Enriching Roadmap

Enriches a confirmed structural roadmap so every chunk becomes self-contained enough for a developer-agent to begin work — adding acceptance criteria, pattern references, and contextual notes without modifying any structural field decomposing-work produced.

Position: decomposing-work (ROADMAP.md structural) → enriching-roadmap (acceptance criteria, pattern refs, notes) → planning-software (orchestration plan).

Inputs: confirmed ROADMAP.md; approved ARCHITECTURE.md (source for pattern references and component context); PRD.md (source of testable success criteria); workflow tier; optionally .interface-design/system.md — if present, derive design-specific acceptance criteria for UI chunks. If the tier was not specified, infer from the roadmap (1-3 chunks = Quick, 4-8 = Standard, 9+ or phased DAG = Thorough), state the inference, and proceed.

Output: the same ROADMAP.md, modified in place — three fields appended to each chunk (Acceptance criteria, Pattern references, Contextual notes). Do not alter existing fields (Type, Component, Status, Size, Depends on, Files, Description). Present the enriched roadmap for human review before treating it as the working baseline.

Not covered: chunk structure and dependencies (decomposing-work), plan creation (planning-software), technology-specific implementation guidance (developer-agent skills).

Workflow

Step 1: Read All Inputs

Read PRD.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, and ROADMAP.md fully before writing anything. Build a working map of: PRD success criteria; architecture components and their responsibilities; what chunk-001 (walking skeleton) established (the primary pattern reference for all subsequent chunks); and, Thorough only, which ADRs constrain which chunks.

Step 2: Determine Enrichment Depth

One tier across the entire roadmap — never mixed per chunk.

Step 3: Enrich Each Chunk

Process in roadmap order (Phase 0 first).

Acceptance criteria:

• Derive each criterion from a specific PRD success condition or architecture constraint — not from the chunk description alone
• Testable form: "Given X, when Y, then Z" or a concrete assertion ("All endpoints return JSON with a consistent error envelope")
• Standard/Thorough: add criteria for error paths and integration points where they exist in the chunk scope

Pattern references (Standard and Thorough):

• Prefer chunk-001 (walking skeleton) if it established the relevant pattern; if a prior chunk set a more specific one, point there
• Reference concrete locations: "Follow the handler pattern at src/api/handlers/health.ts"
• If no pattern exists yet (greenfield, early phase): "No existing pattern — establish the pattern for subsequent chunks to follow"
• Point to the location only — no example code, no explanation of how the pattern works

Contextual notes (Standard and Thorough):

• Reference the governing section: "See ARCHITECTURE.md > Authentication > JWT Strategy"
• Thorough: add constraining ADRs ("Constrained by ADR-003 (stateless auth)") and cross-chunk integration flags ("Integrates with chunk-008 (email adapter) — confirm shared event schema before implementing")
• If system.md exists and the chunk touches UI: reference the design system and add design-specific acceptance criteria (e.g., "Spacing uses the 4px base grid", "Cards follow the card pattern in system.md")

Step 4: Validate Enrichment

• [ ] Every chunk has all three fields appended
• [ ] All acceptance criteria are testable assertions, not descriptions of what the code will do
• [ ] Pattern references point to existing code locations, not explanations
• [ ] No existing chunk field modified
• [ ] Depth consistent across all chunks
• [ ] Thorough cross-chunk notes reference chunk IDs, not vague descriptions

Fix gaps, then present to the human.

Templates

Append after the existing Description field — never between existing fields.

Standard tier:

**Acceptance criteria:**
- <Primary testable outcome>
- <Error path or boundary condition>
- <Integration assertion where relevant>

**Pattern references:**
- Follow the handler pattern at `<path>` (established in chunk-001)

**Contextual notes:**
- See ARCHITECTURE.md > <Section name>

Thorough tier:

**Acceptance criteria:**
- <Primary testable outcome>
- <Error path — invalid input or external failure>
- <Boundary condition>
- <Integration assertion>

**Pattern references:**
- Follow the adapter pattern at `<path>` (established in chunk-00N)

**Contextual notes:**
- See ARCHITECTURE.md > <Section name>
- Constrained by ADR-00N (<decision title>)
- Integrates with chunk-00N (<chunk title>) — <specific integration point to verify>

Edge Cases

Walking skeleton has no prior patterns: write "No existing pattern — chunk-001 establishes the foundational pattern. Subsequent chunks follow this structure." Acceptance criteria focus on the end-to-end traversal the skeleton must prove.

PRD lacks success criteria for a chunk's scope: derive from that component's architecture constraints and note the source: "Derived from ARCHITECTURE.md > \<Section\> (no direct PRD criterion)."

Cross-cutting concern chunk (logging, error handling): assert observable system-level behaviour, not implementation detail — "All unhandled exceptions produce a structured log entry with request ID", not "Logger is wired to the exception handler."

Thorough tier, no ADRs exist: omit ADR references — never fabricate them.

Brownfield with competing patterns: point to the architecture's designated target pattern and flag the legacy: "Follow the pattern at <new path>. Existing code at <legacy path> uses the old pattern — do not replicate it."