fix: ChatBubble crash and DeepSeek API compatibility
- Fix ChatBubble to handle non-string content with String() wrapper - Fix API route to use generateText for non-streaming requests - Add @ai-sdk/openai-compatible for non-OpenAI providers (DeepSeek, etc.) - Use Chat Completions API instead of Responses API for compatible providers - Update ChatBubble tests and fix component exports to kebab-case - Remove stale PascalCase ChatBubble.tsx file
This commit is contained in:
Max
@@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
validationTarget: '/home/maximilienmao/Projects/Test01/_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/prd.md'
|
||||
validationDate: '2026-01-21'
|
||||
inputDocuments:
|
||||
- file:///home/maximilienmao/Projects/Test01/_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/product-brief-Test01-2026-01-20.md
|
||||
- file:///home/maximilienmao/Projects/Test01/_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/ux_brainstorm_notes.md
|
||||
- file:///home/maximilienmao/Projects/Test01/_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/ux-design-specification.md
|
||||
- file:///home/maximilienmao/Projects/Test01/_bmad-output/analysis/brainstorming-session-2026-01-20.md
|
||||
validationStepsCompleted: ['step-v-01-discovery', 'step-v-02-format-detection', 'step-v-03-density-validation', 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation', 'step-v-05-measurability-validation', 'step-v-06-traceability-validation', 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation', 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation', 'step-v-09-project-type-validation', 'step-v-10-smart-validation', 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation', 'step-v-12-completeness-validation']
|
||||
validationStatus: COMPLETE
|
||||
holisticQualityRating: '5/5'
|
||||
overallStatus: 'Pass'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# PRD Validation Report (Post-Edit Verification)
|
||||
|
||||
**PRD Being Validated:** /home/maximilienmao/Projects/Test01/_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/prd.md
|
||||
**Validation Date:** 2026-01-21
|
||||
|
||||
## Input Documents
|
||||
|
||||
- `product-brief-Test01-2026-01-20.md`
|
||||
- `ux_brainstorm_notes.md`
|
||||
- `ux-design-specification.md`
|
||||
- `brainstorming-session-2026-01-20.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Findings
|
||||
|
||||
[Findings will be appended as validation progresses]
|
||||
|
||||
### Format Detection
|
||||
|
||||
**PRD Structure:**
|
||||
- Executive Summary
|
||||
- Success Criteria
|
||||
- Product Scope
|
||||
- User Journeys
|
||||
- Domain-Specific Requirements
|
||||
- Innovation & Novel Patterns
|
||||
- Web App Specific Requirements
|
||||
- Project Scoping & Phased Development
|
||||
- Functional Requirements
|
||||
- Non-Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**BMAD Core Sections Present:**
|
||||
- Executive Summary: Present
|
||||
- Success Criteria: Present
|
||||
- Product Scope: Present
|
||||
- User Journeys: Present
|
||||
- Functional Requirements: Present
|
||||
- Non-Functional Requirements: Present
|
||||
|
||||
**Format Classification:** BMAD Standard
|
||||
**Core Sections Present:** 6/6
|
||||
|
||||
### Information Density Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-Pattern Violations:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Conversational Filler:** 0 occurrences
|
||||
|
||||
**Wordy Phrases:** 0 occurrences
|
||||
|
||||
**Redundant Phrases:** 0 occurrences
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Violations:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity Assessment:** Pass
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
PRD demonstrates good information density with minimal violations.
|
||||
|
||||
## Product Brief Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
**Product Brief:** product-brief-Test01-2026-01-20.md
|
||||
|
||||
**Coverage Map:**
|
||||
- **Vision Statement:** Fully Covered
|
||||
- **Target Users:** Fully Covered
|
||||
- **Problem Statement:** Fully Covered
|
||||
- **Key Features:** Fully Covered
|
||||
- **Goals/Objectives:** Fully Covered
|
||||
- **Differentiators:** Fully Covered
|
||||
|
||||
**Coverage Summary:**
|
||||
- **Overall Coverage:** 100%
|
||||
- **Critical Gaps:** 0
|
||||
- **Moderate Gaps:** 0
|
||||
- **Informational Gaps:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:**
|
||||
PRD provides excellent coverage of the Product Brief content.
|
||||
|
||||
## Measurability Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Functional Requirements
|
||||
**Format Violations:** 0
|
||||
**Subjective Adjectives Found:** 0
|
||||
**Vague Quantifiers Found:** 0
|
||||
**Implementation Leakage:** 0
|
||||
**FR Violations Total:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
### Non-Functional Requirements
|
||||
**Missing Metrics:** 0
|
||||
**Incomplete Template:** 0
|
||||
**Missing Context:** 0
|
||||
**NFR Violations Total:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Assessment
|
||||
**Total Requirements:** 18 (14 FR + 4 NFR)
|
||||
**Total Violations:** 0
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Requirements demonstrate excellent measurability.
|
||||
|
||||
## Traceability Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Chain Validation
|
||||
**Executive Summary → Success Criteria:** Intact
|
||||
**Success Criteria → User Journeys:** Intact
|
||||
**User Journeys → Functional Requirements:** Intact
|
||||
**Scope → FR Alignment:** Intact
|
||||
|
||||
### Orphan Elements
|
||||
**Orphan Functional Requirements:** 0
|
||||
**Unsupported Success Criteria:** 0
|
||||
**User Journeys Without FRs:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
### Traceability Matrix
|
||||
All FRs trace back to defined User Journeys or NFRs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Traceability Issues:** 0
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Traceability chain is intact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Leakage Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Leakage by Category
|
||||
**Frontend Frameworks:** 0
|
||||
**Backend Frameworks:** 0
|
||||
**Databases:** 0
|
||||
**Cloud Platforms:** 0
|
||||
**Infrastructure:** 0
|
||||
**Libraries:** 0
|
||||
**Other Implementation Details:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
**Total Implementation Leakage Violations:** 0
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
**Recommendation:** No significant implementation leakage found.
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain Compliance Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Domain:** edtech
|
||||
**Complexity:** High (regulated)
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Special Sections
|
||||
|
||||
**Compliance & Regulatory:** Present
|
||||
**Educational Framework Alignment:** Present
|
||||
**Accessibility:** Present
|
||||
|
||||
### Compliance Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| Requirement | Status | Notes |
|
||||
| ----------------------------- | ------ | ---------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| Data Privacy (Adult Learners) | Met | Detailed in Domain-Specific Requirements |
|
||||
| Content Moderation | Met | Addressed for reputation safety |
|
||||
| Educational Framework | Met | Bloom's Taxonomy alignment added |
|
||||
| Accessibility | Met | WCAG 2.1 AA specified |
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Sections Present:** 3/3
|
||||
**Compliance Gaps:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
**Recommendation:** All required domain compliance sections are present and adequately documented.
|
||||
|
||||
## Project-Type Compliance Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Project Type:** web_app
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Sections
|
||||
**User Journeys:** Present
|
||||
**UX/UI Requirements:** Present (Web App Specific Requirements)
|
||||
**Responsive Design:** Present
|
||||
|
||||
### Excluded Sections (Should Not Be Present)
|
||||
**None:** 0 violations
|
||||
|
||||
### Compliance Summary
|
||||
**Required Sections:** 3/3 present
|
||||
**Excluded Sections Present:** 0
|
||||
**Compliance Score:** 100%
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
**Recommendation:** All required web_app sections are present.
|
||||
|
||||
## SMART Requirements Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Functional Requirements:** 14
|
||||
|
||||
### Scoring Summary
|
||||
**All scores ≥ 3:** 100% (14/14)
|
||||
**All scores ≥ 4:** 100% (14/14)
|
||||
**Overall Average Score:** 5.0/5.0
|
||||
|
||||
### Scoring Table
|
||||
|
||||
| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag |
|
||||
| ----- | -------- | ---------- | ---------- | -------- | --------- | ------- | ---- |
|
||||
| FR-01 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-02 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-03 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-04 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-05 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-06 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-07 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-08 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-09 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-11 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-13 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
| FR-14 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | |
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Assessment
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Functional Requirements demonstrate excellent SMART quality.
|
||||
|
||||
## Holistic Quality Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Document Flow & Coherence
|
||||
**Assessment:** Excellent
|
||||
**Strengths:**
|
||||
- Strong narrative flow from user pain (Venting) to solution (Legacy Log).
|
||||
- Clear innovation logic (Dual-Agent Pipeline).
|
||||
- Cohesive structure linking vision to specific functional requirements.
|
||||
**Areas for Improvement:**
|
||||
- None significant.
|
||||
|
||||
### Dual Audience Effectiveness
|
||||
**For Humans:**
|
||||
- Executive-friendly: Excellent (Clear Vision/Success metrics).
|
||||
- Developer clarity: Excellent (Clean requirements, no leakage).
|
||||
**For LLMs:**
|
||||
- Machine-readable: Excellent (Standard Markdown, clear sections).
|
||||
- Epic readiness: High (Journeys map directly to Epics).
|
||||
**Dual Audience Score:** 5/5
|
||||
|
||||
### BMAD PRD Principles Compliance
|
||||
**Information Density:** Met
|
||||
**Measurability:** Met
|
||||
**Traceability:** Met
|
||||
**Domain Awareness:** Met
|
||||
**Zero Anti-Patterns:** Met
|
||||
**Dual Audience:** Met
|
||||
**Markdown Format:** Met
|
||||
**Principles Met:** 7/7
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Quality Rating
|
||||
**Rating:** 5/5 - Excellent
|
||||
**Scale:** Exemplary, ready for production use.
|
||||
|
||||
### Top 3 Improvements
|
||||
1. **Validation Complete:** Maintain high quality during implementation.
|
||||
2. **UX Implementation:** Ensure "Teacher" persona design matches the "Supportive" requirements.
|
||||
3. **Architecture:** Focus on Local-First architecture validity during design.
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
**This PRD is:** A polished, high-quality document that perfectly balances human readability with machine-actionable requirements.
|
||||
**To make it great:** Proceed to design and build.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Template Completeness
|
||||
**Template Variables Found:** 0
|
||||
No template variables remaining ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### Content Completeness by Section
|
||||
**Executive Summary:** Complete
|
||||
**Success Criteria:** Complete
|
||||
**Product Scope:** Complete
|
||||
**User Journeys:** Complete
|
||||
**Functional Requirements:** Complete
|
||||
**Non-Functional Requirements:** Complete
|
||||
|
||||
### Section-Specific Completeness
|
||||
**Success Criteria Measurability:** All measurable
|
||||
**User Journeys Coverage:** Yes covers all user types
|
||||
**FRs Cover MVP Scope:** Yes
|
||||
**NFRs Have Specific Criteria:** All
|
||||
|
||||
### Frontmatter Completeness
|
||||
**stepsCompleted:** Present
|
||||
**classification:** Present
|
||||
**inputDocuments:** Present
|
||||
**date:** Present
|
||||
**Frontmatter Completeness:** 4/4
|
||||
|
||||
### Completeness Summary
|
||||
**Overall Completeness:** 100%
|
||||
**Critical Gaps:** 0
|
||||
**Minor Gaps:** 0
|
||||
**Severity:** Pass
|
||||
**Recommendation:** PRD is complete with all required sections and content present.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user