Technical Design Validation

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>

Execution Steps

1. Gather 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
   • Core steering context: product.md, tech.md, structure.md
   • Additional steering files only when directly relevant to architecture boundaries, integrations, runtime prerequisites, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect implementation readiness
   • Use explicitly requested skills and task-relevant local skills/playbooks, including design, accessibility, and UX. Select by description and read only needed guidance, even for small tasks; preserve required checks and host/project rules.

Parallel Research

The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel:

1. Context & rules loading: Spec documents, core steering, task-relevant extra steering, relevant local agent skills/playbooks, and rules/design-review.md from this skill's directory for review criteria
2. Codebase pattern survey: Gather existing architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structure from the codebase to use as reference during review

If multi-agent is enabled, spawn sub-agents for each area above. Otherwise execute sequentially.

After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings for review.

2. Execute Design Review:
   • Reference conversation history when available: leverage prior requirements discussion and user's stated design intent
   • Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO
   • Limit to 3 most important concerns
   • Engage interactively with user — ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives