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):

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):

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 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 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

# 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