paw-ps-publish-ready-check（paw ps 发布准备检查）

Publish Ready Check

Overview

A rigorous quality evaluation workflow that determines whether a product meets the threshold for production, publication, or sale. This workflow protects the suite from overclaiming readiness by applying clear quality bars rather than superficial approval.

Args: Accepts --headless / -H for non-interactive execution.

Output: Readiness report (HTML), gap analysis, final verdict with fix list if applicable.

Pipeline

Stage 1: Load Bundle

Load ./references/01-load-bundle.md

Gather the packaged product bundle and locate all relevant standards and context files. Establish what type of product is being evaluated and which standards apply.

Progression: Proceed when product bundle is located and product type is identified.

Stage 2: Assess Quality

Load ./references/02-assess-quality.md

Apply quality standards systematically across all dimensions: functionality, completeness, clarity, usability, and documentation. Score each dimension against defined criteria.

Progression: Proceed when all quality dimensions have been assessed and scored.

Stage 3: Check Gaps

Load ./references/03-check-gaps.md

Identify what specifically blocks release. Classify gaps as critical (must fix), important (should fix), or minor (nice to have). Generate actionable fix list.

Progression: Proceed when all gaps are documented with severity classification.

Stage 4: Generate Verdict

Load ./references/04-generate-verdict.md

Make final determination: production-ready, publish-ready, sellable-ready, or not-ready. Apply the appropriate threshold based on the target readiness level.

Progression: Complete when verdict is issued and documented.

On Activation

1. Determine the product workspace root: {project-root}/.pawbytes/prodig-suites/
2. Identify active product from .pawbytes/prodig-suites/active-product.md if it exists
3. If no active product and not in headless mode, prompt user to specify:

- Product slug (which product to evaluate) - Target readiness level (production / publish / sellable)

1. Begin pipeline at Stage 1

Readiness Levels

Hierarchy: Sellable-ready requires publish-ready, which requires production-ready.

Input Sources

Minimum Requirement: Product bundle must exist. Standards may be loaded from references if not in workspace.

Output Structure

.pawbytes/prodig-suites/products/{product-slug}/
├── readiness-report.html         # Structured assessment (HTML)
├── readiness-report.md           # Plain text version
├── gap-analysis.md               # Detailed gap breakdown
├── fix-list.md                   # Actionable fixes (if not ready)
└── product-decisions.md          # Appended verdict

Daily log entry at:

.pawbytes/prodig-suites/memory/paw-ps-sidecar/daily/YYYY-MM-DD.md

Reference Lookup Protocol

1. Read ./references/readiness-criteria.csv — lightweight index of criteria by product type
2. Match product type to relevant criteria rows
3. Apply matched criteria during Stage 2 assessment
4. Reference full standards from ./references/frameworks/ only when needed

Output Contract

Every execution delivers:

• Action type: Readiness evaluation
• Verdict: production-ready / publish-ready / sellable-ready / not-ready
• Files saved:

- readiness-report.html — Structured assessment - readiness-report.md — Plain text version - gap-analysis.md — Gap breakdown - fix-list.md — (If not ready) Actionable fixes

• Recommendations: Next steps based on verdict
• File saved to: .pawbytes/prodig-suites/products/{product-slug}/

Headless Mode

When invoked with --headless or -H:

1. Attempt to read active product from .pawbytes/prodig-suites/active-product.md
2. If not found, scan for most recently modified product workspace
3. Default target readiness level to publish-ready unless specified via args
4. Execute all stages without prompts
5. Document any assumptions in the report
6. Exit with status code:

- 0: Ready (verdict matches target) - 1: Not ready (gaps exist) - 2: Error (inputs missing)

Quality Gates

Non-Negotiables

This workflow must apply clear quality bars, not superficial approval:

1. No rubber-stamping — Every verdict must be justified with evidence
2. Gap visibility — All blocking issues documented, none hidden
3. Honest assessment — Better to delay release than ship broken products
4. User clarity — Fix list must be actionable and specific
5. Standards matter — Apply the criteria, don't lower the bar

Escalation Routes