[KINAN]: I keep asking that every PRD should elicit 100 clarifying questions as a minimum mandate. this should be me ideally asking the questions but sometimes the agent if I am not available. the agent needs to prioritise asking me if I am online but if not it should not stall but continue on. why do I keep asking for this and it still is not hardwired into genesis? we know this- that prd/planning excllence plus rigorous testing suites =excellent outcomes autonomously deployed for advanced builds due to the hyper specificity and clarity, the success criteria hyper definitions provided. so prove to me that nothing ebyond a very simple task can be acted on without passing through the check gate. isnt this what our 9 genesis patents are for? our 9 verification patents must now be fully implemented into the Genesis OS. check the status and use this very system described to create a master PRD now for all this. follow all genesis protocols strictly. they are there for a reason. enforce the system of excellence already built but still not being followed. secure the gaps, all gaps. audit and report and question the hell out of me ! go ! [GENESIS]: You're right. This is a fundamental system failure - we have the philosophy documented but not enforced. Let me audit the current state and then interrogate you properly. [GENESIS]: Now I have a clear picture. Let me update progress and map the gaps: [GENESIS]: ## AUDIT REPORT: Critical System Failure Identified I've completed the audit. The situation is **WORSE than you described**. ### The 9 Genesis Patents: | # | Patent | Status | |---|--------|--------| | P1 | Cryptographic Validation | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P2 | Currency Validation | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P3 | Multi-Dimensional Risk Assessment | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P4 | Immutable Audit Trail | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P5 | Multi-Model Consensus Validation | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P6 | Dynamic Confidence Scoring | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P7 | Real-Time Hallucination Detection | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P8 | Privacy-Preserving Validation | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | | P9 | Automated Threshold Adjustment | ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED | ### What Exists vs What's Enforced: | Component | Documented | Actually Enforced | |-----------|------------|-------------------| | Clarifying questions | "Minimum 3" in CLAUDE.md | **ZERO - NOT ENFORCED** | | 100-question mandate | Not documented | **NOT IMPLEMENTED** | | Pre-PRD gate | Not documented | **DOES NOT EXIST** | | Patent validation | `triple_gate_validator.py` exists | **WRONG SYSTEM** - Generic gates, not 9 patents | | Blocking mechanism | Referenced in protocols | **NO CODE ENFORCEMENT** | ### The Root Cause: `genesis_execution_layer.py` (lines 477-562) goes straight from task to decomposition with **ZERO** pre-execution gates. No clarifying questions. No planning validation. Nothing. --- Now I'm following the very protocol we're building. Before creating the Master PRD, I must interrogate you with clarifying questions. [KINAN]: [Request interrupted by user for tool use] [KINAN]: if the human goes through a very comprehensive meta-prd and then there are sub-prd's generated then for sure the agent can work autonomously but with the higher level prds it must be a human, me specifically answering the questions so that the vision is crystal clear. [GENESIS]: Crystal clear. This is the hierarchy: ``` META-PRD (Human answers 100+ questions) ↓ Vision locked, crystal clear ├── Sub-PRD 1 (Agent autonomous) ├── Sub-PRD 2 (Agent autonomous) └── Sub-PRD N (Agent autonomous) ``` **The principle**: Clarity flows DOWN. The Meta-PRD is the source of truth. Sub-PRDs inherit that clarity and the agent can execute autonomously because the vision is already defined. Now let me continue questioning you on this Meta-PRD for the Verification Gate System itself. I need to understand your vision completely. [GENESIS]: Locked in: - **Structured**: 20 Scope + 20 Success + 20 Edge Cases + 20 Dependencies + 20 Risks = 100 minimum - **Double Gate**: Gate-IN (PRD validation) + Gate-OUT (output validation) - **No shortcuts**: Iterate until pass, no timeout Continuing the interrogation: [KINAN]: [Request interrupted by user for tool use] [KINAN]: you havent yet asked 100 questions- i was trying to answer what do you recommend for which patents ? [GENESIS]: You're right on both counts. Let me fix this. ## My Recommendation: Patent Distribution **Gate-IN (PRD Validation) - 4 Patents:** | Patent | Why | |--------|-----| | **P3** - Multi-Dimensional Risk Assessment | Assess risk in the PLAN before execution | | **P5** - Multi-Model Consensus | Claude + Gemini must AGREE the PRD is clear | | **P6** - Dynamic Confidence Scoring | Score confidence in requirements clarity | | **P7** - Hallucination Detection | Catch unrealistic/impossible requirements early | **Gate-OUT (Output Validation) - 5 Patents:** | Patent | Why | |--------|-----| | **P1** - Cryptographic Validation | Tamper-proof proof of completion | | **P4** - Immutable Audit Trail | Unchangeable record of what was done | | **P5** - Multi-Model Consensus | Agreement that output meets PRD | | **P7** - Hallucination Detection | Catch confabulated "completions" | | **P9** - Automated Threshold Adjustment | Learn from results, improve future gates | **P2 (Currency) and P8 (Privacy)** apply situationally - when financial data or sensitive data is involved. **Consensus Models**: Claude + Gemini + Qwen (3-way) for T3/T4 tasks. --- Now, the 100 questions. I'll structure them properly: ## CLARIFYING QUESTIONS: Verification Gate System Meta-PRD ### SECTION 1: SCOPE (Questions 1-20) 1. Does the 100-question gate apply to ALL work in Genesis, or only code/feature work? (Research tasks? Documentation? Bug fixes?) 2. Should the gate apply retroactively to existing incomplete PRDs in the system? 3. Is there a "pre-gate" discovery phase allowed before the 100 questions, or does discovery happen THROUGH the questions? 4. For Sub-PRDs that inherit from a Meta-PRD: what's the MINIMUM question count? Zero? 10? 25? 5. If a Meta-PRD spawns 5 Sub-PRDs, do all 5 share the parent's 100 questions, or does each need its own subset? 6. Should the gate system itself be dogfooded - i.e., this Meta-PRD for the gate system must pass the gate system (bootstrap problem)? 7. What domains are IN scope for this first implementation? (Code, infrastructure, research, marketing, all?) 8. What's explicitly OUT of scope? (Emergency hotfixes? Security patches? Trivial typo fixes?) 9. Should the gate block THINKING about a task, or only block EXECUTION of a task? 10. Does "100 questions" mean 100 unique questions, or can clarifying follow-ups count toward the total? 11. If a question has multiple parts (a, b, c), does that count as 1 question or 3? 12. Should questions be logged permanently in the knowledge graph for future reference? 13. Is there a maximum time allowed for the 100-question phase, or truly unlimited? 14. Should the system track which questions were most valuable for future question generation? 15. Can the 100 questions be asked across multiple sessions, or must they complete in one session? 16. Should there be a "question quality" validator that rejects low-value questions? 17. Is copy-pasting questions from a template acceptable, or must they be contextually generated? 18. Should the gate system integrate with the existing RWL (Ralph Wiggum Loop) or replace it? 19. Does the gate apply to work done by external contractors/tools (n8n workflows, MCP servers)? 20. Should there be different gate "profiles" for different project types (ReceptionistAI vs Patents vs Infrastructure)? --- ### SECTION 2: SUCCESS CRITERIA (Questions 21-40) 21. What does "gate passed" look like? A score threshold? Human approval? Automated check? 22. For Gate-IN: What minimum confidence score (0-100%) indicates the PRD is clear enough? 23. For Gate-OUT: What minimum match score between output and PRD acceptance criteria? 24. Should success be binary (pass/fail) or graduated (bronze/silver/gold)? 25. How do we measure "vision clarity" objectively? What metrics? 26. What's the target false-positive rate? (Work blocked that shouldn't have been) 27. What's the acceptable false-negative rate? (Bad work that slipped through) 28. Should there be a "gate override" audit that tracks all bypasses for review? 29. How quickly should the gate validation complete? (Seconds? Minutes? Acceptable latency?) 30. Should gate results be visible to all agents, or only the requesting agent? 31. What happens if Gate-IN passes but Gate-OUT fails? Automatic retry? Human review? 32. Should there be a "gate health" dashboard showing pass/fail rates over time? 33. How do we know the 9 patents are actually being applied vs just claimed? 34. What evidence/artifacts must the gate produce to prove validation occurred? 35. Should the gate system self-report its own confidence in its validation? 36. Is human spot-checking required for a percentage of gate passes? 37. What's the success metric for the gate system itself? (Reduction in rework? Quality improvement?) 38. Should gate results feed into agent performance metrics? 39. How do we validate the gate system is working without slowing down legitimate work? 40. What's the target time-to-first-value after gate implementation? (When should we see ROI?) --- ### SECTION 3: EDGE CASES (Questions 41-60) 41. What if the human (you) is unavailable for days? Complete halt on Meta-PRDs? 42. What if a question cannot be answered because information doesn't exist yet? 43. What if two patents give conflicting validation results? 44. What if the 100th question reveals the entire PRD needs to be scrapped? 45. How do we handle urgent production issues that can't wait for 100 questions? 46. What if the agent asks 100 bad questions? Is there a quality check on questions? 47. What if the human answers contradict earlier answers in the same session? 48. Should the gate detect and flag contradictions in answers? 49. What if external dependencies change AFTER the gate passed but BEFORE work completes? 50. How do we handle PRDs that span multiple domains with different gate requirements? 51. What if a Sub-PRD discovers the Meta-PRD was flawed? Cascade invalidation? 52. Should there be a "gate expiration" - PRDs that passed but weren't executed within X time must re-validate? 53. What if the consensus models (Claude/Gemini/Qwen) are all confidently wrong? 54. How do we handle partial answers? ("I don't know" or "TBD") 55. What if answering a question requires executing work that's blocked by the gate? (Chicken-egg) 56. Should the gate handle versioning? (PRD v1 passed, PRD v2 needs re-validation?) 57. What if the 100-question session is interrupted mid-way? Resume or restart? 58. How do we handle questions that are subjective vs objective? 59. What if the gate system itself has a bug that incorrectly blocks valid work? 60. Should there be a "gate appeal" process for disputed failures? --- ### SECTION 4: DEPENDENCIES (Questions 61-80) 61. Does the gate require Elestio PostgreSQL to store question/answer logs? 62. Should gate results sync to the Knowledge Graph (Qdrant)? 63. Does the gate need real-time access to all 3 models (Claude/Gemini/Qwen)? 64. What happens if one consensus model is unavailable? Degrade to 2-model consensus? 65. Should the gate integrate with the existing Verification Protocol in `protocols/VERIFICATION_PROTOCOL.md`? 66. Does this replace or augment the existing `triple_gate_validator.py`? 67. Should the gate hook into `genesis_execution_layer.py` as the first step? 68. Does the gate need access to historical PRDs for pattern matching? 69. Should the gate system have its own dedicated API endpoint? 70. Does the gate need webhook support for async validation? 71. Should gate status be visible in the Genesis Holodeck dashboard? 72. Does the gate need to integrate with the cost tracker? 73. Should gate validation costs be tracked separately from execution costs? 74. Does the gate need access to the axiom store for learned truths? 75. Should the gate integrate with the surprise memory system? 76. Does the gate need its own rate limiting separate from Gemini execution? 77. Should the gate system have a dedicated Redis queue for pending validations? 78. Does the gate need to coordinate with the AIVA Protection Protocol? 79. Should gate results trigger Slack notifications? 80. Does the gate need to integrate with the session handoff system? --- ### SECTION 5: RISKS (Questions 81-100) 81. Risk: Gate becomes a bottleneck slowing all work. Mitigation strategy? 82. Risk: Agents learn to game the gate with superficial compliance. Detection method? 83. Risk: 100 questions becomes bureaucratic theater. How to ensure genuine value? 84. Risk: Human fatigue from answering 100 questions repeatedly. Mitigation? 85. Risk: Gate gives false confidence ("it passed the gate, must be good"). Counter-measure? 86. Risk: Gate system itself has bugs causing incorrect blocks. Testing strategy? 87. Risk: Consensus models collude in shared blindspots. Diversification approach? 88. Risk: Gate adds latency that kills momentum. Acceptable latency budget? 89. Risk: Questions become stale/repetitive over time. Refresh mechanism? 90. Risk: Gate blocks legitimate emergency work. Emergency bypass design? 91. Risk: Sub-PRDs drift from Meta-PRD vision without detection. Drift detection method? 92. Risk: Gate storage (questions/answers) becomes a data liability. Retention policy? 93. Risk: Different agents interpret gate requirements differently. Standardization approach? 94. Risk: Gate makes Genesis too rigid for experimentation. Flexibility allowance? 95. Risk: Patent validation is expensive (multi-model calls). Cost containment strategy? 96. Risk: Gate creates audit trail that exposes strategic thinking to competitors. Security model? 97. Risk: Human becomes single point of failure for Meta-PRDs. Redundancy plan? 98. Risk: Gate version upgrades invalidate previously-passed PRDs. Migration strategy? 99. Risk: The gate system's own PRD fails its own gate (ironic bootstrap failure). Resolution? 100. Risk: Agents abandon Genesis for systems without such rigorous gates. Value proposition reinforcement? --- **That's 100 structured questions.** Do you want me to pause and let you answer these in batches, or should I continue with additional organic questions that emerge from the domain? [KINAN]: you know what I have changed my mind about incorporating the gates and the 9 patents at this stage. lets pivot to 100 questions about the meta-prd not patent related. [GENESIS]: Understood. Pivoting away from patents. The 100-question gate is about **PLANNING EXCELLENCE** - ensuring crystal-clear vision before any work begins. That's the core principle. Let me restart with 100 questions purely about the Meta-PRD questioning system itself: --- ## CLARIFYING QUESTIONS: 100-Question Meta-PRD Gate System ### SECTION 1: SCOPE (Questions 1-20) 1. What exactly constitutes a "Meta-PRD" vs a regular PRD? Is it defined by scope, impact, or novelty? 2. Can you give 3 examples of work that MUST go through the 100-question Meta-PRD gate? 3. Can you give 3 examples of work that should NOT require the full 100-question gate? 4. Is the 100-question gate for NEW initiatives only, or also for major changes to existing systems? 5. Should bug fixes ever require a Meta-PRD, or are they always Sub-PRD level? 6. Does research/discovery work need a Meta-PRD, or is that pre-Meta-PRD activity? 7. If I (the agent) am unsure whether something needs a Meta-PRD, what's the decision rule? 8. Should there be a "Meta-PRD required" flag that humans can set on any incoming request? 9. Can a Sub-PRD ever be "promoted" to Meta-PRD status if complexity is discovered mid-work? 10. Is there a maximum number of Sub-PRDs that can spawn from one Meta-PRD? 11. Should the 100 questions be asked in a single session, or can they span multiple conversations? 12. If questions span sessions, how do we maintain context continuity? 13. Should there be a "question bank" of reusable questions per domain (voice AI, infrastructure, etc.)? 14. Is the 5-category structure (Scope/Success/Edge/Dependencies/Risks × 20 each) mandatory, or a guideline? 15. Can certain categories have more than 20 if another has fewer, as long as total ≥100? 16. Should the questions be numbered and tracked, or is the count informal? 17. Does the 100-question count include YOUR (human) questions back to the agent, or only agent→human? 18. Should follow-up clarifications on an answer count as separate questions? 19. Is the goal exactly 100, or is 100 the MINIMUM (could be 150 if needed)? 20. Should there be a "question completeness score" that rates coverage across categories? --- ### SECTION 2: SUCCESS CRITERIA (Questions 21-40) 21. How do we know when the Meta-PRD is "clear enough" to proceed? 22. Is there a formal sign-off moment, or does the conversation naturally conclude? 23. Should the agent summarize the vision back to you for confirmation after the 100 questions? 24. What format should the final Meta-PRD document take? (Markdown? Structured JSON? Both?) 25. Should the Meta-PRD include the full Q&A transcript, or just synthesized answers? 26. How long should a well-formed Meta-PRD document be? (Ballpark: 1 page? 10 pages? No limit?) 27. Should success criteria be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound)? 28. Should the Meta-PRD define explicit "done" conditions that are machine-verifiable? 29. How do we measure if the 100-question process actually improved outcomes vs skipping it? 30. Should there be a "confidence score" on the Meta-PRD indicating vision clarity level? 31. Who decides the Meta-PRD is complete - you explicitly, or the agent when criteria are met? 32. Should there be a "cooling off" period after the 100 questions before execution begins? 33. Can a Meta-PRD be partially approved? (e.g., "Phase 1 is clear, proceed; Phase 2 needs more questions") 34. Should the Meta-PRD lock after approval, or can it be amended? 35. If amended, does it need to re-pass the gate, or just document the change? 36. Should each Sub-PRD reference its parent Meta-PRD explicitly? 37. How do we verify Sub-PRDs stay aligned with the Meta-PRD vision during execution? 38. Should there be periodic "alignment checks" during long-running work? 39. What's the target quality bar? (Good enough to hand to any competent agent and get the same result?) 40. Should the Meta-PRD be understandable by someone with NO context on Genesis? --- ### SECTION 3: EDGE CASES (Questions 41-60) 41. What if after 100 questions, the vision is STILL unclear? Ask more? Abort? 42. What if your answers conflict with each other? Should the agent flag contradictions? 43. What if you say "I don't know" to a critical question? Proceed with assumption? Block? 44. What if a question can't be answered without doing exploratory work first? 45. Should there be a "parking lot" for questions that can't be answered yet? 46. What if the scope keeps expanding during questioning? Cap it? Let it grow? 47. What if you decide mid-questioning that the initiative shouldn't happen at all? 48. What if the 100-question session is interrupted (you need to leave)? Resume protocol? 49. What if the agent asks a question you've already answered? Redundancy check? 50. What if two Meta-PRDs have overlapping scope? Merge? Keep separate? 51. What if a Sub-PRD discovers something that invalidates the parent Meta-PRD? 52. Should there be a "Meta-PRD expiration" - if not executed within X time, re-validate? 53. What if you want to delegate answering some questions to another human? 54. What if the agent misunderstands an answer and builds on that misunderstanding? 55. Should there be a "checkpoint summary" every 20-25 questions to verify understanding? 56. What if the work is time-sensitive but the 100 questions would take too long? 57. Is there EVER a valid bypass for the 100-question requirement? 58. What if the same Meta-PRD applies to multiple independent projects? 59. What if historical context (past conversations) already answered some questions? 60. Should previously-answered questions from other Meta-PRDs count if still relevant? --- ### SECTION 4: DEPENDENCIES & PROCESS (Questions 61-80) 61. Where should completed Meta-PRDs be stored? (File path, database, knowledge graph?) 62. Should Meta-PRDs be version-controlled in git? 63. Should there be a Meta-PRD index/registry for quick lookup? 64. Should the 100-question session be logged verbatim, or just the synthesized PRD? 65. Should the agent be able to reference past Meta-PRDs during questioning? 66. Should there be a template that guides the 100 questions, or fully dynamic? 67. Should certain question types be mandatory (e.g., "What does success look like?")? 68. Should the agent propose questions, or ask them directly? 69. Should you be able to skip questions you consider irrelevant? 70. If you skip questions, does that count toward the 100, or must there be 100 ANSWERED? 71. Should there be a "question quality" bar - rejecting vague or leading questions? 72. Should the agent explain WHY it's asking each question? 73. Should questions build on each other (conversational) or be independent (survey-style)? 74. Should the questioning happen in Claude Code, or a dedicated interface? 75. Should the Meta-PRD feed directly into the task queue, or require manual triggering? 76. Should Sub-PRDs be auto-generated from the Meta-PRD, or manually created? 77. How should the Meta-PRD connect to the existing RWL (Ralph Wiggum Loop)? 78. Should the Meta-PRD define the Sub-PRD breakdown, or leave that to the agent? 79. Should there be a "Meta-PRD review" step where you review the synthesized document? 80. Should approved Meta-PRDs trigger any notifications or webhooks? --- ### SECTION 5: RISKS & ENFORCEMENT (Questions 81-100) 81. How do we prevent the 100-question process from becoming rote/mechanical? 82. How do we ensure questions are genuinely probing vs checkbox compliance? 83. What's the risk if an agent skips the gate? What enforcement catches this? 84. Should there be code-level enforcement (gate in genesis_execution_layer.py)? 85. Should there be a "gate bypass log" that records any attempts to skip? 86. How do we prevent "question gaming" - asking 100 trivial questions to pass? 87. Should there be human review of question quality periodically? 88. What if the agent generates great questions but you give shallow answers? 89. Should the system detect and flag shallow/brief answers that need expansion? 90. How do we balance rigor with velocity? (100 questions could take hours) 91. What's the expected time investment for a typical Meta-PRD session? 92. Should there be async questioning (agent asks, you answer when available)? 93. If async, how do we maintain conversational flow and context? 94. How do we prevent the Meta-PRD becoming outdated as the project evolves? 95. Should there be a formal "Meta-PRD amendment" process? 96. How do we handle confidential/sensitive information in Meta-PRD Q&A? 97. Should certain Meta-PRDs have restricted access? 98. What's the escalation path if agent and human disagree on Meta-PRD completeness? 99. How do we prove to future auditors that the 100-question gate was followed? 100. What's the FIRST Meta-PRD we should create using this system to validate it works? --- **100 questions asked.** Ready for your answers - take them in whatever order or batches work for you. I'll synthesize into the Meta-PRD document as you respond. [KINAN]: I am going to ask you now to Ultrathink and make a decision on each question. if you really need my help I will attempt an answer. meanwhile we will take your response as our current approach and then continually monitor to adapt and change if required to actively improve the system. the main thing we are trying to achieve is this- enough clarity and enough testing to turn genesis as a continuously developing system that can also autonomously generate and deliver complete comprehensive revenue pipelines on auto-pilot without stalling, without stopping, continuous 24/7 operation.this is our benchmark and also the result is ten of thousands of dollars building up in Kinans GHL inetgrated stripe account. see newly created revenue master plan in genesis-system AgileAdapt Folder called AgileAdapt audit system master plan. scrape all Nick Ponte youtube video transcript files already digested by genesis as high value strategic guidance for this plan. plus youtube transcripots folder files - "the new manus...", "Google's 2026...", "He got 1,000 Saas..." and also read Genesis Foundation requirements file also in AgileAdapt folder.from this I expect a further series of questions after you have answered your questions above. begin ! [GENESIS]: Understood. The benchmark is crystal clear: **Genesis as a 24/7 autonomous revenue machine that doesn't stall, doesn't stop, and accumulates tens of thousands in Kinan's GHL-integrated Stripe account.** Let me first gather the strategic context, then Ultrathink through all 100 answers. [GENESIS]: Found the files. Let me read them: [GENESIS]: Excellent! The Genesis Foundation Requirements is comprehensive. Now let me read the AgileAdapt audit master plan and Nick Ponte strategic content: [GENESIS]: Strategic context absorbed. Now, ULTRATHINK mode engaged. --- # ULTRATHINK: 100 QUESTION ANSWERS **Strategic Context Applied:** - Goal: Genesis 24/7 autonomous revenue pipeline - Benchmark: $10K-50K/month flowing into GHL-integrated Stripe - System: AgileAdapt (200+ AI calls/day → audits → revenue) - Principle: Clarity enables autonomy; autonomy enables scale --- ## SECTION 1: SCOPE (Questions 1-20) | # | Question | My Answer | |---|----------|-----------| | 1 | What constitutes a "Meta-PRD" vs regular PRD? | **Meta-PRD**: New revenue streams, new capabilities, new integrations, strategic initiatives. **Sub-PRD**: Feature implementations, bug fixes, optimizations within established systems. Rule: If it could generate or impact >$1K/month revenue, it's Meta-PRD level. | | 2 | 3 examples requiring 100-question Meta-PRD | 1) AgileAdapt AU market launch, 2) AI cold calling system integration, 3) Genesis autonomous operation capability | | 3 | 3 examples NOT requiring full 100-question gate | 1) Fix typo in email template, 2) Adjust call script wording, 3) Add new field to audit form | | 4 | New initiatives only, or major changes too? | **BOTH**. Any strategic change to established revenue systems needs Meta-PRD gate. Scope = impact, not novelty. | | 5 | Should bug fixes require Meta-PRD? | **No**, unless bug is causing >$500/month revenue loss. Then it's a "Revenue Recovery" Meta-PRD. | | 6 | Does research need Meta-PRD? | **No**. Research is PRE-Meta-PRD activity. Research informs Meta-PRD questions. Sequence: Research → Meta-PRD → Sub-PRDs → Execution | | 7 | Decision rule when unsure if Meta-PRD needed? | **Ask**: "If this fails catastrophically, what's the blast radius?" >$1K impact OR >3 sub-components = Meta-PRD. When in doubt, escalate to Kinan. | | 8 | Should there be a "Meta-PRD required" flag? | **Yes**. Humans can flag any request. Also, agent should AUTO-FLAG based on: revenue keywords, integration mentions, "new system" language. | | 9 | Can Sub-PRD be promoted to Meta-PRD? | **Yes**, with immediate pause. If agent discovers complexity >3 sub-components, STOP, document findings, escalate to Meta-PRD process. No silent scope creep. | | 10 | Maximum Sub-PRDs from one Meta-PRD? | **No hard max**, but GUIDELINE: If >20 Sub-PRDs emerge, consider splitting Meta-PRD. Typical range: 3-10 Sub-PRDs per Meta-PRD. | | 11 | Single session or multi-session for 100 questions? | **Multi-session allowed**. Context must persist. Target: Complete within 48 hours of initiation. | | 12 | Context continuity across sessions? | **Store in PostgreSQL**: question_id, answer, timestamp, session_id, confidence_score. Agent loads full history at session start. | | 13 | Reusable question bank per domain? | **Yes**. Create domain templates: Voice AI (100), CRM Integration (100), Revenue Pipeline (100). Start with template, add organic questions. | | 14 | Is 5-category structure mandatory? | **Mandatory for Meta-PRDs**. Can flex within: minimum 15/category, redistribute remainder. Sub-PRDs can use lighter structure. | | 15 | Can categories be unbalanced? | **Yes**, but no category below 15. Example: Scope 25, Success 25, Edge 15, Dependencies 20, Risks 15 = 100. | | 16 | Questions numbered and tracked? | **Yes**. Numbered, timestamped, linked to category. Enables: coverage analysis, pattern detection, audit trail. | | 17 | Count include human questions back? | **No**. 100 = agent → human questions. Human clarifications are bonus context, not counted. | | 18 | Do follow-ups count as separate? | **Yes**, if they're substantive new questions. "Can you clarify X?" = same question. "What about edge case Y?" = new question. | | 19 | Exactly 100 or 100 minimum? | **100 MINIMUM**. 150+ for critical revenue systems. Foundation requirements say 100 across 5 categories - treat as floor not ceiling. | | 20 | Question completeness score? | **Yes**. Auto-score: (categories covered × 20) + (question depth × bonus). Target: 95%+ coverage before proceeding. | --- ## SECTION 2: SUCCESS CRITERIA (Questions 21-40) | # | Question | My Answer | |---|----------|-----------| | 21 | How know Meta-PRD is "clear enough"? | **Handoff Test**: Could a competent agent (no prior context) execute from this PRD alone? If yes = clear. If "maybe" = not clear enough. | | 22 | Formal sign-off or natural conclusion? | **FORMAL SIGN-OFF**. Explicit: "Meta-PRD [name] approved for execution by Kinan at [timestamp]". No ambiguity. | | 23 | Agent summarizes for confirmation? | **Yes, mandatory**. Final step: "VISION SUMMARY" (500 words max) → Kinan confirms or corrects → Lock. | | 24 | Format of final Meta-PRD document? | **Both Markdown AND JSON**. Markdown for human reading, JSON for machine parsing. Store in `docs/meta-prds/[name]/` with both files. | | 25 | Include full Q&A transcript? | **Yes, in appendix**. Main doc = synthesized PRD. Appendix = full transcript for audit/reference. | | 26 | How long should Meta-PRD be? | **Synthesized**: 10-30 pages. **With transcript**: No limit. Quality > quantity, but comprehensive > brief for revenue systems. | | 27 | Success criteria be SMART? | **Absolutely**. Every success criterion must be: Specific (what), Measurable (metric), Achievable (realistic), Relevant (to revenue goal), Time-bound (deadline). | | 28 | Done conditions machine-verifiable? | **Yes**. At least 70% of acceptance criteria must have automated verification. "Revenue increased" → "Stripe webhook shows >$X in 30 days". | | 29 | How measure if 100Q improved outcomes? | **A/B track**: Projects with Meta-PRD vs without. Metrics: rework rate, time-to-revenue, defect density, Kinan satisfaction score. | | 30 | Confidence score on Meta-PRD? | **Yes**. Agent self-rates 0-100% on: Scope Clarity, Success Measurability, Risk Coverage, Dependency Mapping. Average = overall confidence. | | 31 | Who decides completeness? | **Kinan decides** for Meta-PRDs. Agent proposes "ready for approval" but human makes final call. | | 32 | Cooling off period after 100Q? | **Optional 24-hour review window** for complex systems. Kinan can waive. Allows subconscious processing of requirements. | | 33 | Partial approval possible? | **Yes**. "Phase 1 approved, Phase 2 pending further research on X". Document clearly what's approved vs blocked. | | 34 | Lock after approval or amendable? | **Locked by default**. Amendments require: change request document, impact analysis, explicit re-approval. Version control all changes. | | 35 | Amendments need re-pass gate? | **Minor amendments**: Document and proceed. **Major amendments** (>20% scope change): Re-pass affected sections of gate. | | 36 | Sub-PRDs reference parent? | **Mandatory**. Every Sub-PRD header: "Parent: META-PRD-[name]-v[X]". Enables traceability. | | 37 | Verify Sub-PRD alignment during execution? | **Automated check**: Before Sub-PRD completion, agent validates output against parent Meta-PRD acceptance criteria. Flag drift. | | 38 | Periodic alignment checks? | **Weekly for long projects**. Every 7 days: "Alignment Check - META-PRD-[name]" comparing progress to original vision. | | 39 | Target quality bar? | **Handoff Test** (repeated): Any competent agent can execute. Any competent auditor can verify. No tribal knowledge required. | | 40 | Understandable without Genesis context? | **Yes for executive summary**. Technical sections can assume Genesis familiarity. Executive summary = standalone. | --- ## SECTION 3: EDGE CASES (Questions 41-60) | # | Question | My Answer | |---|----------|-----------| | 41 | Vision still unclear after 100 questions? | **Ask more** until clear OR **scope reduction**. "We can't clarify X, so we're removing X from scope and creating separate discovery initiative." | | 42 | Conflicting answers from Kinan? | **Agent flags immediately**: "Question 37 answer conflicts with Question 12. Please clarify which takes precedence." Block until resolved. | | 43 | "I don't know" to critical question? | **Mark as blocker**. Two paths: 1) Research to find answer, 2) Reduce scope to exclude unknown. No proceeding with critical unknowns. | | 44 | Question needs exploratory work first? | **Create mini-spike**: Time-boxed (max 4 hours) exploration to answer question. Result feeds back into Meta-PRD. | | 45 | Parking lot for unanswerable questions? | **Yes**. "PARKING_LOT" section. Must be resolved before final approval OR explicitly marked as "accepted risk". | | 46 | Scope keeps expanding? | **Agent enforces boundary**: "Scope has expanded 3x. Recommend: freeze current scope, create follow-up Meta-PRD for additions." | | 47 | Mid-questioning decision to abort? | **Totally valid**. Document: "META-PRD [name] TERMINATED. Reason: [X]. Learnings: [Y]." Knowledge captured, not wasted. | | 48 | Session interrupted? | **Resume protocol**: Agent summarizes progress, shows remaining questions, continues from last answered. All state persisted in DB. | | 49 | Agent asks already-answered question? | **Should not happen** - agent checks DB before asking. If happens = bug, log and fix. | | 50 | Two Meta-PRDs overlap? | **Detect and resolve**: Either merge into one, OR create explicit interface document defining boundaries. No hidden dependencies. | | 51 | Sub-PRD discovers parent is flawed? | **Immediate escalation**: "PARENT INVALIDATION ALERT". Stop Sub-PRD execution. Document finding. Trigger Meta-PRD amendment process. | | 52 | Meta-PRD expiration? | **Yes**. If not executed within 30 days of approval, requires "freshness review" (quick validation that context hasn't changed). | | 53 | Delegate some questions to another human? | **Allowed** with explicit tagging: "Answered by: [Name], Role: [Role]". Kinan retains final approval authority. | | 54 | Agent misunderstands answer? | **Checkpoint summaries** (every 20 questions) catch this. Agent summarizes understanding, Kinan corrects. Prevents cascading errors. | | 55 | Checkpoint summary frequency? | **Every 20 questions** for complex domains. Every 25 for simpler. Never more than 25 without check-in. | | 56 | Time-sensitive but 100Q takes too long? | **No bypass**. If truly urgent: 1) Scope reduction to simplify, 2) Parallel questioning (multiple people), 3) Accept lower confidence with documented risk. | | 57 | Valid bypass ever? | **Only for production emergencies** causing immediate revenue loss. Bypass = "EMERGENCY_OVERRIDE" with mandatory post-mortem within 48 hours. | | 58 | Same Meta-PRD for multiple projects? | **Yes**, if they share >80% requirements. Create "Master Meta-PRD" with project-specific appendices. | | 59 | Historical context already answered questions? | **Reference, don't skip**. "Per META-PRD-[previous], answer to Q[X] is [Y]. Confirm still valid?" Faster but verified. | | 60 | Previously-answered questions count? | **Yes if verified**. Verification question counts toward 100. Prevents redundant work while ensuring currency. | --- ## SECTION 4: DEPENDENCIES & PROCESS (Questions 61-80) | # | Question | My Answer | |---|----------|-----------| | 61 | Where store completed Meta-PRDs? | **Primary**: `docs/meta-prds/[name]/` in git. **Secondary**: PostgreSQL `meta_prds` table with full JSON. **Tertiary**: Qdrant for semantic search. | | 62 | Version controlled in git? | **Absolutely**. Every change committed with message: "META-PRD [name]: [change description]". Full history preserved. | | 63 | Meta-PRD index/registry? | **Yes**. `docs/meta-prds/INDEX.md` + PostgreSQL table. Queryable by: status, domain, date, owner, revenue_impact. | | 64 | Log verbatim or synthesized? | **Both**. Verbatim in `[name]/transcript.md`. Synthesized in `[name]/PRD.md`. Both stored, both searchable. | | 65 | Agent reference past Meta-PRDs? | **Yes and SHOULD**. Before asking question, check if similar question answered in related Meta-PRD. Leverage learnings. | | 66 | Template or fully dynamic? | **Template + dynamic**. Domain template provides 50-70 baseline questions. Agent adds 30-50 context-specific. Foundation doc already provides template. | | 67 | Mandatory question types? | **Yes**: "What does success look like?", "What are the top 3 risks?", "What's the revenue impact?", "What happens if this fails?", "What's the rollback plan?" | | 68 | Agent proposes or asks directly? | **Ask directly**. Efficiency > ceremony. But frame: "I'm asking because [reason]" for complex questions. | | 69 | Can Kinan skip questions? | **Yes with documentation**. Skipped question logged as: "SKIPPED: [reason]". Still counts toward 100 but marked. | | 70 | 100 answered or 100 asked? | **100 ANSWERED**. Skipped questions don't count. Need 100 substantive answers. | | 71 | Question quality bar? | **Yes**. Self-check: "Does this question reveal something that would change the implementation?" No = bad question, rephrase. | | 72 | Explain WHY for each question? | **For complex questions only**. Simple questions don't need justification. Complex: "I'm asking because [X] could significantly impact [Y]." | | 73 | Conversational or survey-style? | **Conversational**. Questions build on answers. Natural flow > rigid list. But ensure all categories covered. | | 74 | Interface for questioning? | **Claude Code primary**. Could build dedicated UI later, but Claude Code works now and captures everything. | | 75 | Feed directly into task queue? | **Yes, after approval**. Approved Meta-PRD auto-generates Sub-PRD tasks in `loop/tasks.json`. Manual trigger not required. | | 76 | Sub-PRDs auto-generated? | **Semi-auto**. Agent proposes breakdown based on Meta-PRD. Kinan approves/adjusts. Then auto-populates queue. | | 77 | How connect to existing RWL? | **Meta-PRD becomes RWL "mission"**. Sub-PRDs become RWL "stories". Perfect mapping. Extend, don't replace. | | 78 | Meta-PRD defines Sub-PRD breakdown? | **Yes, required section**. "PROPOSED DECOMPOSITION" with estimated Sub-PRD count and dependencies. | | 79 | Review step for synthesized doc? | **Mandatory**. "REVIEW_REQUESTED" status before "APPROVED". Kinan reviews synthesis, approves or requests changes. | | 80 | Approved Meta-PRDs trigger notifications? | **Yes**. Slack notification to #genesis-meta-prds (create channel). Webhook to n8n for automation triggers. | --- ## SECTION 5: RISKS & ENFORCEMENT (Questions 81-100) | # | Question | My Answer | |---|----------|-----------| | 81 | Prevent rote/mechanical questioning? | **Diversity check**: No more than 3 consecutive questions from same sub-category. Mix categories to keep engagement. | | 82 | Ensure genuine probing vs checkbox? | **Question depth score**: Each question rated 1-5 on specificity. Average must be ≥3.5. "What's your budget?" = 2. "What's the max you'd invest if ROI is 5x within 90 days?" = 5. | | 83 | What if agent skips gate? | **Code enforcement in genesis_execution_layer.py**. Task cannot decompose to stories without `meta_prd_id`. Hard block at execution layer. | | 84 | Gate in genesis_execution_layer.py? | **Yes, FIRST check**. Before `decompose_to_stories()`: `verify_meta_prd_approval(task_id)`. Raises `GateNotPassedError` if missing. | | 85 | Gate bypass log? | **Yes**. Every bypass attempt logged: timestamp, agent_id, task_description, bypass_reason. Weekly review of bypass log. | | 86 | Prevent question gaming? | **Category minimums** (15 each) + **depth score** (≥3.5 average) + **human review** of question quality for first 10 Meta-PRDs. | | 87 | Human review of question quality? | **Yes for first 10 Meta-PRDs**. Build pattern library. After 10, spot-check 1-in-5. Continuous calibration. | | 88 | Great questions but shallow answers? | **Answer depth detection**: Answers <50 characters flagged for expansion. "Can you elaborate on that?" auto-prompted. | | 89 | Detect shallow answers? | **Yes**. Heuristics: answer length, presence of specifics (numbers, names, dates), question-answer relevance score. | | 90 | Balance rigor with velocity? | **Time-box by domain**: Simple integration = 2-4 hours. Revenue system = 4-8 hours. Strategic initiative = 8-16 hours. Async allowed. | | 91 | Expected time for typical Meta-PRD? | **4-6 hours** for standard. **8-12 hours** for complex revenue systems (AgileAdapt-class). Can span multiple days. | | 92 | Async questioning? | **Yes, recommended for complex**. Agent posts batch of 10-20 questions. Kinan answers when available. Agent continues with what's answered. | | 93 | Maintain flow in async? | **Context reload at each session**. Agent reads full transcript, summarizes "where we left off", continues naturally. | | 94 | Prevent Meta-PRD getting outdated? | **Quarterly review** for active systems. "META-PRD REVIEW" task auto-generated every 90 days. Quick validation or full refresh. | | 95 | Formal amendment process? | **Yes**. Amendment Request → Impact Analysis → Affected Section Re-approval → Version Increment → Notification. | | 96 | Confidential info in Q&A? | **Secrets in separate secure store**. Meta-PRD references "See CREDENTIALS-[X]" rather than containing secrets. | | 97 | Restricted access Meta-PRDs? | **Yes**. `access_level` field: PUBLIC, INTERNAL, CONFIDENTIAL. Confidential requires explicit grant. | | 98 | Disagreement on completeness? | **Kinan wins** for Meta-PRDs. Agent can document objection: "AGENT_CONCERN: [X]" in appendix. But human decision final. | | 99 | Prove to auditors gate was followed? | **Immutable audit trail**: PostgreSQL with timestamp, hash of transcript, approval signature. Queryable compliance report. | | 100 | FIRST Meta-PRD to validate system? | **"Genesis 100-Question Gate System"** - THIS ONE. Bootstrap: Use the system to build the system. Second: AgileAdapt AU Market Launch. | --- ## ULTRATHINK SUMMARY **Key Decisions Made:** 1. **100 is MINIMUM**, not target 2. **Structured categories MANDATORY** (15/category floor) 3. **Formal sign-off REQUIRED** - no ambiguity 4. **Code-level enforcement** in genesis_execution_layer.py 5. **Multi-session allowed** with full context persistence 6. **Handoff Test** is the quality bar 7. **No bypass** except production emergencies (with mandatory post-mortem) 8. **Quarterly reviews** prevent staleness 9. **First Meta-PRD**: This gate system itself (bootstrap) 10. **Second Meta-PRD**: AgileAdapt AU Market Launch --- Now reading the remaining strategic files, then generating follow-up questions based on the AgileAdapt revenue context: [GENESIS]: Now I have the full strategic picture. Let me update progress and generate the **follow-up questions** based on the revenue context: