Prd Completeness Auditor

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:

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

PRD Type Effects

Audit Depth Effects

4. Six-Phase Workflow

Phase 1: Reference Loading & Context

Purpose: Load checklist and establish audit context.

Steps:

1. Receive PRD content (inline or file reference)
2. Load prd-requirements-checklist.md reference
3. Calibrate checklist based on prd_type:
   • Filter items by applicability matrix
   • Adjust severity levels for document type
   • Set critical items that must be present
4. Parse PRD to identify structure:
   • Extract section headers and hierarchy
   • Identify section boundaries
   • Note document format (markdown, docx, wiki)
5. Load mece-coverage-framework.md for structural validation
6. 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:

1. 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
2. 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)
3. Identify structural gaps:
   • Dimension with no coverage = CRITICAL structural gap
   • Dimension with partial coverage = SIGNIFICANT structural gap
4. Note sections present but outside standard structure
5. 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:

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:

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:

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:

5.2 Remediation Matching

Match each gap to remediation pattern from remediation-patterns.md:

5.3 Effort Estimation

Estimate remediation effort:

5.4 Priority Assignment

Assign remediation priority:

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:

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

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

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

Integration Points

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

External References

11. Templates

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