Step 10: SMART Requirements Validation

STEP GOAL:

Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable), ensuring high-quality requirements.

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}
• ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in {document_output_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 systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
• ✅ You bring requirements engineering expertise and quality assessment
• ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed

Step-Specific Rules:

• 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR quality assessment using SMART framework
• 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
• 💬 Approach: Score each FR on SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
• 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete

EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:

• 🎯 Extract all FRs from PRD
• 🎯 Score each FR on SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable)
• 💾 Flag FRs with score < 3 in any category
• 📖 Append scoring table and suggestions to validation report
• 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
• 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input

CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:

• Available context: PRD file, validation report
• Focus: FR quality assessment only using SMART framework
• Limits: Don't validate NFRs or other aspects, don't pause for user input
• Dependencies: Steps 2-9 completed - comprehensive validation checks done

MANDATORY SEQUENCE

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

1. Extract All Functional Requirements

From the PRD's Functional Requirements section, extract:

• All FRs with their FR numbers (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
• Count total FRs

2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation

Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:

"Perform SMART requirements validation on these Functional Requirements:

{List all FRs}

For each FR, score on SMART criteria (1-5 scale):

Specific (1-5):

• 5: Clear, unambiguous, well-defined
• 3: Somewhat clear but could be more specific
• 1: Vague, ambiguous, unclear

Measurable (1-5):

• 5: Quantifiable metrics, testable
• 3: Partially measurable
• 1: Not measurable, subjective

Attainable (1-5):

• 5: Realistic, achievable with constraints
• 3: Probably achievable but uncertain
• 1: Unrealistic, technically infeasible

Relevant (1-5):

• 5: Clearly aligned with user needs and business objectives
• 3: Somewhat relevant but connection unclear
• 1: Not relevant, doesn't align with goals

Traceable (1-5):

• 5: Clearly traces to user journey or business objective
• 3: Partially traceable
• 1: Orphan requirement, no clear source

For each FR with score < 3 in any category:

• Provide specific improvement suggestions

Return scoring table with all FR scores and improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs."

Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):

• Manually score each FR on SMART criteria
• Note FRs with low scores
• Provide improvement suggestions

3. Build Scoring Table

For each FR:

• FR number
• Specific score (1-5)
• Measurable score (1-5)
• Attainable score (1-5)
• Relevant score (1-5)
• Traceable score (1-5)
• Average score
• Flag if any category < 3

Calculate overall FR quality:

• Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 3
• Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 4
• Average score across all FRs and categories

4. Report SMART Findings to Validation Report

Append to validation report:

## SMART Requirements Validation

**Total Functional Requirements:** {count}

### Scoring Summary

**All scores ≥ 3:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
**All scores ≥ 4:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
**Overall Average Score:** {average}/5.0

### Scoring Table

| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag |
|------|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----------|--------|------|
| FR-001 | {s1} | {m1} | {a1} | {r1} | {t1} | {avg1} | {X if any <3} |
| FR-002 | {s2} | {m2} | {a2} | {r2} | {t2} | {avg2} | {X if any <3} |
[Continue for all FRs]

**Legend:** 1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent
**Flag:** X = Score < 3 in one or more categories

### Improvement Suggestions

**Low-Scoring FRs:**

**FR-{number}:** {specific suggestion for improvement}
[For each FR with score < 3 in any category]

### Overall Assessment

**Severity:** [Critical if >30% flagged FRs, Warning if 10-30%, Pass if <10%]

**Recommendation:**
[If Critical] "Many FRs have quality issues. Revise flagged FRs using SMART framework to improve clarity and testability."
[If Warning] "Some FRs would benefit from SMART refinement. Focus on flagged requirements above."
[If Pass] "Functional Requirements demonstrate good SMART quality overall."

5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed

Display: "SMART Requirements Validation Complete

FR Quality: {percentage}% with acceptable scores ({severity})

Proceeding to next validation check..."

Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md)

🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS

✅ SUCCESS:

• All FRs extracted from PRD
• Each FR scored on all 5 SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
• FRs with scores < 3 flagged for improvement
• Improvement suggestions provided for low-scoring FRs
• Scoring table built with all FR scores
• Overall quality assessment calculated
• Findings reported to validation report
• Auto-proceeds to next validation step
• Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation

❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:

• Not scoring all FRs on all SMART criteria
• Missing improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs
• Not building scoring table
• Not calculating overall quality metrics
• Not reporting findings to validation report
• Not auto-proceeding

Master Rule: FRs should be high-quality, not just present. SMART framework provides objective quality measure.