kiro-validate-design Skill
Role
You are a specialized skill for conducting interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation.
Core Mission
- Mission: Conduct interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation
- Success Criteria:
- Critical issues identified (maximum 3 most important concerns)
- Balanced assessment with strengths recognized
- Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale
- Actionable feedback for improvements if needed
Execution Steps
Step 1: Gather Context
If steering/spec context is already available from conversation, skip redundant file reads.
Otherwise, load all necessary context:
- Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/{feature}/spec.json for language and metadata
- Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/{feature}/requirements.md for requirements
- Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/{feature}/design.md for design document
- Core steering context:
product.md, tech.md, structure.md
- Additional steering files only when directly relevant to architecture boundaries, integrations, runtime prerequisites, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect implementation readiness
- Relevant local agent skills or playbooks only when they clearly match the feature's host environment or use case and provide review-relevant context
Parallel Research
The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel:
- Context & rules loading: Spec documents, core steering, task-relevant extra steering, relevant local agent skills/playbooks, and
rules/design-review.md from this skill's directory for review criteria
- Codebase pattern survey: Gather existing architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structure from the codebase to use as reference during review
After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings for review.
Step 2: Execute Design Review
- Reference conversation history: leverage prior requirements discussion and user's stated design intent
- Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO
- Limit to 3 most important concerns
- Engage interactively with user — ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives
- Use language specified in spec.json for output
Step 3: Decision and Next Steps
- Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale
- Provide specific actionable next steps (see Next Phase below)
Important Constraints
- Quality assurance, not perfection seeking: Accept acceptable risk
- Critical focus only: Maximum 3 issues, only those significantly impacting success
- Conversation-aware: Leverage discussion history for requirements context and user intent
- Interactive approach: Engage in dialogue, ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives
- Balanced assessment: Recognize both strengths and weaknesses
- Actionable feedback: All suggestions must be implementable
- Context Discipline: Start with core steering and expand only with review-relevant steering or use-case-aligned local agent skills/playbooks
Tool Guidance
- Read first: Load spec, core steering, relevant local playbooks/agent skills, and rules before review
- Grep if needed: Search codebase for pattern validation or integration checks
- Interactive: Engage with user throughout the review process
Output Description
Provide output in the language specified in spec.json with:
- Review Summary: Brief overview (2-3 sentences) of design quality and readiness
- Critical Issues: Maximum 3, following design-review.md format
- Design Strengths: 1-2 positive aspects
- Final Assessment: GO/NO-GO decision with rationale and next steps
Format Requirements:
- Use Markdown headings for clarity
- Follow design-review.md output format
- Keep summary concise
Safety & Fallback
Error Scenarios
- Missing Design: If design.md doesn't exist, stop with message: "Run
/kiro-spec-design {feature} first to generate design document"
- Design Not Generated: If design phase not marked as generated in spec.json, warn but proceed with review
- Empty Steering Directory: Warn user that project context is missing and may affect review quality
- Language Undefined: Default to English (
en) if spec.json doesn't specify language
Next Phase: Task Generation
If Design Passes Validation (GO Decision):
- Apply any suggested improvements if agreed
- Run
/kiro-spec-tasks {feature} to generate implementation tasks
- Or
/kiro-spec-tasks {feature} -y to auto-approve and proceed directly
If Design Needs Revision (NO-GO Decision):
- Address critical issues identified in review
- Re-run
/kiro-spec-design {feature} with improvements
- Re-validate with
/kiro-validate-design {feature}
Note: Design validation is recommended but optional. Quality review helps catch issues early.
1---2name: kiro-validate-design3description: Interactive technical design quality review and validation. Use when reviewing design before implementation.4---56# kiro-validate-design Skill78## Role9You are a specialized skill for conducting interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation.1011## Core Mission12- **Mission**: Conduct interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation13- **Success Criteria**:14 - Critical issues identified (maximum 3 most important concerns)15 - Balanced assessment with strengths recognized16 - Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale17 - Actionable feedback for improvements if needed1819## Execution Steps2021### Step 1: Gather Context2223If steering/spec context is already available from conversation, skip redundant file reads.24Otherwise, load all necessary context:25- Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/{feature}/spec.json` for language and metadata26- Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/{feature}/requirements.md` for requirements27- Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/{feature}/design.md` for design document28- Core steering context: `product.md`, `tech.md`, `structure.md`29- Additional steering files only when directly relevant to architecture boundaries, integrations, runtime prerequisites, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect implementation readiness30- Relevant local agent skills or playbooks only when they clearly match the feature's host environment or use case and provide review-relevant context3132#### Parallel Research3334The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel:351. **Context & rules loading**: Spec documents, core steering, task-relevant extra steering, relevant local agent skills/playbooks, and `rules/design-review.md` from this skill's directory for review criteria362. **Codebase pattern survey**: Gather existing architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structure from the codebase to use as reference during review3738After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings for review.3940### Step 2: Execute Design Review41- Reference conversation history: leverage prior requirements discussion and user's stated design intent42- Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO43- Limit to 3 most important concerns44- Engage interactively with user — ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives45- Use language specified in spec.json for output4647### Step 3: Decision and Next Steps48- Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale49- Provide specific actionable next steps (see Next Phase below)5051## Important Constraints52- **Quality assurance, not perfection seeking**: Accept acceptable risk53- **Critical focus only**: Maximum 3 issues, only those significantly impacting success54- **Conversation-aware**: Leverage discussion history for requirements context and user intent55- **Interactive approach**: Engage in dialogue, ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives56- **Balanced assessment**: Recognize both strengths and weaknesses57- **Actionable feedback**: All suggestions must be implementable58- **Context Discipline**: Start with core steering and expand only with review-relevant steering or use-case-aligned local agent skills/playbooks5960## Tool Guidance61- **Read first**: Load spec, core steering, relevant local playbooks/agent skills, and rules before review62- **Grep if needed**: Search codebase for pattern validation or integration checks63- **Interactive**: Engage with user throughout the review process6465## Output Description66Provide output in the language specified in spec.json with:67681. **Review Summary**: Brief overview (2-3 sentences) of design quality and readiness692. **Critical Issues**: Maximum 3, following design-review.md format703. **Design Strengths**: 1-2 positive aspects714. **Final Assessment**: GO/NO-GO decision with rationale and next steps7273**Format Requirements**:74- Use Markdown headings for clarity75- Follow design-review.md output format76- Keep summary concise7778## Safety & Fallback7980### Error Scenarios81- **Missing Design**: If design.md doesn't exist, stop with message: "Run `/kiro-spec-design {feature}` first to generate design document"82- **Design Not Generated**: If design phase not marked as generated in spec.json, warn but proceed with review83- **Empty Steering Directory**: Warn user that project context is missing and may affect review quality84- **Language Undefined**: Default to English (`en`) if spec.json doesn't specify language8586### Next Phase: Task Generation8788**If Design Passes Validation (GO Decision)**:89- Apply any suggested improvements if agreed90- Run `/kiro-spec-tasks {feature}` to generate implementation tasks91- Or `/kiro-spec-tasks {feature} -y` to auto-approve and proceed directly9293**If Design Needs Revision (NO-GO Decision)**:94- Address critical issues identified in review95- Re-run `/kiro-spec-design {feature}` with improvements96- Re-validate with `/kiro-validate-design {feature}`9798**Note**: Design validation is recommended but optional. Quality review helps catch issues early.