@devo-bmad-custom/agent-orchestration 1.0.2 → 1.0.4

package/src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/steps/step-04-ux-alignment.md

@@ -1,93 +1,93 @@
----
-name: 'step-04-ux-alignment'
-description: 'Check for UX document and validate alignment with PRD and Architecture'
-
-nextStepFile: './step-05-epic-quality-review.md'
-outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
----
-
-# Step 4: UX Alignment
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-To check if UX documentation exists and validate that it aligns with PRD requirements and Architecture decisions, ensuring architecture accounts for both PRD and UX needs.
-
-## Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- Check for UX document existence first
-- Don't assume UX is not needed
-- Validate alignment between UX, PRD, and Architecture
-- Add findings to the output report
-
-## UX ALIGNMENT PROCESS:
-
-### 1. Initialize UX Validation
-
-"Beginning **UX Alignment** validation.
-
-I will:
-
-1. Check if UX documentation exists
-2. If UX exists: validate alignment with PRD and Architecture
-3. If no UX: determine if UX is implied and document warning"
-
-### 2. Search for UX Documentation
-
-Search patterns:
-
-- `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*.md` (whole document)
-- `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*/index.md` (sharded)
-- Look for UI-related terms in other documents
-
-### 3. If UX Document Exists
-
-#### A. UX ↔ PRD Alignment
-
-- Check UX requirements reflected in PRD
-- Verify user journeys in UX match PRD use cases
-- Identify UX requirements not in PRD
-
-#### B. UX ↔ Architecture Alignment
-
-- Verify architecture supports UX requirements
-- Check performance needs (responsiveness, load times)
-- Identify UI components not supported by architecture
-
-### 4. If No UX Document
-
-Assess if UX/UI is implied:
-
-- Does PRD mention user interface?
-- Are there web/mobile components implied?
-- Is this a user-facing application?
-
-If UX implied but missing: Add warning to report
-
-### 5. Add Findings to Report
-
-Append to {outputFile}:
-
-```markdown
-## UX Alignment Assessment
-
-### UX Document Status
-
-[Found/Not Found]
-
-### Alignment Issues
-
-[List any misalignments between UX, PRD, and Architecture]
-
-### Warnings
-
-[Any warnings about missing UX or architectural gaps]
-```
-
-### 6. Auto-Proceed to Next Step
-
-After UX assessment complete, immediately load next step.
-
-## PROCEEDING TO EPIC QUALITY REVIEW
-
-UX alignment assessment complete. Loading next step for epic quality review.
-
+---
+name: 'step-04-ux-alignment'
+description: 'Check for UX document and validate alignment with PRD and Architecture'
+
+nextStepFile: './step-05-epic-quality-review.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
+---
+
+# Step 4: UX Alignment
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+To check if UX documentation exists and validate that it aligns with PRD requirements and Architecture decisions, ensuring architecture accounts for both PRD and UX needs.
+
+## Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- Check for UX document existence first
+- Don't assume UX is not needed
+- Validate alignment between UX, PRD, and Architecture
+- Add findings to the output report
+
+## UX ALIGNMENT PROCESS:
+
+### 1. Initialize UX Validation
+
+"Beginning **UX Alignment** validation.
+
+I will:
+
+1. Check if UX documentation exists
+2. If UX exists: validate alignment with PRD and Architecture
+3. If no UX: determine if UX is implied and document warning"
+
+### 2. Search for UX Documentation
+
+Search patterns:
+
+- `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*.md` (whole document)
+- `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*/index.md` (sharded)
+- Look for UI-related terms in other documents
+
+### 3. If UX Document Exists
+
+#### A. UX ↔ PRD Alignment
+
+- Check UX requirements reflected in PRD
+- Verify user journeys in UX match PRD use cases
+- Identify UX requirements not in PRD
+
+#### B. UX ↔ Architecture Alignment
+
+- Verify architecture supports UX requirements
+- Check performance needs (responsiveness, load times)
+- Identify UI components not supported by architecture
+
+### 4. If No UX Document
+
+Assess if UX/UI is implied:
+
+- Does PRD mention user interface?
+- Are there web/mobile components implied?
+- Is this a user-facing application?
+
+If UX implied but missing: Add warning to report
+
+### 5. Add Findings to Report
+
+Append to {outputFile}:
+
+```markdown
+## UX Alignment Assessment
+
+### UX Document Status
+
+[Found/Not Found]
+
+### Alignment Issues
+
+[List any misalignments between UX, PRD, and Architecture]
+
+### Warnings
+
+[Any warnings about missing UX or architectural gaps]
+```
+
+### 6. Auto-Proceed to Next Step
+
+After UX assessment complete, immediately load next step.
+
+## PROCEEDING TO EPIC QUALITY REVIEW
+
+UX alignment assessment complete. Loading next step for epic quality review.
+

package/src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/steps/step-05-epic-quality-review.md

@@ -1,196 +1,196 @@
----
-name: 'step-05-epic-quality-review'
-description: 'Validate epics and stories against create-epics-and-stories best practices'
-
-nextStepFile: './step-06-final-assessment.md'
-outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
----
-
-# Step 5: Epic Quality Review
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-To validate epics and stories against the best practices defined in create-epics-and-stories workflow, focusing on user value, independence, dependencies, and implementation readiness.
-
-## Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- Apply create-epics-and-stories standards rigorously
-- Don't accept "technical milestones" as epics
-- Challenge every dependency on future work
-- Verify proper story sizing and structure
-
-## EPIC QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS:
-
-### 1. Initialize Best Practices Validation
-
-"Beginning **Epic Quality Review** against create-epics-and-stories standards.
-
-I will rigorously validate:
-
-- Epics deliver user value (not technical milestones)
-- Epic independence (Epic 2 doesn't need Epic 3)
-- Story dependencies (no forward references)
-- Proper story sizing and completeness
-
-Any deviation from best practices will be flagged as a defect."
-
-### 2. Epic Structure Validation
-
-#### A. User Value Focus Check
-
-For each epic:
-
-- **Epic Title:** Is it user-centric (what user can do)?
-- **Epic Goal:** Does it describe user outcome?
-- **Value Proposition:** Can users benefit from this epic alone?
-
-**Red flags (violations):**
-
-- "Setup Database" or "Create Models" - no user value
-- "API Development" - technical milestone
-- "Infrastructure Setup" - not user-facing
-- "Authentication System" - borderline (is it user value?)
-
-#### B. Epic Independence Validation
-
-Test epic independence:
-
-- **Epic 1:** Must stand alone completely
-- **Epic 2:** Can function using only Epic 1 output
-- **Epic 3:** Can function using Epic 1 & 2 outputs
-- **Rule:** Epic N cannot require Epic N+1 to work
-
-**Document failures:**
-
-- "Epic 2 requires Epic 3 features to function"
-- Stories in Epic 2 referencing Epic 3 components
-- Circular dependencies between epics
-
-### 3. Story Quality Assessment
-
-#### A. Story Sizing Validation
-
-Check each story:
-
-- **Clear User Value:** Does the story deliver something meaningful?
-- **Independent:** Can it be completed without future stories?
-
-**Common violations:**
-
-- "Setup all models" - not a USER story
-- "Create login UI (depends on Story 1.3)" - forward dependency
-
-#### B. Acceptance Criteria Review
-
-For each story's ACs:
-
-- **Given/When/Then Format:** Proper BDD structure?
-- **Testable:** Each AC can be verified independently?
-- **Complete:** Covers all scenarios including errors?
-- **Specific:** Clear expected outcomes?
-
-**Issues to find:**
-
-- Vague criteria like "user can login"
-- Missing error conditions
-- Incomplete happy path
-- Non-measurable outcomes
-
-### 4. Dependency Analysis
-
-#### A. Within-Epic Dependencies
-
-Map story dependencies within each epic:
-
-- Story 1.1 must be completable alone
-- Story 1.2 can use Story 1.1 output
-- Story 1.3 can use Story 1.1 & 1.2 outputs
-
-**Critical violations:**
-
-- "This story depends on Story 1.4"
-- "Wait for future story to work"
-- Stories referencing features not yet implemented
-
-#### B. Database/Entity Creation Timing
-
-Validate database creation approach:
-
-- **Wrong:** Epic 1 Story 1 creates all tables upfront
-- **Right:** Each story creates tables it needs
-- **Check:** Are tables created only when first needed?
-
-### 5. Special Implementation Checks
-
-#### A. Starter Template Requirement
-
-Check if Architecture specifies starter template:
-
-- If YES: Epic 1 Story 1 must be "Set up initial project from starter template"
-- Verify story includes cloning, dependencies, initial configuration
-
-#### B. Greenfield vs Brownfield Indicators
-
-Greenfield projects should have:
-
-- Initial project setup story
-- Development environment configuration
-- CI/CD pipeline setup early
-
-Brownfield projects should have:
-
-- Integration points with existing systems
-- Migration or compatibility stories
-
-### 6. Best Practices Compliance Checklist
-
-For each epic, verify:
-
-- [ ] Epic delivers user value
-- [ ] Epic can function independently
-- [ ] Stories appropriately sized
-- [ ] No forward dependencies
-- [ ] Database tables created when needed
-- [ ] Clear acceptance criteria
-- [ ] Traceability to FRs maintained
-
-### 7. Quality Assessment Documentation
-
-Document all findings by severity:
-
-#### 🔴 Critical Violations
-
-- Technical epics with no user value
-- Forward dependencies breaking independence
-- Epic-sized stories that cannot be completed
-
-#### 🟠 Major Issues
-
-- Vague acceptance criteria
-- Stories requiring future stories
-- Database creation violations
-
-#### 🟡 Minor Concerns
-
-- Formatting inconsistencies
-- Minor structure deviations
-- Documentation gaps
-
-### 8. Autonomous Review Execution
-
-This review runs autonomously to maintain standards:
-
-- Apply best practices without compromise
-- Document every violation with specific examples
-- Provide clear remediation guidance
-- Prepare recommendations for each issue
-
-## REVIEW COMPLETION:
-
-After completing epic quality review:
-
-- Update {outputFile} with all quality findings
-- Document specific best practices violations
-- Provide actionable recommendations
-- Load {nextStepFile} for final readiness assessment
-
+---
+name: 'step-05-epic-quality-review'
+description: 'Validate epics and stories against create-epics-and-stories best practices'
+
+nextStepFile: './step-06-final-assessment.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
+---
+
+# Step 5: Epic Quality Review
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+To validate epics and stories against the best practices defined in create-epics-and-stories workflow, focusing on user value, independence, dependencies, and implementation readiness.
+
+## Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- Apply create-epics-and-stories standards rigorously
+- Don't accept "technical milestones" as epics
+- Challenge every dependency on future work
+- Verify proper story sizing and structure
+
+## EPIC QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS:
+
+### 1. Initialize Best Practices Validation
+
+"Beginning **Epic Quality Review** against create-epics-and-stories standards.
+
+I will rigorously validate:
+
+- Epics deliver user value (not technical milestones)
+- Epic independence (Epic 2 doesn't need Epic 3)
+- Story dependencies (no forward references)
+- Proper story sizing and completeness
+
+Any deviation from best practices will be flagged as a defect."
+
+### 2. Epic Structure Validation
+
+#### A. User Value Focus Check
+
+For each epic:
+
+- **Epic Title:** Is it user-centric (what user can do)?
+- **Epic Goal:** Does it describe user outcome?
+- **Value Proposition:** Can users benefit from this epic alone?
+
+**Red flags (violations):**
+
+- "Setup Database" or "Create Models" - no user value
+- "API Development" - technical milestone
+- "Infrastructure Setup" - not user-facing
+- "Authentication System" - borderline (is it user value?)
+
+#### B. Epic Independence Validation
+
+Test epic independence:
+
+- **Epic 1:** Must stand alone completely
+- **Epic 2:** Can function using only Epic 1 output
+- **Epic 3:** Can function using Epic 1 & 2 outputs
+- **Rule:** Epic N cannot require Epic N+1 to work
+
+**Document failures:**
+
+- "Epic 2 requires Epic 3 features to function"
+- Stories in Epic 2 referencing Epic 3 components
+- Circular dependencies between epics
+
+### 3. Story Quality Assessment
+
+#### A. Story Sizing Validation
+
+Check each story:
+
+- **Clear User Value:** Does the story deliver something meaningful?
+- **Independent:** Can it be completed without future stories?
+
+**Common violations:**
+
+- "Setup all models" - not a USER story
+- "Create login UI (depends on Story 1.3)" - forward dependency
+
+#### B. Acceptance Criteria Review
+
+For each story's ACs:
+
+- **Given/When/Then Format:** Proper BDD structure?
+- **Testable:** Each AC can be verified independently?
+- **Complete:** Covers all scenarios including errors?
+- **Specific:** Clear expected outcomes?
+
+**Issues to find:**
+
+- Vague criteria like "user can login"
+- Missing error conditions
+- Incomplete happy path
+- Non-measurable outcomes
+
+### 4. Dependency Analysis
+
+#### A. Within-Epic Dependencies
+
+Map story dependencies within each epic:
+
+- Story 1.1 must be completable alone
+- Story 1.2 can use Story 1.1 output
+- Story 1.3 can use Story 1.1 & 1.2 outputs
+
+**Critical violations:**
+
+- "This story depends on Story 1.4"
+- "Wait for future story to work"
+- Stories referencing features not yet implemented
+
+#### B. Database/Entity Creation Timing
+
+Validate database creation approach:
+
+- **Wrong:** Epic 1 Story 1 creates all tables upfront
+- **Right:** Each story creates tables it needs
+- **Check:** Are tables created only when first needed?
+
+### 5. Special Implementation Checks
+
+#### A. Starter Template Requirement
+
+Check if Architecture specifies starter template:
+
+- If YES: Epic 1 Story 1 must be "Set up initial project from starter template"
+- Verify story includes cloning, dependencies, initial configuration
+
+#### B. Greenfield vs Brownfield Indicators
+
+Greenfield projects should have:
+
+- Initial project setup story
+- Development environment configuration
+- CI/CD pipeline setup early
+
+Brownfield projects should have:
+
+- Integration points with existing systems
+- Migration or compatibility stories
+
+### 6. Best Practices Compliance Checklist
+
+For each epic, verify:
+
+- [ ] Epic delivers user value
+- [ ] Epic can function independently
+- [ ] Stories appropriately sized
+- [ ] No forward dependencies
+- [ ] Database tables created when needed
+- [ ] Clear acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Traceability to FRs maintained
+
+### 7. Quality Assessment Documentation
+
+Document all findings by severity:
+
+#### 🔴 Critical Violations
+
+- Technical epics with no user value
+- Forward dependencies breaking independence
+- Epic-sized stories that cannot be completed
+
+#### 🟠 Major Issues
+
+- Vague acceptance criteria
+- Stories requiring future stories
+- Database creation violations
+
+#### 🟡 Minor Concerns
+
+- Formatting inconsistencies
+- Minor structure deviations
+- Documentation gaps
+
+### 8. Autonomous Review Execution
+
+This review runs autonomously to maintain standards:
+
+- Apply best practices without compromise
+- Document every violation with specific examples
+- Provide clear remediation guidance
+- Prepare recommendations for each issue
+
+## REVIEW COMPLETION:
+
+After completing epic quality review:
+
+- Update {outputFile} with all quality findings
+- Document specific best practices violations
+- Provide actionable recommendations
+- Load {nextStepFile} for final readiness assessment
+