runs unchanged (this sprint's BRD vs this sprint's own FRD/PRD spine). In addition, classify this sprint's spine against the prior sprint's spine — the same trace-check.js engine, reused with the prior spine as required, this sprint's spine also as a valid trace target (optional), and this sprint's spine as downstream:

node .claude/scripts/trace-check.js \
  --required specs/brd/sprint-{prev}/brd-requirements.json \
  --optional specs/brd/sprint-N/brd-requirements.json \
  --downstream specs/brd/sprint-N/brd-requirements.json \
  --layer requirements-delta \
  --out specs/brd/sprint-N/requirements-delta.json

(When prev refers to the flat legacy layout, use --required specs/brd/brd-requirements.json.)

Read the resulting requirements-delta.json:

• net_new entries are genuinely new requirements this sprint introduces — expected, not a failure.
• dropped entries are prior-sprint requirements this sprint's spine does not cover — each one needs an explicit human decision: still active (add a BR entry carrying it forward) or intentionally retired (record why in this sprint's BRD Open Questions). A dropped entry with no such resolution is a silent regression — halt and ask before proceeding to Step 4.5.

Empty-spine guard: a required_total: 0 here means the prior sprint's spine is empty — a pre-spine legacy project. Skip this step in that case and note it in the BRD summary (Step 4.4's own grounding gate still runs normally against this sprint's spine).

Step Δ3 — Present for Human Approval (delta mode)

Same as Step 5, plus display the requirements-delta classification (new / changed / carried / dropped, with the human's resolution for each dropped item) before asking for approval.

---

Steps

Step 0.0 — Ingest the FRD (only when --frd <path> was given)

If an FRD path was provided:

1. Copy it verbatim to specs/brd/source-frd.md — this is the immutable grounding baseline. Never edit it.
2. Extract its requirements into specs/brd/frd-requirements.json — one entry per discrete functional requirement, with a stable id, the requirement text, and the source section:

   [
     { "id": "FRD-1", "text": "Users can reset their password via an emailed link", "section": "3.2 Authentication" },
     { "id": "FRD-2", "text": "Users can view their order history", "section": "4.1 Orders" }
   ]
   

   Be exhaustive and faithful — every "the system must / shall / should" statement, every user-facing behavior, every business rule becomes one FRD-n. Do not paraphrase away constraints. This list is what the BRD will be checked against, so a requirement you fail to extract here is a requirement that can be silently dropped.

If no --frd was given, skip this step; the BRD's grounding baseline is then the confirmed INT-n interview requirements captured in Step 2 (specs/brd/interview-requirements.json), plus the Step 0.5 clarification log.

Step 0 — Brainstorm with Superpowers

Before beginning the interview, invoke superpowers:brainstorming to explore the user's intent, requirements, and design space. This surfaces hidden assumptions and alternative framings before the structured Socratic interview locks in a direction. In FRD-grounded mode, brainstorm gaps and ambiguities in the FRD specifically — what it leaves unspecified. The brainstorming output feeds into the interview — it does not replace it.

Step 0.5 — Apply the Clarification Budget (and log every answer)

Before asking interview questions, invoke .claude/skills/clarify/SKILL.md. Use it to cap the total clarification burden:

• Ask only load-bearing questions that affect requirements, scope, data, security, architecture, or story readiness.
• Default to 10 total questions across the BRD interview.
• Continue to 15 only if the user explicitly asks to keep going.
• Capture low-risk assumptions in the BRD instead of asking about them.

Persist every confirmed answer to specs/brd/clarification-log.json with a stable id:

[
  { "id": "C1", "question": "What is the password-reset token TTL?", "answer": "1 hour" },
  { "id": "C2", "question": "Should order history paginate?", "answer": "Yes, 20 per page" }
]

The clarification log is the only sanctioned channel for content not already in the FRD. A BRD requirement may legitimately introduce something new only if it traces to an FRD section, an INT-n interview requirement, or a C-n clarification here — so anything the human confirms that expands scope must be captured as a C-n entry, not absorbed silently into the BRD prose.

Step 1 — Analyze Existing Codebase (if any)

Before beginning the interview, scan the working directory for existing code. Note:

• Current tech stack, frameworks, languages
• Existing data models or schemas
• Existing API surface
• Any patterns or conventions already in use

If this is an existing non-trivial codebase and specs/brownfield/codebase-map.md does not exist, recommend running /brownfield first. For small or urgent work, continue only after documenting the risk and the limited scope.

This prevents proposing solutions that conflict with what is already built.

Step 2 — Conduct the Five-Dimension Interview

Work through each dimension in order. Do not skip dimensions. Ask only the highest-value questions within the clarification budget, then summarize what you heard and ask the human to confirm before proceeding. If a dimension is already answered by local context, document the assumption and move on.

As each dimension is confirmed, append the confirmed requirement statements to specs/brd/interview-requirements.json — one entry per discrete requirement the human signed off:

[{ "id": "INT-1", "text": "Admins invite users by email", "section": "users-and-permissions" }]

Write entries at confirmation time, not after synthesis — this file is the grounding baseline the BRD is mechanically checked against (Step 4.4), so it must capture what the human confirmed before BRD prose can drift. Q&A detail that is context rather than a requirement stays in clarification-log.json (C-n); a statement the human confirmed as something the system must do is an INT-n.

---

Dimension 1 — Why (Problem & Goals)

• What problem does this solve, and for whom?
• Who are the target users (role, technical level, context of use)?
• What does success look like in 90 days? What metrics will you track?
• What is the cost of not solving this problem?

Confirm: "Here is what I understand the problem and goals to be: [summary]. Is this correct?"

---

Dimension 2 — What (Scope & MVP)

• What are the core operations this system must perform? (List them.)
• What is explicitly out of scope for the first version?
• What is the minimum viable product — the smallest slice that delivers real value?
• Are there existing tools or systems this must integrate with?

Confirm: "Here is the core scope and MVP as I understand it: [summary]. Anything to add or change?"

---

Dimension 2.5 — Alternatives (Implementation Approaches)

Propose 2-3 concrete implementation approaches with trade-offs. For each option:

• Brief description of the approach
• Key advantages
• Key disadvantages / risks
• Best suited for (what context)

Ask the human to choose an approach or blend aspects. Document the chosen direction and the rationale for rejecting alternatives.

---

Dimension 3 — How (Technical Architecture)

• What is the preferred tech stack, or are there constraints (language, cloud, existing infra)?
• How will data be stored? What are the main data entities?
• Are there external integrations, APIs, or third-party services involved?
• What are the performance or scalability requirements?

Confirm: "Here is the technical direction I am capturing: [summary]. Does this match your expectations?"

---

Dimension 4 — Edge Cases (Failure & Constraints)

• What happens when [key operation] fails? Who is notified, and how?
• What are the operational constraints (uptime requirements, rate limits, budget)?
• Does this system handle sensitive data (PII, financial, health)? What compliance applies?
• What are the most likely failure modes in the first 6 months?

Confirm: "Here are the constraints and failure scenarios I am recording: [summary]. Anything missing?"

---

Dimension 5 — UI Context (Interface & Design)

• Is there a UI? If so, what are the primary screens or flows?
• Are there design references, mockups, or brand guidelines to follow?
• What devices and viewports must be supported (desktop, tablet, mobile)?
• Are there accessibility requirements (WCAG level)?

Confirm: "Here is the UI context I have captured: [summary]. Is this complete?"

---

Step 2.7 — Seed Domain Vocabulary from Enabled Vertical Plugins

Run the vertical glossary pack script. Run node .claude/scripts/vertical-glossary-pack.js. This is a no-op (nothing written, nothing to do here) unless .claude/config/scaffold-packs.json's verticalPacks array has at least one entry whose enabled_plugin_prefix matches a truthy key in .claude/settings.json#enabledPlugins.

• Pack(s) written. For each specs/brd/<plugin>-glossary-pack.json the script wrote, read it. For each context entry, distill the real domain nouns implied by each skill's description into CONTEXT.md's ## Terms section (create CONTEXT.md from .claude/templates/context.template.md first if it does not exist yet). Use the context's name as a <Bounded Context Name> bold grouping line (not a ### heading — vocabulary-check.js parses every ### under ## Terms as a glossary term, so only actual terms may use that heading level), with individual ### <Term> entries and a one-line definition beneath each.
• Broken plugin install. If the script exited 2, at least one enabled vertical's skills directory was missing or empty. Note the broken plugin install(s) in the progress log and continue — packs from any OTHER, successfully-resolved vertical were still written and should still be distilled per the bullet above. Do not block the BRD on a broken install.
• No verticals enabled. If the script reported nothing enabled and wrote no pack files, no registered vertical plugin is active for this project — do nothing further.

Layering with Step 2.8. Step 2.8 below still runs afterward for every project and merges domain_concepts-derived terms into the same CONTEXT.md, layering project-specific concepts on top of any vertical baseline(s) rather than overwriting them.

---

Step 2.8 — Write the BRD Analysis Pack

Before synthesizing the BRD prose, write specs/brd/brd-analysis.json. This is the SPDD-inspired analysis layer that turns the PRD/interview into a design contract instead of a thin summary. It must be grounded in the FRD/PRD, the clarification log, and existing-code scan.

The JSON must include:

{
  "domain_concepts": [
    { "name": "Subscription Plan", "status": "existing|new", "evidence": "FRD-1 or specs/brownfield/code-graph.json node", "notes": "business meaning and nearby terms" }
  ],
  "ambiguity_table": [
    { "id": "AMB-1", "question": "What remains ambiguous?", "default_assumption": "Chosen assumption", "risk_if_wrong": "Concrete consequence", "resolution": "clarified|assumed|deferred", "trace": ["FRD-1", "C1"] }
  ]
   
             
  
   
               
  
   
             
  
   
               
  

Rules:

• Domain Concepts marks each important business object as existing or new. In brownfield mode, existing entries cite a code-graph node or file path; in greenfield, they cite FRD/PRD sections or INT-n interview requirements.
• Ambiguity Table captures load-bearing uncertainties that were clarified, assumed, or deferred. A deferred ambiguity must appear in the BRD Open Questions.
• Edge-Case Table names failures, limits, empty states, concurrency/race cases, and security/privacy exceptions that the BRD must preserve downstream.
• AC Coverage Matrix proves every extracted FRD/PRD/INT-n requirement has at least one observable acceptance criterion before the grounding gate runs.
• Risk & Gap Table records risks and missing inputs without turning them into hidden implementation scope.

Seed the domain glossary. After writing domain_concepts, create or update CONTEXT.md at the repo root from it: for each entry, add or update a ### <name> heading under ## Terms using notes as the definition (use the template at .claude/templates/context.template.md if CONTEXT.md does not exist yet). Do this for greenfield BRDs too — CONTEXT.md must exist after this step whenever domain_concepts is non-empty, which it always is. If /brownfield already created CONTEXT.md, merge into it rather than overwriting existing terms.

If this pack exposes a dropped requirement, unresolved high-risk ambiguity, or uncovered acceptance criterion, fix the interview/clarification log before proceeding. Do not paper over it in the BRD.

Step 3 — Synthesize into BRD

After all five dimensions are confirmed, produce a structured BRD with these sections:

1. Executive Summary
2. Problem Statement
3. Target Users
4. Success Metrics
5. Scope (In / Out)
6. MVP Definition
7. Alternatives Considered (with rationale for chosen approach)
8. Technical Architecture
9. Data Model Overview
10. External Integrations
11. Edge Cases & Constraints
12. UI Context
13. Open Questions
14. BRD Analysis Summary — summarize the Domain Concepts, Ambiguity Table, Edge-Case Table, AC Coverage Matrix, and Risk & Gap Table from brd-analysis.json; keep the full detail in JSON.
15. Forbidden Actions — an explicit list of things the implementation must not do, derived from the Out-of-Scope items (Dimension 2) and any source "non-goals". This becomes the deny-list the downstream gate (and any autonomous merge) enforces; phrase each as a checkable prohibition (e.g. "must not call external payment APIs", "must not store raw passwords").

Step 4 — Write to specs/brd/

• For a new project: write to specs/brd/brd.md
• For a feature addition: write to specs/brd/feature-{name}.md

Also write the machine-readable requirement spine to specs/brd/brd-requirements.json — one entry per BRD requirement, each with a stable id and a traces array citing the FRD section ids and/or C-n clarification ids it derives from:

[
  { "id": "BR-1", "text": "Password reset via emailed link, token valid 1h", "traces": ["FRD-1", "C1"], "taxonomy": ["functional", "security_authz"], "acceptance": "Requesting a reset emails a link that logs the user in once within 1h and is rejected after." },
  { "id": "BR-2", "text": "Paginated order history (20/page)", "traces": ["FRD-2", "C2"], "taxonomy": ["functional"], "acceptance": "Order history returns 20 items/page with working next/prev." 

Each BR entry carries an acceptance postcondition — an observable end-state the evaluator can verify, not a restatement of the requirement. This gives downstream gates (and any autonomous merge) a concrete pass/fail oracle instead of a self-judged "looks done".

Each BR entry also carries taxonomy — one or more of the ten slots Step 4.45 checks. Tag by what the requirement is, not by which section it came from; one requirement may legitimately carry several tags (an authenticated endpoint is both functional and security_authz).

Also write specs/brd/brd-acceptance.json — the postconditions split into individually traceable ids, one per observable claim:

[
  { "id": "BR-1-AC1", "requirement": "BR-1", "text": "A reset request emails a link that logs the user in exactly once" },
  { "id": "BR-1-AC2", "requirement": "BR-1", "text": "A reset link is rejected after 1 hour" }
]

A prose acceptance sentence usually bundles two or three separate claims, and a story can satisfy one while silently dropping another. Splitting them is what lets /spec Step 6.46 prove coverage at criterion granularity instead of at requirement granularity.

And write specs/brd/brd-safeguards.json — the non-negotiable boundaries the design must honour, a superset of the Forbidden Actions list:

[
  { "id": "SG-1", "kind": "invariant", "text": "An order total always equals the sum of its line items", "traces": ["FRD-3"] },
  { "id": "SG-2", "kind": "prohibition", "text": "Must not store raw passwords", "traces": ["C4"] },
  { "id": "SG-3", "kind": "limit", "text": "p95 checkout latency stays under 400ms", "traces": ["FRD-7"] 

kind is invariant | prohibition | limit | norm. These become required trace targets for the REASONS Canvas Safeguards and Norms sections at /design, so a business constraint cannot quietly fail to reach the design contract. Every BR entry must carry at least one valid trace. If you cannot trace a requirement to an FRD section or a clarification, it is invented — either remove it, or (if the human genuinely wants it) capture the human's confirmation as a new C-n entry in clarification-log.json first, then trace to it. In interview-from-scratch mode (no FRD), trace BR entries to INT-n interview requirements and/or C-n clarifications; every INT-n must be covered by at least one BR entry.

Create the specs/brd/ directory if it does not exist.

Step 4.4 — Grounding Gate [HARD BLOCK — all modes]

Run the deterministic grounding check before the rubric evaluation — in FRD mode against the FRD spine, in interview mode against the confirmed interview spine. This proves mechanically — not by judgement — that the BRD invented and dropped nothing relative to the required spine (FRD or interview) + clarifications:

node .claude/skills/brd/scripts/grounding-check.js \
  --frd specs/brd/frd-requirements.json \
  --clarifications specs/brd/clarification-log.json \
  --brd specs/brd/brd-requirements.json \
  --out specs/reviews/brd-grounding.json

In interview-from-scratch mode, run the same gate with the interview spine as the required set (the verdict keeps the generic frd_total/frd_covered field names):

node .claude/skills/brd/scripts/grounding-check.js \
  --frd specs/brd/interview-requirements.json \
  --clarifications specs/brd/clarification-log.json \
  --brd specs/brd/brd-requirements.json \
  --out specs/reviews/brd-grounding.json

Empty-spine guard (interview mode): a verdict with frd_total: 0 means interview-requirements.json is empty — the gate checked nothing. A completed five-dimension interview yields at least one INT-n; treat frd_total: 0 as FAIL and return to Step 2 to capture the confirmed requirements before re-running.

The script writes specs/reviews/brd-grounding.json ({ pass, frd_total, frd_covered, net_new[], dropped[] }) and exits non-zero on any violation. This is a hard gate, independent of the rubric score:

• net_new non-empty → the BRD invented a requirement not in the FRD or any clarification. For each, either delete it or get explicit human sign-off and record it as a C-n clarification (then re-trace and re-run). Do not proceed with an unresolved net-new requirement.
• dropped non-empty → the BRD silently lost a required-spine requirement. Add a BR entry covering it (or, if the human confirms it is intentionally out of scope, record that decision as a C-n clarification noting the deferral) and re-run.

Only when brd-grounding.json#pass === true may you proceed to Step 4.5. (Skip only when neither frd-requirements.json nor interview-requirements.json exists — a pre-spine legacy project — and note the skipped gate in the BRD summary. If you conducted the Step 2 interview in this session, the spine MUST exist — a missing spine is a Step 2 execution bug, not a legacy project: reconstruct interview-requirements.json from the confirmed dimension summaries and re-run the gate. The skip applies only to a pre-existing BRD you did not author in this session.)

Step 4.45 — Requirement-Taxonomy Floor [HARD BLOCK — all modes]

The grounding gate proves the BRD invented and dropped nothing relative to its source. It cannot prove the source asked the right questions: if the FRD never mentions retention, authorization, or failure modes, the BRD is silent on them too and every check above still passes. Comprehensiveness then reduces to "all sections are non-empty", which is a formatting property.

node .claude/scripts/brd-taxonomy-check.js \
  --requirements specs/brd/brd-requirements.json \
  --coverage specs/brd/taxonomy-coverage.json \
  --out specs/reviews/brd-taxonomy.json

Every one of the ten slots — functional, data_lifecycle, integration, performance, security_authz, privacy_retention, observability, operability_failure, ux_accessibility, constraints — needs either a requirement tagged with it, or an entry in specs/brd/taxonomy-coverage.json recording why it does not apply:

[{ "slot": "privacy_retention", "na_reason": "the system stores no personal data; all records are anonymised aggregates" }]

A justification must be a real reason. "N/A", "none", "TBD", and anything under 25 characters are rejected — the gate exists to force the question to be asked, and a box-tick means it was not. The reason lands in a committed artifact precisely so a reviewer can disagree with it.

Resolve a failure at the source: a genuinely uncovered slot usually means the interview skipped a dimension. Return to Step 2, ask, capture the answer as a C-n clarification, and add the requirement — do not paper over it with an excuse.

Pre-existing BRD (not authored in this session). A spine written before this gate existed carries no taxonomy field at all, so every requirement reports UNTAGGED. That is a migration state, not a quality signal. Tag the existing requirements first — reading each one and assigning its slots is a mechanical pass over an artifact you already have — then re-run. Do not record blanket na_reason entries to clear it; that converts a one-time migration into a permanently false clean bill of health. If you authored the spine in this session, UNTAGGED is a Step 4 execution bug: go back and tag them.

Step 4.5 — Phase Evaluation Gate

Spawn the evaluator agent (artifact mode) to validate the BRD before human review.

Agent invocation:

Spawn Agent with subagent_type="evaluator" and prompt:

• Phase: brd
• Artifact: the BRD file path (specs/brd/brd.md or specs/brd/feature-{name}.md)
• Upstream: in FRD mode, specs/brd/source-frd.md + specs/brd/frd-requirements.json + specs/brd/clarification-log.json; in interview mode, specs/brd/interview-requirements.json + specs/brd/clarification-log.json
• Grounding verdict: specs/reviews/brd-grounding.json in both modes (already PASS from Step 4.4 — the evaluator confirms the rubric's traceability criterion against it) (absent only for pre-spine legacy projects, where the gate was skipped and noted)
• Rubric: Read .claude/templates/phase-eval-rubrics.json, key "brd"
• Iteration: 1 (increment on retry)
• Previous score: null (or previous iteration's weighted_average)
• Write result to specs/reviews/phase-brd-eval.json

Ratchet loop (max 3 iterations):

1. If verdict is PASS — proceed to Step 5. Attach the eval summary (weighted average, any warnings).
2. If verdict is FAIL — revise the BRD to address ALL error-severity findings. Re-run the evaluator with incremented iteration and previous score.
3. Ratchet rule: weighted_average must be >= previous iteration's score. If it decreases, revert to the previous version and try a different revision approach.
4. After 3 iterations without PASS — present the best-scoring version to the human with all findings attached. Note: "Phase evaluator did not reach threshold after 3 iterations. Findings below require human judgment."

Step 5 — Present for Human Approval

Display the BRD and ask: "Does this BRD accurately capture the requirements? Approve to proceed to /spec, or provide corrections."

---

Output

File	Purpose
specs/brd/brd.md	Full BRD for a new project
specs/brd/feature-{name}.md	BRD for a feature addition
specs/brd/brd-requirements.json	Machine-readable requirement spine; each BR carries traces to FRD/clarification ids and taxonomy slots
specs/brd/brd-acceptance.json	Postconditions split into individually traceable BR-n-ACm ids — what /spec Step 6.46 checks
specs/brd/brd-safeguards.json	Invariants, prohibitions, limits, and norms — required trace targets for the Canvas
specs/brd/taxonomy-coverage.json	Recorded na_reason for any taxonomy slot no requirement covers
specs/reviews/brd-taxonomy.json	Ten-slot comprehensiveness verdict (pass, uncovered[], unjustified[])
specs/brd/source-frd.md	(FRD mode) immutable copy of the provided FRD — the grounding baseline
specs/brd/frd-requirements.json	(FRD mode) extracted FRD-n requirements the BRD is checked against
specs/brd/interview-requirements.json	(interview mode) confirmed INT-n requirement spine — the grounding baseline
specs/brd/clarification-log.json	Confirmed interrogation answers (C-n) — the only sanctioned net-new content
specs/brd/brd-analysis.json	SPDD-grade analysis pack: Domain Concepts, Ambiguity Table, Edge-Case Table, decision log, AC Coverage Matrix, and Risk & Gap Table
specs/reviews/brd-grounding.json	deterministic grounding verdict (pass, net_new[], dropped[])
specs/brd/sprint-N/*	(delta mode) sprint-N's BRD artifact set, same shape as the flat sprint-1 layout

---

Gate

Grounding gate — hard block (both modes). grounding-check.js proves mechanically that the BRD invented nothing (net_new) and dropped nothing (dropped) relative to the FRD spine (FRD mode) or the confirmed interview spine (interview mode), plus clarifications. Any violation blocks before the rubric even runs, regardless of quality score — see Step 4.4.

Taxonomy floor — hard block (both modes). brd-taxonomy-check.js proves every one of the ten requirement slots is either covered by a tagged requirement or excused with a substantive, committed reason — the check the grounding gate structurally cannot make, since grounding is relative to a source that may itself be silent. See Step 4.45.

Phase evaluation gate runs before human approval. The evaluator agent (artifact mode) scores the BRD against 5 criteria (completeness, traceability, specificity, consistency, actionability). Threshold: average >= 7.0, all criteria >= 5. In both modes the traceability criterion is anchored to the grounding verdict, and the completeness criterion to the taxonomy verdict, rather than free judgement.

Human approval is still required before proceeding to /spec. The gates validate quality + grounding; the human validates intent.

Do not auto-advance. Wait for explicit approval or correction.

---

Gotchas

• Do not skip the interview. Never generate a BRD from a single sentence of input.
• Do not skip Dimension 2.5. Alternatives must be explored and documented.
• Avoid vague success metrics. "Users are happy" is not a metric. Push for numbers.
• Check existing code first. Proposing a new auth system when one already exists wastes cycles.
• Confirm each dimension before moving on. Misunderstood requirements compound.
• Do not conflate MVP with the full product. MVP is the smallest deployable slice.