Story Verification Skill
Validate Stories/Tasks with explicit GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score, and Anti-Hallucination verification.
Purpose & Scope
- Validate Story plus child Tasks against industry standards and project patterns
- Calculate Penalty Points for violations, then auto-fix to reach 0 points
- Delegate to ln-002-best-practices-researcher for creating documentation (guides, manuals, ADRs, research)
- Support Plan Mode: show audit results, wait for approval, then fix
- Approve Story after fixes (Backlog -> Todo) with tabular output summary
When to Use
- Reviewing Stories before approval (Backlog -> Todo)
- Validating implementation path across Story and Tasks
- Ensuring standards, architecture, and solution fit
- Optimizing or correcting proposed approaches
Penalty Points System
Goal: Quantitative assessment of Story/Tasks quality. Target = 0 penalty points after fixes.
| Severity |
Points |
Description |
| CRITICAL |
10 |
RFC/OWASP/security violations |
| HIGH |
5 |
Outdated libraries, architecture issues |
| MEDIUM |
3 |
Best practices violations |
| LOW |
1 |
Structural/cosmetic issues |
Workflow:
- Audit: Calculate penalty points for all 17 criteria
- Fix: Auto-fix and zero out points
- Report: Total Before -> 0 After
Mode Detection
Detect operating mode at startup:
Plan Mode Active:
- Phase 1-2: Full audit (discovery + research + penalty calculation)
- Phase 3: Show results + fix plan -> WAIT for user approval
- Phase 4-5: After approval -> execute fixes
Normal Mode:
- Phase 1-5: Standard workflow without stopping
- Automatically fix and approve
Workflow Overview
Phase 1: Discovery & Loading
Step 1: Configuration & Metadata Loading
- Auto-discover configuration: Team ID (
docs/tasks/kanban_board.md), project docs (CLAUDE.md), epic from Story.project
- Load metadata only: Story ID/title/status/labels, child Task IDs/titles/status/labels
- Expect 3-8 implementation tasks; record parentId for filtering
- Rationale: keep loading light; full descriptions arrive in Phase 2
Phase 2: Research & Audit
Always execute for every Story - no exceptions.
Step 1: Domain Extraction
- Extract technical domains from Story title + Technical Notes + Implementation Tasks
- Load pattern registry from
references/domain_patterns.md
- Scan Story content for pattern matches via keyword detection
- Build list of detected domains requiring documentation
Step 2: Documentation Delegation
Step 3: Research via MCP
- Query MCP Ref for industry standards:
ref_search_documentation(query="[topic] RFC OWASP best practices 2025")
- Query Context7 for library versions:
resolve-library-id + query-docs
- Extract: standards (RFC numbers, OWASP rules), library versions, patterns
Step 3.5: Anti-Hallucination Verification
- Scan Story/Tasks for technical claims (RFC references, library versions, security requirements)
- Verify each claim has MCP Ref/Context7 evidence
- Flag unverified claims for correction
- Status: VERIFIED (all sourced) or FLAGGED (list unverified)
Step 4: Penalty Points Calculation
- Evaluate all 17 criteria against Story/Tasks
- Assign penalty points per violation (CRITICAL=10, HIGH=5, MEDIUM=3, LOW=1)
- Calculate total penalty points
- Build fix plan for each violation
Phase 3: Audit Results & Fix Plan
Display audit results:
- Penalty Points table (criterion, severity, points, description)
- Total: X penalty points
- Fix Plan: list of fixes for each criterion
Mode handling:
- IF Plan Mode: Show results + "After your approval, changes will be applied" -> WAIT
- ELSE (Normal Mode): Proceed to Phase 4 immediately
Phase 4: Auto-Fix
Execute fixes for ALL 17 criteria on the spot.
- Execution order (6 groups):
- Structural (#1-#4) — Story/Tasks template compliance
- Standards (#5) — RFC/OWASP compliance FIRST (before YAGNI/KISS!)
- Solution (#6) — Library versions
- Workflow (#7-#13) — Test strategy, docs integration, size, cleanup, YAGNI, KISS, task order
- Quality (#14-#15) — Documentation complete, hardcoded values
- Traceability (#16-#17) — Story-Task alignment, AC coverage (LAST, after all fixes)
- Use Auto-Fix Actions table below as authoritative checklist
- Zero out penalty points as fixes applied
- Test Strategy section must exist but remain empty (testing handled separately)
Phase 5: Approve & Notify
- Set Story + all Tasks to Todo (Linear); update
kanban_board.md with APPROVED marker
- Add Linear comment with full validation summary:
- Penalty Points table (Before -> After = 0)
- Auto-Fixes Applied table
- Documentation Created table (docs created via ln-002)
- Standards Compliance Evidence table
- Display tabular output (Unicode box-drawing) to terminal
- Final: Total Penalty Points = 0
- Optional: If
--execute flag provided, delegate to ln-400-story-executor to start execution immediately after approval
Auto-Fix Actions Reference
Structural (#1-#4)
| # |
Criterion |
What it checks |
Penalty |
Auto-fix actions |
| 1 |
Story Structure |
8 sections per template |
LOW (1) |
Add/reorder sections with TODO placeholders; update Linear |
| 2 |
Tasks Structure |
Each Task has 7 sections |
LOW (1) |
Load each Task; add/reorder sections; update Linear |
| 3 |
Story Statement |
As a/I want/So that clarity |
LOW (1) |
Rewrite using persona/capability/value; update Linear |
| 4 |
Acceptance Criteria |
Given/When/Then, 3-5 items |
MEDIUM (3) |
Normalize to G/W/T; add edge cases; update Linear |
Standards (#5)
| # |
Criterion |
What it checks |
Penalty |
Auto-fix actions |
| 5 |
Standards Compliance |
RFC, OWASP, REST, Security |
CRITICAL (10) |
Query MCP Ref; update Technical Notes with compliant approach |
Solution (#6)
| # |
Criterion |
What it checks |
Penalty |
Auto-fix actions |
| 6 |
Library & Version |
Libraries are latest stable |
HIGH (5) |
Query Context7; update to recommended versions |
Workflow (#7-#13)
| # |
Criterion |
What it checks |
Penalty |
Auto-fix actions |
| 7 |
Test Strategy |
Section exists but empty |
LOW (1) |
Ensure section present; leave empty (testing handled separately) |
| 8 |
Documentation Integration |
No standalone doc tasks |
MEDIUM (3) |
Remove doc-only tasks; fold into implementation DoD |
| 9 |
Story Size |
3-8 tasks; 3-5h each |
MEDIUM (3) |
If <3 or >8, add TODO; flag task size issues |
| 10 |
Test Task Cleanup |
No premature test tasks |
MEDIUM (3) |
Remove test tasks before final; testing appears later |
| 11 |
YAGNI |
No premature features |
MEDIUM (3) |
Move speculative items to Out of Scope unless standards require |
| 12 |
KISS |
Simplest solution |
MEDIUM (3) |
Simplify unless standards require complexity |
| 13 |
Task Order |
DB→Service→API→UI |
MEDIUM (3) |
Reorder Tasks foundation-first |
Quality (#14-#15)
| # |
Criterion |
What it checks |
Penalty |
Auto-fix actions |
| 14 |
Documentation Complete |
Pattern docs exist + referenced |
HIGH (5) |
Delegate to ln-002; add all doc links to Technical Notes |
| 15 |
Code Quality Basics |
No hardcoded values |
MEDIUM (3) |
Add TODOs for constants/config/env |
Traceability (#16-#17)
| # |
Criterion |
What it checks |
Penalty |
Auto-fix actions |
| 16 |
Story-Task Alignment |
Tasks implement Story statement |
MEDIUM (3) |
Add TODO to misaligned Tasks; warn user |
| 17 |
AC-Task Coverage |
Each AC has implementing Task |
MEDIUM (3) |
Add TODO for uncovered ACs; suggest missing Tasks |
Maximum Penalty: 50 points
Final Assessment Model
Outputs after all fixes applied:
| Metric |
Value |
Meaning |
| Gate |
GO / NO-GO |
Final verdict for execution readiness |
| Readiness Score |
1-10 |
Quality confidence level |
| Penalty Points |
0 (after fixes) |
Validation completeness |
| Anti-Hallucination |
VERIFIED / FLAGGED |
Technical claims verified |
| AC Coverage |
100% (N/N) |
All ACs mapped to Tasks |
Readiness Score Calculation
Readiness Score = 10 - (Penalty Points / 5)
| Score |
Status |
Gate |
| 9-10 |
Excellent |
GO |
| 7-8 |
Good |
GO |
| 5-6 |
Acceptable |
GO (with notes) |
| 3-4 |
Concerns |
NO-GO (requires review) |
| 1-2 |
Critical |
NO-GO (major issues) |
Anti-Hallucination Verification
Verify technical claims have evidence:
| Claim Type |
Verification |
| RFC/Standard reference |
MCP Ref search confirms existence |
| Library version |
Context7 query confirms version |
| Security requirement |
OWASP/CWE reference exists |
| Performance claim |
Benchmark/doc reference |
Status: VERIFIED (all claims sourced) or FLAGGED (unverified claims listed)
Task-AC Coverage Matrix
Output explicit mapping:
| AC | Task(s) | Coverage |
|----|---------|----------|
| AC1: Given/When/Then | T-001, T-002 | ✅ |
| AC2: Given/When/Then | T-003 | ✅ |
| AC3: Given/When/Then | — | ❌ UNCOVERED |
Coverage: {covered}/{total} ACs (target: 100%)
Self-Audit Protocol (Mandatory)
Before marking any criterion as complete, provide concrete evidence (doc path, MCP result, Linear update).
| # |
Self-Audit Question |
Required Evidence |
| 1 |
Validated all 8 Story sections? |
Section list |
| 2 |
Loaded full description for each Task? |
Task validation count |
| 3 |
Statement in As a/I want/So that? |
Quoted statement |
| 4 |
AC are G/W/T and testable? |
AC count and format |
| 5 |
Verified RFC/OWASP/REST compliance? |
Standards list + MCP result |
| 6 |
Checked library versions via Context7? |
Context7 result |
| 7 |
Test Strategy kept empty? |
Note that testing deferred |
| 8 |
Docs integrated, no standalone tasks? |
Integration evidence |
| 9 |
Task count 3-8 and 3-5h? |
Task count/sizes |
| 10 |
No premature test tasks? |
Search result |
| 11 |
Only current-scope features (YAGNI)? |
Scope review |
| 12 |
Simplest approach within standards (KISS)? |
Simplicity justification |
| 13 |
Tasks ordered Foundation-First? |
Task order list |
| 14 |
All pattern docs exist and referenced? |
Doc paths from ln-002 |
| 15 |
Hardcoded values handled? |
TODO/config evidence |
| 16 |
Each Task aligns with Story statement? |
Alignment check result |
| 17 |
Each AC has implementing Task? |
Coverage matrix |
Definition of Done
Example Workflow
Story: "Create user management API with rate limiting"
- Phase 1: Load metadata (5 Tasks, status Backlog)
- Phase 2:
- Domain extraction: REST API, Rate Limiting
- Delegate ln-002: creates Guide-05 (REST patterns), Guide-06 (Rate Limiting)
- MCP Ref: RFC 7231 compliance, OWASP API Security
- Context7: Express v4.19 (current v4.17)
- Penalty Points: 18 total (version=5, missing docs=5, structure=3, standards=5)
- Phase 3:
- Show Penalty Points table
- IF Plan Mode: "18 penalty points found. Fix plan ready. Approve?"
- Phase 4:
- Fix #6: Update Express v4.17 -> v4.19
- Fix #5: Add RFC 7231 compliance notes
- Fix #13: Add Guide-05, Guide-06 references
- Fix #17: Docs already created by ln-002
- All fixes applied, Penalty Points = 0
- Phase 5: Story -> Todo, tabular report
Template Loading
Templates: story_template.md, task_template_implementation.md
Loading Logic:
- Check if
docs/templates/{template}.md exists in target project
- IF NOT EXISTS:
a. Create
docs/templates/ directory if missing
b. Copy shared/templates/{template}.md → docs/templates/{template}.md
c. Replace placeholders in the LOCAL copy:
{{TEAM_ID}} → from docs/tasks/kanban_board.md
{{DOCS_PATH}} → "docs" (standard)
- Use LOCAL copy (
docs/templates/{template}.md) for all validation operations
Rationale: Templates are copied to target project on first use, ensuring:
- Project independence (no dependency on skills repository)
- Customization possible (project can modify local templates)
- Placeholder replacement happens once at copy time
Reference Files
- Final Assessment:
references/readiness_scoring.md (GO/NO-GO rules, Readiness Score calculation)
- Templates (centralized):
shared/templates/story_template.md, shared/templates/task_template_implementation.md
- Local copies:
docs/templates/ (in target project)
- Validation Checklists (Progressive Disclosure):
references/verification_checklist_template.md (overview of 6 categories)
references/structural_validation.md (criteria #1-#4)
references/standards_validation.md (criterion #5)
references/solution_validation.md (criterion #6)
references/workflow_validation.md (criteria #7-#13)
references/quality_validation.md (criteria #14-#15)
references/traceability_validation.md (criteria #16-#17)
references/domain_patterns.md (pattern registry for ln-002 delegation)
references/penalty_points.md (penalty system details)
- Linear integration:
../shared/templates/linear_integration.md
Version: 6.0.0 (Added GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score, Anti-Hallucination verification based on BMAD validate-next-story methodology)
Last Updated: 2026-01-29
1---2name: ln-310-story-validator-43description: Validates Stories/Tasks with GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score (1-10), Penalty Points, and Anti-Hallucination verification. Auto-fixes to reach 0 points, delegates to ln-002 for docs. Use when reviewing Stories before execution or when user requests validation.4---56# Story Verification Skill78Validate Stories/Tasks with explicit GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score, and Anti-Hallucination verification.910## Purpose & Scope1112- Validate Story plus child Tasks against industry standards and project patterns13- Calculate Penalty Points for violations, then auto-fix to reach 0 points14- Delegate to ln-002-best-practices-researcher for creating documentation (guides, manuals, ADRs, research)15- Support Plan Mode: show audit results, wait for approval, then fix16- Approve Story after fixes (Backlog -> Todo) with tabular output summary1718## When to Use1920- Reviewing Stories before approval (Backlog -> Todo)21- Validating implementation path across Story and Tasks22- Ensuring standards, architecture, and solution fit23- Optimizing or correcting proposed approaches2425## Penalty Points System2627**Goal:** Quantitative assessment of Story/Tasks quality. Target = 0 penalty points after fixes.2829| Severity | Points | Description |30|----------|--------|-------------|31| CRITICAL | 10 | RFC/OWASP/security violations |32| HIGH | 5 | Outdated libraries, architecture issues |33| MEDIUM | 3 | Best practices violations |34| LOW | 1 | Structural/cosmetic issues |3536**Workflow:**371. Audit: Calculate penalty points for all 17 criteria382. Fix: Auto-fix and zero out points393. Report: Total Before -> 0 After4041## Mode Detection4243Detect operating mode at startup:4445**Plan Mode Active:**46- Phase 1-2: Full audit (discovery + research + penalty calculation)47- Phase 3: Show results + fix plan -> WAIT for user approval48- Phase 4-5: After approval -> execute fixes4950**Normal Mode:**51- Phase 1-5: Standard workflow without stopping52- Automatically fix and approve5354## Workflow Overview5556### Phase 1: Discovery & Loading5758**Step 1: Configuration & Metadata Loading**59- Auto-discover configuration: Team ID (`docs/tasks/kanban_board.md`), project docs (`CLAUDE.md`), epic from Story.project60- Load metadata only: Story ID/title/status/labels, child Task IDs/titles/status/labels61- Expect 3-8 implementation tasks; record parentId for filtering62- Rationale: keep loading light; full descriptions arrive in Phase 26364### Phase 2: Research & Audit6566**Always execute for every Story - no exceptions.**6768**Step 1: Domain Extraction**69- Extract technical domains from Story title + Technical Notes + Implementation Tasks70- Load pattern registry from `references/domain_patterns.md`71- Scan Story content for pattern matches via keyword detection72- Build list of detected domains requiring documentation7374**Step 2: Documentation Delegation**75- For EACH detected pattern, delegate to ln-002:76 ```77 Skill(skill="ln-002-best-practices-researcher",78 args="doc_type=[guide|manual|adr] topic='[pattern]'")79 ```80- Receive file paths to created documentation (`docs/guides/`, `docs/manuals/`, `docs/adrs/`, `docs/research/`)8182**Step 3: Research via MCP**83- Query MCP Ref for industry standards: `ref_search_documentation(query="[topic] RFC OWASP best practices 2025")`84- Query Context7 for library versions: `resolve-library-id` + `query-docs`85- Extract: standards (RFC numbers, OWASP rules), library versions, patterns8687**Step 3.5: Anti-Hallucination Verification**88- Scan Story/Tasks for technical claims (RFC references, library versions, security requirements)89- Verify each claim has MCP Ref/Context7 evidence90- Flag unverified claims for correction91- Status: VERIFIED (all sourced) or FLAGGED (list unverified)9293**Step 4: Penalty Points Calculation**94- Evaluate all 17 criteria against Story/Tasks95- Assign penalty points per violation (CRITICAL=10, HIGH=5, MEDIUM=3, LOW=1)96- Calculate total penalty points97- Build fix plan for each violation9899### Phase 3: Audit Results & Fix Plan100101**Display audit results:**102- Penalty Points table (criterion, severity, points, description)103- Total: X penalty points104- Fix Plan: list of fixes for each criterion105106**Mode handling:**107- **IF Plan Mode:** Show results + "After your approval, changes will be applied" -> WAIT108- **ELSE (Normal Mode):** Proceed to Phase 4 immediately109110### Phase 4: Auto-Fix111112**Execute fixes for ALL 17 criteria on the spot.**113114- Execution order (6 groups):115 1. **Structural (#1-#4)** — Story/Tasks template compliance116 2. **Standards (#5)** — RFC/OWASP compliance FIRST (before YAGNI/KISS!)117 3. **Solution (#6)** — Library versions118 4. **Workflow (#7-#13)** — Test strategy, docs integration, size, cleanup, YAGNI, KISS, task order119 5. **Quality (#14-#15)** — Documentation complete, hardcoded values120 6. **Traceability (#16-#17)** — Story-Task alignment, AC coverage (LAST, after all fixes)121- Use Auto-Fix Actions table below as authoritative checklist122- Zero out penalty points as fixes applied123- Test Strategy section must exist but remain empty (testing handled separately)124125### Phase 5: Approve & Notify126127- Set Story + all Tasks to Todo (Linear); update `kanban_board.md` with APPROVED marker128- **Add Linear comment** with full validation summary:129 - Penalty Points table (Before -> After = 0)130 - Auto-Fixes Applied table131 - Documentation Created table (docs created via ln-002)132 - Standards Compliance Evidence table133- **Display tabular output** (Unicode box-drawing) to terminal134- Final: Total Penalty Points = 0135- **Optional:** If `--execute` flag provided, delegate to ln-400-story-executor to start execution immediately after approval136137## Auto-Fix Actions Reference138139### Structural (#1-#4)140141| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |142|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|143| 1 | Story Structure | 8 sections per template | LOW (1) | Add/reorder sections with TODO placeholders; update Linear |144| 2 | Tasks Structure | Each Task has 7 sections | LOW (1) | Load each Task; add/reorder sections; update Linear |145| 3 | Story Statement | As a/I want/So that clarity | LOW (1) | Rewrite using persona/capability/value; update Linear |146| 4 | Acceptance Criteria | Given/When/Then, 3-5 items | MEDIUM (3) | Normalize to G/W/T; add edge cases; update Linear |147148### Standards (#5)149150| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |151|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|152| 5 | Standards Compliance | RFC, OWASP, REST, Security | CRITICAL (10) | Query MCP Ref; update Technical Notes with compliant approach |153154### Solution (#6)155156| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |157|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|158| 6 | Library & Version | Libraries are latest stable | HIGH (5) | Query Context7; update to recommended versions |159160### Workflow (#7-#13)161162| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |163|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|164| 7 | Test Strategy | Section exists but empty | LOW (1) | Ensure section present; leave empty (testing handled separately) |165| 8 | Documentation Integration | No standalone doc tasks | MEDIUM (3) | Remove doc-only tasks; fold into implementation DoD |166| 9 | Story Size | 3-8 tasks; 3-5h each | MEDIUM (3) | If <3 or >8, add TODO; flag task size issues |167| 10 | Test Task Cleanup | No premature test tasks | MEDIUM (3) | Remove test tasks before final; testing appears later |168| 11 | YAGNI | No premature features | MEDIUM (3) | Move speculative items to Out of Scope unless standards require |169| 12 | KISS | Simplest solution | MEDIUM (3) | Simplify unless standards require complexity |170| 13 | Task Order | DB→Service→API→UI | MEDIUM (3) | Reorder Tasks foundation-first |171172### Quality (#14-#15)173174| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |175|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|176| 14 | Documentation Complete | Pattern docs exist + referenced | HIGH (5) | Delegate to ln-002; add all doc links to Technical Notes |177| 15 | Code Quality Basics | No hardcoded values | MEDIUM (3) | Add TODOs for constants/config/env |178179### Traceability (#16-#17)180181| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |182|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|183| 16 | Story-Task Alignment | Tasks implement Story statement | MEDIUM (3) | Add TODO to misaligned Tasks; warn user |184| 17 | AC-Task Coverage | Each AC has implementing Task | MEDIUM (3) | Add TODO for uncovered ACs; suggest missing Tasks |185186**Maximum Penalty:** 50 points187188## Final Assessment Model189190**Outputs after all fixes applied:**191192| Metric | Value | Meaning |193|--------|-------|---------|194| **Gate** | GO / NO-GO | Final verdict for execution readiness |195| **Readiness Score** | 1-10 | Quality confidence level |196| **Penalty Points** | 0 (after fixes) | Validation completeness |197| **Anti-Hallucination** | VERIFIED / FLAGGED | Technical claims verified |198| **AC Coverage** | 100% (N/N) | All ACs mapped to Tasks |199200### Readiness Score Calculation201202```203Readiness Score = 10 - (Penalty Points / 5)204```205206| Score | Status | Gate |207|-------|--------|------|208| 9-10 | Excellent | GO |209| 7-8 | Good | GO |210| 5-6 | Acceptable | GO (with notes) |211| 3-4 | Concerns | NO-GO (requires review) |212| 1-2 | Critical | NO-GO (major issues) |213214### Anti-Hallucination Verification215216Verify technical claims have evidence:217218| Claim Type | Verification |219|------------|--------------|220| RFC/Standard reference | MCP Ref search confirms existence |221| Library version | Context7 query confirms version |222| Security requirement | OWASP/CWE reference exists |223| Performance claim | Benchmark/doc reference |224225**Status:** VERIFIED (all claims sourced) or FLAGGED (unverified claims listed)226227### Task-AC Coverage Matrix228229Output explicit mapping:230231```232| AC | Task(s) | Coverage |233|----|---------|----------|234| AC1: Given/When/Then | T-001, T-002 | ✅ |235| AC2: Given/When/Then | T-003 | ✅ |236| AC3: Given/When/Then | — | ❌ UNCOVERED |237```238239**Coverage:** `{covered}/{total} ACs` (target: 100%)240241## Self-Audit Protocol (Mandatory)242243Before marking any criterion as complete, provide concrete evidence (doc path, MCP result, Linear update).244245| # | Self-Audit Question | Required Evidence |246|---|---------------------|-------------------|247| 1 | Validated all 8 Story sections? | Section list |248| 2 | Loaded full description for each Task? | Task validation count |249| 3 | Statement in As a/I want/So that? | Quoted statement |250| 4 | AC are G/W/T and testable? | AC count and format |251| 5 | Verified RFC/OWASP/REST compliance? | Standards list + MCP result |252| 6 | Checked library versions via Context7? | Context7 result |253| 7 | Test Strategy kept empty? | Note that testing deferred |254| 8 | Docs integrated, no standalone tasks? | Integration evidence |255| 9 | Task count 3-8 and 3-5h? | Task count/sizes |256| 10 | No premature test tasks? | Search result |257| 11 | Only current-scope features (YAGNI)? | Scope review |258| 12 | Simplest approach within standards (KISS)? | Simplicity justification |259| 13 | Tasks ordered Foundation-First? | Task order list |260| 14 | All pattern docs exist and referenced? | Doc paths from ln-002 |261| 15 | Hardcoded values handled? | TODO/config evidence |262| 16 | Each Task aligns with Story statement? | Alignment check result |263| 17 | Each AC has implementing Task? | Coverage matrix |264265## Definition of Done266267- **Phase 1:** Auto-discovery done; Story + Tasks metadata loaded; task count checked268- **Phase 2:** Domain extraction complete; ln-002 delegated for docs; MCP research done; Anti-Hallucination verification done; Penalty Points calculated269- **Phase 3:** Audit results shown; IF Plan Mode: user approved270- **Phase 4:** All 17 criteria auto-fixed; Penalty Points = 0; Test Strategy empty; test tasks removed271- **Phase 5:** Final Assessment output:272 ```yaml273 gate: GO | NO-GO274 readiness_score: {1-10}275 penalty_points: 0 (was {N})276 anti_hallucination: VERIFIED | FLAGGED277 ac_coverage: "{N}/{M} (100%)"278 ac_matrix:279 - ac: "AC1"280 tasks: ["T-001", "T-002"]281 status: covered282 ```283- Story/Tasks set to Todo; `kanban_board.md` updated; Linear comment with Final Assessment added284- **Optional:** If `--execute` flag, ln-400-story-executor invoked after approval285286## Example Workflow287288**Story:** "Create user management API with rate limiting"2892901. **Phase 1:** Load metadata (5 Tasks, status Backlog)2912. **Phase 2:**292 - Domain extraction: REST API, Rate Limiting293 - Delegate ln-002: creates Guide-05 (REST patterns), Guide-06 (Rate Limiting)294 - MCP Ref: RFC 7231 compliance, OWASP API Security295 - Context7: Express v4.19 (current v4.17)296 - Penalty Points: 18 total (version=5, missing docs=5, structure=3, standards=5)2973. **Phase 3:**298 - Show Penalty Points table299 - IF Plan Mode: "18 penalty points found. Fix plan ready. Approve?"3004. **Phase 4:**301 - Fix #6: Update Express v4.17 -> v4.19302 - Fix #5: Add RFC 7231 compliance notes303 - Fix #13: Add Guide-05, Guide-06 references304 - Fix #17: Docs already created by ln-002305 - All fixes applied, Penalty Points = 03065. **Phase 5:** Story -> Todo, tabular report307308## Template Loading309310**Templates:** `story_template.md`, `task_template_implementation.md`311312**Loading Logic:**3131. Check if `docs/templates/{template}.md` exists in target project3142. IF NOT EXISTS:315 a. Create `docs/templates/` directory if missing316 b. Copy `shared/templates/{template}.md` → `docs/templates/{template}.md`317 c. Replace placeholders in the LOCAL copy:318 - `{{TEAM_ID}}` → from `docs/tasks/kanban_board.md`319 - `{{DOCS_PATH}}` → "docs" (standard)3203. Use LOCAL copy (`docs/templates/{template}.md`) for all validation operations321322**Rationale:** Templates are copied to target project on first use, ensuring:323- Project independence (no dependency on skills repository)324- Customization possible (project can modify local templates)325- Placeholder replacement happens once at copy time326327## Reference Files328329- **Final Assessment:** `references/readiness_scoring.md` (GO/NO-GO rules, Readiness Score calculation)330- **Templates (centralized):** `shared/templates/story_template.md`, `shared/templates/task_template_implementation.md`331- **Local copies:** `docs/templates/` (in target project)332- **Validation Checklists (Progressive Disclosure):**333 - `references/verification_checklist_template.md` (overview of 6 categories)334 - `references/structural_validation.md` (criteria #1-#4)335 - `references/standards_validation.md` (criterion #5)336 - `references/solution_validation.md` (criterion #6)337 - `references/workflow_validation.md` (criteria #7-#13)338 - `references/quality_validation.md` (criteria #14-#15)339 - `references/traceability_validation.md` (criteria #16-#17)340 - `references/domain_patterns.md` (pattern registry for ln-002 delegation)341 - `references/penalty_points.md` (penalty system details)342- **Linear integration:** `../shared/templates/linear_integration.md`343344---345**Version:** 6.0.0 (Added GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score, Anti-Hallucination verification based on BMAD validate-next-story methodology)346**Last Updated:** 2026-01-29