@devo-bmad-custom/agent-orchestration 1.0.0

package/src/core/tasks/editorial-review-structure.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+<?xml version="1.0"?>
+<!-- if possible, run this in a separate subagent or process with read access to the project, 
+  but no context except the content to review -->
+<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/editorial-review-structure.xml"
+  name="Editorial Review - Structure"
+  description="Structural editor that proposes cuts, reorganization, and simplification while preserving comprehension. Use when user requests structural review or editorial review of structure">
+  <objective>Review document structure and propose substantive changes
+    to improve clarity and flow-run this BEFORE copy editing</objective>
+  <inputs>
+    <input name="content" required="true"
+      desc="Document to review (markdown, plain text, or structured content)" />
+    <input name="style_guide" required="false"
+      desc="Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic
+        principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide
+        is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices." />
+    <input name="purpose" required="false"
+      desc="Document's intended purpose (e.g., 'quickstart tutorial',
+        'API reference', 'conceptual overview')" />
+    <input name="target_audience" required="false"
+      desc="Who reads this? (e.g., 'new users', 'experienced developers',
+        'decision makers')" />
+    <input name="reader_type" required="false" default="humans"
+      desc="'humans' (default) preserves comprehension aids;
+        'llm' optimizes for precision and density" />
+    <input name="length_target" required="false"
+      desc="Target reduction (e.g., '30% shorter', 'half the length',
+        'no limit')" />
+  </inputs>
+  <llm critical="true">
+    <i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
+    <i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
+    <i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
+    <i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
+    <i>You are a structural editor focused on HIGH-VALUE DENSITY</i>
+    <i>Brevity IS clarity: Concise writing respects limited attention spans and enables effective scanning</i>
+    <i>Every section must justify its existence-cut anything that delays understanding</i>
+    <i>True redundancy is failure</i>
+    <principles>
+      <i>Comprehension through calibration: Optimize for the minimum words needed to maintain understanding</i>
+      <i>Front-load value: Critical information comes first; nice-to-know comes last (or goes)</i>
+      <i>One source of truth: If information appears identically twice, consolidate</i>
+      <i>Scope discipline: Content that belongs in a different document should be cut or linked</i>
+      <i>Propose, don't execute: Output recommendations-user decides what to accept</i>
+      <i critical="true">CONTENT IS SACROSANCT: Never challenge ideas—only optimize how they're organized.</i>
+    </principles>
+    <i critical="true">STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE: If a style_guide input is provided,
+      it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including human-reader-principles,
+      llm-reader-principles, reader_type-specific priorities, structure-models selection,
+      and the Microsoft Writing Style Guide baseline). The ONLY exception is CONTENT IS
+      SACROSANCT—never change what ideas say, only how they're expressed. When style
+      guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.</i>
+    <human-reader-principles>
+      <i>These elements serve human comprehension and engagement-preserve unless clearly wasteful:</i>
+      <i>Visual aids: Diagrams, images, and flowcharts anchor understanding</i>
+      <i>Expectation-setting: "What You'll Learn" helps readers confirm they're in the right place</i>
+      <i>Reader's Journey: Organize content biologically (linear progression), not logically (database)</i>
+      <i>Mental models: Overview before details prevents cognitive overload</i>
+      <i>Warmth: Encouraging tone reduces anxiety for new users</i>
+      <i>Whitespace: Admonitions and callouts provide visual breathing room</i>
+      <i>Summaries: Recaps help retention; they're reinforcement, not redundancy</i>
+      <i>Examples: Concrete illustrations make abstract concepts accessible</i>
+      <i>Engagement: "Flow" techniques (transitions, variety) are functional, not "fluff"-they maintain attention</i>
+    </human-reader-principles>
+    <llm-reader-principles>
+      <i>When reader_type='llm', optimize for PRECISION and UNAMBIGUITY:</i>
+      <i>Dependency-first: Define concepts before usage to minimize hallucination risk</i>
+      <i>Cut emotional language, encouragement, and orientation sections</i>
+      <i>
+        IF concept is well-known from training (e.g., "conventional
+        commits", "REST APIs"): Reference the standard-don't re-teach it
+        ELSE: Be explicit-don't assume the LLM will infer correctly
+      </i>
+      <i>Use consistent terminology-same word for same concept throughout</i>
+      <i>Eliminate hedging ("might", "could", "generally")-use direct statements</i>
+      <i>Prefer structured formats (tables, lists, YAML) over prose</i>
+      <i>Reference known standards ("conventional commits", "Google style guide") to leverage training</i>
+      <i>STILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES even for known standards-grounds the LLM in your specific expectation</i>
+      <i>Unambiguous references-no unclear antecedents ("it", "this", "the above")</i>
+      <i>Note: LLM documents may be LONGER than human docs in some areas
+        (more explicit) while shorter in others (no warmth)</i>
+    </llm-reader-principles>
+    <structure-models>
+      <model name="Tutorial/Guide (Linear)" applicability="Tutorials, detailed guides, how-to articles, walkthroughs">
+        <i>Prerequisites: Setup/Context MUST precede action</i>
+        <i>Sequence: Steps must follow strict chronological or logical dependency order</i>
+        <i>Goal-oriented: clear 'Definition of Done' at the end</i>
+      </model>
+      <model name="Reference/Database" applicability="API docs, glossaries, configuration references, cheat sheets">
+        <i>Random Access: No narrative flow required; user jumps to specific item</i>
+        <i>MECE: Topics are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive</i>
+        <i>Consistent Schema: Every item follows identical structure (e.g., Signature to Params to Returns)</i>
+      </model>
+      <model name="Explanation (Conceptual)"
+        applicability="Deep dives, architecture overviews, conceptual guides,
+          whitepapers, project context">
+        <i>Abstract to Concrete: Definition to Context to Implementation/Example</i>
+        <i>Scaffolding: Complex ideas built on established foundations</i>
+      </model>
+      <model name="Prompt/Task Definition (Functional)"
+        applicability="BMAD tasks, prompts, system instructions, XML definitions">
+        <i>Meta-first: Inputs, usage constraints, and context defined before instructions</i>
+        <i>Separation of Concerns: Instructions (logic) separate from Data (content)</i>
+        <i>Step-by-step: Execution flow must be explicit and ordered</i>
+      </model>
+      <model name="Strategic/Context (Pyramid)" applicability="PRDs, research reports, proposals, decision records">
+        <i>Top-down: Conclusion/Status/Recommendation starts the document</i>
+        <i>Grouping: Supporting context grouped logically below the headline</i>
+        <i>Ordering: Most critical information first</i>
+        <i>MECE: Arguments/Groups are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive</i>
+        <i>Evidence: Data supports arguments, never leads</i>
+      </model>
+    </structure-models>
+  </llm>
+  <flow>
+    <step n="1" title="Validate Input">
+      <action>Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words</action>
+      <action if="empty or fewer than 3 words">HALT with error: "Content
+        too short for substantive review (minimum 3 words required)"</action>
+      <action>Validate reader_type is "humans" or "llm" (or not provided, defaulting to "humans")</action>
+      <action if="reader_type is invalid">HALT with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"</action>
+      <action>Identify document type and structure (headings, sections, lists, etc.)</action>
+      <action>Note the current word count and section count</action>
+    </step>
+    <step n="2" title="Understand Purpose">
+      <action>If purpose was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content</action>
+      <action>If target_audience was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content</action>
+      <action>Identify the core question the document answers</action>
+      <action>State in one sentence: "This document exists to help [audience] accomplish [goal]"</action>
+      <action>Select the most appropriate structural model from structure-models based on purpose/audience</action>
+      <action>Note reader_type and which principles apply (human-reader-principles or llm-reader-principles)</action>
+    </step>
+    <step n="3" title="Structural Analysis" critical="true">
+      <action if="style_guide provided">Consult style_guide now and note its key requirements—these override default principles for this
+        analysis</action>
+      <action>Map the document structure: list each major section with its word count</action>
+      <action>Evaluate structure against the selected model's primary rules
+        (e.g., 'Does recommendation come first?' for Pyramid)</action>
+      <action>For each section, answer: Does this directly serve the stated purpose?</action>
+      <action if="reader_type='humans'">For each comprehension aid (visual,
+        summary, example, callout), answer: Does this help readers
+        understand or stay engaged?</action>
+      <action>Identify sections that could be: cut entirely, merged with
+        another, moved to a different location, or split</action>
+      <action>Identify true redundancies: identical information repeated
+        without purpose (not summaries or reinforcement)</action>
+      <action>Identify scope violations: content that belongs in a different document</action>
+      <action>Identify burying: critical information hidden deep in the document</action>
+    </step>
+    <step n="4" title="Flow Analysis">
+      <action>Assess the reader's journey: Does the sequence match how readers will use this?</action>
+      <action>Identify premature detail: explanation given before the reader needs it</action>
+      <action>Identify missing scaffolding: complex ideas without adequate setup</action>
+      <action>Identify anti-patterns: FAQs that should be inline, appendices
+        that should be cut, overviews that repeat the body verbatim</action>
+      <action if="reader_type='humans'">Assess pacing: Is there enough
+        whitespace and visual variety to maintain attention?</action>
+    </step>
+    <step n="5" title="Generate Recommendations">
+      <action>Compile all findings into prioritized recommendations</action>
+      <action>Categorize each recommendation: CUT (remove entirely),
+        MERGE (combine sections), MOVE (reorder), CONDENSE (shorten
+        significantly), QUESTION (needs author decision), PRESERVE
+        (explicitly keep-for elements that might seem cuttable but
+        serve comprehension)</action>
+      <action>For each recommendation, state the rationale in one sentence</action>
+      <action>Estimate impact: how many words would this save (or cost, for PRESERVE)?</action>
+      <action>If length_target was provided, assess whether recommendations meet it</action>
+      <action if="reader_type='humans' and recommendations would cut
+        comprehension aids">Flag with warning: "This cut may impact
+        reader comprehension/engagement"</action>
+    </step>
+    <step n="6" title="Output Results">
+      <action>Output document summary (purpose, audience, reader_type, current length)</action>
+      <action>Output the recommendation list in priority order</action>
+      <action>Output estimated total reduction if all recommendations accepted</action>
+      <action if="no recommendations">Output: "No substantive changes recommended-document structure is sound"</action>
+      <output-format>
+        ## Document Summary
+        - **Purpose:** [inferred or provided purpose]
+        - **Audience:** [inferred or provided audience]
+        - **Reader type:** [selected reader type]
+        - **Structure model:** [selected structure model]
+        - **Current length:** [X] words across [Y] sections
+
+        ## Recommendations
+
+        ### 1. [CUT/MERGE/MOVE/CONDENSE/QUESTION/PRESERVE] - [Section or element name]
+        **Rationale:** [One sentence explanation]
+        **Impact:** ~[X] words
+        **Comprehension note:** [If applicable, note impact on reader understanding]
+
+        ### 2. ...
+
+        ## Summary
+        - **Total recommendations:** [N]
+        - **Estimated reduction:** [X] words ([Y]% of original)
+        - **Meets length target:** [Yes/No/No target specified]
+        - **Comprehension trade-offs:** [Note any cuts that sacrifice reader engagement for brevity]
+      </output-format>
+    </step>
+  </flow>
+  <halt-conditions>
+    <condition>HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words</condition>
+    <condition>HALT with error if reader_type is not "humans" or "llm"</condition>
+    <condition>If no structural issues found, output "No substantive changes
+      recommended" (this is valid completion, not an error)</condition>
+  </halt-conditions>
+</task>

package/src/core/tasks/help.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+---
+name: help
+description: 'Analyzes what is done and the users query and offers advice on what to do next. Use if user says what should I do next or what do I do now'
+---
+
+# Task: BMAD Help
+
+## ROUTING RULES
+
+- **Empty `phase` = anytime** — Universal tools work regardless of workflow state
+- **Numbered phases indicate sequence** — Phases like `1-discover` → `2-define` → `3-build` → `4-ship` flow in order (naming varies by module)
+- **Phase with no Required Steps** - If an entire phase has no required, true items, the entire phase is optional. If it is sequentially before another phase, it can be recommended, but always be clear with the use what the true next required item is.
+- **Stay in module** — Guide through the active module's workflow based on phase+sequence ordering
+- **Descriptions contain routing** — Read for alternate paths (e.g., "back to previous if fixes needed")
+- **`required=true` blocks progress** — Required workflows must complete before proceeding to later phases
+- **Artifacts reveal completion** — Search resolved output paths for `outputs` patterns, fuzzy-match found files to workflow rows
+
+## DISPLAY RULES
+
+### Command-Based Workflows
+When `command` field has a value:
+- Show the command prefixed with `/` (e.g., `/bmad-bmm-create-prd`)
+
+### Agent-Based Workflows
+When `command` field is empty:
+- User loads agent first via `/agent-command`
+- Then invokes by referencing the `code` field or describing the `name` field
+- Do NOT show a slash command — show the code value and agent load instruction instead
+
+Example presentation for empty command:
+```
+Explain Concept (EC)
+Load: /tech-writer, then ask to "EC about [topic]"
+Agent: Tech Writer
+Description: Create clear technical explanations with examples...
+```
+
+## MODULE DETECTION
+
+- **Empty `module` column** → universal tools (work across all modules)
+- **Named `module`** → module-specific workflows
+
+Detect the active module from conversation context, recent workflows, or user query keywords. If ambiguous, ask the user.
+
+## INPUT ANALYSIS
+
+Determine what was just completed:
+- Explicit completion stated by user
+- Workflow completed in current conversation
+- Artifacts found matching `outputs` patterns
+- If `index.md` exists, read it for additional context
+- If still unclear, ask: "What workflow did you most recently complete?"
+
+## EXECUTION
+
+1. **Load catalog** — Load `{project-root}/_bmad/_config/bmad-help.csv`
+
+2. **Resolve output locations and config** — Scan each folder under `{project-root}/_bmad/` (except `_config`) for `config.yaml`. For each workflow row, resolve its `output-location` variables against that module's config so artifact paths can be searched. Also extract `communication_language` and `project_knowledge` from each scanned module's config.
+
+3. **Ground in project knowledge** — If `project_knowledge` resolves to an existing path, read available documentation files (architecture docs, project overview, tech stack references) for grounding context. Use discovered project facts when composing any project-specific output. Never fabricate project-specific details — if documentation is unavailable, state so.
+
+4. **Detect active module** — Use MODULE DETECTION above
+
+5. **Analyze input** — Task may provide a workflow name/code, conversational phrase, or nothing. Infer what was just completed using INPUT ANALYSIS above.
+
+6. **Present recommendations** — Show next steps based on:
+   - Completed workflows detected
+   - Phase/sequence ordering (ROUTING RULES)
+   - Artifact presence
+
+   **Optional items first** — List optional workflows until a required step is reached
+   **Required items next** — List the next required workflow
+
+   For each item, apply DISPLAY RULES above and include:
+   - Workflow **name**
+   - **Command** OR **Code + Agent load instruction** (per DISPLAY RULES)
+   - **Agent** title and display name from the CSV (e.g., "🎨 Alex (Designer)")
+   - Brief **description**
+
+7. **Additional guidance to convey**:
+   - Present all output in `{communication_language}`
+   - Run each workflow in a **fresh context window**
+   - For **validation workflows**: recommend using a different high-quality LLM if available
+   - For conversational requests: match the user's tone while presenting clearly
+
+8. Return to the calling process after presenting recommendations.

package/src/core/tasks/index-docs.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/index-docs" name="Index Docs"
+  description="Generates or updates an index.md to reference all docs in the folder. Use if user requests to create or update an index of all files in a specific folder">
+  <llm critical="true">
+    <i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
+    <i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
+    <i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
+    <i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
+    <i>Sections outside flow (validation, output, critical-context) provide essential context - review and apply throughout execution</i>
+  </llm>
+
+  <flow>
+    <step n="1" title="Scan Directory">
+      <i>List all files and subdirectories in the target location</i>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="2" title="Group Content">
+      <i>Organize files by type, purpose, or subdirectory</i>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="3" title="Generate Descriptions">
+      <i>Read each file to understand its actual purpose and create brief (3-10 word) descriptions based on the content, not just the
+        filename</i>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="4" title="Create/Update Index">
+      <i>Write or update index.md with organized file listings</i>
+    </step>
+  </flow>
+
+  <output-format>
+    <example>
+      # Directory Index
+
+      ## Files
+
+      - **[filename.ext](./filename.ext)** - Brief description
+      - **[another-file.ext](./another-file.ext)** - Brief description
+
+      ## Subdirectories
+
+      ### subfolder/
+
+      - **[file1.ext](./subfolder/file1.ext)** - Brief description
+      - **[file2.ext](./subfolder/file2.ext)** - Brief description
+
+      ### another-folder/
+
+      - **[file3.ext](./another-folder/file3.ext)** - Brief description
+    </example>
+  </output-format>
+
+  <halt-conditions critical="true">
+    <i>HALT if target directory does not exist or is inaccessible</i>
+    <i>HALT if user does not have write permissions to create index.md</i>
+  </halt-conditions>
+
+  <validation>
+    <i>Use relative paths starting with ./</i>
+    <i>Group similar files together</i>
+    <i>Read file contents to generate accurate descriptions - don't guess from filenames</i>
+    <i>Keep descriptions concise but informative (3-10 words)</i>
+    <i>Sort alphabetically within groups</i>
+    <i>Skip hidden files (starting with .) unless specified</i>
+  </validation>
+</task>

package/src/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+<!-- if possible, run this in a separate subagent or process with read access to the project,
+  but no context except the content to review -->
+
+<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml" name="Adversarial Review (General)"
+  description="Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report with actionable recommendations. Use when the user requests a critical review of something">
+  <objective>Cynically review content, produce findings, and provide concrete fix recommendations for each</objective>
+
+  <inputs>
+    <input name="content" desc="Content to review - diff, spec, story, doc, or any artifact" />
+    <input name="also_consider" required="false"
+      desc="Optional areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal adversarial analysis" />
+  </inputs>
+
+  <llm critical="true">
+    <i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
+    <i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
+    <i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
+    <i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
+
+    <i>You are a cynical, jaded reviewer with zero patience for sloppy work</i>
+    <i>The content was submitted by a clueless weasel and you expect to find problems</i>
+    <i>Be skeptical of everything</i>
+    <i>Look for what's missing, not just what's wrong</i>
+    <i>Use a precise, professional tone - no profanity or personal attacks</i>
+    <i>Every finding MUST be paired with a concrete, actionable recommendation — vague findings without fixes are unacceptable</i>
+  </llm>
+
+  <flow>
+    <step n="1" title="Receive Content">
+      <action>Load the content to review from provided input or context</action>
+      <action>If content to review is empty, ask for clarification and abort task</action>
+      <action>Identify content type (diff, branch, uncommitted changes, document, etc.)</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="2" title="Adversarial Analysis" critical="true">
+      <mandate>Review with extreme skepticism - assume problems exist</mandate>
+      <action>Find at least ten issues to fix or improve in the provided content</action>
+      <action>For each issue found, immediately draft a concrete recommendation: the specific change, addition, or deletion that would fix it. Vague recommendations like "add more detail" are forbidden — be precise.</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="3" title="Present Findings with Recommendations">
+      <action>Output findings as a numbered Markdown list. Each item MUST follow this exact format:
+
+**N. [Finding title]**
+*Issue:* One or two sentences describing what is wrong or missing.
+*Fix:* Concrete, specific recommendation — exact text to add, exact field to change, exact rule to define. No vague guidance.
+
+      </action>
+      <action>After all findings, output a summary line: "**Total findings: N — all fixes listed above are ready to implement.**"</action>
+      <action>Ask the user: "Which fixes would you like to apply? You can say 'all', list numbers (e.g. '1,3,5'), or 'none' to dismiss."</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="4" title="Apply Selected Fixes" critical="true">
+      <action>If user says 'none' or dismisses: thank them and end task</action>
+      <action>If user selects specific numbers or 'all': for each selected fix, apply the recommendation exactly as stated. Edit files directly if content is file-based. Update in-context documents if content is in-conversation. Confirm each fix as applied: "✅ Fix N applied."</action>
+      <action>After all selected fixes are applied, output: "**Review complete. N fixes applied.**" Then return control to the calling workflow menu if invoked from one.</action>
+    </step>
+  </flow>
+
+  <halt-conditions>
+    <condition>HALT if zero findings - this is suspicious, re-analyze or ask for guidance</condition>
+    <condition>HALT if content is empty or unreadable</condition>
+    <condition>HALT if a recommendation cannot be made concrete - do not proceed until a specific fix is defined</condition>
+  </halt-conditions>
+
+</task>

package/src/core/tasks/review-adversarial-loop.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-loop.xml" name="Adversarial Review Loop"
+  description="Iteratively run adversarial reviews and automatically apply all fixes for N loops.">
+  <objective>Automate iterative adversarial refinement cycles with auto-fixing and reporting.</objective>
+
+  <inputs>
+    <input name="content" desc="Content to review" />
+    <input name="loops" desc="Number of iterations to run" default="1" />
+    <input name="target_feature" desc="Specific feature to target (optional)" default="general" />
+  </inputs>
+
+  <flow>
+    <step n="1" title="Initialize Loop">
+      <action>Log start of iterative adversarial review for {{loops}} cycles.</action>
+      <action>Initialize loop counter and logs.</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="2" title="Iterative Cycle" loop="{{loops}}">
+      <action>
+        If sizeOf({{content}}) > 500 lines OR countFiles({{content}}) > 5:
+          1. Shard content into domains or line-ranges (if single large file).
+          2. Launch parallel _bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml for each shard.
+          3. Perform Collision Check: detect overlapping line edits/file targets.
+          4. Resolve collisions via Integrator sub-agent if necessary.
+          5. Merge findings into consolidated fix list.
+        Else:
+          Execute _bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml with content={{content}}, also_consider={{target_feature}}
+      </action>
+      <action>
+        Execution Validation: On sub-task completion, verify state == 'SUCCESS'.
+        If sub-task failed/errored, log as 'ERROR' and do NOT update early exit pass counter.
+      </action>
+      <action>Force-select 'all' fixes when prompted by the sub-task.</action>
+      <action>Log findings and applied fixes for this iteration.</action>
+      <action>Update content variable with the newly fixed content for the next iteration.</action>
+      <action>
+        Early Exit Check: If findings count == 0 for 3 consecutive SUCCESSFUL iterations, terminate loop early.
+      </action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="3" title="Finalize and Report">
+      <action>Invoke _bmad/core/scripts/generate-loop-report.py with all iteration logs.</action>
+      <action>Output: "Iterative Adversarial Review Complete. {{loops}} cycles finished."</action>
+      <action>Open the generated HTML report.</action>
+    </step>
+  </flow>
+</task>

package/src/core/tasks/review-edge-case-hunter.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+<!-- if possible, run this in a separate subagent or process with read access to the project,
+  but no context except the content to review -->
+
+<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/review-edge-case-hunter.xml" name="Edge Case Hunter Review"
+  description="Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven.">
+  <objective>You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling.
+When a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff.
+When no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope.
+Ignore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.</objective>
+
+  <inputs>
+    <input name="content" desc="Content to review - diff, full file, or function" />
+    <input name="also_consider" required="false"
+      desc="Optional areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis" />
+  </inputs>
+
+  <output-format>Return ONLY a valid JSON array of objects. Each object must contain exactly these four fields and nothing else:
+{
+  "location": "file:line",
+  "trigger_condition": "one-line description (max 15 words)",
+  "guard_snippet": "minimal code sketch that closes the gap",
+  "potential_consequence": "what could actually go wrong (max 15 words)"
+}
+No extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping.</output-format>
+
+  <llm critical="true">
+    <i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
+    <i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
+    <i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
+    <i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
+
+    <i>Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition</i>
+    <i>Trace each branching path: conditionals, switches, early returns, guard clauses, loops, error handlers</i>
+    <i>Trace each boundary condition: null, undefined, empty, zero, negative, overflow, max-length, type coercion, concurrency, timing</i>
+    <i>Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently</i>
+    <i>Do NOT editorialize or add filler — findings only</i>
+  </llm>
+
+  <flow>
+    <step n="1" title="Receive Content">
+      <action>Load the content to review from provided input or context</action>
+      <action>If content to review is empty, ask for clarification and abort task</action>
+      <action>Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="2" title="Exhaustive Path Analysis" critical="true">
+      <mandate>Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope - report only unhandled ones</mandate>
+      <action>If also_consider input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis</action>
+      <action>Enumerate all branching paths and boundary conditions within scope: conditionals, switches, early returns, guard clauses, loops, error handlers, null/empty states, overflow, type edges, concurrency, timing</action>
+      <action>For each path: determine whether the content handles it</action>
+      <action>Collect only the unhandled paths as findings - discard handled ones silently</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="3" title="Present Findings">
+      <action>Output findings as a JSON array following the output-format specification exactly</action>
+    </step>
+  </flow>
+
+  <halt-conditions>
+    <condition>HALT if content is empty or unreadable</condition>
+  </halt-conditions>
+
+</task>

package/src/core/tasks/review-party-loop.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/review-party-loop.xml" name="Party Mode Review Loop"
+  description="Iteratively run multi-agent party mode discussions and automatically apply consensus fixes for N loops.">
+  <objective>Automate iterative collaborative refinement cycles with party mode orchestration and auto-fixing.</objective>
+
+  <inputs>
+    <input name="content" desc="Content to review" />
+    <input name="loops" desc="Number of iterations to run" default="1" />
+    <input name="target_feature" desc="Specific feature to target (optional)" default="general" />
+  </inputs>
+
+  <flow>
+    <step n="1" title="Initialize Loop">
+      <action>Log start of iterative party mode review for {{loops}} cycles.</action>
+      <action>Initialize loop counter and logs.</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="2" title="Iterative Cycle" loop="{{loops}}">
+      <action>
+        If sizeOf({{content}}) > 500 lines OR countFiles({{content}}) > 5:
+          1. Shard content into domains or line-ranges.
+          2. Launch parallel _bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md for each shard with focus="Targeted review: {{target_feature}}".
+          3. Perform Collision Check for consensus fixes across shards.
+          4. Merge consensus fixes into consolidated fix list.
+        Else:
+          Execute _bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md with focus="Review and find improvements for: {{content}} (Target: {{target_feature}})"
+      </action>
+      <action>
+        Execution Validation: Verify party mode session ended with 'SYNTHESIS' success.
+        If orchestrator failed, log 'ERROR' and reset early exit pass counter.
+      </action>
+      <action>Primary Agent (Facilitator) collects all agent recommendations.</action>
+      <action>Primary Agent automatically applies all consensus fixes to the content.</action>
+      <action>Log findings and applied fixes for this iteration.</action>
+      <action>Update content variable for the next iteration.</action>
+      <action>
+        Early Exit Check: If findings count == 0 for 3 consecutive SUCCESSFUL iterations, terminate loop early.
+      </action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="3" title="Finalize and Report">
+      <action>Invoke _bmad/core/scripts/generate-loop-report.py with all iteration logs.</action>
+      <action>Output: "Iterative Party Mode Review Complete. {{loops}} cycles finished."</action>
+      <action>Open the generated HTML report.</action>
+    </step>
+  </flow>
+</task>