# Product Manager (PM) Requirements Checklist

This checklist serves as a comprehensive framework to ensure the Product Requirements Document (PRD) and Epic definitions are complete, well-structured, and appropriately scoped for MVP development. The PM should systematically work through each item during the product definition process.

## 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION & CONTEXT

### 1.1 Problem Statement

- [x] Clear articulation of the problem being solved (Integrating Fabric with MCP environments)
- [x] Identification of who experiences the problem (Users of Fabric and MCP-compatible applications)
- [x] Explanation of why solving this problem matters (Seamless integration, enhanced workflows)
- [N/A] Quantification of problem impact (Not explicitly quantified, but qualitative benefits are clear).
- [x] Differentiation from existing solutions (Implicitly, by bridging Fabric to MCP, which is unique).

### 1.2 Business Goals & Success Metrics

- [x] Specific, measurable business objectives defined (Objectives in PRD are technical deliverables implying business goals like broader Fabric adoption)
- [ ] Clear success metrics and KPIs established (Partially - successful delivery of tools is a metric, but no specific KPIs like "X downloads" or "Y active users" are defined in PRD. This is acceptable for an initial open-source MVP PRD but could be a PM refinement point if desired).
- [x] Metrics are tied to user and business value (Enabling Fabric in more places for users).
- [N/A] Baseline measurements identified.
- [N/A] Timeframe for achieving goals specified (This PRD defines MVP scope, not timelines).

### 1.3 User Research & Insights

- [x] Target user personas clearly defined (Developers using MCP clients, users of Fabric wanting broader integration)
- [x] User needs and pain points documented (Need for seamless integration, avoiding context switching)
- [N/A] User research findings summarized (Assumed from project premise).
- [N/A] Competitive analysis included (Not explicitly, project is about enabling Fabric).
- [x] Market context provided (Need for AI tool integration, MCP as a standard).

## 2. MVP SCOPE DEFINITION

### 2.1 Core Functionality

- [x] Essential features clearly distinguished from nice-to-haves (Focus on core Fabric API endpoints for MVP)
- [x] Features directly address defined problem statement (Enabling Fabric use via MCP)
- [x] Each Epic ties back to specific user needs (Epics are structured around server setup, pattern discovery, execution, and config insights, which are user needs for integration)
- [x] Features and Stories are described from user perspective (User stories use "As an MCP Client Developer...")
- [x] Minimum requirements for success defined (Successful execution of listed MCP tools).

### 2.2 Scope Boundaries

- [x] Clear articulation of what is OUT of scope (PRD Section 6: Out of Scope Ideas Post MVP defined)
- [x] Future enhancements section included (PRD Section 6)
- [x] Rationale for scope decisions documented (Implicitly by focusing on core `design.md` features).
- [x] MVP minimizes functionality while maximizing learning (Focuses on core integration).
- [x] Scope has been reviewed and refined multiple times (Our iterative process).

### 2.3 MVP Validation Approach

- [x] Method for testing MVP success defined (Testing requirements section details unit, integration, E2E tests)
- [ ] Initial user feedback mechanisms planned (Not explicitly defined in PRD, but typical for open-source via GitHub issues/discussions).
- [N/A] Criteria for moving beyond MVP specified (This is a planning doc for MVP itself).
- [x] Learning goals for MVP articulated (Implicit: validate Fabric-MCP integration viability and utility).
- [N/A] Timeline expectations set.

## 3. USER EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS

### 3.1 User Journeys & Flows

- [N/A] Primary user flows documented (The "user" is an MCP client developer; their "flow" is discovering and using MCP tools. This is covered by the tool definitions themselves).
- [N/A] Entry and exit points for each flow identified.
- [N/A] Decision points and branches mapped.
- [N/A] Critical path highlighted.
- [N/A] Edge cases considered.

### 3.2 Usability Requirements

- [x] Accessibility considerations documented (Not directly applicable for a server, but our server's MCP tools should be clearly defined for client developers).
- [x] Platform/device compatibility specified (Server is Python-based; MCP client compatibility is broad).
- [x] Performance expectations from user perspective defined (Responsiveness for tool calls, efficient streaming).
- [x] Error handling and recovery approaches outlined (MCP error responses).
- [N/A] User feedback mechanisms identified (Standard for open-source: GitHub issues).

### 3.3 UI Requirements

- [N/A] Information architecture outlined (No direct UI for this server).
- [N/A] Critical UI components identified.
- [N/A] Visual design guidelines referenced.
- [x] Content requirements specified (Data returned by MCP tools is specified by their function and Fabric API's output).
- [N/A] High-level navigation structure defined.

## 4. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

### 4.1 Feature Completeness

- [x] All required features for MVP documented (Based on `design.md` and our discussions, all 6 core Fabric tools are covered)
- [x] Features have clear, user-focused descriptions (MCP tool descriptions and User Stories for Epics)
- [x] Feature priority/criticality indicated (All listed are MVP).
- [x] Requirements are testable and verifiable (ACs for each story are designed to be testable)
- [x] Dependencies between features identified (Implicitly through Epic and Story sequencing).

### 4.2 Requirements Quality

- [x] Requirements are specific and unambiguous (Functional requirements for each tool are detailed).
- [x] Requirements focus on WHAT not HOW (Generally, though some ACs get close to "how" for clarity, the FRs themselves are "what").
- [x] Requirements use consistent terminology (Consistent naming for tools and parameters).
- [x] Complex requirements broken into simpler parts (e.g., `fabric_run_pattern` broken into multiple stories).
- [x] Technical jargon minimized or explained (MCP, Fabric API are inherent; tool descriptions are functional).

### 4.3 User Stories & Acceptance Criteria

- [x] Stories follow consistent format ("As an MCP Client Developer...").
- [x] Acceptance criteria are testable (Designed to be so).
- [x] Stories are sized appropriately (We broke down `fabric_run_pattern` into smaller stories).
- [x] Stories are independent where possible (Mostly, with clear dependencies noted in sequencing).
- [x] Stories include necessary context (Through descriptions and ACs).
- [x] Local testability requirements (e.g., via CLI) defined in ACs for relevant backend/data stories (Integration tests often specify testing against a live local `fabric --serve`).

## 5. NON-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

### 5.1 Performance Requirements

- [x] Response time expectations defined (Server should be responsive, efficient streaming for real-time output)
- [N/A] Throughput/capacity requirements specified (Not explicitly defined for MVP, typical for a utility server).
- [x] Scalability needs documented (Implied by using standard libraries and practices, but not a primary focus for this type of server MVP).
- [N/A] Resource utilization constraints identified.
- [x] Load handling expectations set (Graceful error handling for API issues).

### 5.2 Security & Compliance

- [x] Data protection requirements specified (Redaction of API keys for `/config` tool, secure handling of `FABRIC_API_KEY` by server)
- [x] Authentication/authorization needs defined (Server authenticates to Fabric API via `FABRIC_API_KEY`; MCP client auth to our server is not in MVP scope beyond what FastMCP transports might offer inherently).
- [N/A] Compliance requirements documented (No specific compliance standards like HIPAA, PCI-DSS mentioned for this project).
- [x] Security testing requirements outlined (General security best practices, secure key handling mentioned in NFRs; specific testing for redaction in Story 4.3 ACs).
- [x] Privacy considerations addressed (Implicit in redacting keys).

### 5.3 Reliability & Resilience

- [x] Availability requirements defined (Server must be stable, gracefully handle Fabric API errors)
- [N/A] Backup and recovery needs documented (Not applicable for this stateless server itself).
- [x] Fault tolerance expectations set (Graceful error reporting).
- [x] Error handling requirements specified (Structured MCP errors, clear communication of Fabric API issues).
- [N/A] Maintenance and support considerations included (Standard for open-source: community support).

### 5.4 Technical Constraints

- [x] Platform/technology constraints documented (Python, FastMCP, httpx, etc.)
- [x] Integration requirements outlined (Fabric API via REST, MCP clients via specified transports).
- [x] Third-party service dependencies identified (Fabric API is the primary one).
- [x] Infrastructure requirements specified (Runnable as a standalone process, environment variables for config).
- [x] Development environment needs identified (Python, uv, make, pnpm for inspector).

## 6. EPIC & STORY STRUCTURE

### 6.1 Epic Definition

- [x] Epics represent cohesive units of functionality (Epic 1: Foundation & Transports; Epic 2: Pattern Discovery; Epic 3: Pattern Execution & Control; Epic 4: Config Insights).
- [x] Epics focus on user/business value delivery (Each enables core capabilities for MCP client developers).
- [x] Epic goals clearly articulated (Each epic has a defined goal).
- [x] Epics are sized appropriately for incremental delivery (Generally, yes, with multiple stories per epic).
- [x] Epic sequence and dependencies identified (Logical flow from setup to advanced features, Story 3.2 `list_strategies` now precedes Story 3.3 `run_pattern` with strategy usage).

### 6.2 Story Breakdown

- [x] Stories are broken down to appropriate size (e.g., `fabric_run_pattern` was split into multiple stories).
- [x] Stories have clear, independent value (Each tool implementation or significant feature enhancement is a story).
- [x] Stories include appropriate acceptance criteria (Detailed ACs for each story).
- [x] Story dependencies and sequence documented (Done through our iterative planning and re-sequencing).
- [x] Stories aligned with epic goals (Each story contributes to its parent epic's goal).

### 6.3 First Epic Completeness

- [x] First epic includes all necessary setup steps (Epic 1 covers scaffolding, CLI, API client, basic MCP, packaging, and now transports).
- [x] Project scaffolding and initialization addressed (Story 1.1).
- [x] Core infrastructure setup included (Server launch capabilities for stdio, Streamable HTTP, SSE).
- [x] Development environment setup addressed (Story 1.1 and subsequent updates based on user's dev env changes).
- [x] Local testability established early (Testing requirements call for this, and individual story ACs reinforce it).

## 7. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

### 7.1 Architecture Guidance

- [x] Initial architecture direction provided (Server is a bridge between MCP and Fabric API, using specified Python libraries).
- [x] Technical constraints clearly communicated (Python version, use of Fabric API as is, target MCP spec version).
- [x] Integration points identified (Fabric REST API, MCP clients).
- [x] Performance considerations highlighted (Responsive, efficient streaming).
- [x] Security requirements articulated (Secure `FABRIC_API_KEY` handling, redaction of keys in `/config` output).
- [x] Known areas of high complexity or technical risk flagged for architectural deep-dive (Streaming implementation, ensuring correct parameter mapping to Fabric API, secure config handling).

### 7.2 Technical Decision Framework

- [x] Decision criteria for technical choices provided (Implicitly: use Fabric API, adhere to MCP, follow `design.md`).
- [x] Trade-offs articulated for key decisions (e.g., user's choice of supporting deprecated SSE transport for broader client compatibility vs. FastMCP's recommendation for Streamable HTTP).
- [x] Rationale for selecting primary approach over considered alternatives documented (Focus on direct mapping of Fabric tools to MCP).
- [x] Non-negotiable technical requirements highlighted (No Fabric core changes, use of specified libraries like FastMCP, httpx).
- [x] Areas requiring technical investigation identified (e.g., exact mechanism for Fabric API streaming, which was later confirmed to be SSE).
- [x] Guidance on technical debt approach provided (Through emphasis on clean code, testing, and addressing dev env improvements proactively).

### 7.3 Implementation Considerations

- [x] Development approach guidance provided (Story-based, iterative).
- [x] Testing requirements articulated (Detailed in "Testing requirements" section and story ACs).
- [x] Deployment expectations set (Runnable as standalone process, multiple transports, PyPI distribution).
- [x] Monitoring needs identified (Logging at configurable levels).
- [x] Documentation requirements specified (User-facing `README.md`, dev setup docs, inline code comments implied by standards).

## 8. CROSS-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

### 8.1 Data Requirements

- [N/A] Data entities and relationships identified (No new data entities are created or managed by this server; it relays data from Fabric API).
- [N/A] Data storage requirements specified (Server is stateless).
- [x] Data quality requirements defined (Relies on Fabric API for data quality; our server ensures correct relay).
- [N/A] Data retention policies identified.
- [N/A] Data migration needs addressed.
- [x] Schema changes planned iteratively, tied to stories requiring them (Schemas are defined by Fabric API and MCP tool outputs, detailed per tool/story).

### 8.2 Integration Requirements

- [x] External system integrations identified (Fabric REST API).
- [x] API requirements documented (Fabric API endpoint details are used to define MCP tool behavior; MCP tool definitions act as API for clients).
- [x] Authentication for integrations specified (`FABRIC_API_KEY` for Fabric API).
- [x] Data exchange formats defined (JSON for Fabric API interactions, MCP specified formats for client interactions).
- [x] Integration testing requirements outlined (Specific integration tests for each tool against live Fabric API).

### 8.3 Operational Requirements

- [x] Deployment frequency expectations set (PyPI releases as features are completed).
- [x] Environment requirements defined (Python, necessary env vars for Fabric API connection).
- [x] Monitoring and alerting needs identified (Logging at configurable levels).
- [N/A] Support requirements documented (Standard open-source community support).
- [x] Performance monitoring approach specified (Qualitative responsiveness, efficient streaming).

## 9. CLARITY & COMMUNICATION

### 9.1 Documentation Quality

- [x] Documents use clear, consistent language (Strived for throughout our iterative process).
- [x] Documents are well-structured and organized (Following `prd-tmpl` and logical epic/story flow).
- [x] Technical terms are defined where necessary (MCP, Fabric, SSE contextualized).
- [x] Diagrams/visuals included where helpful (PRD is text, refers to `design.md` for diagrams; Architect to generate more).
- [x] Documentation is versioned appropriately (Change Log initialized).

### 9.2 Stakeholder Alignment

- [x] Key stakeholders identified (User is primary).
- [x] Stakeholder input incorporated (User input central).
- [x] Potential areas of disagreement addressed (SSE, redaction, story granularity resolved).
- [N/A] Communication plan for updates established (Direct interaction served this for PRD creation).
- [x] Approval process defined (Approval sought at each stage).

## PRD & EPIC VALIDATION SUMMARY

### Category Statuses

| Category                             | Status   | Critical Issues (and their resolution)                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| :----------------------------------- | :------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1. Problem Definition & Context      | PASS     | Success metrics could be more quantitative if desired for a commercial product, but adequate for MVP.                                                                                                                 |
| 2. MVP Scope Definition              | PASS     | User feedback mechanisms are standard open-source rather than PRD-defined.                                                                                                                                             |
| 3. User Experience Requirements      | PASS     | Primarily N/A as it's a server; DX for developers is covered.                                                                                                                                                          |
| 4. Functional Requirements           | PASS     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 5. Non-Functional Requirements       | PASS     | Updated to reflect multi-transport support and key redaction.                                                                                                                                                          |
| 6. Epic & Story Structure            | PASS     | Re-structured Epic 3 to logically sequence strategy listing and application. Added new transport stories to Epic 1.                                                                                                    |
| 7. Technical Guidance                | PASS     | Updated for `click` CLI, multi-transport, and enhanced dev tooling.                                                                                                                                                    |
| 8. Cross-Functional Requirements     | PASS     | Mostly related to integrations, which are covered.                                                                                                                                                                     |
| 9. Clarity & Communication           | PASS     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |

### Critical Deficiencies

- All identified critical points and ambiguities during PRD generation and checklist review have been discussed and incorporated into the PRD.

### Recommendations

- Proceed with PO sharding and Architect engagement.

### Final Decision

- **READY FOR NEXT STEPS**: The PRD and epics are comprehensive, properly structured, and ready for subsequent phases (PO sharding, Architect design).
