---

name: validation-report-generator description: Generate structured 8-section validation reports with verdict (GOOD/BAD/NEEDS MAJOR WORK), strengths, critical flaws, blindspots, and concrete path forward. Use after strategic-cto-mentor has completed validation analysis and needs to produce final deliverable.

Validation Report Generator

Transforms validation analysis into structured, actionable reports that provide clear verdicts and specific guidance.

When to Use

• After completing validation analysis of a plan, proposal, or architecture
• When producing final deliverable for strategic-cto-mentor
• When formalizing feedback into a consistent, comprehensive format
• Before handing off validated/rejected work back to the requester

Report Structure

Every validation report follows the 8-Section Format:

Section 1: Verdict

Purpose: Unambiguous assessment with confidence level

Options:

• GOOD: Ready for implementation (may have minor suggestions)
• NEEDS MAJOR WORK: Fundamentally sound but has significant gaps
• BAD: Should not proceed without fundamental rethinking

Include:

• Clear verdict (one of the three options)
• Confidence level (High/Medium/Low)
• One-sentence summary of why

Section 2: What You Got Right

Purpose: Acknowledge genuine strengths (builds trust for criticism)

Include:

• 2-3 specific things done well
• Why each matters
• What to preserve in revisions

Avoid:

• Generic praise ("good work!")
• Inflating minor positives
• Praising the obvious

Section 3: Critical Flaws

Purpose: Expose fatal or near-fatal weaknesses

Format for each flaw:

**Flaw**: [What's wrong]
**Why It Matters**: [Business/technical impact]
**Consequence**: [What happens if not addressed]

Include:

• Prioritized list (most critical first)
• Specific evidence, not vague concerns
• Impact quantification where possible

Section 4: What You're Not Considering

Purpose: Surface blindspots and hidden assumptions

Types of blindspots:

• Unstated assumptions (treated as facts)
• Ignored failure modes
• Missing stakeholders
• External dependencies not accounted for
• Scale implications not considered

Include:

• What was assumed vs. what should be validated
• Questions that should have been asked
• Scenarios that weren't explored

Section 5: The Real Question

Purpose: Reframe if solving wrong problem

When to use:

• Problem definition is too narrow/broad
• Symptoms treated instead of root cause
• Constraint accepted that should be challenged
• Solution in search of a problem

Format:

"You're asking [stated question], but the real question might be [reframed question]."

Skip if: The problem is correctly framed (state this explicitly)

Section 6: What Bulletproof Looks Like

Purpose: Define success criteria for revision

Include:

• Specific criteria for acceptable solution
• Measurable outcomes
• What evidence would prove the concerns addressed

Format:

For this to be ready for implementation:
- [ ] [Criterion 1]
- [ ] [Criterion 2]
- [ ] [Criterion 3]

Section 7: Recommended Path Forward

Purpose: Concrete next steps

If GOOD:

• Any minor improvements before proceeding
• What to monitor during implementation
• Validation checkpoints

If NEEDS MAJOR WORK:

• Specific areas to revise
• Suggested approach for each
• Whether to route back to architect

If BAD:

• Alternative approaches to consider
• What fundamental rethinking is needed
• Whether to restart with different framing

Section 8: Questions You Need to Answer First

Purpose: Information gaps blocking progress

Include:

• Questions that must be answered before proceeding
• Who can answer each question
• What decisions are blocked until answered

---

Generating the Report

Step 1: Gather Analysis

Before generating report, ensure you have completed:

• Assumption identification
• Risk assessment (7 dimensions)
• Anti-pattern detection
• Timeline/budget reality check
• Team capacity evaluation

Step 2: Determine Verdict

Use the Verdict Criteria to classify:

GOOD if:

• Core assumptions are valid
• Timeline is realistic
• Budget is appropriate
• Team can execute
• Risks are manageable
• No fundamental anti-patterns

NEEDS MAJOR WORK if:

• Core approach is sound but...
• Significant gaps exist in 2+ areas
• Timeline/budget needs adjustment
• Some assumptions need validation

BAD if:

• Core assumptions are invalid
• Fundamental anti-pattern detected
• Timeline is fantasy
• Budget is unrealistic by >50%
• Team cannot execute
• Wrong problem being solved

Step 3: Gather Evidence

For each section, cite specific evidence:

• Quote from the proposal
• Data points that contradict claims
• Industry benchmarks
• Historical precedent

Step 4: Calibrate Tone

Match tone to verdict:

Verdict	Tone
GOOD	Affirming with minor suggestions
NEEDS MAJOR WORK	Constructive but direct
BAD	Brutally honest but respectful

Step 5: Write Report

Use the Report Template to structure output.

---

Output Format

# Validation Report: [Title]

**Date**: [Date]
**Validated By**: strategic-cto-mentor
**Subject**: [What was validated]

---

## 1. Verdict

### VERDICT: [GOOD / NEEDS MAJOR WORK / BAD]
**Confidence**: [High / Medium / Low]

[One-sentence summary of why this verdict]

---

## 2. What You Got Right

[2-3 specific strengths with explanation of why they matter]

---

## 3. Critical Flaws

### Flaw 1: [Title]
**Why It Matters**: [Impact]
**Consequence**: [What happens if not addressed]

### Flaw 2: [Title]
...

---

## 4. What You're Not Considering

[Blindspots, hidden assumptions, ignored scenarios]

---

## 5. The Real Question

[Reframe if needed, or state "Problem is correctly framed"]

---

## 6. What Bulletproof Looks Like

For this to be ready for implementation:
- [ ] [Criterion 1]
- [ ] [Criterion 2]
- [ ] [Criterion 3]

---

## 7. Recommended Path Forward

[Specific next steps based on verdict]

---

## 8. Questions You Need to Answer First

| Question | Who Can Answer | Blocks |
|----------|---------------|--------|
| [Question 1] | [Person/Team] | [Decision blocked] |

---

*This validation was conducted by strategic-cto-mentor using standard validation protocol.*

---

Quality Checklist

Before delivering report, verify:

• Verdict is clear and justified
• Strengths are genuine (not inflated)
• Flaws are specific with evidence
• Blindspots go beyond surface issues
• Reframe is warranted (or explicitly skipped)
• Success criteria are measurable
• Path forward is actionable
• Questions are answerable and necessary
• Tone matches verdict severity
• No generic feedback (everything is specific)

---

References

• Report Template - Full markdown template
• Verdict Criteria - Decision criteria for verdicts