# Validation Rendering

How the validator subagent's findings become a validation report. Loaded only when the user has explicitly asked for analysis — either Validate intent or a mid-session report request. The Finalize discipline pass during Create/Update does NOT render a report; its findings stay in-conversation.

## Validator subagent output contract

The subagent walks `{workflow.validation_checklist}` against `gdd.md` (and `epics.md` if present) and writes `{doc_workspace}/validation-findings.json`. The genre and game-type checks (`G-1`, `G-2`) require the subagent to read `assets/game-types.csv` and `assets/genre-complexity.csv`.

```json
{
  "prd_name": "Hollow Tide",
  "prd_path": "{doc_workspace}/gdd.md",
  "checklist_path": "{workflow.validation_checklist}",
  "timestamp": "2026-05-15T09:14:00",
  "overall_synthesis": "2-3 sentences of judgment about the GDD's overall state — what holds up, what's at risk. Written by the subagent, not the parent.",
  "findings": [
    {
      "id": "G-1",
      "category": "Genre and game-type",
      "title": "Genre compliance",
      "status": "fail",
      "severity": "critical",
      "location": "§9 RPG Specific Design, lines 210-240",
      "note": "Game type is rpg (high complexity) but the GDD documents no save model and no quest state machine — both genre-critical per genre-complexity.csv.",
      "suggested_fix": "Add a Save Model subsection (save points, autosave rules) and a Quest State Machine subsection (active/completed/failed/branching states)."
    }
  ]
}
```

Per-finding fields:

- `id` (required) — checklist item ID (e.g., `Q-1`, `D-2`, `G-1`, `S-4`, `STK-1`, or org-custom prefixes).
- `category` (recommended) — explicit category name. Set this for genre/game-type findings (`"Genre and game-type"`) since the `G-` prefix has no built-in mapping; for `Q`/`D`/`S`/`STK` findings the renderer derives the category from the prefix if omitted.
- `title` (optional but recommended) — the checklist item's short name.
- `status` — `pass` | `warn` | `fail` | `n/a`.
- `severity` — `low` | `medium` | `high` | `critical`.
- `location` (optional) — section/line/range in the GDD where the finding lives. Cite specifics, never abstract criticism.
- `note` (optional) — the finding itself, in one or two sentences.
- `suggested_fix` (optional) — concrete next action.

## Rendering invocation

After the subagent writes findings:

```bash
python3 {skill-root}/scripts/render-validation-html.py \
  --findings {doc_workspace}/validation-findings.json \
  --template {workflow.validation_report_template} \
  --output {doc_workspace}/validation-report.html \
  --open
```

Include `--open` for interactive runs (auto-opens in default browser). Omit `--open` in headless runs.

The script writes two artifacts side-by-side: the HTML report at `--output`, and a markdown companion at the same path with `.md` extension (e.g. `validation-report.md`). Both are always produced when the script runs — trigger gating happens upstream (the script is only invoked when the user has asked for analysis). It computes pass/warn/fail/na counts, derives a grade (Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor) from critical-fail and total-fail counts, renders an inline SVG score bar in the HTML, groups findings by category, and returns a one-line JSON summary on stdout: `{"output": "...", "markdown": "...", "grade": "...", "stats": {...}}`.

Re-running validation overwrites the existing report files in place. Markdown form is what Update mode reads when rolling findings into a revision.