Update to ChatPRD

{
  "description": "Compare code changes in the current repository against a ChatPRD PRD to find gaps, deviations, and opportunities. Use in a coding workspace before opening a PR, after finishing a feature, or to verify requirement coverage.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "check-prd-alignment",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: check-prd-alignment\ndescription: Compare code changes in the current repository against a ChatPRD PRD to find gaps, deviations, and opportunities. Use in a coding workspace before opening a PR, after finishing a feature, or to verify requirement coverage.\n---\n\n# Check PRD alignment\n\n## Trigger\n\nUser wants to verify their implementation matches the product requirements and find opportunities to better achieve the PRD's goals.\n\n## Workflow\n\n1. Identify what changed — run `git diff` against the base branch to see all modifications.\n2. Find the relevant PRD:\n   - Ask the user which PRD to check against.\n   - Search ChatPRD documents using `search_documents` with keywords from the branch or commit messages.\n   - Also check the local `prd/` directory for saved specs.\n3. Fetch the full PRD using `get_document`.\n4. Extract all requirements, acceptance criteria, and — critically — the user and business goals the PRD is trying to achieve.\n5. For each requirement, assess:\n   - **Covered**: implemented and matching the spec\n   - **Partial**: started but incomplete or missing edge cases\n   - **Missing**: not addressed in the current changes\n   - **Deviated**: implemented differently than specified\n6. Review the implementation through the lens of the PRD's stated goals. For each goal, identify **Opportunity** items — places where the UX or implementation could be improved to better achieve the goal. Examples:\n   - A flow that technically meets the spec but adds unnecessary friction\n   - An edge case where a better error message or fallback would improve the experience\n   - A place where the implementation could be more delightful or intuitive than what was specced\n   - A data model or API design choice that would better support the stated business goal\n7. Produce a coverage report with:\n   - Requirement-by-requirement status\n   - Specific code references for covered items\n   - Actionable notes for gaps and deviations\n   - **Opportunity** items tied back to specific PRD goals\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- Be specific — cite file paths and line ranges, not vague summaries.\n- Distinguish between intentional trade-offs and accidental omissions.\n- Don't flag requirements that are explicitly marked as out-of-scope or future work in the PRD.\n- Keep **Opportunity** items grounded and actionable — tie each one to a specific PRD goal and explain the concrete improvement.\n\n## Output\n\n- Alignment report (covered / partial / missing / deviated)\n- **Opportunity** items with goal references and suggested improvements\n- Specific gaps with suggested next steps\n- Summary of overall coverage\n"
}