docs: update all documentation and add AI tooling configs

- Rewrite README.md with current architecture, features and stack - Update docs/API.md with all current endpoints (corporate, BI, client 360) - Update docs/ARCHITECTURE.md with cache, modular queries, services, ETL - Update docs/GUIA-USUARIO.md for all roles (admin, corporate, agente) - Add docs/INDEX.md documentation index - Add PROJETO.md comprehensive project reference - Add BI-CCC-Implementation-Guide.md - Include AI agent configs (.claude, .agents, .gemini, _bmad) - Add netbird VPN configuration - Add status report Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-03-19 13:29:03 -04:00
parent c5b377e788
commit 647cbec54f
3246 changed files with 479789 additions and 983 deletions
--- a/.gemini/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md
+++ b/.gemini/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md
@@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
+---
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 10: SMART Requirements Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable), ensuring high-quality requirements.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring requirements engineering expertise and quality assessment
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR quality assessment using SMART framework
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Score each FR on SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Extract all FRs from PRD
+- 🎯 Score each FR on SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable)
+- 💾 Flag FRs with score < 3 in any category
+- 📖 Append scoring table and suggestions to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report
+- Focus: FR quality assessment only using SMART framework
+- Limits: Don't validate NFRs or other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-9 completed - comprehensive validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Extract All Functional Requirements
+
+From the PRD's Functional Requirements section, extract:
+- All FRs with their FR numbers (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
+- Count total FRs
+
+### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform SMART requirements validation on these Functional Requirements:
+
+{List all FRs}
+
+**For each FR, score on SMART criteria (1-5 scale):**
+
+**Specific (1-5):**
+- 5: Clear, unambiguous, well-defined
+- 3: Somewhat clear but could be more specific
+- 1: Vague, ambiguous, unclear
+
+**Measurable (1-5):**
+- 5: Quantifiable metrics, testable
+- 3: Partially measurable
+- 1: Not measurable, subjective
+
+**Attainable (1-5):**
+- 5: Realistic, achievable with constraints
+- 3: Probably achievable but uncertain
+- 1: Unrealistic, technically infeasible
+
+**Relevant (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly aligned with user needs and business objectives
+- 3: Somewhat relevant but connection unclear
+- 1: Not relevant, doesn't align with goals
+
+**Traceable (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly traces to user journey or business objective
+- 3: Partially traceable
+- 1: Orphan requirement, no clear source
+
+**For each FR with score < 3 in any category:**
+- Provide specific improvement suggestions
+
+Return scoring table with all FR scores and improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually score each FR on SMART criteria
+- Note FRs with low scores
+- Provide improvement suggestions
+
+### 3. Build Scoring Table
+
+For each FR:
+- FR number
+- Specific score (1-5)
+- Measurable score (1-5)
+- Attainable score (1-5)
+- Relevant score (1-5)
+- Traceable score (1-5)
+- Average score
+- Flag if any category < 3
+
+**Calculate overall FR quality:**
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 3
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 4
+- Average score across all FRs and categories
+
+### 4. Report SMART Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## SMART Requirements Validation
+
+**Total Functional Requirements:** {count}
+
+### Scoring Summary
+
+**All scores ≥ 3:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**All scores ≥ 4:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**Overall Average Score:** {average}/5.0
+
+### Scoring Table
+
+| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag |
+|------|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----------|--------|------|
+| FR-001 | {s1} | {m1} | {a1} | {r1} | {t1} | {avg1} | {X if any <3} |
+| FR-002 | {s2} | {m2} | {a2} | {r2} | {t2} | {avg2} | {X if any <3} |
+[Continue for all FRs]
+
+**Legend:** 1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent
+**Flag:** X = Score < 3 in one or more categories
+
+### Improvement Suggestions
+
+**Low-Scoring FRs:**
+
+**FR-{number}:** {specific suggestion for improvement}
+[For each FR with score < 3 in any category]
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >30% flagged FRs, Warning if 10-30%, Pass if <10%]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Many FRs have quality issues. Revise flagged FRs using SMART framework to improve clarity and testability."
+[If Warning] "Some FRs would benefit from SMART refinement. Focus on flagged requirements above."
+[If Pass] "Functional Requirements demonstrate good SMART quality overall."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**SMART Requirements Validation Complete**
+
+FR Quality: {percentage}% with acceptable scores ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All FRs extracted from PRD
+- Each FR scored on all 5 SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- FRs with scores < 3 flagged for improvement
+- Improvement suggestions provided for low-scoring FRs
+- Scoring table built with all FR scores
+- Overall quality assessment calculated
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scoring all FRs on all SMART criteria
+- Missing improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs
+- Not building scoring table
+- Not calculating overall quality metrics
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** FRs should be high-quality, not just present. SMART framework provides objective quality measure.