Technical Validation Command

User Input (Optional)

$ARGUMENTS

Optional input:

• •Empty: Auto-determine validation method based on analysis.md
• •Provided: Must consider user instructions (e.g., specific validation method, additional requirements)

Outline

1. •

   Check Prerequisites:

   • •Verify docs/work/WORK-{name}/analysis.md exists
   • •If not, ERROR: "Run /workflow-analyze first"
2. •

   Load Analysis Document:

   • •Extract selected approach from analysis.md
   • •Identify key technical assumptions and risks
3. •

   Determine Validation Method:

   • •Choose appropriate validation approach based on context:
     • •Prototype implementation
     • •UI/UX verification (Playwright MCP)
     • •TDD approach
     • •Library/API exploration
     • •Technical documentation research
     • •User verification delegation
4. •

   Execute Validation:

   • •Perform selected validation method
   • •Create prototype code in __prototype__/{feature-name}/ if needed
   • •Collect results and evidence
5. •

   Assess Results:

   • •Determine status: ✅ Success / ⚠️ Partial Success / ❌ Failure
   • •Document findings and constraints
6. •

   Write Documents (Dual Language):

   • •Create docs/work/WORK-{name}/validation.ko.md (Korean - for user reference)
   • •Create docs/work/WORK-{name}/validation.md (English - for agent consumption)
   • •Include clear next steps recommendation

Key Rules

Documentation Language

CRITICAL: You must generate TWO versions of all documents:

1. •Korean version (validation.ko.md): For user reference - written in Korean
2. •English version (validation.md): For agent consumption - written in English

Both versions must contain identical structure and information, only the language differs.

Validation Principles

1. •Focus on Core Risks: Validate only critical technical uncertainties
2. •Practical Approach: Sufficient confidence over perfect validation
3. •Clear Judgement: Explicit success/failure with next steps

Must Do

• •Validate only what's uncertain
• •Create minimal working code (if prototype)
• •Document all findings clearly
• •Provide actionable next steps
• •Reference analysis.md for context
• •Store prototype in __prototype__/ directory

Must Not Do

• •Full implementation (save for execute phase)
• •Validate obvious/known facts
• •Repeat analysis.md content
• •Give ambiguous conclusions ("maybe works")
• •Over-engineer the validation

Validation Methods Selection

Choose based on uncertainty type:

Prototype Code Management

Location: __prototype__/{feature-name}/

How to create:

• •Validate directly in actual codebase (modifying files is OK)
• •After validation, extract core logic to __prototype__/
• •Don't commit actual code changes (revert or leave as-is)

Purpose:

• •Reference for plan/execute phases
• •Archive of validated core logic
• •Proof of technical feasibility

Lifecycle:

• •Created during validate
• •Referenced in execute
• •User manages cleanup

Validation Status Guidelines

Success Criteria

• •All core technical assumptions validated
• •No blocking issues found
• •Clear path to implementation
• •Next: Proceed to /workflow-plan

Partial Success Criteria

• •Main approach works with constraints
• •Workarounds or alternatives available
• •Trade-offs acceptable
• •Next: Document constraints, get user confirmation

Failure Criteria

• •Core approach not feasible
• •Blocking issues without workarounds
• •Fundamental assumptions invalid
• •Next: Return to /workflow-analyze for re-evaluation

Spike Principles

This validation follows Agile Spike methodology:

1. •Risk Reduction: Focus on highest risk items
2. •Just Enough: Minimal code for maximum learning
3. •Throwaway Code: Prototypes are for learning, not production
4. •Clear Outcome: Binary decision on feasibility

Execution

Now start the validation task according to the guidelines above.