wordle/_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/implementation-readiness-report-2026-07-07.md

Implementation Readiness Assessment Report

Date: 2026-07-07 Project: Wordle Clone

PRD Analysis

Functional Requirements

19 FRs extracted from prds/prd-wordle-2026-07-07/prd.md:

FR-1: First-visit detection — detect prior visits and show/skip rules screen FR-2: Rules display — show game rules with Play button FR-3: Grid rendering — 5×6 grid with per-cell color feedback FR-4: Keyboard rendering — QWERTY with per-key best-feedback highlighting FR-5: Guess submission — type 5 letters via physical or on-screen keyboard FR-6: Invalid word rejection — "Unknown word" message, retry without burning attempt FR-7: Feedback scoring — greens first, yellows to remaining count, excess gray FR-8: Win detection — all-green row → Screen 3 congratulations FR-9: Loss detection — 6th wrong guess → Screen 3 with word revealed FR-10: Daily word selection — same word all players, midnight EST/EDT FR-11: Play Again word selection — weighted random by skill FR-12: Player skill tracking — compute and persist skill metric FR-13: Results display — outcome + attempt count or correct word FR-14: Statistics display — games played, win rate, histogram, streaks FR-15: Play Again button — triggers new game from Screen 3 FR-16: Multi-algorithm solver — ≥2 algorithms, pre-compute attempt counts FR-17: Word ranking output — difficulty score per word from solver data FR-18: Word bank curation — 5-letter words, recent usage frequency FR-19: Browser persistence — localStorage for stats, cookie, skill metric

Non-Functional Requirements

NFR-1: Responsive design — 375px phone through desktop NFR-2: Feedback latency — acceptable round-trip, no optimistic UI for v1 NFR-3: Persistence — stats, cookie, skill metric survive browser close NFR-4: Stateless server — no session state, context in request NFR-5: Wire format — colors as 'g', 'y', 'x' NFR-6: TypeScript everywhere — client, server, solver, shared types NFR-7: Word bank confidentiality — guessable list never sent to client

PRD Completeness Assessment

Verdict: Complete. The PRD defines 19 testable FRs with consequences. 5 user journeys cover the full experience. Success metrics are appropriate for a learning project. 4 open questions are non-blocking implementation details. The document is well-structured and ready for implementation.

Additional Requirements from Architecture

• Monorepo: client/ (React+Vite), server/ (Express), solver/, shared/, data/
• Stack: TypeScript 6.x, Node 24 LTS, React 19.x, Vite 8.x, Express 5.x
• API: 3 REST endpoints with typed contracts in shared/src/api.ts
• No database — word bank is static JSON
• Deterministic daily word (date → ID)
• Weighted random Play Again selection
• Single localStorage key with typed PersistedState
• Deployment: home Linux server, Express serves API + static SPA
• Wire format: 'g'/'y'/'x' for feedback colors

Epic Coverage Validation

Coverage Matrix

FR	PRD Summary	Epic/Story	Status
FR-1	First-visit detection	Epic 1, Story 1.1	✓
FR-2	Rules display	Epic 1, Story 1.1	✓
FR-3	Grid rendering	Epic 1, Story 1.1	✓
FR-4	Keyboard rendering	Epic 1, Story 1.1	✓
FR-5	Guess submission	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓
FR-6	Invalid word rejection	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓
FR-7	Feedback scoring	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓
FR-8	Win detection	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓
FR-9	Loss detection	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓
FR-10	Daily word selection	Epic 1, Story 1.1	✓
FR-11	Play Again word selection	Epic 1, Story 1.3	✓
FR-12	Player skill tracking	Epic 1, Story 1.3	✓
FR-13	Results display	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓
FR-14	Statistics display	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓
FR-15	Play Again button	Epic 1, Story 1.3	✓
FR-16	Multi-algorithm solver	Epic 2, Story 2.1	✓
FR-17	Word ranking output	Epic 2, Story 2.1	✓
FR-18	Word bank curation	Epic 1, Story 1.1	✓
FR-19	Browser persistence	Epic 1, Story 1.2	✓

Coverage Statistics

• Total PRD FRs: 19
• FRs covered in epics: 19
• Coverage: 100%
• Missing FRs: 0

UX Alignment Assessment

UX Document Status

Not found. No dedicated UX design document exists.

Assessment

UX is implied — the PRD defines 3 screens (Rules, Game, Results), user journeys with named behaviors, color feedback requirements, and responsive design. For a solo learning project, this level of UX detail in the PRD is sufficient. Key UX concerns are addressed:

• Screen flow: PRD UJ-1 through UJ-5 cover the complete experience
• Visual design: green/yellow/gray colors, keyboard highlighting, grid layout
• Responsive: Architecture mandates CSS media queries, 375px through desktop
• Error states: "Unknown word" message, loss reveal, network error message
• Persistence: resume mid-game after browser close

Warnings

None. The PRD journey-led approach provides adequate UX guidance for implementation. A dedicated UX design would add value for a public launch but is not required for v1.

Epic Quality Review

Epic Structure Validation

Check	Epic 1: Play the Game	Epic 2: Solver Engine
User-centric title	✅ "Play the Game"	✅ (developer tool, acceptable for scope)
Delivers standalone value	✅ Complete playable game	✅ Works independently on word bank data
No forward dependencies	✅ Epic 2 not required for Epic 1	✅ Standalone offline script
FR coverage	✅ 17 of 19 FRs	✅ 2 of 19 FRs

Story Quality Assessment

Story	Sizing	Forward Deps	AC Format	AC Testable
1.1 Foundation	✅ Single agent	✅ None	✅ Given/When/Then	✅
1.2 Feedback	✅ Single agent	✅ Only 1.1	✅ Given/When/Then	✅
1.3 Play Again	✅ Single agent	✅ Only 1.1, 1.2	✅ Given/When/Then	✅
2.1 Solver	✅ Single agent	✅ None	✅ Given/When/Then	✅

Dependency Analysis

• Within Epic 1: Strictly sequential — 1.1 → 1.2 → 1.3. No forward references. ✅
• Epic-to-Epic: Epic 2 is independent of Epic 1. ✅
• Database/Entity: No database. Word bank is static JSON. ✅

Best Practices Compliance

• Epics deliver user value
• Each epic functions independently
• Stories appropriately sized for single dev agent
• No forward dependencies
• No database tables created upfront
• Clear acceptance criteria in Given/When/Then format
• FR traceability maintained (coverage map)

Findings

Severity	Finding
🟡 Minor	Epic 2 title "Solver Engine & Word Ranking" is developer-facing. Could reframe as "Data-Driven Difficulty" to emphasize user impact, but acceptable for a learning project where the solver is genuinely a self-contained offline tool.

Verdict: PASS. No critical or major violations. Epics and stories are well-structured and ready for implementation.

Summary and Recommendations

Overall Readiness Status

READY ✅

All planning artifacts are complete, aligned, and traceable. The project can proceed to implementation.

Assessment Summary

Dimension	Status	Notes
PRD completeness	✅	19 FRs, 5 UJs, 5 SMs, testable consequences
Architecture alignment	✅	12 ADs cover all PRD concerns, versions verified current
FR coverage in epics	✅	19/19 FRs (100%) mapped to stories
Epic quality	✅	User-value focused, no forward deps
Story quality	✅	Given/When/Then ACs, single-agent sized
UX coverage	✅	Journey-led PRD sufficient for v1
Architecture-epic alignment	✅	Starter template, monorepo, API contracts covered

Findings

• 🟡 Minor (1): Epic 2 title is developer-facing. Acceptable — the solver is a self-contained offline tool.

Recommended Next Steps

1. Sprint Planning — bmad-sprint-planning to sequence stories for implementation
2. Story Creation — bmad-create-story to prepare the first story with full dev context
3. Dev Story — bmad-dev-story to implement

Final Note

This assessment found 1 minor finding across 6 validation dimensions. No blockers. The project is ready for Phase 4 — Implementation.