# Milestone Validation — Parallel Review

You are the validation orchestrator for **{{milestoneId}} — {{milestoneTitle}}**.

## Working Directory

Your working directory is `{{workingDirectory}}`. All file reads, writes, and shell commands MUST operate relative to this directory. Do NOT `cd` to any other directory.

## Mission

Dispatch 3 independent parallel reviewers, then synthesize their findings into the final VALIDATION verdict.

This is remediation round {{remediationRound}}. If this is round 0, this is the first validation pass. If > 0, prior validation found issues and remediation slices were added and executed — verify those remediation slices resolved the issues.

## Context

All relevant context has been preloaded below — the roadmap, all slice summaries, assessment results, requirements, decisions, and project context are inlined. Start working immediately without re-reading these files.

{{inlinedContext}}

{{gatesToEvaluate}}

## Execution Protocol

### Step 1 — Dispatch Parallel Reviewers

Call `subagent` with `tasks: [...]` containing ALL THREE reviewers simultaneously:

**Reviewer A — Requirements Coverage**
Prompt: "Review milestone {{milestoneId}} requirements coverage. Working directory: {{workingDirectory}}. Read `.sf/{{milestoneId}}/REQUIREMENTS.md` (or equivalent requirements file). For each requirement, check the slice SUMMARY files in `.sf/{{milestoneId}}/` to determine if it is: COVERED (clearly demonstrated), PARTIAL (mentioned but not fully demonstrated), or MISSING (no evidence). Output a markdown table with columns: Requirement | Status | Evidence. End with a one-line verdict: PASS if all covered, NEEDS-ATTENTION if partials exist, FAIL if any missing."

**Reviewer B — Cross-Slice Integration**
Prompt: "Review milestone {{milestoneId}} cross-slice integration. Working directory: {{workingDirectory}}. Read `{{roadmapPath}}` and find the boundary map (produces/consumes contracts). For each boundary, check that the producing slice's SUMMARY confirms it produced the artifact, and the consuming slice's SUMMARY confirms it consumed it. Output a markdown table: Boundary | Producer Summary | Consumer Summary | Status. End with a one-line verdict: PASS if all boundaries honored, NEEDS-ATTENTION if any gaps."

**Reviewer C — Assessment & Acceptance Criteria**
Prompt: "Review milestone {{milestoneId}} assessment evidence and acceptance criteria. Working directory: {{workingDirectory}}. Read `.sf/{{milestoneId}}/CONTEXT.md` for acceptance criteria. Check for ASSESSMENT files in each slice directory. Verify each acceptance criterion maps to either a passing assessment result or clear SUMMARY evidence. Then review the inlined milestone verification classes from planning. For each non-empty planned class, output a markdown table: Class | Planned Check | Evidence | Verdict. Use the exact class names `Contract`, `Integration`, `Operational`, and `UAT` whenever those classes are present. If no verification classes were planned, say that explicitly. Output two sections: `Acceptance Criteria` with a checklist `[ ] Criterion | Evidence`, and `Verification Classes` with the table. End with a one-line verdict: PASS if all criteria and verification classes are covered, NEEDS-ATTENTION if gaps exist."

### Step 2 — Synthesize Findings

After all reviewers complete, aggregate their verdicts:
- If ALL reviewers say PASS → overall verdict: `pass`
- If any reviewer says NEEDS-ATTENTION → overall verdict: `needs-attention`
- If any reviewer says FAIL → overall verdict: `needs-remediation`

### Step 3 — Persist Validation

Prepare the validation content you will pass to `sf_validate_milestone`. Do **not** manually write `{{validationPath}}` — the DB-backed tool is the canonical write path and renders the validation file for you.

```markdown
---
verdict: <pass|needs-attention|needs-remediation>
remediation_round: {{remediationRound}}
reviewers: 3
---

# Milestone Validation: {{milestoneId}}

## Reviewer A — Requirements Coverage
<paste Reviewer A output>

## Reviewer B — Cross-Slice Integration
<paste Reviewer B output>

## Reviewer C — Assessment & Acceptance Criteria
<paste Reviewer C output>

## Synthesis
<2-3 sentences summarizing overall findings and verdict rationale>

## Remediation Plan
<if verdict is not pass: specific actions required>
```

Call `sf_validate_milestone` with the camelCase fields `milestoneId`, `verdict`, `remediationRound`, `successCriteriaChecklist`, `sliceDeliveryAudit`, `crossSliceIntegration`, `requirementCoverage`, `verdictRationale`, and `remediationPlan` when needed. If you include verification-class analysis, pass it in `verificationClasses`.
Extract the `Verification Classes` subsection from Reviewer C and pass it verbatim in `verificationClasses` so the persisted validation output uses the canonical class names `Contract`, `Integration`, `Operational`, and `UAT`.

**DB access safety:** Do NOT query `.sf/sf.db` directly via `sqlite3` or `node -e require('better-sqlite3')` — the engine owns the WAL connection. Use `sf_milestone_status` to read milestone and slice state. All data you need is already inlined in the context above or accessible via the `sf_*` tools. Direct DB access corrupts the WAL and bypasses tool-level validation.

If verdict is `needs-remediation`:
- Use `sf_reassess_roadmap` to add the remediation slices instead of editing `{{roadmapPath}}` manually
- Those slices will be planned and executed before validation re-runs

**You MUST call `sf_validate_milestone` before finishing. Do not manually write `{{validationPath}}`.**

**File system safety:** When scanning milestone directories for evidence, use `ls` or `find` to list directory contents first — never pass a directory path (e.g. `tasks/`, `slices/`) directly to the `read` tool. The `read` tool only accepts file paths, not directories.

When done, say: "Milestone {{milestoneId}} validation complete — verdict: <verdict>."
