Self-evaluation and quality validation for specifications and documents. Identifies gaps, contradictions, and missing details using structured checklists. Use after drafting specs, PRDs, or feature documents.
The Spec Validation skill provides a systematic framework for auditing technical specifications, PRDs, and feature documents. It leverages structured checklists and sequential thinking to identify logical gaps, contradictions, and missing details, ensuring high-quality documentation and clear requirements before implementation begins.
Use Cases
Pre-handoff PRD Review: Automatically audit Product Requirement Documents to ensure all user personas, success metrics, and technical constraints are clearly defined before engineering handoff.
Edge Case Identification: Scan feature specifications to detect 'TBD' items and undocumented failure scenarios, preventing late-stage development blockers and '3 AM' production issues.
Consistency Auditing: Compare policy rules and technical constraints pairwise to identify contradictions or priority ambiguities in complex project documentation.
Success Metric Quantification: Transform vague project goals into measurable, quantified KPIs by applying the completeness validation framework to draft proposals.
name
spec-validation
description
Self-evaluation and quality validation for specifications and documents. Identifies gaps, contradictions, and missing details using structured checklists. Use after drafting specs, PRDs, or feature documents.
Spec Validation
Systematic quality validation for specifications using structured checklists and self-evaluation patterns.
When to Use
After drafting *_FEATURE.md specifications
Reviewing PRDs for completeness
Validating requirements before handoff
Self-checking document quality
Core Principle
The best form of feedback is clearly defined rules, then explaining which rules failed and why.
Validation Framework
1. Completeness Check
Section
Required Elements
Validation Question
Problem
Specific pain point
Is the problem measurable, not vague?
Users
Primary + secondary
Are personas defined with proficiency?
Scope
In-scope + non-goals
Are explicit exclusions documented?
Success
Quantified metrics
Can we measure success after 30 days?
Risks
Scenarios + mitigations
Is worst-case documented with exit strategy?
2. Clarity Check
Criterion
Test
Fix
No TBD/TODO
Search for "TBD", "TODO", "??", "TBC"
Resolve or escalate
Acronyms defined
All acronyms in glossary
Add definitions
Edge cases covered
Each use case has edge cases
Document behavior
Error messages actionable
User can self-resolve at 3 AM
Add context/guidance
3. Consistency Check
Check
Method
Resolution
Policy contradictions
Compare rules pairwise
Document precedence
Trade-off conflicts
Map priority vs constraint
Make explicit choice
Priority ambiguity
Count must-have items
Limit to 3-5 MVP items
4. Feasibility Check
Aspect
Validation
Owner
Technical constraints
Engineering review
Tech Lead
Dependencies
Identify external blockers
PM
Timeline
Scope vs deadline match
PM + Eng
Risks
Mitigation plans exist
PM
Self-Evaluation Pattern
Use mcp__sequential-thinking__sequentialthinking for systematic review:
# Structured self-evaluation
mcp__sequential-thinking__sequentialthinking(
thought="Reviewing spec for completeness: checking problem statement",
thoughtNumber=1,
totalThoughts=5,
nextThoughtNeeded=True
)
Sequential Review Steps
Problem Clarity: Is the root problem specific and measurable?
User Definition: Are primary users and stakeholders identified?
Scope Boundaries: Are in-scope and non-goals explicit?
Success Criteria: Can we objectively measure success?
Risk Coverage: Are failure scenarios and rollback documented?
