feat: Add Workflow Validation Quality Gates (v0.7.1)

Phase 2: Automated Workflow Validation

Added:
- Category 8 'Workflow Design' to Checklist (CHK027-CHK036)
- Dimension L 'Workflow Completeness' to Analyze (15% weight)
- Focused mode support: /metaspec.sds.analyze workflow

Quality Impact:
- Checklist: 8 categories, 36 items (was 26)
- Analyze: 12 dimensions (was 11)
- Specifications without workflows now fail quality gates

This completes the three-layer workflow enforcement:
1. v0.7.0: Constitution principle
2. v0.7.1: Automated validation
3. Result: Prevents 'high-score but no workflow' problem

Refs: marketing-spec-kit feedback, v0.7.0 follow-up

Author: NeilJo-GY

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -9,6 +9,104 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0
 
 ---
 
+## [0.7.1] - 2025-11-15
+
+### ✨ Quality Gates Enhancement - Workflow Validation
+
+**Implemented Phase 2 of Workflow-Driven Design Philosophy**
+
+v0.7.0 introduced Workflow Completeness principle. v0.7.1 adds automated validation to enforce it.
+
+### Added
+
+#### Checklist (SDS) - Category 8: Workflow Design Quality
+- **Added 10 new checklist items** (CHK027-CHK036) for workflow validation
+- Validates workflow specification completeness per Constitution Part II Principle 7
+- Checks:
+  - "Workflow Specification" section exists
+  - At least 2 distinct workflow phases defined
+  - Operations mapped to workflow phases
+  - Entry/exit criteria specified
+  - Phase transitions and dependencies documented
+  - Decision points and branching logic explained
+  - End-to-end workflow example provided
+  - All operations referenced in at least one phase
+
+**Location**: `/metaspec.sds.checklist` command template
+
+**Purpose**: Catch workflow gaps during specification review phase
+
+#### Analyze (SDS) - Dimension L: Workflow Completeness
+- **Added 12th analysis dimension** (L) with 15% weight
+- Severity rules:
+  - **CRITICAL**: No "Workflow Specification" section (Constitution violation)
+  - **HIGH**: <2 phases OR operations not mapped to phases
+  - **MEDIUM**: Missing entry/exit criteria or examples
+  - **LOW**: Workflow exists but could be clearer
+- Score calculation: `(Checks Passed / 9) * 15%`
+- Focused mode support: `/metaspec.sds.analyze workflow`
+
+**Location**: `/metaspec.sds.analyze` command template
+
+**Why it matters**: Prevents "high-score but no workflow" problem discovered in marketing-spec-kit
+
+### Changed
+
+- **Full Analysis Mode**: Now checks 12 dimensions (A-L) instead of 11
+- **Focused Mode**: Added `workflow`, `workflows`, `user-journey` keywords
+- **Checklist Categories**: 8 categories (was 7)
+- **Total Checklist Items**: 36 items (was 26)
+
+### Quality Impact
+
+**Before v0.7.1**:
+```
+Specification passes all checks → ✅ 100%
+But missing workflow definition → ❌ Users confused
+```
+
+**After v0.7.1**:
+```
+Specification without workflow → ❌ CRITICAL in analyze
+                               → ❌ 10 failed in checklist
+                               → 📉 Score < 70%
+→ Forces workflow definition before high scores
+```
+
+### Backward Compatibility
+
+✅ Fully compatible with v0.7.0
+- Existing specifications with workflows: no impact
+- Existing specifications without workflows: will now fail new checks (as intended)
+- All other dimensions unchanged
+
+### Migration Guide
+
+**For existing projects**:
+1. Run `/metaspec.sds.analyze workflow` to check current status
+2. If missing workflow section, add via `/metaspec.sds.specify`
+3. Re-run `/metaspec.sds.checklist` (update mode) to verify
+4. Re-run `/metaspec.sds.analyze` for full score
+
+**For new projects**: Workflow validation automatic with v0.7.1 templates
+
+### Rationale
+
+**Feedback-driven improvement**: marketing-spec-kit passed all quality checks (98/100) but lacked workflow definition. v0.7.1 ensures this can't happen again.
+
+**Three-layer enforcement**:
+1. **v0.7.0**: Constitution requires workflows (principle)
+2. **v0.7.1**: Checklist validates workflows (quality gate)
+3. **v0.7.1**: Analyze scores workflows (quantitative measure)
+
+### References
+
+- **Feedback Source**: `/Users/guyue/marketing-spec-kit/docs/internal/metaspec-feedback.md`
+- **Related Version**: v0.7.0 (introduced Workflow Completeness principle)
+- **Philosophy**: Enforcement through automated quality gates
+
+---
+
 ## [0.7.0] - 2025-11-15
 
 ### ⭐ Major Feature - Workflow-Driven Design Philosophy

pyproject.toml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 [project]
 name = "meta-spec"
-version = "0.7.0"
+version = "0.7.1"
 description = "Meta-specification framework for generating Spec-Driven X (SD-X) toolkits for AI agents"
 readme = "README.md"
 requires-python = ">=3.11"

src/metaspec/__init__.py

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 from YAML definitions.
 """
 
-__version__ = "0.7.0"
+__version__ = "0.7.1"
 
 __all__ = ["__version__"]
 

src/metaspec/templates/meta/sds/commands/analyze.md.j2

@@ -73,11 +73,12 @@ Parse user intent to select appropriate analysis mode:
   - "ambiguity", "vague" → Ambiguity Detection (I)
   - "terminology", "naming" → Terminology Consistency (J)
   - "artifacts", "cross-artifacts" → Cross-Artifact Consistency (K)
+  - "workflow", "workflows", "user-journey" → Workflow Completeness (L) ⭐ NEW (v0.7.0+)
 - Use when: Fixing specific issues, targeted improvement
 
 **Full Mode** 📊 (5-10 min, comprehensive):
 - Purpose: Complete specification quality analysis
-- Checks: All 11 dimensions (A-K)
+- Checks: All 12 dimensions (A-L) ⭐ Updated (v0.7.0+)
 - Use when: Major releases, complete review, initial analysis
 
 **Mode selection example**:
@@ -519,6 +520,56 @@ OR
 ✅ All checklist items have valid spec references
 ```
 
+#### L. Workflow Completeness ⭐ NEW (v0.7.0+)
+
+**Check specification workflow definition** (per Constitution Part II Principle 7):
+
+**Check spec.md for Workflow Specification section**:
+- ✅ "Workflow Specification" section exists
+- ✅ At least 2 distinct workflow phases defined
+- ✅ Each phase has clear purpose statement
+- ✅ Entry and exit criteria specified for each phase
+- ✅ Operations mapped to specific workflow phases
+- ✅ Phase transitions and dependencies documented
+- ✅ Decision points and branching logic explained
+- ✅ End-to-end workflow example provided
+- ✅ All operations referenced in at least one workflow phase
+
+**Check workflow quality**:
+- ✅ Workflow demonstrates integrated user journey (not just operation list)
+- ✅ Phase sequence is logical and complete
+- ✅ No "orphan" operations without workflow context
+- ✅ Workflow examples match specification operations
+
+**Severity Rules**:
+- **CRITICAL**: No "Workflow Specification" section (Constitution §II.7 violation)
+- **HIGH**: Workflow section exists but <2 phases OR operations not mapped
+- **MEDIUM**: Workflow exists but missing entry/exit criteria or examples
+- **LOW**: Workflow complete but could be clearer (e.g., better decision point docs)
+
+**Report**:
+```
+❌ CRITICAL: Missing "Workflow Specification" section [Constitution §II.7]
+  Recommendation: Add workflow section defining user journey phases
+❌ HIGH: Only 1 workflow phase defined, need at least 2 [Spec §Workflow]
+  Recommendation: Break workflow into distinct phases (e.g., Planning → Execution → Analysis)
+❌ HIGH: 3 operations not referenced in any workflow phase [Spec §Workflow]
+  Operations: /marketing.project, /marketing.product, /marketing.channel
+  Recommendation: Map all operations to workflow phases
+❌ MEDIUM: Workflow Phase 2 missing exit criteria [Spec §Workflow]
+  Recommendation: Define when Phase 2 is complete
+✅ All workflow phases have clear purposes
+✅ End-to-end workflow example provided
+```
+
+**Score Calculation** (15% weight):
+```
+Workflow Score = (Checks Passed / Total Checks) * 15%
+Example: 6/9 checks passed = (6/9) * 15% = 10%
+```
+
+**Why it matters**: Operations without workflow context are "tool boxes", not "workflow systems". Users need guidance on sequencing and relationships (per marketing-spec-kit feedback).
+
 ### 6. Severity Assignment (Full/Focused Mode only)
 
 **CRITICAL**: Constitution violation, missing operation schema, undefined entities

src/metaspec/templates/meta/sds/commands/checklist.md.j2

@@ -219,6 +219,23 @@ Test for specification issues:
 - Are missing definitions noted? [Gap]
 - Are unresolved questions marked (TODO, TBD)? [Ambiguity]
 
+#### **Workflow Design Quality** ⭐ NEW (v0.7.0+)
+Test if specification defines complete user workflows:
+- Does specification include "Workflow Specification" section? [Completeness, Constitution §II.7]
+- Are at least 2 distinct workflow phases defined? [Completeness]
+- Is each workflow phase mapped to specific operations? [Completeness]
+- Are entry and exit criteria specified for each phase? [Clarity]
+- Are phase transitions and dependencies documented? [Completeness]
+- Are decision points and branching logic explained? [Clarity]
+- Is an end-to-end workflow example provided? [Coverage]
+- Are all operations referenced in at least one workflow phase? [Consistency]
+- Is workflow purpose clearly stated (why this sequence)? [Clarity]
+- Do workflow examples demonstrate typical user journeys? [Coverage]
+
+**Purpose**: Ensures specifications define integrated workflows, not just isolated operations.
+
+**Rationale**: Operations without workflow guidance are hard to use. Users need clear paths from start to finish. This aligns with MetaSpec's own workflow design (SDS/SDD).
+
 ### 5. Checklist Item Structure
 
 **Pattern**:
@@ -310,6 +327,25 @@ Test for specification issues:
 - [ ] CHK026 - Are domain standards followed (RFCs, conventions)? [Consistency, Constitution]
 ```
 
+#### Workflow Design (10 core items) ⭐ NEW (v0.7.0+)
+
+```markdown
+- [ ] CHK027 - Does specification include a "Workflow Specification" section? [Completeness, Constitution §II.7]
+- [ ] CHK028 - Are at least 2 distinct workflow phases defined? [Completeness, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK029 - Is each workflow phase mapped to specific operations? [Completeness, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK030 - Are entry criteria specified for each workflow phase? [Clarity, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK031 - Are exit criteria specified for each workflow phase? [Clarity, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK032 - Are phase transitions and dependencies documented? [Completeness, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK033 - Are decision points and branching logic explained? [Clarity, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK034 - Is an end-to-end workflow example provided? [Coverage, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK035 - Are all operations referenced in at least one workflow phase? [Consistency, Spec §Workflow]
+- [ ] CHK036 - Do workflow examples demonstrate typical user journeys? [Coverage, Spec §Examples]
+```
+
+**Purpose**: Validates workflow completeness per Constitution Part II Principle 7.
+
+**Why it matters**: Operations without workflow context are hard to use. Users need guidance on sequencing and relationships.
+
 ### 7. Anti-Examples: What NOT To Do
 
 **❌ WRONG - Testing implementation**: