pbi-challenge

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST — every claim requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act).

Quick Summary

Goal: Help Dev BA PIC review BA drafters' PBI drafts by generating specific, actionable challenge prompts. AI provides analysis; human makes the decision.

Key distinction: Collaborative review tool (drafter → reviewer flow), NOT self-review (use /refine-review for AI self-review).

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

When this task involves frontend or UI changes, MUST READ .claude/skills/shared/ui-system-context.md and the following docs:

• Component patterns: docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md
• Styling/BEM guide: docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md
• Design system tokens: docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md

Workflow

1. Locate PBI draft — Find BA drafters' draft PBI in team-artifacts/pbis/ or path provided by user
2. Load protocols — Read these 3 protocols:
   • .claude/skills/shared/ba-team-decision-model-protocol.md (decision model, veto scope)
   • .claude/skills/shared/refinement-dor-checklist-protocol.md (DoR criteria)
   • .claude/skills/shared/cross-cutting-quality-concerns-protocol.md (authorization, seed data, migration)
3. Load domain context — Auto-detect module from PBI content, load:
   • docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md (entity definitions)
   • Relevant feature docs from docs/business-features/{App}/
   • Existing business rules (BR-{MOD}-XXX) from feature docs
4. Technical Feasibility Analysis:
   • Can described features be built with the project's architecture?
   • Any domain entity conflicts? (cross-reference entity definitions)
   • Any cross-service implications? (message bus events, shared data between services)
   • Estimated complexity alignment (does scope match story points?)
5. AC Quality Analysis:
   • Vagueness detector: flag "should", "might", "TBD", "etc.", "various", "appropriate"
   • Coverage check: happy path + edge case + error case + authorization scenario
   • Missing scenarios: suggest specific additions based on feature type
6. Cross-Cutting Concerns Check:
   • Authorization section present and complete? (roles × CRUD matrix)
   • Seed data requirements addressed? (or explicit "N/A")
   • Data migration implications? (schema changes)
   • Performance considerations? (list/grid/export features)
   • UI Layout section present? If PBI involves UI: must have ## UI Layout per ui-wireframe-protocol.md with wireframe + components (with tiers) + states + design tokens. If backend-only: explicit "N/A". Flag missing UI visualization as a gap.
7. Generate Challenge Prompts — Output specific, actionable questions:
   • NOT vague: "needs work" or "improve AC"
   • SPECIFIC: "AC #2 says 'user can filter results' — which filters exactly? Suggest: status, date range, priority"
8. Provide AI Verdict — APPROVE / REQUEST_REVISION / ESCALATE_TO_LEAD
9. AskUserQuestion — Dev BA PIC reviews AI analysis and makes final human decision

Output

## PBI Challenge Review

**PBI:** {PBI filename}
**Reviewer:** Dev BA PIC
**Date:** {date}
**Module:** {detected module code}

### Technical Feasibility

**Status:** FEASIBLE | CONCERNS | INFEASIBLE
{Analysis with evidence — cite domain entities, service boundaries, architecture constraints}

### AC Quality

**Status:** GOOD | NEEDS_REVISION | POOR

| AC # | Issue            | Suggested Fix             |
| ---- | ---------------- | ------------------------- |
| {#}  | {specific issue} | {specific fix suggestion} |

### Cross-Cutting Concerns

| Concern        | Status    | Issue    |
| -------------- | --------- | -------- |
| Authorization  | ✅/❌     | {detail} |
| Seed Data      | ✅/❌/N/A | {detail} |
| Data Migration | ✅/❌/N/A | {detail} |
| Performance    | ✅/❌/N/A | {detail} |

### Challenge Prompts for BA Drafters

1. {Specific actionable question with suggested answer}
2. {Specific actionable question with suggested answer}
3. {Specific actionable question with suggested answer}

### AI Verdict

**{APPROVE | REQUEST_REVISION | ESCALATE_TO_LEAD}**
**Reason:** {evidence-based justification}
**Confidence:** {X%} — {what was verified vs. what needs more investigation}

### Decision Record

**Dev BA PIC Decision:** {filled after human review via AskUserQuestion}
**Vote:** {approve / request-revision / escalate}
**Conditions:** {if any}

Key Rules

• AI provides ANALYSIS, human makes DECISION — Never auto-approve or auto-reject
• Challenge prompts must be specific — Include suggested answers, not just questions
• Domain context required — Always load entity reference + feature docs before analysis
• Technical veto scope — Dev BA PIC CAN veto: architecture feasibility, dependency correctness, cross-service impact, performance, security. CANNOT veto: UI/UX design, visual design, business value (see ba-team-decision-model-protocol.md §2)
• Evidence-based — Every concern raised must cite source (protocol section, entity definition, feature doc)
• Constructive tone — Focus on improving the PBI, not criticizing the drafters

---

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST after completing this skill, use AskUserQuestion to recommend:

• "/dor-gate (Recommended)" — If APPROVE: validate DoR before grooming
• "/refine" — If REQUEST_REVISION: BA drafters revise, then re-run /pbi-challenge
• "Escalate to Engineering Manager" — If ESCALATE_TO_LEAD: document concern for technical consultation
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST add a final review todo task to verify work quality.