brachnha-insight/_bmad/bmb/workflows/workflow/steps-v/step-06-validation-design-check.md

name, description, nextStepFile, targetWorkflowPath, validationReportFile, workflowPlanFile, trimodalWorkflowStructure

name	description	nextStepFile	targetWorkflowPath	validationReportFile	workflowPlanFile	trimodalWorkflowStructure
step-06-validation-design-check	Check if workflow has proper validation steps that load validation data (if validation is critical)	./step-07-instruction-style-check.md	{workflow_folder_path}	{workflow_folder_path}/validation-report-{datetime}.md	{workflow_folder_path}/workflow-plan.md	../data/trimodal-workflow-structure.md

Validation Step 6: Validation Design Check

STEP GOAL:

To check if the workflow has proper validation steps when validation is critical - validation steps should load from validation data and perform systematic checks.

MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):

Universal Rules:

• 🛑 DO NOT BE LAZY - LOAD AND REVIEW EVERY FILE
• 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
• 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step, ensure entire file is read
• ✅ Validation does NOT stop for user input - auto-proceed through all validation steps
• ⚙️ If any instruction references a subprocess, subagent, or tool you do not have access to, you MUST still achieve the outcome in your main context

Step-Specific Rules:

• 🎯 Check if workflow needs validation steps - use subprocess optimization (per-file deep analysis for Pattern 2)
• 🚫 DO NOT skip any validation step reviews - DO NOT BE LAZY
• 💬 Subprocess must either update validation report directly OR return findings to parent for aggregation
• 🚪 This is validation - systematic and thorough

EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:

• 🎯 Determine if validation is critical for this workflow - use subprocess optimization when available
• 💾 Check validation steps exist and are well-designed - launch subprocess for per-file deep analysis (Pattern 2)
• 💬 Subprocesses must either update validation report OR return findings for parent aggregation
• 📖 Append findings to validation report
• 🚫 DO NOT halt for user input - validation runs to completion

CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:

• Some workflows need validation (compliance, safety, quality gates)
• Others don't (creative, exploratory)
• Check the design to determine if validation steps are needed

MANDATORY SEQUENCE

CRITICAL: Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip or shortcut.

1. Determine If Validation Is Critical

From {workflowPlanFile}, check:

Does this workflow NEED validation?

YES - Validation Critical If:

• Compliance/regulatory requirements (tax, legal, medical)
• Safety-critical outputs
• Quality gates required
• User explicitly requested validation steps

NO - Validation Not Critical If:

• Creative/exploratory workflow
• User-driven without formal requirements
• Output is user's responsibility to validate

2. If Validation Is Critical, Check Validation Steps

DO NOT BE LAZY - For EVERY validation step file, launch a subprocess that:

1. Loads that validation step file
2. Reads and analyzes the step's content deeply (prose, logic, quality, flow, anti-lazy language)
3. Returns structured analysis findings to parent for aggregation

SUBPROCESS ANALYSIS PATTERN - Check each validation step file for:

Proper Validation Step Design:

• ✅ Loads validation data/standards from data/ folder
• ✅ Has systematic check sequence (not hand-wavy)
• ✅ Auto-proceeds through checks (not stopping for each)
• ✅ Clear pass/fail criteria
• ✅ Reports findings to user

"DO NOT BE LAZY" Language Check:

• ✅ Step includes "DO NOT BE LAZY - LOAD AND REVIEW EVERY FILE" or similar mandate
• ✅ Step instructs to "Load and review EVERY file" not "sample files"
• ✅ Step has "DO NOT SKIP" or "DO NOT SHORTCUT" language
• ⚠️ WARNING if validation step lacks anti-lazy language

Critical Flow Check:

• ✅ For critical flows (compliance, safety, quality gates): validation steps are in steps-v/ folder (tri-modal)
• ✅ Validation steps are segregated from create flow
• ✅ Validation can be run independently
• ⚠️ For non-critical flows (entertainment, therapy, casual): validation may be inline
• ❌ ERROR if critical validation is mixed into create steps

RETURN FORMAT: Return a structured analysis containing:

• Step file name
• Proper design checklist (loads data, systematic checks, auto-proceeds, clear criteria, reports findings)
• Anti-lazy language check (has mandate, mandate text, comprehensive coverage)
• Critical flow check (location, segregation, independence)
• Any issues found
• Overall status (PASS/FAIL/WARN)

Context savings: Each subprocess returns analysis (~30 lines), not full step file (~200 lines). Parent gets structured findings, not file contents.

3. Aggregate Findings from All Subprocesses

After all validation step files have been analyzed in subprocesses, aggregate findings:

Process subprocess results:

• Compile all structured analysis findings
• Identify patterns across validation steps
• Note any critical issues or warnings

4. Check Validation Data Files

If workflow has validation steps:

1. Check data/ folder for validation data
2. Verify data files exist and are properly structured:
   • CSV files have headers
   • Markdown files have clear criteria
   • Data is referenced in step frontmatter

5. Document Findings

Create/Update "Validation Design Check" section in {validationReportFile} using aggregated subprocess findings:

Document the following information:

Whether validation is required: Indicate if this workflow needs validation steps based on its domain type (critical/compliance/safety workflows vs. creative/exploratory ones)

List of validation steps found: Provide the names/paths of all validation step files in the workflow

Validation step quality assessment: For each validation step, document:

• Whether it loads validation data/standards from the data/ folder
• Whether it has a systematic check sequence
• Whether it auto-proceeds through checks (vs. stopping for user input)
• Whether it includes "DO NOT BE LAZY" or similar anti-lazy language mandates
• Whether it has clear pass/fail criteria
• Overall status (PASS/FAIL/WARN)

"DO NOT BE LAZY" language presence: For each validation step, note whether anti-lazy language is present and what it says

Critical flow segregation: For workflows requiring validation, document:

• The workflow domain type
• Whether validation steps are in the steps-v/ folder (tri-modal structure) or inline with create steps
• Whether this segregation is appropriate for the workflow type

Validation data files: List any validation data files found in the data/ folder, or note if they are missing

Issues identified: List any problems found with the validation design, missing data files, or quality concerns

Overall status: Provide final assessment (PASS/FAIL/WARN/N/A) with reasoning

6. Append to Report

Update {validationReportFile} - replace "## Validation Design Check Pending..." with actual findings from subprocess aggregation.

7. Save Report and Auto-Proceed

CRITICAL: Save the validation report BEFORE loading next step.

Then immediately load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}.

Display: "Validation Design check complete. Proceeding to Instruction Style Check..."

---

🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS

✅ SUCCESS:

• Determined if validation is critical
• If critical: checked all validation steps
• Validated validation step quality
• Checked validation data files
• Findings documented
• Report saved before proceeding
• Next validation step loaded

❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:

• Not checking validation steps when critical
• Missing validation data files
• Not documenting validation design issues
• Not saving report before proceeding

Master Rule: Validation is systematic and thorough. DO NOT BE LAZY. Check validation steps thoroughly. Auto-proceed through all validation steps.