Step 2B: Document Parity Check

STEP GOAL:

Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity, presenting user with options for how to proceed.

MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):

Universal Rules:

• 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
• 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
• 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
• 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
• ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config {communication_language}

Role Reinforcement:

• ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
• ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
• ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
• ✅ You bring BMAD PRD standards expertise and gap analysis
• ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context

Step-Specific Rules:

• 🎯 Focus ONLY on analyzing gaps and estimating parity effort
• 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step
• 💬 Approach: Systematic gap analysis with clear recommendations
• 🚪 This is an optional branch step - user chooses next action

EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:

• 🎯 Analyze each BMAD PRD section for gaps
• 💾 Append parity analysis to validation report
• 📖 Present options and await user decision
• 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection

CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:

• Available context: Non-standard PRD from step 2, validation report in progress
• Focus: Parity analysis only - what's missing, what's needed
• Limits: Don't perform validation checks, don't auto-proceed
• Dependencies: Step 2 classified PRD as non-standard and user chose parity check

MANDATORY SEQUENCE

CRITICAL: Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.

1. Analyze Each BMAD PRD Section

For each of the 6 BMAD PRD core sections, analyze:

Executive Summary:

• Does PRD have vision/overview?
• Is problem statement clear?
• Are target users identified?
• Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]

Success Criteria:

• Are measurable goals defined?
• Is success clearly defined?
• Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]

Product Scope:

• Is scope clearly defined?
• Are in-scope items listed?
• Are out-of-scope items listed?
• Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]

User Journeys:

• Are user types/personas identified?
• Are user flows documented?
• Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]

Functional Requirements:

• Are features/capabilities listed?
• Are requirements structured?
• Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]

Non-Functional Requirements:

• Are quality attributes defined?
• Are performance/security/etc. requirements documented?
• Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]

2. Estimate Effort to Reach Parity

For each missing or incomplete section, estimate:

Effort Level:

• Minimal - Section exists but needs minor enhancements
• Moderate - Section missing but content exists elsewhere in PRD
• Significant - Section missing, requires new content creation

Total Parity Effort:

• Based on individual section estimates
• Classify overall: Quick / Moderate / Substantial effort

3. Report Parity Analysis to Validation Report

Append to validation report:

## Parity Analysis (Non-Standard PRD)

### Section-by-Section Gap Analysis

**Executive Summary:**
- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
- Gap: [specific gap description]
- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]

**Success Criteria:**
- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
- Gap: [specific gap description]
- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]

**Product Scope:**
- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
- Gap: [specific gap description]
- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]

**User Journeys:**
- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
- Gap: [specific gap description]
- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]

**Functional Requirements:**
- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
- Gap: [specific gap description]
- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]

**Non-Functional Requirements:**
- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
- Gap: [specific gap description]
- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]

### Overall Parity Assessment

**Overall Effort to Reach BMAD Standard:** [Quick/Moderate/Substantial]
**Recommendation:** [Brief recommendation based on analysis]

4. Present Parity Analysis and Options

Display:

"Parity Analysis Complete

Your PRD is missing {count} of 6 core BMAD PRD sections. The overall effort to reach BMAD standard is: {effort level}

Quick Summary: [2-3 sentence summary of key gaps]

Recommendation: {recommendation from analysis}

How would you like to proceed?"

5. Present MENU OPTIONS

[C] Continue Validation - Proceed with validation using current structure [E] Exit & Review - Exit validation and review parity report [S] Save & Exit - Save parity report and exit

EXECUTION RULES:

• ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
• Only proceed based on user selection

Menu Handling Logic:

• IF C (Continue): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then read fully and follow: {nextStepFile}
• IF E (Exit): Display parity summary and exit validation
• IF S (Save): Confirm saved, display summary, exit
• IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu

🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS

✅ SUCCESS:

• All 6 BMAD PRD sections analyzed for gaps
• Effort estimates provided for each gap
• Overall parity effort assessed correctly
• Parity analysis reported to validation report
• Clear summary presented to user
• User can choose to continue validation, exit, or save report

❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:

• Not analyzing all 6 sections systematically
• Missing effort estimates
• Not reporting parity analysis to validation report
• Auto-proceeding without user decision
• Unclear recommendations

Master Rule: Parity check informs user of gaps and effort, but user decides whether to proceed with validation or address gaps first.