# Roadmap With Validation > Interactive scoping, roadmap generation, and multi-agent validation Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/roadmap-with-validation` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/roadmap-with-validation` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/roadmap-with-validation/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/roadmap-with-validation --- # Validation Protocol ## Overview Roadmap validation stress-tests the implementation plan before execution begins. Multiple validators review the roadmap looking for: - Missing dependencies - Underestimated complexity - Scope creep - Sequencing mistakes - Unclear acceptance criteria --- ## Validation Checklist ### 1. Success Criteria Alignment **Question:** Does every V1 feature directly contribute to the success criteria? For each feature: - How does this help achieve the goal? - What happens if we cut this? - Is this actually V1, or V2 in disguise? **Red Flags:** - Features justified as "nice to have" - Features that enable future features but don't serve v1 - Polish items disguised as core functionality ### 2. Dependency Validation **Question:** Is the sequencing actually correct? Tests: - Can Phase 0 deliverables support Phase 1 work? - Are there hidden dependencies between "parallel" features? - Does any task assume something not explicitly built earlier? **Trace Test:** ``` For each task: Task X requires -> [list everything] -> verify each exists earlier ``` **Red Flags:** - Tasks that "just need" something from another domain - Shared state modified by multiple features - Integration points not explicitly defined ### 3. Complexity Audit **Question:** Are any tasks hiding significant complexity? For each task: - Is this one task or 3-5 bundled together? - Does "implement X" hide research, design, iteration? - Are there edge cases not in acceptance criteria? **Red Flags:** - Vague scope ("handle edge cases") - Tasks touching multiple files/domains - External API tasks - Anything called "simple" or "just" ### 4. Acceptance Criteria Quality **Question:** Could someone verify each task without asking you? For each criterion: - Specific and measurable? - Covers happy path AND error cases? - Verification method actually doable? **Red Flags:** - "Works correctly" (what is correct?) - "Handles errors gracefully" (which errors? how?) - "User can do X" (under what conditions?) **Fix Pattern:** ``` Before: "User can import recipes" After: "User pastes URL -> system extracts title/ingredients/instructions -> displays preview -> user confirms -> recipe appears in list within 3 seconds. Error shown if URL invalid or parsing fails." ``` ### 5. Risk Assessment Categories: - **Technical risk:** Unproven tech, complex integrations - **Scope risk:** Features likely to expand - **Dependency risk:** External services, APIs - **Knowledge risk:** Learning as you build For each risk: - Mitigation strategy - Fallback if it doesn't work - Phase where addressed ### 6. Parallelization Reality Check If PARALLEL-READY: - Are agent boundaries truly independent? - What happens when both need shared files? - Is "read-only" list actually read-only? - How do agents communicate completion? **Common Issues:** - Both domains need same component - Shared types evolve differently - Integration testing needs both domains ### 7. Out of Scope Validation Questions: - All spec features appear in V1 or Out of Scope? - Any "out of scope" items needed for success criteria? - Can you resist adding these during execution? --- ## Validator Prompt Template ```markdown # Roadmap Validation — [MODEL_NAME] You are a skeptical technical reviewer. Your job is to stress-test this roadmap and find gaps before execution begins. **Stance:** Assume something is wrong. **Success Criteria:** [V1_SUCCESS_CRITERIA] **Review the roadmap below and check:** 1. Success criteria alignment 2. Dependency validation 3. Complexity audit 4. Acceptance criteria quality 5. Risk assessment 6. Parallelization reality check (if applicable) 7. Out of scope validation **Output Format:** ## Summary Verdict [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS REVISION] ## Key Findings 1. [Finding with severity: Critical/Important/Minor] 2. [Finding] 3. [Finding] ## Required Changes - [ ] [Specific change needed] - [ ] [Specific change needed] ## Risks Identified | Risk | Severity | Mitigation | Phase | |------|----------|------------|-------| ## Detailed Review [Section-by-section analysis] --- **ROADMAP TO REVIEW:** [PASTE ROADMAP.md CONTENT] ``` --- ## Validation Verdicts ### APPROVED Roadmap is solid. No blocking issues found. **Criteria:** - No critical findings - At most 1-2 minor suggestions - Dependencies validated - Acceptance criteria clear ### APPROVED WITH CHANGES Roadmap is workable but needs specific fixes. **Criteria:** - No critical findings - 1-3 important findings with clear fixes - Can be fixed without restructuring - Fixes documented as checklist ### NEEDS REVISION Roadmap has fundamental issues requiring rework. **Criteria:** - Critical findings (missing core dependencies, wrong sequencing) - Multiple important findings - Requires restructuring phases - Success criteria misalignment --- ## Change Application ### Change Categories **Critical (Must Fix):** - Missing dependencies - Wrong phase sequencing - Success criteria misalignment **Important (Should Fix):** - Unclear acceptance criteria - Complex tasks needing splits - Missing risk mitigations **Suggestions (Nice to Have):** - Additional pause points - Documentation improvements - Polish items ### Application Strategies **Dependency Addition:** ``` Before: Phase 1: User Profile After: Phase 0: Foundation - [ ] Authentication setup Phase 1: User Profile (requires Auth) ``` **Task Splitting:** ``` Before: - [ ] Build Dashboard After: - [ ] Build Dashboard Layout - [ ] Add Dashboard Widgets - [ ] Implement Dashboard Data Fetching ``` **Acceptance Criteria Clarification:** ``` Before: - [ ] Implement Recipe Import - Acceptance: User can import recipes After: - [ ] Implement Recipe Import - Scope: URL paste, parsing, preview, confirmation - Acceptance: User pastes URL -> system extracts title/ingredients/instructions -> displays preview -> user confirms -> recipe appears in list within 3 seconds - Error Handling: Show error if URL invalid or parsing fails - Verification: Manual test with 5 different recipe sites ``` --- ## Validation Header After validation passes, add to ROADMAP.md: ```markdown > **Validated:** [DATE] > **Validation Sources:** claude, gpt4, grok, gemini > **Status:** APPROVED WITH CHANGES > **Changes Applied:** [N] critical, [N] important ``` --- ## Skip Conditions Skip validation if: - Project is small (< 2 weeks) - You've built similar before - Roadmap came from extensive prior planning - Using Lite workflow tier Don't skip if: - New domain for you - Large or complex spec - Multiple interacting features - Planning parallel execution --- *Protocol version: 1.0 | Created: 2026-02-01* --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/matthewod11-stack) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.