{ "name": "PDLC Agentic Harness", "version": "2026-10-24", "playbook_files_version": "2026-10-23", "source": "https://pdlc.app/playbook/harness/", "principles": [ { "title": "One brief is the shared state", "text": "Every agent reads from and writes into the Canonical Product Brief. There is no second document, chat history or hidden memory that the team cannot see." }, { "title": "Agents draft and attack. Humans verify and decide", "text": "Agents fill fields, log findings and write gate readouts. People own Project Identity, fact verification, checklist ticks, signatures, the gate OUTCOME and every entry in the backlog tools." }, { "title": "Gaps, not guesses", "text": "When the sources do not answer a field the agent writes [GAP: what is missing · who supplies it]. A gap is a correct answer; a plausible guess is not." }, { "title": "Every field cites its source", "text": "Each filled field ends with its source in parentheses. Inferences are marked [ASSUMPTION · confidence high / med / low]." }, { "title": "Protected content never moves", "text": "Headings, RAPID tables, stage-gate tables, checklists, TO-DO boxes, definitions and instruction text are read-only for every agent." }, { "title": "One decider at every gate", "text": "The Product Leader decides G1 to G6. Agents never tick, sign or set OUTCOME, and a gate readout is advice, not approval." }, { "title": "Tool-agnostic by design", "text": "The same roles, prompts and tasks run in Microsoft Copilot in Word, Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or Perplexity, as pasted prompts or as orchestrated agents and sub-agents." } ], "roles": [ { "group": "Executive sponsors", "roles": [ "Product VP", "Product AVP" ] }, { "group": "Product", "roles": [ "Product Leader", "Product Manager" ] }, { "group": "Functional leads", "roles": [ "Product Designer", "Content Designer", "BI Lead", "Tech Lead", "Agile Coach", "Research Lead" ] }, { "group": "Risk and funding", "roles": [ "Legal", "Compliance", "Finance" ] } ], "steps": [ { "n": 1, "name": "FRAME", "key_question": "Is the problem worth solving?", "gate": "G1", "gate_name": "Problem Approved" }, { "n": 2, "name": "DISCOVER", "key_question": "Is there evidence of value?", "gate": "G2", "gate_name": "PRFAQ Approved" }, { "n": 3, "name": "DESIGN", "key_question": "Is the solution scoped and buildable?", "gate": "G3", "gate_name": "Build Ready" }, { "n": 4, "name": "READY", "key_question": "Should we fund and scale?", "gate": "G4", "gate_name": "Product Approved" }, { "n": 5, "name": "LAUNCH", "key_question": "Are we achieving the intended outcomes?", "gate": "G5", "gate_name": "Ship Ready" }, { "n": 6, "name": "ASSESS", "key_question": "Are we realizing value over time, or pivoting?", "gate": "G6", "gate_name": "Scale or Sunset" } ], "gates": [ { "id": "G1", "name": "Problem Approved", "confirms": "the problem is real, framed, sized — and worth solving.", "decide": "Product Leader", "agree": "Product VP + Product AVP + Finance + Research Lead", "evidence": "FRAME sections 1.1–1.6 complete · Measurement plan drafted · DVQE scored", "outcomes": [ "Advance to DISCOVER", "Conditional", "Hold / kill" ], "killer_questions": "Is the problem worth solving, and does 1.6 DVQE show Strong or Partial evidence on every dimension? Is this a real customer problem or an internal preference? What are customers doing today instead? What happens if we do nothing for two quarters? Which load-bearing claim is asserted rather than measured? Does the business case survive half the adoption and 1.5× the effort? Could the single success metric be hit while the customer is worse off? Who can veto late and has not been told?", "before": [ "Every 1.1–1.6 field has a source in parentheses or a highlighted [GAP]; no bare text.", "Read the G1 readout in Appendix C; close or consciously accept every Fatal and Structural item and record the acceptance in the gate OUTCOME row.", "Product VP and Product AVP have seen 1.3 (email or meeting in the sources).", "BI Lead confirmed baselines in 1.4 exist or are scheduled for instrumentation.", "1.6 DVQE: all four dimensions scored Strong / Partial / Weak with evidence and source; Weak verdicts named in the readout.", "AI Risk Tier chosen and consistent with the AI ROLE in 1.1.", "Discovery owner named and calendar held for the Discovery workshops." ], "after": [ "Record OUTCOME and sign-offs in the G1 table; file the Reviewer readout with the gate pre-read.", "Backlog tool (Jira Align, Jira or equivalent): create the Initiative. Create › Epic (Portfolio). Title = project name from Project Identity. Description = 1.1 WHO/WHAT/WHY and the 1.2 north-star (paste, 150 words max). Strategic Theme / OKR = the OKR in 1.1. Owner = Product Leader. Target completion = from 1.2 success-criteria window. State = Approved or program equivalent. Paste the backlog Epic ID into table A1.", "If the program uses Strategic Themes as the Initiative level, create or link the Theme instead and record its ID in A1." ] }, { "id": "G2", "name": "PRFAQ Approved", "confirms": "research, customer archetype, and launch story add up to a product worth designing.", "decide": "Product Leader", "agree": "Legal + Compliance + Research Lead", "evidence": "DISCOVER sections 2.1–2.7 complete · PRFAQ drafts reviewed · customer archetypes built · DVQE re-scored · Legal has reviewed external comms", "outcomes": [ "Advance to DESIGN", "Conditional", "Hold / kill" ], "killer_questions": "Is there evidence of value, and does 2.7 DVQE hold up against the research? Was the customer archetype derived from interviews or a workshop? Is a single anecdote doing the work of a dataset? Is the press release describing a changed customer outcome or a feature list? Which benefit claim has no evidence? Would the competitor's PM say we misunderstood the customer? Is the AI Risk Tier understated?", "before": [ "Press release (2.1) and external FAQ (2.3) read aloud to one person outside the team; their questions added to 2.3.", "Customer Archetype (2.5) traceable to at least five interviews per archetype, or [GAP] stated.", "2.7 DVQE: all four dimensions re-scored on DISCOVER evidence; any change from 1.6 explained.", "Internal FAQ (2.4) complete; AI Risk Tier confirmed; if Assistive or above, 3.5 scheduled.", "Read the G2 readout in Appendix C; close or accept every Fatal and Structural item.", "Research Lead and Content Designer have reviewed their Perform items." ], "after": [ "Record OUTCOME and sign-offs in the G2 table; file the Reviewer readout.", "Backlog tool (Jira Align, Jira or equivalent): open the Initiative; attach or link the approved PRFAQ (this brief's link) in Description or Attachments; update State to the program’s post-G2 state. No Capabilities or Features yet." ] }, { "id": "G3", "name": "Build Ready", "confirms": "the solution is approved, scoped, and prioritized. Engineering can pick it up.", "decide": "Product Leader", "agree": "Research Lead + Tech Lead + Agile Coach (+ Legal + Compliance when AI Risk Tier ≥ Assistive)", "evidence": "DESIGN sections 3.1–3.5 complete · Prototype concept-tested · Solution Intent, Validation, Capability Map and Boundaries reviewed · AI risk reviewed if applicable", "outcomes": [ "Advance to READY", "Conditional", "Hold / kill" ], "killer_questions": "Name the cheaper non-product fix that captures most of the value. Which insight is a restated feature request? Which capability is a screen in disguise? What breaks downstream and what does this make harder next year? What does the customer see on a confident wrong AI answer? Which hard constraint has no owner? What is the riskiest assumption and does the first increment test it?", "before": [ "Every capability in 3.3 links to at least one INS-ID; every insight in 3.1 is served by a capability or consciously parked.", "Won’t-have list in 3.4 is non-empty and reviewed by the Product Leader.", "3.5 completed if the AI Risk Tier requires it, with Compliance input in the sources.", "Read the G3 readout in Appendix C; close or accept every Fatal and Structural item.", "Tech Lead has confirmed feasibility of each CAP in writing (email or meeting in the sources)." ], "after": [ "Record OUTCOME and sign-offs in the G3 table; file the Reviewer readout.", "Backlog tool (Jira Align, Jira or equivalent): create one Capability per CAP row under the Initiative (checklist in the 3.3 to-do). Paste IDs into 3.3 and table A2.", "Stage Feature stubs: the Author Agent (Prompt 2, Draft B) drafts Appendix A3 Features (4.3); do not enter them in the backlog tool until the 4.4 audit and 4.5 Reviewer verdict are Ready." ] }, { "id": "G4", "name": "Product Approved", "confirms": "the roadmap, sizing, and story breakdown are approved — architecture and design have signed off, and engineering can commit stories to a sprint.", "decide": "Product Leader", "agree": "Tech Lead + Agile Coach + Research Lead", "evidence": "READY sections 4.1–4.5 complete · Stories sized and INVEST-checked · Architecture + design sign-off obtained", "outcomes": [ "Advance to LAUNCH", "Conditional advance (rework backlog)", "Hold for resizing" ], "killer_questions": "Should we fund and scale, and does the roadmap earn the investment? If engineering never opens this brief, what will they build wrong? Which Feature has no falsifiable benefit hypothesis? Which Story fails INVEST or has acceptance criteria that cannot fail? Which Story has no instrumentation event? Where is the missing 40% of effort (integration, compliance, testing, enablement, instrumentation)? Which dependency owner has not agreed in writing? What falls off the roadmap to make room?", "before": [ "Appendix A complete: A1 Initiative with backlog ID; A2 Capabilities with IDs; A3 Features with IDs, benefit hypotheses and acceptance criteria; A5 Stories for Now Features with delivery-tool IDs and Given/When/Then; A6 NFR tasks.", "4.4 audit table shows zero open failures or each remaining one has an owner and date.", "Transfer T4 Definition of Ready check returned no blocking items.", "Architecture and design sign-off evidence in the sources (email or meeting).", "Read the G4 readout in Appendix C; close or accept every Fatal and Structural item." ], "after": [ "Record OUTCOME and sign-offs in the G4 table; file the Reviewer readout.", "Backlog tool (Jira Align, Jira or equivalent): move Features for the first PI to Ready / Accepted per program convention; confirm PI assignment and Team on each.", "Delivery tool (Azure DevOps or equivalent): Stories for sprint 1 moved to the sprint backlog with Story Points agreed in refinement; Tags PDLC and the Initiative short name on every item.", "Freeze Appendix A as the handoff record: add the date and “Handed off” to the A1 row. Changes after this point happen in the tools first and are mirrored here at the next gate." ] }, { "id": "G5", "name": "Ship Ready", "confirms": "the product is built, tested, accessible, legally cleared, and meets acceptance criteria and Definition of Done — ready to ship to production.", "decide": "Product Leader", "agree": "Tech Lead + Agile Coach + Legal + Compliance", "evidence": "LAUNCH sections 5.0–5.5 complete · Legal & Compliance cleared · Test and accessibility evidence attached · Go/No-Go criteria met · Rollback rehearsed", "outcomes": [ "Advance to production", "Conditional", "Hold" ], "killer_questions": "Are we achieving intended outcomes, and is every 1.4 KPI instrumented before release? Then a pre-mortem: it is 30 days after launch and this failed; write eight dated failure stories from 5.0–5.5 (support spike with no runbook, accessibility regression found by a customer, rollback trigger that never fired, communications that could not be recalled, model drift, a compliance condition missed, dashboard nobody watched, dependency outage). For each: probability, impact, leading indicator, and whether 5.3–5.5 would catch it.", "before": [ "5.0 every element Cleared or Cleared with conditions, with reviewer names and dates.", "5.2 accessibility evidence attached, not promised.", "5.3 every Go criterion Met with an artifact; no Unknown.", "5.4 rollback rehearsed with a date; triggers are numbers tied to 1.4 KPIs.", "5.5 Day-1 dashboard live and showing baselines; first retro on the calendar.", "Read the G5 readout in Appendix C; close or accept every Fatal and Structural item." ], "after": [ "Record OUTCOME and sign-offs in the G5 table; file the Reviewer readout and the pre-mortem.", "Delivery tool (Azure DevOps or equivalent): release tagged; Stories closed with evidence links; remaining defects triaged to the next sprint with P-levels.", "Backlog tool (Jira Align, Jira or equivalent): Features for this release moved to Done / Accepted; Initiative progress updated; dependencies closed.", "Schedule the 30 / 60 / 90-day readings for 6.1 with the BI Lead now." ] }, { "id": "G6", "name": "Scale or Sunset", "confirms": "the product met its intent at 90 days and exits ASSESS through one of three doors.", "decide": "Product Leader", "agree": "Product VP + Product AVP + BI Lead + Finance", "evidence": "ASSESS sections 6.1–6.4 complete · 90-day actuals for every 1.4 KPI · Year-1 impact compared to 1.3 · one decision with its driving number", "outcomes": [ "Scale", "Fix and re-measure", "Sunset" ], "killer_questions": "Are we realizing value over time, or pivoting? Write the kill memo: the strongest case for stopping, five lines, from 6.1. Steelman the option 6.4 rejected. Did the metric move while the customer outcome did not? Is Fix really Sunset with extra steps? Is Scale justified by the KPI or by sunk cost? Does the new problem statement actually differ from the original?", "before": [ "6.1 shows 90-day actuals for every 1.4 KPI, including counter-metrics.", "6.3 compares Year-1 impact to the 1.3 estimate explicitly.", "6.4 names one decision with the number that drives it and the condition that would reverse it.", "Read the G6 readout in Appendix C; it must include the kill memo and the steelman of the rejected option." ], "after": [ "Record OUTCOME and sign-offs in the G6 table; file the Reviewer readout.", "Backlog tool (Jira Align, Jira or equivalent): set Initiative state (Scale: new Capabilities under the same Initiative; Fix: new Features under existing Capabilities; Sunset: Initiative closed with the migration plan linked).", "If Fix: copy this brief, clear 1.1–1.6 fields, keep Appendix A as history, and run the Author Agent (Prompt 1, Draft A) again." ] } ], "agents": [ { "key": "orchestrator", "name": "Orchestrator", "role": "Runs the harness", "does": "Reads Project Identity and the AI Risk Tier, sequences the runs (Sources → Draft A → Draft B → Review → Gate readouts → Transfer), enforces the stop rules, tracks the DONE lines and routes every [GAP] to the RAPID role that owns it.", "never": "Never fills Project Identity, never edits a section itself, never advances past a FRAME CHECK FAILED.", "covers": "All sections 1.1–6.4 and gates G1–G6 (sequencing only)", "subagents": [ { "name": "Run Planner", "task": "Builds the run order from the brief's state: which sections are empty, which gate is next, which sources are attached." }, { "name": "Gap Router", "task": "Collects every [GAP: what · who] and produces a to-do list by RAPID role with the section reference." }, { "name": "Change Logger", "task": "Records each run: prompt, sources, DONE line, edits accepted, findings by severity. Feeds the release record." } ] }, { "key": "source", "name": "Source Agent", "role": "Builds the evidence", "does": "When the team has fewer than three or four focused sources, gathers what already exists into two Source Packs: an Internal pack from work content and an External pack from the public web. Each pack counts as one source for the Author.", "never": "Never mixes internal and external content, never invents a number, never includes customer PII.", "covers": "Inputs to every section; heaviest at 1.1–1.4, 2.1–2.7 and 6.1–6.3", "subagents": [ { "name": "Internal Source Pack", "task": "Prompt A. Emails, chats, meeting recaps, files and intranet pages → ten-part pack tagged DECISION / FACT / METRIC / OPINION / QUESTION, newest wins, conflicts flagged." }, { "name": "External Source Pack", "task": "Prompt B. Reputable public sources only → seven-part pack tagged FACT / STAT / REGULATION / COMPETITOR / TREND / OPINION, every bullet with a URL." }, { "name": "Source Verifier", "task": "Spot-checks three links per pack, deletes anything unconfirmed, strips PII, flags DATED items older than 24 months and marks CONFLICT where packs disagree." } ] }, { "key": "author", "name": "Author Agent", "role": "Drafts the brief", "does": "Acts as the PDLC Brief Author: a product team member writing for an executive gate review. Fills the [bracketed] fields and input tables of each section from the attached sources, one edit per section, in two runs: Draft A (1.1–3.5) and Draft B (4.1–6.4).", "never": "Never changes protected content, never reviews its own work, never writes 'Cleared' or 'Met' without a source.", "covers": "Sections 1.1–6.4 (Prompt 1 Draft A · Prompt 2 Draft B)", "subagents": [ { "name": "FRAME Author", "task": "1.1–1.6. Problem before solution. Runs the five-line FRAME CHECK after 1.6; two FAILs stop the draft." }, { "name": "DISCOVER Author", "task": "2.1–2.7. Press release, composite quote, FAQs, archetypes, journey, DVQE re-score." }, { "name": "DESIGN Author", "task": "3.1–3.5. Insight statements, solution intent, capability map, boundaries, AI evaluation when the tier requires it." }, { "name": "READY Author", "task": "4.1–4.5 and Appendix A1–A6. Roadmap classes, backlog hierarchy, hygiene audit; leaves the transfer verdict to the Reviewer." }, { "name": "LAUNCH Author", "task": "5.0–5.5. Compliance packet, sprint plan, test and accessibility evidence, Go/No-Go table, rollback triggers as numbers, Day-1 enablement." }, { "name": "ASSESS Author", "task": "6.1–6.4. KPI actuals, drift signals, 90-day evaluation, a Recommendation only for 6.4." } ] }, { "key": "reviewer", "name": "Adversarial Reviewer Agent", "role": "Attacks the brief", "does": "Acts as a red-team product leader whose job is to find how this fails while failure is still cheap. Attacks every section against the sources and against each other, logs each finding in Appendix C with severity, confidence, defeating evidence and the cheapest test, and closes FIXABLE findings the sources resolve.", "never": "Never invents a fact to strengthen an attack, never praises, never writes outside Appendix C except to close a FIXABLE finding.", "covers": "Sections 1.1–6.4 (Prompt 3 Review, part 1–2 and 4)", "subagents": [ { "name": "Section Red Team", "task": "Runs the seven attacks on every section: problem, counterfactual, evidence, math, second-order, organizational, measurement." }, { "name": "Evidence Grader", "task": "Grades each claim measured / observed / self-reported / assumed / asserted and names the load-bearing claim that is only asserted." }, { "name": "Math Checker", "task": "Re-runs the business case at half the adoption and 1.5× the effort; checks each KPI measures the stated problem, not a neighbouring one." }, { "name": "Cross-Section Auditor", "task": "Finds contradictions: a 1.4 KPI that 6.1 never measures, a 3.2 solution that drifts from 1.1, a 4.1 roadmap item with no capability, a 4.5 transfer verdict." } ] }, { "key": "gate", "name": "Gate Reviewer Agent", "role": "Prepares the gate", "does": "For each gate G1–G6, audits the gate's sections against its checklist (Met / Partial / Missing, what is missing, which RAPID role supplies it), restates the DVQE verdicts, answers the step's key question, runs that gate's killer questions and writes the readout into Appendix C2.", "never": "Never ticks, signs or sets OUTCOME. The named approvers agree and the Product Leader decides.", "covers": "Gates G1–G6 (Prompt 3 Review, part 3)", "subagents": [ { "name": "Checklist Auditor", "task": "Item · Met / Partial / Missing · one line on what is missing · the RAPID role that supplies it." }, { "name": "Readout Writer", "task": "VERDICT (KILL / REWORK / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / PROCEED) · FATAL (max 3) · STRUCTURAL · FIXABLE · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY (three leading indicators and a kill criterion with a date)." }, { "name": "Pre-mortem Writer", "task": "G5 only. Eight dated failure stories 30 days after launch, each with probability, impact, leading indicator and whether 5.3–5.5 would catch it." }, { "name": "Kill-memo Writer", "task": "G6 only. The strongest five-line case for stopping, from 6.1, plus the steelman of the option 6.4 rejected." } ] }, { "key": "transfer", "name": "Transfer Agent", "role": "Formats the handoff", "does": "After G3 and G4, turns Appendix A into import-ready tables for the backlog and delivery tools (Jira Align, Jira, Azure DevOps, Linear or equivalent) and runs the Definition of Ready check once IDs are pasted back.", "never": "Never creates items in a tool itself. A person enters or imports them, pastes the IDs back into Appendix A and freezes it as the handoff record.", "covers": "Sections 3.3, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and the G3 / G4 after-approval steps", "subagents": [ { "name": "Feature Formatter", "task": "From A3: Title · Description · Program · State · Parent capability · Estimate · Target increment. One row per Feature, no blank Descriptions." }, { "name": "Story Formatter", "task": "From A4–A6: Work Item Type · Title · Description · Acceptance Criteria (Given / When / Then) · Tags · Story Points · Area · Iteration. Epics, then Stories, then Tasks." }, { "name": "Definition-of-Ready Checker", "task": "Compares A3 and A5 with the recorded IDs: any Feature without an ID, Story without an ID, acceptance criteria not Given / When / Then, Story over 8 points → to-do list by owner." } ] } ], "run_order": [ "sources", "draft_a", "draft_b", "review", "gates", "transfer", "decide" ], "tasks": [ { "id": "1.1", "step": 1, "name": "WHO — WHAT — WHY", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "FRAME Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "No solution language. WHO, WHAT and WHY describe the problem only.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Problem attack: is this a customer problem or an internal preference? Counterfactual: what happens if we do nothing for two quarters?", "human": "Confirm the problem is the customer's, not an internal preference." }, { "id": "1.2", "step": 1, "name": "Product Vision", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "FRAME Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Name the customer outcome, not the feature set.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Measurement attack: could the vision be 'achieved' while the customer is worse off?", "human": "Vision names an outcome a customer would recognize." }, { "id": "1.3", "step": 1, "name": "Business Case", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "FRAME Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "ROI and Year-1 arithmetic one line each; unsourced inputs = [GAP · BI Lead].", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Math attack: half the adoption, 1.5× the effort. Evidence attack: which input is asserted, not measured?", "human": "Every number traces to a source; the downside case is written down." }, { "id": "1.4", "step": 1, "name": "Measurement Plan", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "FRAME Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "KPI = metric · baseline (or 'not instrumented') · target · source.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Measurement attack: does each KPI measure the stated problem, not a neighbouring one? Name the alternative cause.", "human": "BI Lead confirms baselines exist or are scheduled for instrumentation." }, { "id": "1.5", "step": 1, "name": "Stakeholder Map (RAPID)", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "FRAME Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Fill only 'Name for This Project'; exception approver = Product Leader.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Organizational attack: who can veto late and has not been told?", "human": "Named individuals agree they hold the letter next to their name." }, { "id": "1.6", "step": 1, "name": "DVQE — Desirability, Viability, Quality & Executability", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "FRAME Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Never leave a dimension unscored; a Weak verdict names the missing evidence as a [GAP].", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Evidence attack: grade each dimension measured / observed / self-reported / assumed / asserted.", "human": "Weak verdicts are named in the gate readout, not hidden." }, { "id": "2.1", "step": 2, "name": "Press Release (PRFAQ)", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DISCOVER Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Body = problem, solution, one role-attributed internal quote.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Problem attack: changed customer outcome or a feature list? Which benefit claim has no evidence?", "human": "Read aloud to one person outside the team; add their questions to 2.3." }, { "id": "2.2", "step": 2, "name": "Customer Quote & Getting Started", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DISCOVER Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Quote is marked '(composite)'; never a real person.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Evidence attack: is a single anecdote doing the work of a dataset?", "human": "Getting started reflects what a first-time customer would actually do." }, { "id": "2.3", "step": 2, "name": "External FAQ", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DISCOVER Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "5–7 real customer questions, plain language.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Second-order attack: where is the escalation path when the product fails the customer?", "human": "Questions came from customers or outside readers, not the team." }, { "id": "2.4", "step": 2, "name": "Internal FAQ — Required Fields", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DISCOVER Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "AI Risk Tier = Project Identity value; one option per required field.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Organizational attack: is the AI Risk Tier understated? Who confirmed it?", "human": "Tech Lead confirms the AI Risk Tier; if Assistive or above, 3.5 is scheduled." }, { "id": "2.5", "step": 2, "name": "Customer Archetype", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DISCOVER Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Archetypes, never a real person.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Evidence attack: interviews or a workshop? Would the competitor's PM say we misunderstood the customer?", "human": "Each archetype traces to at least five interviews, or the [GAP] is stated." }, { "id": "2.6", "step": 2, "name": "Customer Journey", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DISCOVER Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "The table's row names, including KPIs to Measure, are the fields.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Second-order attack: which back-stage handoff breaks first?", "human": "Journey stages match how the customer experiences the product." }, { "id": "2.7", "step": 2, "name": "DVQE — Desirability, Viability, Quality & Executability", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DISCOVER Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Re-score on DISCOVER evidence; explain changes from 1.6.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Evidence attack: did any verdict change from 1.6 without new evidence?", "human": "Changes from 1.6 are explained with evidence." }, { "id": "3.1", "step": 3, "name": "Insight Statements", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DESIGN Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Format 'As [customer archetype], I learned that … because …' + Implication + Evidence tier.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Problem attack: which insight is a restated feature request?", "human": "No insight is a restated feature request." }, { "id": "3.2", "step": 3, "name": "Solution Intent and Validation", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DESIGN Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Opportunity = users, ROI range, fit; trade-off and riskiest-assumption test in Why It Works.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Counterfactual: name the cheaper non-product fix that captures most of the value. Does the first increment test the riskiest assumption?", "human": "Solution still answers the 1.1 problem; the riskiest assumption has a test." }, { "id": "3.3", "step": 3, "name": "Capability Map", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DESIGN Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Business capabilities, not features; A2 Reuse is the reuse field.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Problem attack: which capability is a screen in disguise? Which has no linked insight?", "human": "Every capability links to an insight; Tech Lead confirms feasibility in writing." }, { "id": "3.4", "step": 3, "name": "Boundaries & Constraints", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DESIGN Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Won't-have list is non-empty; each hard constraint has an owner.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Organizational attack: which hard constraint has no owner? Is the won't-have list empty?", "human": "Product Leader has reviewed the won't-have list." }, { "id": "3.5", "step": 3, "name": "AI Evaluation (Conditional)", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "DESIGN Author", "prompt": "Prompt 1 · Draft A", "task": "Project Identity tier governs; all four blocks if Assistive or higher, one line if None.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Second-order attack: what does the customer see on a confident wrong AI answer?", "human": "Compliance input is in the sources when the tier requires it." }, { "id": "4.1", "step": 4, "name": "Roadmap Definitions", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "READY Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Classify each CAP into Now, Next, Later or Parking lot with reason and target increment.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Organizational attack: what falls off the roadmap to make room, and is that written down?", "human": "What falls off the roadmap to make room is written down." }, { "id": "4.2", "step": 4, "name": "Roadmap Template", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "READY Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Fill the roadmap table from 4.1; dependencies name the providing team.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Organizational attack: which dependency owner has not agreed in writing?", "human": "Dependency owners have agreed in writing." }, { "id": "4.3", "step": 4, "name": "Backlog Hierarchy", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "READY Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Treat A1–A6 as the tables to fill, one edit per table.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Evidence attack: which Feature has no falsifiable benefit hypothesis? Which Story fails INVEST?", "human": "Every Feature has a falsifiable benefit hypothesis and acceptance criteria." }, { "id": "4.4", "step": 4, "name": "Backlog Hygiene Standards", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "READY Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Record each failing Appendix A item: ID · standard failed · fix · owner.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Math attack: where is the missing 40% of effort (integration, compliance, testing, enablement, instrumentation)?", "human": "Zero open failures, or each has an owner and a date." }, { "id": "4.5", "step": 4, "name": "Handoff to Jira / ADO", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "READY Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Leave the Ready to transfer verdict to the Reviewer (Prompt 3).", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Measurement attack: which Story has no instrumentation event? Ready to transfer or Not ready, as a finding.", "human": "A Feature without an ID in A3 is not handed off." }, { "id": "5.0", "step": 5, "name": "Legal & Compliance Review", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "LAUNCH Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Never write Cleared or Met without a source.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Evidence attack: 'Cleared' with no reviewer name and date is unsupported.", "human": "Every element Cleared or Cleared with conditions, with reviewer names and dates." }, { "id": "5.1", "step": 5, "name": "Agile Delivery (2-week sprints)", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "LAUNCH Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Fill the sprint table from Appendix A; stages not reached = [GAP: stage not reached · owner].", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Math attack: is capacity tracked or asserted?", "human": "Capacity and scope are tracked, not asserted." }, { "id": "5.2", "step": 5, "name": "Test Plan + Accessibility", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "LAUNCH Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Record coverage targets and evidence; accessibility evidence is attached, not promised.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Evidence attack: accessibility evidence attached or promised?", "human": "Accessibility evidence attached, not promised." }, { "id": "5.3", "step": 5, "name": "Go / No-Go Criteria", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "LAUNCH Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Each criterion Met / Not met / Unknown with the artifact that proves it.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Measurement attack: can every Go criterion fail? Any Unknown is a No-Go.", "human": "Every Go criterion Met with an artifact; no Unknown." }, { "id": "5.4", "step": 5, "name": "Deploy + Rollback", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "LAUNCH Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Rollback triggers are numbers tied to 1.4 KPIs or error budgets.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Second-order attack: a rollback trigger that never fired; triggers must be numbers tied to 1.4.", "human": "Rollback rehearsed with a date." }, { "id": "5.5", "step": 5, "name": "Day-1 Enablement", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "LAUNCH Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Fill the enablement table; dashboard KPIs are the 1.4 KPIs.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Second-order attack: a support spike with no runbook; a dashboard nobody watched.", "human": "Day-1 dashboard live and showing baselines; first retro on the calendar." }, { "id": "6.1", "step": 6, "name": "KPI Tracking — activate the measurement plan", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "ASSESS Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Treat Current as holding 30/60/90-day actuals, variance and counter-metric.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Measurement attack: did the metric move while the customer outcome did not? Counter-metrics present?", "human": "90-day actuals for every 1.4 KPI, including counter-metrics." }, { "id": "6.2", "step": 6, "name": "Drift, Feedback Loop & Data Flywheel", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "ASSESS Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Treat Your Input and the harness signal table as the fields.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Second-order attack: model or behaviour drift with no owner and no cadence.", "human": "Drift signals have owners and a review cadence." }, { "id": "6.3", "step": 6, "name": "Post-Launch Evaluation (90-Day)", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "ASSESS Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Compare actuals to 1.3 and 1.4 explicitly; verdict yes / no with evidence.", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Math attack: Year-1 actuals against the 1.3 estimate, explicitly.", "human": "6.3 compares Year-1 impact to the 1.3 estimate explicitly." }, { "id": "6.4", "step": 6, "name": "Scale / Fix / Sunset", "agent": "Author Agent", "sub": "ASSESS Author", "prompt": "Prompt 2 · Draft B", "task": "Write 'Recommendation: …' only; owner and date = [GAP · Product Leader decides].", "output": "Section filled, every field cited or [GAP], one edit", "reviewer": "Kill memo and steelman: is Fix really Sunset with extra steps? Is Scale justified by the KPI or by sunk cost?", "human": "Product Leader names one decision, the driving number and the reversal condition." } ], "gate_tasks": [ { "id": "G1", "step": 1, "name": "Problem Approved", "agent": "Gate Reviewer Agent", "sub": "Checklist Auditor → Readout Writer", "prompt": "Prompt 3 · Review", "task": "Audit the checklist, restate DVQE, answer the key question, run the killer questions, write the C2 readout.", "output": "C2 readout: VERDICT · FATAL · STRUCTURAL · FIXABLE · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY", "human": "Approvers agree (Product VP + Product AVP + Finance + Research Lead). Product Leader decides: Advance to DISCOVER · Conditional · Hold / kill." }, { "id": "G2", "step": 2, "name": "PRFAQ Approved", "agent": "Gate Reviewer Agent", "sub": "Checklist Auditor → Readout Writer", "prompt": "Prompt 3 · Review", "task": "Audit the checklist, restate DVQE, answer the key question, run the killer questions, write the C2 readout.", "output": "C2 readout: VERDICT · FATAL · STRUCTURAL · FIXABLE · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY", "human": "Approvers agree (Legal + Compliance + Research Lead). Product Leader decides: Advance to DESIGN · Conditional · Hold / kill." }, { "id": "G3", "step": 3, "name": "Build Ready", "agent": "Gate Reviewer Agent", "sub": "Checklist Auditor → Readout Writer", "prompt": "Prompt 3 · Review", "task": "Audit the checklist, restate DVQE, answer the key question, run the killer questions, write the C2 readout.", "output": "C2 readout: VERDICT · FATAL · STRUCTURAL · FIXABLE · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY", "human": "Approvers agree (Research Lead + Tech Lead + Agile Coach (+ Legal + Compliance when AI Risk Tier ≥ Assistive)). Product Leader decides: Advance to READY · Conditional · Hold / kill." }, { "id": "G4", "step": 4, "name": "Product Approved", "agent": "Gate Reviewer Agent", "sub": "Checklist Auditor → Readout Writer", "prompt": "Prompt 3 · Review", "task": "Audit the checklist, restate DVQE, answer the key question, run the killer questions, write the C2 readout.", "output": "C2 readout: VERDICT · FATAL · STRUCTURAL · FIXABLE · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY", "human": "Approvers agree (Tech Lead + Agile Coach + Research Lead). Product Leader decides: Advance to LAUNCH · Conditional advance (rework backlog) · Hold for resizing." }, { "id": "G5", "step": 5, "name": "Ship Ready", "agent": "Gate Reviewer Agent", "sub": "Checklist Auditor → Readout Writer → Pre-mortem Writer", "prompt": "Prompt 3 · Review", "task": "Audit the checklist, restate DVQE, answer the key question, run the killer questions, write the C2 readout.", "output": "C2 readout: VERDICT · FATAL · STRUCTURAL · FIXABLE · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY", "human": "Approvers agree (Tech Lead + Agile Coach + Legal + Compliance). Product Leader decides: Advance to production · Conditional · Hold." }, { "id": "G6", "step": 6, "name": "Scale or Sunset", "agent": "Gate Reviewer Agent", "sub": "Checklist Auditor → Readout Writer → Kill-memo Writer", "prompt": "Prompt 3 · Review", "task": "Audit the checklist, restate DVQE, answer the key question, run the killer questions, write the C2 readout.", "output": "C2 readout: VERDICT · FATAL · STRUCTURAL · FIXABLE · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY", "human": "Approvers agree (Product VP + Product AVP + BI Lead + Finance). Product Leader decides: Scale · Fix and re-measure · Sunset." } ], "prompts": [ { "key": "A", "title": "Prompt A · Internal Source Pack", "agent": "Source Agent → Internal Source Pack", "when": "Only if you do not have three or four focused sources. Run in a work-grounded chat (Copilot Chat with work content, or your assistant with access to your files). Save the reply as PDLC_Source_Pack_Internal_[Product]_vYYYY-MM-DD.", "text": "SOURCE PACK · INTERNAL\nProduct or idea: [product name and one-line idea]\nSearch words: [3–6 words: project names, code names, team names]\nPeople to check (optional): [person] [person]\nTime window: last 12 months\nUsing only internal work content I can access (my emails, chats and channel posts, meeting recaps and transcripts, shared files and intranet pages), build an Internal Source Pack for a PDLC Product Brief. Do not use the public web.\nRULES\n1. Use only what you find. End every bullet with its source: [type · title or subject · owner · date · link].\n2. Never invent numbers, names, dates, owners or decisions. If not found, write [GAP: what is missing – likely owner].\n3. Tag each bullet DECISION, FACT, METRIC, OPINION or QUESTION. A meeting discussion is not a decision.\n4. Newest wins. If sources disagree, show both with dates and tag CONFLICT.\n5. No customer PII: no customer names, IDs, account or personal details. Aggregate numbers only. Skip HR and personnel matters.\n6. Keep labels such as Confidential or Internal Only.\n7. Short, plain bullets. At most 8 per section.\nOUTPUT\nInternal Source Pack – [product] – [today's date]\n1 Problem and why now\n2 Customers and users affected\n3 Current metrics and baselines, with dates\n4 Goals, OKRs and success measures already stated\n5 Decisions so far, with decider and date\n6 People and roles (Product Leader, Tech Lead, BI, Compliance, others)\n7 Constraints, risks, compliance and AI notes\n8 Dependencies, systems and related work\n9 Open questions and GAPs\n10 Numbered source list with links\nEnd with: INTERNAL SOURCE PACK DONE · items: [n] · GAPs: [n]" }, { "key": "B", "title": "Prompt B · External Source Pack", "agent": "Source Agent → External Source Pack", "when": "Only if you do not have original source material. Run in a web-grounded chat with work content off. Public terms only. Save the reply as PDLC_Source_Pack_External_[Product]_vYYYY-MM-DD.", "text": "SOURCE PACK · EXTERNAL\nTopic: [the product idea in general public terms, with no confidential details]\nSearch words: [3–6 public words, for example: renewal reminders subscription billing]\nTime window: last 24 months\nSearch the public web only and build an External Source Pack for a PDLC Product Brief.\nRULES\n1. Use reputable public sources: regulators and government, published research, analyst and industry reports, company press releases and official sites, and established news. Use a blog only if it names an expert author or company, and tag it BLOG.\n2. End every bullet with [publisher · title · date · URL]. No URL, no bullet.\n3. Never invent statistics. Quote numbers exactly as published, with year and population.\n4. Tag each bullet FACT, STAT, REGULATION, COMPETITOR, TREND or OPINION.\n5. These are outside views, not company positions. Do not guess internal data.\n6. Tag anything older than 24 months DATED.\n7. Short, plain bullets. At most 8 per section.\nOUTPUT\nExternal Source Pack – [topic] – [today's date]\n1 Market and customer trends\n2 Industry benchmarks and statistics\n3 Regulation and policy\n4 Competitor and peer moves\n5 Evidence on what works\n6 Risks and watch-outs\n7 Numbered source list with URLs\nEnd with: EXTERNAL SOURCE PACK DONE · sources: [n]" }, { "key": "1", "title": "Prompt 1 · Draft A · FRAME, DISCOVER, DESIGN (1.1–3.5)", "agent": "Author Agent → FRAME, DISCOVER and DESIGN Authors", "when": "Paste into the assistant that is editing your copy of the brief (Copilot pane in Word with Allow editing, or your agent with the brief open). Attach three or four sources. Wait for DRAFT A DONE.", "text": "PDLC BRIEF · DRAFT A · PROMPT 1 of 3 · 1.1-3.5\nSOURCES: [source 1] [source 2] [source 3] [source 4]\nEdit only this document. Act as the PDLC Brief Author (Author rules on the Harness page). Never edit Project Identity (read it as context) or Appendix C.\nFor 1.1 to 3.5 in order: fill the section's [bracketed] fields and empty input cells from SOURCES, following each field's description. ONE EDIT PER SECTION: write all of a section's fields in one edit and fill each input table (all rows) in one edit; no line-by-line edits.\nRules: Never change headings, RAPID tables, gate tables, checklists, TO-DO boxes, definitions or instruction text. Never tick, sign or set OUTCOME. Fill existing input tables; no duplicates. Unknown = [GAP: what · who], highlighted. Cite every field. No guesses. AI ROLE or AI Risk Tier from a requester's idea stays [ASSUMPTION · low] until the Tech Lead confirms. No review or findings here; Prompt 3 does that.\nFixes: 1.1: no solution language. 1.3: ROI and Year-1 arithmetic one line each; unsourced inputs = [GAP · BI Lead]. 1.4: KPI = metric · baseline (or \"not instrumented\") · target · source. 1.5: fill only \"Name for This Project\"; exception approver = Product Leader. 2.1: Body = problem, solution, one role-attributed internal quote. 2.2: quote is \"(composite)\". 2.3: 5-7 real customer questions. 2.4: AI Risk Tier = Project Identity value; one option per required field. 2.5: archetypes, never a real person. 2.6: the table's row names, incl. KPIs to Measure, are the fields. 3.1: format \"As [customer archetype], I learned that … because …\" + Implication + Evidence tier. 3.2: Opportunity = users, ROI range, fit; trade-off and riskiest-assumption test in Why It Works. 3.3: business capabilities, not features; A2 Reuse is the reuse field. 3.5: Project Identity tier governs; all four blocks if Assistive or higher, one line if None.\nFRAME CHECK after 1.6, before 2.1; reply with five lines, PASS or FAIL plus one reason: (a) 1.1 names a problem, not a solution; (b) every 1.4 KPI measures it; (c) each 1.3 ROI input is sourced or [GAP · BI Lead]; (d) 1.2 names the customer outcome; (e) 1.6 DVQE has evidence or GAP on every dimension. Two or more FAIL: write \"FRAME CHECK FAILED\" and stop; I will fix FRAME and re-run Prompt 1. Otherwise continue.\nIf space runs low, stop after a whole section, write \"NEXT: x.x\"; I reply CONTINUE. Finish with \"DRAFT A DONE\", FRAME check lines, sections filled, GAPs by owner.\nEND PROMPT 1" }, { "key": "2", "title": "Prompt 2 · Draft B · READY, LAUNCH, ASSESS (4.1–6.4)", "agent": "Author Agent → READY, LAUNCH and ASSESS Authors", "when": "Same place as Prompt 1. Re-attach the sources. Wait for DRAFT B DONE. Stages not yet reached are written as [GAP: stage not reached · owner].", "text": "PDLC BRIEF · DRAFT B · PROMPT 2 of 3 · 4.1-6.4\nSOURCES: [source 1] [source 2] [source 3] [source 4]\nEdit only this document. Act as the PDLC Brief Author (Author rules on the Harness page). Never write in Appendix C. If sources hold no build, launch or post-launch evidence, write [GAP: stage not reached · owner] in those fields. Never write Cleared or Met without a source.\nFor 4.1 to 6.4 in order: fill the section's [bracketed] fields and empty input cells from SOURCES, sections 1-3 and Appendix A, following each field's description. ONE EDIT PER SECTION: write all of a section's fields in one edit and fill each input table (all rows) in one edit; no line-by-line edits.\nRules: Never change headings, RAPID tables, gate tables, checklists, TO-DO boxes, definitions or instruction text. Never tick, sign or set OUTCOME. Fill existing input tables; no duplicates. Unknown = [GAP: what · who], highlighted. Cite every field. No guesses. AI ROLE or AI Risk Tier from a requester's idea stays [ASSUMPTION · low] until the Tech Lead confirms. No review or findings here; Prompt 3 does that.\nFixes: 4.1: classify each CAP into Now, Next, Later or Parking lot in the input table, with reason and target increment. 4.3: treat A1-A6 as the tables to fill, one edit per table. 4.4: record each failing Appendix A item in the 4.4 input table: ID · standard failed · fix · owner. 4.5: leave the Ready to transfer verdict to Prompt 3. 5.4: rollback triggers are numbers tied to 1.4 KPIs or error budgets. 6.1: treat Current as holding 30/60/90-day actuals, variance and counter-metric. 6.2: treat Your Input and the harness signal table as the fields. 6.4: treat the answer as \"Recommendation: …\" only; owner and date = [GAP · Product Leader decides].\nIf space runs low, stop after a whole section, write \"NEXT: x.x\"; I reply CONTINUE. Finish with \"DRAFT B DONE\", sections filled, GAPs by owner.\nEND PROMPT 2" }, { "key": "3", "title": "Prompt 3 · Review · All sections, G1 to G6", "agent": "Adversarial Reviewer Agent + Gate Reviewer Agent", "when": "Same place, after both drafts. Re-attach the sources. Wait for REVIEW DONE. Then read Appendix C before anything else.", "text": "PDLC BRIEF · REVIEW · PROMPT 3 of 3 · 1.1-6.4, G1-G6\nSOURCES: [source 1] [source 2] [source 3] [source 4]\nEdit only this document. Act as the PDLC Adversarial Reviewer (Reviewer rules, Gate review rules and killer questions on the Harness page). Appendix C (Adversarial Review Log) is right after Start here: C1 is the findings table, C2 holds one row per gate readout.\n1 REVIEW: attack every section 1.1 to 6.4 against SOURCES and against each other; check each metric measures the stated problem, not a neighbouring one, and name the alternative cause; flag contradictions between sections (a 1.4 KPI that 6.1 never measures, a 3.2 solution that drifts from 1.1, a 4.1 roadmap item with no CAP). Include the 4.5 Ready to transfer / Not ready verdict as a finding.\n2 LOG: write the findings into the C1 table, Status Open, newest rows first after the header. ONE EDIT PER BLOCK: fill up to 20 rows per edit (add rows if the table is full); never one edit per finding.\n3 GATES: for G1 to G6 apply the Gate review rules and that gate's killer questions; write all six readouts into their C2 rows in a single edit.\n4 CLOSE: revise a section only to close a FIXABLE finding the sources resolve, one edit per section; set those rows Closed. Leave FATAL and STRUCTURAL rows Open for the owners.\nRules: The Reviewer writes in Appendix C and, for step 4 only, in the sections it closes. Never change headings, RAPID tables, gate tables, checklists, TO-DO boxes, definitions or instruction text. Never tick, sign or set OUTCOME. Never edit Project Identity. Unknown stays [GAP: what · who]. No praise, no cruelty; name the mechanism. G6 readout includes a kill memo and the steelman of the rejected option.\nIf space runs low, stop after a whole section, write \"NEXT: x.x\"; I reply CONTINUE. Finish with \"REVIEW DONE\", findings by severity, FIXABLE closed count, G1 to G6 verdicts, orphan count.\nEND PROMPT 3" }, { "key": "4", "title": "Prompt 4 · Tidy up the review log (only if needed)", "agent": "Orchestrator → Change Logger", "when": "Only if findings or readouts landed outside the Appendix C tables.", "text": "In the Adversarial Review Log right after Start here, move every finding written as a paragraph into its own row of the C1 findings table, and every gate readout written outside the C2 table into its gate's C2 row. Do not change anything else." }, { "key": "T", "title": "Transfer prompts · Features, Stories, Definition of Ready", "agent": "Transfer Agent", "when": "Chat only, after G3 (Features) and G4 (Stories). A person imports or enters the rows and pastes the IDs back into Appendix A.", "text": "TRANSFER · FEATURES (after G3)\nFrom table A3 produce a table with exactly these columns in this order: Title, Description, Primary Program, State, Parent (Capability title), Estimate, Target Increment. One row per Feature, text only, no blank Descriptions.\n\nTRANSFER · STORIES AND TASKS (after G4)\nFrom tables A4–A6 produce a CSV-ready table with exactly these columns: Work Item Type, Title, Description, Acceptance Criteria, Tags, Story Points, Area Path, Iteration Path. Epics first, then each Epic's User Stories, then each Story's Tasks. Acceptance Criteria in Given/When/Then lines. No ID, State or Assigned To columns.\n\nTRANSFER · DEFINITION OF READY CHECK (after IDs are pasted back)\nCompare tables A3 and A5 with the IDs now recorded. List any Feature without a backlog ID, any Story without a delivery-tool ID, any Story whose acceptance criteria are not Given/When/Then, and any Story over 8 points. Return a to-do list by owner." } ], "rules": { "Author rules": [ "Act as the PDLC Brief Author: a product team member (any role in the product team archetype) writing for an executive gate review.", "Use only the sources referenced in the prompt and text already in the brief. Never invent numbers, dates, names, quotes or research findings.", "Fill only the fields the prompt names. Replace bracketed placeholder text. Keep every heading, RAPID table, STAGE GATE table and TO-DO box exactly as they are.", "Where sources do not answer a field, write [GAP: what is missing · who supplies it] and highlight it. A gap is a correct answer; a plausible guess is not.", "End every filled field with its source in parentheses (file, email or meeting name). Mark any inference [ASSUMPTION · confidence high/med/low].", "Problem before solution. Outcomes over output. Short sentences, bullets, under 120 words per field. Use your company's vocabulary: customer, product, OKR, increment, Feature, Story.", "In 1.6 and 2.7 (DVQE) score all four dimensions as evidence · source · verdict Strong / Partial / Weak. Never leave a dimension unscored; a Weak verdict names the missing evidence as a [GAP].", "Finish in chat with: fields filled, gaps remaining, and anything you were unsure about." ], "Adversarial Reviewer rules": [ "Act as the PDLC Adversarial Reviewer: a red-team product leader whose job is to find how this fails while failure is still cheap. Hostile to the work, never to the person.", "Read only the section or gate named in the prompt plus the sections it depends on. Write only in Appendix C.", "Every objection is specific and falsifiable: name the mechanism, the evidence that would defeat it, and the cheapest test or artifact that settles it. Drop anything that is only a feeling.", "Rank severity: FATAL (ends the initiative), STRUCTURAL (forces a redesign), FIXABLE (cheap to close). At most three Fatal items. Mark confidence high / med / low.", "Run the seven attacks: problem, counterfactual, evidence (measured / observed / self-reported / assumed / asserted), math (half the adoption, 1.5× the effort), second-order, organizational (who vetoes late), measurement (could it hit the metric and still fail).", "Never invent facts to strengthen an attack. If a number is missing, say the claim is unsupported without it.", "End with a verdict: KILL / REWORK / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / PROCEED, what would change your mind, and three leading indicators plus a kill criterion with a date. If the work holds, say so and name the two residual risks." ], "Gate review rules": [ "Review the gate's sections (and Appendix A at G4) against the gate's checklist table, headed STAGE GATE Gx. All six gates are reviewed in Prompt 3, after both drafts.", "Checklist first: item · Met / Partial / Missing · what is missing in one line · which RAPID role supplies it.", "At G1 and G2 restate the DVQE verdicts (1.6 / 2.7) and answer the step's key question: is the problem worth solving (G1); is there evidence of value (G2). At G4 answer: should we fund and scale; at G5: are we achieving intended outcomes; at G6: are we realizing value over time, or pivoting.", "Attack the gate with the Reviewer rules and that gate's killer questions.", "Write the readout in the gate's C2 row: VERDICT (KILL / REWORK / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / PROCEED, one sentence why) · FATAL (max 3: flaw, why fatal, evidence that would defeat it, cheapest test) · STRUCTURAL (same four fields) · FIXABLE (short list) · STRONGEST PART · WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND · IF YOU PROCEED ANYWAY (three leading indicators and a kill criterion with a date).", "Mark confidence per item. Keep it shorter than the sections it attacks. No praise, no cruelty.", "Never tick, sign or set OUTCOME; the named approvers decide." ] }, "tools": [ { "name": "Microsoft Copilot in Word", "how": "Open your copy of the brief in Word for the web, set the Copilot pane to Allow editing, attach three or four sources with “/”, paste Prompts 1, 2 and 3 in order. Measured run: about 17 minutes of Copilot time for a full brief, 197 edits accepted in three Done clicks; allow 60–90 minutes for your own review.", "mode": "Pasted prompts · one agent at a time" }, { "name": "Claude · Claude Code", "how": "Save the brief as Markdown. In Claude, use a Project with the Harness rules as project instructions and run the prompts. In Claude Code, define each agent in this spec as a sub-agent (Author, Reviewer, Gate Reviewer, Transfer) and let the Orchestrator sequence them against the brief file.", "mode": "Pasted prompts or orchestrated sub-agents" }, { "name": "ChatGPT", "how": "Create a Project or custom GPT with the Author, Reviewer and Gate rules as instructions. Attach the brief and sources, run Prompts 1–3; paste the outputs back into the Word brief section by section, or work on the Markdown brief directly.", "mode": "Pasted prompts · agent per role" }, { "name": "Gemini", "how": "Run the prompts in Gemini with the Markdown brief and sources attached, or in Gemini for Docs against a Google Docs copy of the brief. Keep one chat per prompt so the DONE lines stay visible.", "mode": "Pasted prompts" }, { "name": "Perplexity", "how": "Use Prompt B for the External Source Pack where web grounding with citations matters most. Run the full harness in Perplexity Computer with the brief and sources as files.", "mode": "Source packs · full harness" }, { "name": "Copilot Studio · Agent Builder · APIs", "how": "Model each agent and sub-agent in this spec as a declarative agent with its rule set as instructions and the brief as the knowledge source. The Orchestrator is the only agent a person talks to; gate approvals remain human actions outside the agent.", "mode": "Orchestrated agents" } ], "human_only": [ "Project Identity: product name, requester, AI Risk Tier and the named RAPID individuals.", "Verifying every number, name, date and quote against its source before a gate.", "Sending each [GAP] to its owner and accepting or rejecting the agents' edits.", "Ticking checklist boxes, signing, and setting the gate OUTCOME: Advance, Conditional or Hold.", "Creating and updating items in the backlog and delivery tools; pasting IDs back into Appendix A.", "Deciding. The Product Leader decides every gate; the named approvers agree." ], "rapid": { "roles": [ "Product VP", "Product AVP", "Product Leader", "Product Manager", "Product Designer", "Content Designer", "BI Lead", "Tech Lead", "Agile Coach", "Research Lead", "Legal", "Compliance", "Finance" ], "rows": [ { "name": "1.1 WHO — WHAT — WHY", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "1.2 Product Vision", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "1.3 Business Case", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "1.4 Measurement Plan", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "1.5 Stakeholder Map (RAPID)", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "1.6 DVQE — Desirability, Viability, Quality & Executability", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "PI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "GATE G1 · PROBLEM APPROVED", "gate": true, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "RAI" ] }, { "name": "2.1 Press Release (PRFAQ)", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RI", "RAI", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "2.2 Customer Quote & Getting Started", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "2.3 External FAQ", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "2.4 Internal FAQ — Required Fields", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "2.5 Customer Archetype", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "2.6 Customer Journey", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "2.7 DVQE — Desirability, Viability, Quality & Executability", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RI", "RI", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "GATE G2 · PRFAQ APPROVED", "gate": true, "codes": [ "RI", "RI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RAI", "RAI", "--" ] }, { "name": "3.1 Insight Statements", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "3.2 Solution Intent and Validation", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "3.3 Capability Map", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "3.4 Boundaries & Constraints", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "3.5 AI Evaluation (Conditional)", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "GATE G3 · BUILD READY", "gate": true, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAI", "RAI", "RAPI", "RAI*", "RAI*", "--" ] }, { "name": "4.1 Roadmap Definitions", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "4.2 Roadmap Template", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "4.3 Backlog Hierarchy", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "4.4 Backlog Hygiene Standards", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "4.5 Handoff to Jira / ADO", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "GATE G4 · PRODUCT APPROVED", "gate": true, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAI", "RAI", "RAI", "RI", "RI", "--" ] }, { "name": "5.0 Legal & Compliance Review", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RAPI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "5.1 Agile Delivery (2-week sprints)", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "5.2 Test Plan + Accessibility", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "5.3 Go / No-Go Criteria", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "5.4 Deploy + Rollback", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "5.5 Day-1 Enablement", "gate": false, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "GATE G5 · SHIP READY", "gate": true, "codes": [ "--", "--", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAI", "RAI", "RI", "RAI", "RAI", "--" ] }, { "name": "6.1 KPI Tracking — activate the measurement plan", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "6.2 Drift, Feedback Loop & Data Flywheel", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RPI", "RAPI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "6.3 Post-Launch Evaluation (90-Day)", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "6.4 Scale / Fix / Sunset", "gate": false, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI" ] }, { "name": "GATE G6 · SCALE OR SUNSET", "gate": true, "codes": [ "RAI", "RAI", "RAID", "RPI", "RI", "RI", "RAI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RI", "RAI" ] } ], "note": "Legal and Compliance agree at G3 only when the AI Risk Tier is Assistive or higher (3.5 AI Evaluation)." }, "sections": [ { "id": "1.1", "step": 1, "name": "WHO — WHAT — WHY", "purpose": "The foundational framework for problem definition. Be specific. Avoid solutions. Who has the problem, what it is, why it matters now." }, { "id": "1.2", "step": 1, "name": "Product Vision", "purpose": "The north-star statement: the customer outcome the product exists to change, and the success-criteria window." }, { "id": "1.3", "step": 1, "name": "Business Case", "purpose": "ROI estimate, Year-1 impact and risk profile, built by the Product Manager with the BI Lead. Must survive a downside case." }, { "id": "1.4", "step": 1, "name": "Measurement Plan", "purpose": "KPIs defined up front and tracked through ASSESS: metric, baseline (or 'not instrumented'), target, source. Required to exit G1." }, { "id": "1.5", "step": 1, "name": "Stakeholder Map (RAPID)", "purpose": "Name decision rights before Discovery starts. Default 13-role RAPID; name the individuals for this initiative. Product Leader is the sole decider." }, { "id": "1.6", "step": 1, "name": "DVQE — Desirability, Viability, Quality & Executability", "purpose": "Score all four dimensions as evidence · source · verdict Strong / Partial / Weak. Required to exit G1; re-scored at 2.7." }, { "id": "2.1", "step": 2, "name": "Press Release (PRFAQ)", "purpose": "Write as if launching today. If the press release is not compelling, the product is not worth building." }, { "id": "2.2", "step": 2, "name": "Customer Quote & Getting Started", "purpose": "A composite customer quote and the three-step getting-started story." }, { "id": "2.3", "step": 2, "name": "External FAQ", "purpose": "5–7 plain-language questions a customer would ask: pricing, access, eligibility, support, privacy." }, { "id": "2.4", "step": 2, "name": "Internal FAQ — Required Fields", "purpose": "Standardized leadership questions answered the same way on every initiative. AI Risk Tier confirmed here." }, { "id": "2.5", "step": 2, "name": "Customer Archetype", "purpose": "1–3 archetypes per initiative, derived from research. Archetypes, never real individuals. Not required to advance." }, { "id": "2.6", "step": 2, "name": "Customer Journey", "purpose": "Front-stage (see / do / feel) and back-stage (systems, teams, handoffs) across a default six-stage model. Not required to advance." }, { "id": "2.7", "step": 2, "name": "DVQE — Desirability, Viability, Quality & Executability", "purpose": "Re-score all four dimensions on DISCOVER evidence; explain any change from 1.6." }, { "id": "3.1", "step": 3, "name": "Insight Statements", "purpose": "3–5 statements: 'As a [customer archetype], I learned that [observation], because [root cause].' Grounded in research, with implication and evidence tier." }, { "id": "3.2", "step": 3, "name": "Solution Intent and Validation", "purpose": "Three-part conceptual solution in plain language, no tech specs: opportunity, why it works, riskiest assumption and its test." }, { "id": "3.3", "step": 3, "name": "Capability Map", "purpose": "Business capabilities the solution must enable, no implementation details. Each becomes one or more Features. Linked to insights (INS-IDs)." }, { "id": "3.4", "step": 3, "name": "Boundaries & Constraints", "purpose": "Won't-have list, hard constraints with owners, and what is explicitly out of scope." }, { "id": "3.5", "step": 3, "name": "AI Evaluation (Conditional)", "purpose": "Required when the AI Risk Tier is Assistive, Decisional or Autonomous: AI role, failure modes, drift, evaluation and human oversight." }, { "id": "4.1", "step": 4, "name": "Roadmap Definitions", "purpose": "Classify each capability Now, Next, Later or Parking lot, with the reason and target increment." }, { "id": "4.2", "step": 4, "name": "Roadmap Template", "purpose": "The roadmap by increment with dependencies named to the providing team." }, { "id": "4.3", "step": 4, "name": "Backlog Hierarchy", "purpose": "Initiative → Capability → Feature → Story → Task. Appendix A tables A1–A6 hold the handoff record." }, { "id": "4.4", "step": 4, "name": "Backlog Hygiene Standards", "purpose": "Top two sprints refined; every Feature traces to a Capability and the Initiative; Stories pass INVEST; audit table of failures with owner and fix." }, { "id": "4.5", "step": 4, "name": "Handoff to Jira / ADO", "purpose": "Where the brief ends and the delivery tools begin: Features, Stories and NFR tasks transferred, IDs pasted back, Definition of Ready checked." }, { "id": "5.0", "step": 5, "name": "Legal & Compliance Review", "purpose": "Legal and Compliance review before Go/No-Go, not after. 3.5 and 5.2 feed this packet. Never 'Cleared' without a source." }, { "id": "5.1", "step": 5, "name": "Agile Delivery (2-week sprints)", "purpose": "Two-week sprints with planning, standup, review and retro. Scope locked at sprint start; backlog from READY feeds planning." }, { "id": "5.2", "step": 5, "name": "Test Plan + Accessibility", "purpose": "Functional, integration, performance, security and accessibility (WCAG AA). Accessibility cleared before Go/No-Go." }, { "id": "5.3", "step": 5, "name": "Go / No-Go Criteria", "purpose": "All P0 bugs resolved, test pass rate at target, accessibility cleared, observability instrumented, rollback rehearsed, 5.0 sign-off attached. Product Leader decides." }, { "id": "5.4", "step": 5, "name": "Deploy + Rollback", "purpose": "Phased deploy (canary → 10% → 50% → 100%) with rollback triggers tied to KPIs and error budgets. On-call for the first 48 hours." }, { "id": "5.5", "step": 5, "name": "Day-1 Enablement", "purpose": "Runbooks, FAQs, training and comms ready; Day-1 dashboard live with the 1.4 KPIs; first retro within 30 days." }, { "id": "6.1", "step": 6, "name": "KPI Tracking — activate the measurement plan", "purpose": "Pull the 1.4 KPIs forward with baseline, 30/60/90-day actuals, variance and counter-metric. Owner reviews monthly." }, { "id": "6.2", "step": 6, "name": "Drift, Feedback Loop & Data Flywheel", "purpose": "Track drift, capture corrections, retrain or revise on cadence. Signals → labels → improvements → retest, for AI and non-AI products." }, { "id": "6.3", "step": 6, "name": "Post-Launch Evaluation (90-Day)", "purpose": "Ninety days after launch: did the product meet its intent, yes or no, with evidence. Compares Year-1 impact to the 1.3 estimate." }, { "id": "6.4", "step": 6, "name": "Scale / Fix / Sunset", "purpose": "Every product exits ASSESS through one of three doors. The Product Leader logs the decision, the number that drives it and the condition that would reverse it." } ] }