Pipeline Governance: Discovery Pipeline Governance Backbone

Structural governance layer that manages the discovery pipeline as a formal program — tracking phases, gates, resources, dependencies, risks, and proposal readiness. Operates as the connective tissue between all 48 skills, ensuring nothing falls through cracks, phases do not skip prerequisites, and the final proposal is validated before client delivery.

Guiding Principle

Discovery without governance is improvisation disguised as methodology. This skill imposes program discipline on the pipeline: every phase has prerequisites, every gate has criteria, every deliverable has an owner and a date. It is not bureaucracy — it is the difference between "we did a discovery" and "we executed a reliable discovery program."

Governance Philosophy

1. Governance is not bureaucracy. Governance exists to enable speed with confidence, not to slow things down. Every control must justify its existence with a risk it mitigates.

2. Total traceability. Every decision, scope change, materialized risk, and resolved dependency is recorded. The program can be audited at any time.

3. Proposal QA = Final Quality Gate. Proposal v1 does not go out until it passes a multidimensional validation that verifies technical coherence, viability, completeness, and alignment with discovery findings.

Inputs

Parse $1 as project/program name. Detect discovery context from repo.

Parameters:

• {MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
  • piloto-auto: Auto for routine tracking, HITL for gate decisions, scope changes, and proposal validation.
  • desatendido: Zero interruptions. Gates auto-evaluated. Assumptions documented.
  • supervisado: Autonomous with reports at milestones. Questions only at gates and proposal QA.
  • paso-a-paso: Confirms before each gate evaluation and each QA section.
• {FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual
• {VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40%) | técnica (full, default)
• {MODO_OPERACIONAL}: integral (default, full governance across all 7 sections) | seguimiento (phase state tracking, gate readiness, scope changes, dependency monitoring, status dashboard) | validacion-propuesta (proposal QA across coherence, completeness, viability, alignment — final quality gate)

When to Use

• At program initiation (before Phase 0)
• At every phase gate (G1, G2, G3, 3b checkpoint)
• When tracking cross-phase dependencies
• During proposal QA validation (pre-client delivery)
• When resource conflicts arise across phases
• For status reporting to stakeholders
• When scope changes threaten timeline or quality

When NOT to Use

• Single-phase quick assessments (< 2 phases)
• Pure technical analysis (use domain-specific skills)
• Post-delivery — use metodologia-discovery-handover instead

Delivery Structure: 7 Sections

S1: Program Charter & Governance Framework

• Program scope: which discovery phases are in scope, which are deferred
• Governance model: decision rights matrix (who decides what, at what level)
• Communication plan: cadence, channels, escalation paths
• Phase dependency map: prerequisite chain across all 8 phases

Phase	Prerequisites	Gate	Gate Criteria	Owner
Phase 0: Stakeholder Mapping	Project kickoff	—	Map complete, power grid populated	Domain Analyst
Phase 1: AS-IS	Phase 0 complete	—	10-section analysis delivered	Technical Architect
Phase 2: Flow Mapping	Phase 1 complete	—	Domain taxonomy + 8-12 flows	Domain Analyst
Phase 3: Scenarios	Phase 2 complete	G1	Scenario approved by committee	Full-Stack Generalist
Phase 3b: Feasibility	G1 passed	3b checkpoint	Feasibility verdict + viability scorecard	Quality Guardian
Phase 4: Roadmap + Cost	Phase 3b passed	—	Roadmap + cost drivers delivered	Delivery Manager
Phase 4b: Commercial Model	Phase 4 complete	G2	Commercial structure approved	Data Strategist
Phase 5a: Functional Spec	G2 passed	—	Spec complete + use cases validated	Technical Architect
Phase 5b: Executive Pitch	G2 passed	G3	Pitch approved, investment case clear	Change Catalyst
Phase 6: Handover	G3 passed	—	Handover package complete	Delivery Manager

Required diagram: Gantt chart (Mermaid) with complete program timeline, gates as milestones

S2: Phase Gate Management

For each quality gate, evaluate:

Gate Evaluation Protocol:

GATE EVALUATION: {gate_name}
════════════════════════════
Phase Completing: {phase}
Date: {date}

ENTRY CRITERIA:
  [ ] {criterion_1} — {status: ✅/⚠️/🔴}
  [ ] {criterion_2} — {status}
  ...

DELIVERABLES CHECK:
  [ ] {deliverable_1} — {completeness: complete/partial/missing}
  [ ] {deliverable_2} — {completeness}

EVIDENCE CHAIN:
  - {deliverable} → {finding} → {implication for next phase}

DEPENDENCIES RESOLVED:
  [ ] {dependency_1} — {status}

RISKS CARRIED FORWARD:
  - {risk_1}: {mitigation status}

VERDICT: PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL
  Conditions (if conditional):
    1. {condition}
    2. {condition}

  Fail reasons (if fail):
    1. {reason} → {remediation}

• G1 (Post-Scenarios): Scenario approved, risks acceptable, feasibility presumed
• 3b Checkpoint: Feasibility FEASIBLE or FEASIBLE WITH CONDITIONS, viability green/yellow
• G2 (Post-Commercial): Roadmap viable, cost drivers identified, commercial model selected
• G3 (Pre-Handover): Proposal v1 approved, pitch ready, spec complete

S3: Resource & Capacity Orchestration

• Expert committee allocation: who is on which phase, % dedication
• Bottleneck detection: when an expert is prerequisite for >2 simultaneous phases
• Skill activation tracking: which skills from the 48-skill catalog have been activated, which are pending

Expert	Current Phase	% Allocated	Bottleneck Risk	Next Phase Needed
Technical Architect	Phase 1	100%	Yellow — Phase 3 needs same expert	Phase 3 (50%)
Domain Analyst	Phase 0	80%	Green — Available for Phase 2	Phase 2 (100%)

• Capacity alerts: flag when a resource is over-allocated (>100%)
• Skill gap identification: if a phase needs a skill that no expert masters

Required diagram: Flowchart (Mermaid) showing resource flow between phases

S4: Cross-Phase Dependency Control

• Input/output dependency matrix: what each phase produces, what the next consumes
• Data contract verification: are inter-phase contracts being fulfilled?
• Scope change impact: if something changes in Phase 1, which downstream phases are affected?

Source Phase	Output	Consumer Phase	Contract	Status
Phase 1: AS-IS	Stack inventory	Phase 3b: Feasibility	technology_inventory.json	Delivered
Phase 2: Flow Mapping	Domain taxonomy	Phase 4: Cost	scope_decomposition base	Pending
Phase 3: Scenarios	Approved scenario	Phase 3b: Feasibility	scenario_claims.json	In Progress

• Scope change log: every change to scope, with impact assessment
• Dependency blockers: what is waiting for what, and who unblocks it

Required diagram: Sequence diagram (Mermaid) showing data flow between phases

S5: Proposal QA Validation (Final Quality Gate)

CRITICAL SECTION — the final validator before the proposal reaches the client.

Proposal v1 is built from the outputs of Phases 4-5b. Before sending to the client, it passes through a multidimensional validation:

QA Failure Traceability to Source Phase: If a QA dimension fails, remediation is traced directly to the responsible phase(s):

• Coherence fails → re-verify Phase 3b (feasibility) and Phase 4 (roadmap)
• Completeness fails → re-verify the phase that produced the missing deliverable
• Viability fails → re-verify Phase 4 (magnitudes) and Phase 5b (pitch claims)
• Alignment fails → re-verify Phase 1 (AS-IS) and Phase 3 (scenarios)

5a. Technical Coherence

• Is the roadmap coherent with the AS-IS and approved scenario?
• Do the cost drivers reflect the real scope (not the original pre-changes)?
• Does the functional spec cover all mapped flows?
• Did the feasibility approve what the proposal proposes?

5b. Completeness

• Are all deliverables in the manifest present?
• Does each section have sufficient depth (no stubs or placeholders)?
• Are the diagrams consistent across deliverables?
• Do cross-references between documents resolve correctly?

5c. Proposal Viability

• Is what the pitch promises supported by the spec and the roadmap?
• Are the cost magnitudes reasonable given the scope?
• Is the proposed timeline realistic given the dependencies?
• Are the risks documented and mitigated?

5d. Alignment with Findings

• Does the proposal address the problems identified in AS-IS?
• Are the discarded scenarios justified?
• Are the feasibility/viability findings reflected in guardrails?
• Is the commercial model coherent with the identified value?

PROPOSAL QA SCORECARD
═════════════════════
Proyecto: {nombre}
Propuesta v1 — Validación Pre-Envío

| Dimensión | Score | Hallazgos | Acción |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coherencia Técnica | [X]/5 | {findings} | {action if <4} |
| Completitud | [X]/5 | {findings} | {action if <4} |
| Viabilidad | [X]/5 | {findings} | {action if <4} |
| Alineación | [X]/5 | {findings} | {action if <4} |

COMPOSITE: [X.X]/5.0

VEREDICTO: APROBADA / APROBADA CON CONDICIONES / RECHAZADA
  Threshold mínimo: 3.5/5.0 composite, ninguna dimensión <3

Condiciones (si aplica):
  1. {condición}

LISTA PARA ENVÍO A CLIENTE: SÍ / NO

S6: Status Reporting & Dashboard

• Program health dashboard: RAG status per phase
• Milestone tracking: planned vs actual per phase
• Risk burn-down: open vs closed risks throughout the program
• Decision log: all decisions made at gates, with rationale

Phase	Status	Planned End	Actual/Forecast	Variance	RAG
Phase 0	Complete	Day 2	Day 2	0	Green
Phase 1	In Progress	Day 5	Day 6 (forecast)	+1 day	Yellow
Phase 3b	Not Started	Day 10	—	—	Not Started

Required diagram: Timeline/Gantt (Mermaid) with current program state

S7: Continuous Governance & Lessons Learned

• Retrospective per phase: what worked, what did not, what to improve
• Governance effectiveness: did the gates catch problems? How many issues detected in QA vs post-delivery?
• Process improvement recommendations for future discoveries
• Metric collection: cycle time per phase, gate pass rate, proposal QA score trends

Prompt Integration Protocol

The project manager is the governance backbone that accompanies ALL prompts. It is implicitly activated in every prompt execution.

Role in Each Prompt

Prompt	PM Role	Section Activated
00-plan-discovery	Co-author: Program Charter	S1 (Charter)
01-stakeholder-map	Receiver: RACI for tracking	S3 (Resources)
02-brief-tecnico	Monitor: phase status update	S6 (Dashboard)
03-asis-analysis	Monitor: dependency tracking	S4 (Dependencies)
04-mapeo-flujos	Monitor: data contract validation	S4 (Dependencies)
05-escenarios	Gate evaluator: G1	S2 (Gate Management)
06-solution-roadmap	Gate evaluator: G2, scope tracking	S2 + S4
07-spec-funcional	Monitor: completeness tracking	S6 (Dashboard)
08-pitch-ejecutivo	QA validator: proposal coherence	S5 (Proposal QA)
09-handover	Gate evaluator: G3, final QA	S2 + S5 + S7
revisar	Primary executor: full QA audit	S5 (Proposal QA)
evolucionar	Re-validator: post-improvement QA	S5 + S6
rescatar	Triage: gate status assessment	S2 + S6

Skill Inventory (48 managed skills)

Domain	Skills	Count
Discovery Pipeline	metodologia-discovery-orchestrator, metodologia-stakeholder-mapping, metodologia-workshop-design, metodologia-asis-analysis, metodologia-sector-intelligence, metodologia-flow-mapping, metodologia-scenario-analysis, metodologia-technical-feasibility, metodologia-software-viability, metodologia-solution-roadmap, metodologia-cost-estimation, metodologia-commercial-model, metodologia-functional-spec, metodologia-executive-pitch, metodologia-discovery-handover	15
Architecture Design	metodologia-software-architecture, metodologia-architecture-tobe, metodologia-enterprise-architecture, metodologia-solutions-architecture, metodologia-infrastructure-architecture, metodologia-devsecops-architecture, metodologia-design-system	7
Data Strategy	metodologia-data-science-architecture, metodologia-bi-architecture, metodologia-data-engineering, metodologia-database-architecture, metodologia-data-governance, metodologia-analytics-engineering, metodologia-data-mesh-strategy	7
Cloud & Mobile	metodologia-cloud-native-architecture, metodologia-cloud-migration, metodologia-mobile-platform-assessment, metodologia-finops	4
Engineering Excellence	metodologia-api-architecture, metodologia-event-architecture, metodologia-security-architecture, metodologia-performance-engineering, metodologia-observability	5
Consulting & Quality	metodologia-quality-engineering, metodologia-testing-strategy, metodologia-user-representative	3
Governance & Risk	metodologia-pipeline-governance, metodologia-risk-controlling-dynamics	2
Change Management	metodologia-change-readiness-assessment, metodologia-adoption-strategy	2
Delivery & UX	metodologia-ux-writing, metodologia-roadmap-poc	2
Delivery & Brand	html-brand, metodologia-ux-writing, metodologia-roadmap-poc	3
TOTAL		48

Asset Inventory

All 48 skills have examples/ with:

• sample-output.md — Reference markdown output (Acme Corp Banking Modernization)
• sample-output.html — Branded HTML output (Design System CSS)
• README.md — Asset index

Location: plugins/metodologia-discovery-framework/skills/{skill-name}/examples/

Trade-off Matrix

Decision	Enables	Constrains	When to Use
Full governance (all sections)	Maximum confidence, auditable	Overhead on small programs	Discovery >3 phases, high-stakes
Lite governance (S1+S2+S5)	Fast tracking	Loses detailed traceability	Discovery with 3 or fewer phases, fast-track
QA-only (S5)	Focused proposal validation	No tracking history	When proposal exists, need validation
Gate-only (S2)	Phase transition control	No resource or dependency tracking	Simple sequential pipeline

Assumptions & Limits

• Requires discovery pipeline context (phases, deliverables, expert committee)
• Gate criteria assume full pipeline variant; Quick Reference variant has fewer gates
• Resource tracking is planning-level, not actual time tracking
• Proposal QA validates coherence and completeness, NOT domain correctness (that is each skill's job)

Edge Cases

Scenario	Response
Discovery runs out of order (phase skip)	Flag as governance violation. Document rationale. Assess impact on downstream phases
Scope change mid-discovery	Impact assessment across all remaining phases. Re-estimate if >10% scope change
Expert unavailable for gate review	Designate alternate. If no alternate, escalate with documented risk
Proposal QA fails multiple dimensions	Do NOT send to client. Identify remediation per dimension. Re-run QA after fixes
Client requests deliverables before QA	Flag risk. Offer "draft" watermark. Never mark as final pre-QA
Pipeline variant = Quick Reference	Adapt to 3-phase subset. QA still mandatory for proposal

Validation Gate

• Program charter with phase dependency map
• Gate evaluation protocol applied at each quality gate
• Resource allocation tracked with bottleneck alerts
• Cross-phase dependencies mapped and monitored
• Proposal QA scorecard complete (composite of 3.5/5.0 or higher)
• Status dashboard current with RAG indicators
• Decision log maintained throughout program
• Scope change log with impact assessments
• Mermaid diagrams: Gantt (program), flowchart (resources), sequence (data)

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core
        PG[Pipeline Governance]
    end

    subgraph Inputs
        I1[Discovery Pipeline State] --> PG
        I2[Phase Deliverables] --> PG
        I3[Expert Committee Roster] --> PG
        I4[Scope & Timeline] --> PG
    end

    subgraph Outputs
        PG --> O1[Program Charter]
        PG --> O2[Gate Evaluations]
        PG --> O3[Resource Tracking]
        PG --> O4[Dependency Control]
        PG --> O5[Proposal QA Scorecard]
        PG --> O6[Status Dashboard]
        PG --> O7[Lessons Learned]
    end

    subgraph Related Skills
        RS1[risk-controlling-dynamics] -.-> PG
        RS2[discovery-orchestrator] -.-> PG
        RS3[discovery-handover] -.-> PG
        RS4[cost-estimation] -.-> PG
        RS5[executive-pitch] -.-> PG
    end

Output Templates

Formato MD (default):

# Pipeline Governance: {project_name}
## S1: Program Charter & Governance Framework
### Phase Dependency Map | Decision Rights | Communication Plan

## S2: Phase Gate Management
### Gate Evaluation Protocol (G1, 3b, G2, G3)

## S3: Resource & Capacity Orchestration
### Expert Allocation | Bottleneck Detection | Skill Activation

## S4: Cross-Phase Dependency Control
### Input/Output Matrix | Data Contracts | Scope Change Log

## S5: Proposal QA Validation
### Coherencia | Completitud | Viabilidad | Alineacion | Composite Score

## S6: Status Reporting & Dashboard
### RAG Status | Milestone Tracking | Risk Burn-Down | Decision Log

## S7: Continuous Governance & Lessons Learned
### Retrospective | Governance Effectiveness | Process Improvement

Formato DOCX: Reporte de gobernanza de programa en formato documento formal: charter ejecutivo, evaluaciones de gate con firmas de aprobacion, scorecard de propuesta, y dashboard de estado con graficos de varianza y tendencia de riesgos.

Formato XLSX (bajo demanda):

• Filename: {fase}_Pipeline_Governance_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx
• Generado via openpyxl con MetodologIA Design System v5. Headers navy con texto blanco Poppins, formato condicional por RAG status (verde/amarillo/rojo) y veredicto de gate (PASS/CONDITIONAL/FAIL), auto-filtros en todas las columnas, valores calculados sin formulas. Hojas: Phase Gate Status, Resource Allocation, Dependency Matrix, Proposal QA Scorecard.

Formato PPTX (bajo demanda):

• Filename: {fase}_Pipeline_Governance_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx
• Generado via python-pptx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Slide master navy gradient, titulos Poppins, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold. Max 20 slides variante ejecutiva / 30 variante tecnica. Speaker notes con referencias de evidencia [DOC]/[INFERENCIA]/[SUPUESTO].

Evaluacion

Dimension	Peso	Criterio (7/10 minimo)
Trigger Accuracy	10%	Se activa ante keywords de governance, pipeline, gate, proposal QA; no se confunde con PM generico
Completeness	25%	Las 7 secciones cubren charter, gates, recursos, dependencias, QA de propuesta, dashboard, y lecciones
Clarity	20%	Gate criteria, QA scorecard, y RAG status son inequivocos; verdicts son PASS/CONDITIONAL/FAIL
Robustness	20%	Edge cases (phase skip, scope change, expert unavailable, QA fail) tienen protocolo definido
Efficiency	10%	Modos operacionales (integral, seguimiento, validacion-propuesta) permiten activacion parcial
Value Density	15%	Cada gate produce veredicto accionable; QA scorecard traza fallas a fase origen con remediacion

Umbral minimo: 7/10 en cada dimension. Composite ponderado >= 7.0 para considerar el output aceptable.

---

Output Format Protocol

Format	Default	Description
markdown	Yes	Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient.
html	On demand	Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact.
dual	On demand	Both formats.
HTML	{fase}_Pipeline_Governance_{proyecto}_{WIP}.html	Mismo contenido en HTML branded (Design System MetodologIA v5). Self-contained, WCAG AA, responsive. Tipo: Dark-First Executive. Incluye Gantt interactivo de programa, gate scorecard con RAG status, y proposal QA dashboard.

Default output is Markdown with embedded Mermaid diagrams. HTML generation requires explicit {FORMATO}=html parameter.

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register — simple, clear, concise, direct)
• Attribution: Expert committee of the MetodologIA Discovery Framework
• Tagline: "Construido por profesionales, potenciado por la red agéntica de MetodologIA."

Output Artifact

Primary: P-01_Program_Governance_{project}.md (or .html if {FORMATO}=html|dual) — Program charter, gate evaluations, resource tracking, dependency control, proposal QA scorecard, status dashboard, lessons learned.

Included diagrams:

• Gantt chart: program timeline with gate milestones
• Flowchart: resource flow between phases
• Sequence diagram: inter-phase data flow

Operational Modes

Formerly separate sub-agents (governance-tracker, proposal-qa-validator) are now operational modes:

Mode	Focus	Best For
integral (default)	Full pipeline governance: charter, gates, resources, dependencies, proposal QA, dashboard, lessons learned	End-to-end discovery program governance
seguimiento	Phase state tracking, gate readiness evaluation, scope change monitoring, cross-phase dependency control, RAG status dashboard	Ongoing governance during active discovery phases
validacion-propuesta	Multidimensional proposal QA: technical coherence, completeness audit, viability verification, alignment with discovery findings, composite scoring and verdict	Pre-client delivery quality gate on proposal v1

Invoke with {MODO_OPERACIONAL}=seguimiento or {MODO_OPERACIONAL}=validacion-propuesta.

---