.claude/skills/ln-310-story-validator/SKILL.md
Validates Stories/Tasks with GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score (1-10), Penalty Points, and Anti-Hallucination verification. Auto-fixes to reach 0 points, delegates to ln-002 for docs. Use when reviewing Stories before execution or when user requests validation.
npx skillsauth add cbbkrd-tech/jl-finishes ln-310-story-validatorInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Paths: File paths (
shared/,references/,../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root.
Validate Stories/Tasks with explicit GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score, and Anti-Hallucination verification.
Goal: Quantitative assessment of Story/Tasks quality. Target = 0 penalty points after fixes.
| Severity | Points | Description | |----------|--------|-------------| | CRITICAL | 10 | RFC/OWASP/security violations | | HIGH | 5 | Outdated libraries, architecture issues | | MEDIUM | 3 | Best practices violations | | LOW | 1 | Structural/cosmetic issues |
Workflow:
Detect operating mode at startup:
Plan Mode Active:
Normal Mode:
When operating in any mode, skill MUST create detailed todo checklist tracking ALL phases and steps.
Rules:
in_progress before starting step, completed after finishingTodo Template (~21 items):
Phase 1: Discovery & Loading
- Auto-discover configuration (Team ID, docs)
- Load Story metadata (ID, title, status, labels)
- Load Tasks metadata (1-8 implementation tasks)
Phase 2: Research & Audit
- Extract technical domains from Story/Tasks
- Delegate documentation creation to ln-002
- Research via MCP Ref (RFC, OWASP, library versions)
- Verify technical claims (Anti-Hallucination)
- Calculate Penalty Points (22 criteria)
Phase 3: Audit Results & Fix Plan
- Display Penalty Points table and fix plan
- Wait for user approval (Plan Mode only)
Phase 4: Auto-Fix (8 groups)
- Fix Structural violations (#1-#4)
- Fix Standards violations (#5)
- Fix Solution violations (#6, #21)
- Fix Workflow violations (#7-#13)
- Fix Quality violations (#14-#15)
- Fix Dependencies violations (#18-#19/#19b)
- Fix Risk violations (#20)
- Fix Traceability violations (#16-#17)
Phase 5: Agent Review (MANDATORY — delegated to ln-311)
- [MANDATORY] Invoke ln-311-agent-reviewer with story_ref + tasks_ref
- [MANDATORY] Process and apply accepted suggestions to Story/Tasks
Phase 6: Approve & Notify
- Set Story/Tasks to Todo status in Linear
- Update kanban_board.md with APPROVED marker
- Add Linear comment with validation summary
- Display tabular output to terminal
Step 1: Configuration & Metadata Loading
docs/tasks/kanban_board.md), project docs (CLAUDE.md), epic from Story.projectMANDATORY READ: Load references/phase2_research_audit.md for complete research and audit procedure:
Always execute for every Story - no exceptions.
Display audit results:
Mode handling:
Execute fixes for ALL 22 criteria on the spot.
MANDATORY STEP: This phase MUST execute regardless of Phase 4 results. Skipping agent review is a workflow violation. If agents unavailable, ln-311 returns SKIPPED — acceptable. But invocation MUST happen.
Invoke Skill(skill="ln-311-agent-reviewer", args="{storyId}").
.agent-review/{agent}/.SUGGESTIONS → apply ACCEPTED suggestions to Story/Tasks text.SKIPPED (no agents or all failed) → proceed to Phase 6 unchanged."Agent Review: {agent_stats summary}"kanban_board.md with APPROVED markerln-400-story-executor to start Story executionMANDATORY READ: Load references/phase2_research_audit.md for complete 21-criteria table with:
Maximum Penalty: 88 points (sum of all 22 criteria; #20 capped at 15)
Outputs after all fixes applied:
| Metric | Value | Meaning | |--------|-------|---------| | Gate | GO / NO-GO | Final verdict for execution readiness | | Readiness Score | 1-10 | Quality confidence level | | Penalty Points | 0 (after fixes) | Validation completeness | | Anti-Hallucination | VERIFIED / FLAGGED | Technical claims verified | | AC Coverage | 100% (N/N) | All ACs mapped to Tasks |
Readiness Score = 10 - (Penalty Points / 5)
Before/After diagnostic: Phase 3 calculates initial Penalty Points and Readiness Score (Before). Phase 4 auto-fixes reduce penalties to 0, yielding Readiness Score = 10 (After). Both values reported in Final Assessment for transparency.
| Gate | Condition | |------|-----------| | GO | Penalty Points = 0 after Phase 4 (Readiness Score = 10) | | NO-GO | Any criterion FLAGGED as unfixable (see Critical Rules) |
Verify technical claims have evidence:
| Claim Type | Verification | |------------|--------------| | RFC/Standard reference | MCP Ref search confirms existence | | Library version | Context7 query confirms version | | Security requirement | OWASP/CWE reference exists | | Performance claim | Benchmark/doc reference |
Status: VERIFIED (all claims sourced) or FLAGGED (unverified claims listed)
Output explicit mapping:
| AC | Task(s) | Coverage |
|----|---------|----------|
| AC1: Given/When/Then | T-001, T-002 | ✅ |
| AC2: Given/When/Then | T-003 | ✅ |
| AC3: Given/When/Then | — | ❌ UNCOVERED |
Coverage: {covered}/{total} ACs (target: 100%)
Verify all 22 criteria (#1-#22) from Auto-Fix Actions pass with concrete evidence (doc path, MCP result, Linear update) before proceeding to Phase 6.
Story: "Create user management API with rate limiting"
Templates: story_template.md, task_template_implementation.md
Loading Logic:
docs/templates/{template}.md exists in target projectdocs/templates/ directory if missing
b. Copy shared/templates/{template}.md → docs/templates/{template}.md
c. Replace placeholders in the LOCAL copy:
{{TEAM_ID}} → from docs/tasks/kanban_board.md{{DOCS_PATH}} → "docs" (standard)docs/templates/{template}.md) for all validation operationsRationale: Templates are copied to target project on first use, ensuring:
shared/references/ac_validation_rules.mdshared/references/plan_mode_pattern.mdreferences/readiness_scoring.md (GO/NO-GO rules, Readiness Score calculation)shared/templates/story_template.md, shared/templates/task_template_implementation.mddocs/templates/ (in target project)references/structural_validation.md (criteria #1-#4)references/standards_validation.md (criterion #5)references/solution_validation.md (criterion #6)references/workflow_validation.md (criteria #7-#13)references/quality_validation.md (criteria #14-#15)references/dependency_validation.md (criteria #18-#19/#19b)references/risk_validation.md (criterion #20)references/traceability_validation.md (criteria #16-#17)references/domain_patterns.md (pattern registry for ln-002 delegation)references/penalty_points.md (penalty system details)shared/references/creation_quality_checklist.md (creator-facing mapping of 22 criteria)../shared/templates/linear_integration.mdVersion: 7.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-02-03
testing
When the user wants to plan a content strategy, decide what content to create, or figure out what topics to cover. Also use when the user mentions "content strategy," "what should I write about," "content ideas," "blog strategy," "topic clusters," or "content planning." For writing individual pieces, see copywriting. For SEO-specific audits, see seo-audit.
development
When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' or 'competitive landing pages.' Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. Emphasizes deep research, modular content architecture, and varied section types beyond feature tables.
development
Write B2B cold emails and follow-up sequences that get replies. Use when the user wants to write cold outreach emails, prospecting emails, cold email campaigns, sales development emails, or SDR emails. Covers subject lines, opening lines, body copy, CTAs, personalization, and multi-touch follow-up sequences.
development
When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' or 'involuntary churn.' This skill covers voluntary churn (cancel flows, save offers, exit surveys) and involuntary churn (dunning, payment recovery). For post-cancel win-back email sequences, see email-sequence. For in-app upgrade paywalls, see paywall-upgrade-cro.