Skip to content
Back to skills

Levn Ln 310 Story Validator

ASecurity

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.

  • 666 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added February 9, 2026
testinggoexpresstestingapisecurityperformancedocumentation

Works with

  • terminal
  • api
  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned February 10, 2026

npx -y skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill levn-ln-310-story-validator --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Levn Ln 310 Story Validator?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Levn Ln 310 Story Validator
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/majiayu000-levn-ln-310-story-validator/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/majiayu000-levn-ln-310-story-validator)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: ln-310-story-validator
description: 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.
---

# Story Verification Skill

Validate Stories/Tasks with explicit GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score, and Anti-Hallucination verification.

## Purpose & Scope

- Validate Story plus child Tasks against industry standards and project patterns
- Calculate Penalty Points for violations, then auto-fix to reach 0 points
- Delegate to ln-002-best-practices-researcher for creating documentation (guides, manuals, ADRs, research)
- Support Plan Mode: show audit results, wait for approval, then fix
- Approve Story after fixes (Backlog -> Todo) with tabular output summary

## When to Use

- Reviewing Stories before approval (Backlog -> Todo)
- Validating implementation path across Story and Tasks
- Ensuring standards, architecture, and solution fit
- Optimizing or correcting proposed approaches

## Penalty Points System

**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:**
1. Audit: Calculate penalty points for all 17 criteria
2. Fix: Auto-fix and zero out points
3. Report: Total Before -> 0 After

## Mode Detection

Detect operating mode at startup:

**Plan Mode Active:**
- Phase 1-2: Full audit (discovery + research + penalty calculation)
- Phase 3: Show results + fix plan -> WAIT for user approval
- Phase 4-5: After approval -> execute fixes

**Normal Mode:**
- Phase 1-5: Standard workflow without stopping
- Automatically fix and approve

## Workflow Overview

### Phase 1: Discovery & Loading

**Step 1: Configuration & Metadata Loading**
- Auto-discover configuration: Team ID (`docs/tasks/kanban_board.md`), project docs (`CLAUDE.md`), epic from Story.project
- Load metadata only: Story ID/title/status/labels, child Task IDs/titles/status/labels
- Expect 3-8 implementation tasks; record parentId for filtering
- Rationale: keep loading light; full descriptions arrive in Phase 2

### Phase 2: Research & Audit

**Always execute for every Story - no exceptions.**

**Step 1: Domain Extraction**
- Extract technical domains from Story title + Technical Notes + Implementation Tasks
- Load pattern registry from `references/domain_patterns.md`
- Scan Story content for pattern matches via keyword detection
- Build list of detected domains requiring documentation

**Step 2: Documentation Delegation**
- For EACH detected pattern, delegate to ln-002:
  ```
  Skill(skill="ln-002-best-practices-researcher",
        args="doc_type=[guide|manual|adr] topic='[pattern]'")
  ```
- Receive file paths to created documentation (`docs/guides/`, `docs/manuals/`, `docs/adrs/`, `docs/research/`)

**Step 3: Research via MCP**
- Query MCP Ref for industry standards: `ref_search_documentation(query="[topic] RFC OWASP best practices 2025")`
- Query Context7 for library versions: `resolve-library-id` + `query-docs`
- Extract: standards (RFC numbers, OWASP rules), library versions, patterns

**Step 3.5: Anti-Hallucination Verification**
- Scan Story/Tasks for technical claims (RFC references, library versions, security requirements)
- Verify each claim has MCP Ref/Context7 evidence
- Flag unverified claims for correction
- Status: VERIFIED (all sourced) or FLAGGED (list unverified)

**Step 4: Penalty Points Calculation**
- Evaluate all 17 criteria against Story/Tasks
- Assign penalty points per violation (CRITICAL=10, HIGH=5, MEDIUM=3, LOW=1)
- Calculate total penalty points
- Build fix plan for each violation

### Phase 3: Audit Results & Fix Plan

**Display audit results:**
- Penalty Points table (criterion, severity, points, description)
- Total: X penalty points
- Fix Plan: list of fixes for each criterion

**Mode handling:**
- **IF Plan Mode:** Show results + "After your approval, changes will be applied" -> WAIT
- **ELSE (Normal Mode):** Proceed to Phase 4 immediately

### Phase 4: Auto-Fix

**Execute fixes for ALL 17 criteria on the spot.**

- Execution order (6 groups):
  1. **Structural (#1-#4)** — Story/Tasks template compliance
  2. **Standards (#5)** — RFC/OWASP compliance FIRST (before YAGNI/KISS!)
  3. **Solution (#6)** — Library versions
  4. **Workflow (#7-#13)** — Test strategy, docs integration, size, cleanup, YAGNI, KISS, task order
  5. **Quality (#14-#15)** — Documentation complete, hardcoded values
  6. **Traceability (#16-#17)** — Story-Task alignment, AC coverage (LAST, after all fixes)
- Use Auto-Fix Actions table below as authoritative checklist
- Zero out penalty points as fixes applied
- Test Strategy section must exist but remain empty (testing handled separately)

### Phase 5: Approve & Notify

- Set Story + all Tasks to Todo (Linear); update `kanban_board.md` with APPROVED marker
- **Add Linear comment** with full validation summary:
  - Penalty Points table (Before -> After = 0)
  - Auto-Fixes Applied table
  - Documentation Created table (docs created via ln-002)
  - Standards Compliance Evidence table
- **Display tabular output** (Unicode box-drawing) to terminal
- Final: Total Penalty Points = 0
- **Optional:** If `--execute` flag provided, delegate to ln-400-story-executor to start execution immediately after approval

## Auto-Fix Actions Reference

### Structural (#1-#4)

| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |
|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|
| 1 | Story Structure | 8 sections per template | LOW (1) | Add/reorder sections with TODO placeholders; update Linear |
| 2 | Tasks Structure | Each Task has 7 sections | LOW (1) | Load each Task; add/reorder sections; update Linear |
| 3 | Story Statement | As a/I want/So that clarity | LOW (1) | Rewrite using persona/capability/value; update Linear |
| 4 | Acceptance Criteria | Given/When/Then, 3-5 items | MEDIUM (3) | Normalize to G/W/T; add edge cases; update Linear |

### Standards (#5)

| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |
|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|
| 5 | Standards Compliance | RFC, OWASP, REST, Security | CRITICAL (10) | Query MCP Ref; update Technical Notes with compliant approach |

### Solution (#6)

| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |
|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|
| 6 | Library & Version | Libraries are latest stable | HIGH (5) | Query Context7; update to recommended versions |

### Workflow (#7-#13)

| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |
|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|
| 7 | Test Strategy | Section exists but empty | LOW (1) | Ensure section present; leave empty (testing handled separately) |
| 8 | Documentation Integration | No standalone doc tasks | MEDIUM (3) | Remove doc-only tasks; fold into implementation DoD |
| 9 | Story Size | 3-8 tasks; 3-5h each | MEDIUM (3) | If <3 or >8, add TODO; flag task size issues |
| 10 | Test Task Cleanup | No premature test tasks | MEDIUM (3) | Remove test tasks before final; testing appears later |
| 11 | YAGNI | No premature features | MEDIUM (3) | Move speculative items to Out of Scope unless standards require |
| 12 | KISS | Simplest solution | MEDIUM (3) | Simplify unless standards require complexity |
| 13 | Task Order | DB→Service→API→UI | MEDIUM (3) | Reorder Tasks foundation-first |

### Quality (#14-#15)

| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |
|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|
| 14 | Documentation Complete | Pattern docs exist + referenced | HIGH (5) | Delegate to ln-002; add all doc links to Technical Notes |
| 15 | Code Quality Basics | No hardcoded values | MEDIUM (3) | Add TODOs for constants/config/env |

### Traceability (#16-#17)

| # | Criterion | What it checks | Penalty | Auto-fix actions |
|---|-----------|----------------|---------|------------------|
| 16 | Story-Task Alignment | Tasks implement Story statement | MEDIUM (3) | Add TODO to misaligned Tasks; warn user |
| 17 | AC-Task Coverage | Each AC has implementing Task | MEDIUM (3) | Add TODO for uncovered ACs; suggest missing Tasks |

**Maximum Penalty:** 50 points

## Final Assessment Model

**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 Calculation

```
Readiness Score = 10 - (Penalty Points / 5)
```

| Score | Status | Gate |
|-------|--------|------|
| 9-10 | Excellent | GO |
| 7-8 | Good | GO |
| 5-6 | Acceptable | GO (with notes) |
| 3-4 | Concerns | NO-GO (requires review) |
| 1-2 | Critical | NO-GO (major issues) |

### Anti-Hallucination Verification

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)

### Task-AC Coverage Matrix

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%)

## Self-Audit Protocol (Mandatory)

Before marking any criterion as complete, provide concrete evidence (doc path, MCP result, Linear update).

| # | Self-Audit Question | Required Evidence |
|---|---------------------|-------------------|
| 1 | Validated all 8 Story sections? | Section list |
| 2 | Loaded full description for each Task? | Task validation count |
| 3 | Statement in As a/I want/So that? | Quoted statement |
| 4 | AC are G/W/T and testable? | AC count and format |
| 5 | Verified RFC/OWASP/REST compliance? | Standards list + MCP result |
| 6 | Checked library versions via Context7? | Context7 result |
| 7 | Test Strategy kept empty? | Note that testing deferred |
| 8 | Docs integrated, no standalone tasks? | Integration evidence |
| 9 | Task count 3-8 and 3-5h? | Task count/sizes |
| 10 | No premature test tasks? | Search result |
| 11 | Only current-scope features (YAGNI)? | Scope review |
| 12 | Simplest approach within standards (KISS)? | Simplicity justification |
| 13 | Tasks ordered Foundation-First? | Task order list |
| 14 | All pattern docs exist and referenced? | Doc paths from ln-002 |
| 15 | Hardcoded values handled? | TODO/config evidence |
| 16 | Each Task aligns with Story statement? | Alignment check result |
| 17 | Each AC has implementing Task? | Coverage matrix |

## Definition of Done

- **Phase 1:** Auto-discovery done; Story + Tasks metadata loaded; task count checked
- **Phase 2:** Domain extraction complete; ln-002 delegated for docs; MCP research done; Anti-Hallucination verification done; Penalty Points calculated
- **Phase 3:** Audit results shown; IF Plan Mode: user approved
- **Phase 4:** All 17 criteria auto-fixed; Penalty Points = 0; Test Strategy empty; test tasks removed
- **Phase 5:** Final Assessment output:
  ```yaml
  gate: GO | NO-GO
  readiness_score: {1-10}
  penalty_points: 0 (was {N})
  anti_hallucination: VERIFIED | FLAGGED
  ac_coverage: "{N}/{M} (100%)"
  ac_matrix:
    - ac: "AC1"
      tasks: ["T-001", "T-002"]
      status: covered
  ```
- Story/Tasks set to Todo; `kanban_board.md` updated; Linear comment with Final Assessment added
- **Optional:** If `--execute` flag, ln-400-story-executor invoked after approval

## Example Workflow

**Story:** "Create user management API with rate limiting"

1. **Phase 1:** Load metadata (5 Tasks, status Backlog)
2. **Phase 2:**
   - Domain extraction: REST API, Rate Limiting
   - Delegate ln-002: creates Guide-05 (REST patterns), Guide-06 (Rate Limiting)
   - MCP Ref: RFC 7231 compliance, OWASP API Security
   - Context7: Express v4.19 (current v4.17)
   - Penalty Points: 18 total (version=5, missing docs=5, structure=3, standards=5)
3. **Phase 3:**
   - Show Penalty Points table
   - IF Plan Mode: "18 penalty points found. Fix plan ready. Approve?"
4. **Phase 4:**
   - Fix #6: Update Express v4.17 -> v4.19
   - Fix #5: Add RFC 7231 compliance notes
   - Fix #13: Add Guide-05, Guide-06 references
   - Fix #17: Docs already created by ln-002
   - All fixes applied, Penalty Points = 0
5. **Phase 5:** Story -> Todo, tabular report

## Template Loading

**Templates:** `story_template.md`, `task_template_implementation.md`

**Loading Logic:**
1. Check if `docs/templates/{template}.md` exists in target project
2. IF NOT EXISTS:
   a. Create `docs/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)
3. Use LOCAL copy (`docs/templates/{template}.md`) for all validation operations

**Rationale:** Templates are copied to target project on first use, ensuring:
- Project independence (no dependency on skills repository)
- Customization possible (project can modify local templates)
- Placeholder replacement happens once at copy time

## Reference Files

- **Final Assessment:** `references/readiness_scoring.md` (GO/NO-GO rules, Readiness Score calculation)
- **Templates (centralized):** `shared/templates/story_template.md`, `shared/templates/task_template_implementation.md`
- **Local copies:** `docs/templates/` (in target project)
- **Validation Checklists (Progressive Disclosure):**
  - `references/verification_checklist_template.md` (overview of 6 categories)
  - `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/traceability_validation.md` (criteria #16-#17)
  - `references/domain_patterns.md` (pattern registry for ln-002 delegation)
  - `references/penalty_points.md` (penalty system details)
- **Linear integration:** `../shared/templates/linear_integration.md`

---
**Version:** 6.0.0 (Added GO/NO-GO verdict, Readiness Score, Anti-Hallucination verification based on BMAD validate-next-story methodology)
**Last Updated:** 2026-01-29

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.