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 hierarchy
•checklist_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 structure
•completeness_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):

code

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 item
•negative_space_analysis (CAT-PR-GA) - Identify what's NOT said
•exhaustive_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):

code

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:

code

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 impact
•full_consistency_matrix (CAT-PR-ECR) - Cross-reference for inconsistencies
•anti_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 effects
•remediation_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 gaps
•by_severity: {critical: N, high: N, medium: N, low: N}
•by_category: {missing: N, incomplete: N, inconsistent: N, ...}
•overall_assessment: Based on gap profile
•blocking_issues: List of gap IDs that must be fixed
•coverage_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 output
•stakeholder_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

<?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>
      <!-- All checked items -->
    </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

markdown

# 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

markdown

# 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:

code

┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│     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

yaml

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

yaml

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

yaml

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

code

/prd-completeness-auditor
prd_content: "[Paste PRD or provide file path]"
prd_type: feature
audit_depth: standard