Frd Review

FRD: Review a Feature Requirements Document

Purpose

Audit an FRD (or a parent + its nested children) the way an experienced engineer or product lead would in planning: surface the gaps that cause estimation churn, rework after implementation, or bugs found in QA.

Shared Operating Model

Use requirements-operating-model before reviewing. Use it to check module boundaries, source-of-truth conflicts, feature hierarchy, and downstream Blueprint / Work Order impact.

When to Use

• An FRD draft needs a sanity check before engineering picks it up
• A parent FRD with children needs to be audited as a tree
• A reviewer wants a second pass on someone else's feature spec

Resolve the Target

1. Determine projectid (ask if not supplied; offer choices via Glob).
2. Resolve what to review:
   • A specific FRD path → review just that file.
   • A directory (parent with children) → review the parent's index.frd.md plus every *.frd.md sibling.
   • "Everything under this project" → glob .trogonai/project/{projectid}/frd/**/*.frd.md.
3. If personas.prd.md exists in the project, read it: user stories should reference its personas.

Per-FRD Checklist

For each FRD, run every item and mark Pass, Gap, Risk, or N/A with a one-line justification.

1. Overview

• One or two narrative paragraphs (not a bullet list)
• Describes what the feature does and why users need it
• Focuses on problem solved and value delivered, not implementation mechanisms
• A stakeholder could understand the feature in under a minute

2. Terminology

• Only feature-specific terms are defined
• No industry-standard or obvious terms (e.g., "API", "user") are defined
• Definitions are brief and precise
• If absent, the absence is justified (no ambiguous terms exist)

3. Requirements: structure

• Each requirement uses the id format REQ-{PREFIX}-NNN: Title
• Prefix matches the FRD's declared prefix (and parent-prefix-{sub} for children)
• Sequence numbers are zero-padded to three digits and unique within the file
• Each requirement has a single-sentence user story in As a [role], I want to [action], so that I can [outcome]. form
• Role is a concrete persona (and matches personas.prd.md if present)
• At least one acceptance criterion per requirement

4. Acceptance Criteria: content

• Each AC uses id format AC-{PREFIX}-NNN.N matching its requirement
• Each AC begins with When [condition], followed by the system shall/should/may [behavior].
• Modal verbs are correctly used: shall = mandatory, should = recommended, may = optional
• Each AC is atomic (one behavior, not compound)
• Each AC is testable: clear enough to write a test against
• Each requirement has at least one happy-path AC and at least one failure / edge-case AC

5. Optional Extension Sections

• Child FRDs, if present, matches the actual child files and summarizes their user-facing enhancement
• Any other extension section is defined by the project's Feature Requirements Template
• Extension sections do not prescribe UI, screens, user flows, or implementation details
• Cross-requirement behavior is captured as acceptance criteria whenever possible
• Empty or placeholder extension sections are absent

6. Cross-cutting hygiene

• Project, prefix, parent reference, status, last-updated present
• Parent reference (if any) points to a file that exists
• No "TBD" left unowned
• Adjective-only behaviors ("appropriately", "correctly", "smoothly", "fast") flagged

Cross-FRD Checks (parent + children)

When reviewing a tree:

• Every child's requirements describe an enhancement, not a dependency the parent needs to function
• Parent-delivers-value rule: removing any child file would leave the parent still passing the feature-unit definition
• Child-meaningless-without-parent rule: each child only makes sense as part of the parent's scope
• Child prefixes are {parent-prefix}-{sub} and the sub-prefix is unique among siblings
• No requirement id collides anywhere in the tree
• Parent's ## Child FRDs list matches the actual files on disk
• No "misc" or "other" child (suggests the split axis was wrong)
• Personas referenced across siblings are consistent with personas.prd.md

Operating Model Checks

• Feature requirements do not contain Blueprint-owned architecture or Work Order-owned delivery tasks
• FRD user stories and ACs can be traced to Product Overview context or explicit user input
• Requirement changes likely to affect Blueprints or Work Orders are called out for downstream follow-up
• Open questions use the shared clarification pattern when they block engineering readiness

Output

Write the review to:

• Single FRD: .trogonai/project/{projectid}/frd/{slug}.review.md
• Tree: .trogonai/project/{projectid}/frd/{parent-slug}/_review.md
• Whole project: .trogonai/project/{projectid}/frd/_review.md

Template:

# FRD Review

- **Project:** {projectid}
- **Scope:** <single FRD path | parent + N children | whole project>
- **Reviewed:** <YYYY-MM-DD>
- **Overall verdict:** <Ready / Ready with revisions / Not ready>

## Top Findings
1. <highest-impact gap or risk>
2. <next>
3. <next>

## Per-FRD Results

### <path/to/feature.frd.md>
- Overview: Pass / Gap: <one line>
- Terminology: Pass / Gap: <one line>
- Requirements structure: Pass / Gap: <one line, cite any bad ids>
- Acceptance criteria: Pass / Gap: <one line, cite the worst offender as REQ/AC id>
- Optional extension sections: Pass / Gap / N/A: <one line>
- Hygiene: Pass / Gap: <one line>

<repeat for each FRD reviewed>

## Cross-FRD Findings (if tree)
- Parent-delivers-value rule: Pass / Gap: <one line>
- Child-meaningless-without-parent rule: Pass / Gap: <one line>
- ID collisions: <none / cite>
- Child FRDs list consistency: Pass / Gap

## Operating Model and Downstream Impact
- Source of truth: Pass / Gap / Risk: <one line>
- Module boundaries: Pass / Gap / Risk: <one line>
- Likely downstream follow-up: <none / affected Blueprints or Work Orders by human-readable name>

## Required Revisions (blockers)
- <must fix before engineering picks up>: fix with `frd-write` or `frd-split`

## Recommended Revisions (non-blockers)
- <should fix, not blocking>: fix with `<skill>`

## Suggested Questions for the Author
- <question that exposes an assumption>

If a previous review file exists at the same path, overwrite it.

Verdict Rubric

• Ready: no gaps in Requirements structure or Acceptance Criteria; overview clear; optional extension sections are either useful or absent; sub-feature rules satisfied. Minor wording only.
• Ready with revisions: gaps exist but fix path is clear. For each gap, name the section / requirement and the skill (frd-write or frd-split) that fixes it.
• Not ready: user stories are generic ("As a user, I want X"), ACs are untestable ("handled appropriately"), or sub-features violate the parent-value rules. Engineering cannot estimate or build from this as-is.

Key Principles

• Surface gaps, do not rewrite. Point to what is missing and why it matters.
• Cite the id. Every finding references the specific REQ-... or AC-... it came from.
• Distinguish blockers from polish. Required vs recommended must be obvious.
• Recommend the fix path. Each gap maps to frd-write (refine) or frd-split (restructure).

Related Skills

• frd-write: author or refine a single FRD
• frd-split: restructure FRDs by splitting, merging, or nesting
• frd-getting-started: produce the initial set of FRDs
• prd-review: companion overview-level review

Allowed Tools

• AskUserQuestion: resolve project and target if not supplied
• Read: load each FRD and the project's personas
• Write: write the review file
• Glob / Grep: locate FRDs, detect adjective-only ACs, check id collisions