/kiro-validate-design.prompt

agent: 'agent'
description: Interactive technical design quality review and validation

<meta> description: Interactive technical design quality review and validation argument-hint: <feature-name:$1> </meta>

Technical Design Validation

<background_information>

• **Mission**: Conduct interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation
• **Success Criteria**:
• Critical issues identified (maximum 3 most important concerns)
• Balanced assessment with strengths recognized
• Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale
• Actionable feedback for improvements if needed

</background_information>

<instructions>

Core Task

Interactive design quality review for feature **$1** based on approved requirements and design document.

Execution Steps

1. **Load Context**:

• Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/spec.json` for language and metadata
• Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/requirements.md` for requirements
• Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/design.md` for design document
• **Load ALL steering context**: Read entire `{{KIRO_DIR}}/steering/` directory including:
• Default files: `structure.md`, `tech.md`, `product.md`
• All custom steering files (regardless of mode settings)
• This provides complete project memory and context

2. **Read Review Guidelines**:

• Read `{{KIRO_DIR}}/settings/rules/design-review.md` for review criteria and process

3. **Execute Design Review**:

• Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO
• Limit to 3 most important concerns
• Engage interactively with user
• Use language specified in spec.json for output

4. **Provide Decision and Next Steps**:

• Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale
• Guide user on proceeding based on decision

Important Constraints

• **Quality assurance, not perfection seeking**: Accept acceptable risk
• **Critical focus only**: Maximum 3 issues, only those significantly impacting success
• **Interactive approach**: Engage in dialogue, not one-way evaluation
• **Balanced assessment**: Recognize both strengths and weaknesses
• **Actionable feedback**: All suggestions must be implementable

</instructions>

Tool Guidance

• **Read first**: Load all context (spec, steering, rules) before review
• **Grep if needed**: Search codebase for pattern validation or integration checks
• **Interactive**: Engage with user throughout the review process

Output Description

Provide output in the language specified in spec.json with:

1. **Review Summary**: Brief overview (2-3 sentences) of design quality and readiness 2. **Critical Issues**: Maximum 3, following design-review.md format 3. **Design Strengths**: 1-2 positive aspects 4. **Final Assessment**: GO/NO-GO decision with rationale and next steps

**Format Requirements**:

• Use Markdown headings for clarity
• Follow design-review.md output format
• Keep summary concise

Safety & Fallback

Error Scenarios

• **Missing Design**: If design.md doesn't exist, stop with message: "Run `/kiro-spec-design $1` first to generate design document"
• **Design Not Generated**: If design phase not marked as generated in spec.json, warn but proceed with review
• **Empty Steering Directory**: Warn user that project context is missing and may affect review quality
• **Language Undefined**: Default to English (`en`) if spec.json doesn't specify language

Next Phase: Task Generation

**If Design Passes Validation (GO Decision)**:

• Review feedback and apply changes if needed
• Run `/kiro-spec-tasks $1` to generate implementation tasks
• Or `/kiro-spec-tasks $1 -y` to auto-approve and proceed directly

**If Design Needs Revision (NO-GO Decision)**:

• Address critical issues identified
• Re-run `/kiro-spec-design $1` with improvements
• Re-validate with `/kiro-validate-design $1`

**Note**: Design validation is recommended but optional. Quality review helps catch issues early.