@pennyfarthing/core 7.4.1 → 7.5.0

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/brainstorming/workflow.yaml

@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
-# BMAD Brainstorming Workflow - Imported for BMAD Compatibility
-#
-# This is a reference workflow imported from BMAD for compatibility with
-# BMAD-based projects. It provides structured creative ideation sessions
-# with 62 brainstorming techniques across 10 categories.
-#
-# Key features:
-# - Single-agent facilitation (PM or dedicated facilitator)
-# - Four technique selection modes (user-selected, AI-recommended, random, progressive)
-# - 62 brainstorming techniques from brain-methods.csv
-# - Anti-bias protocol (semantic domain shifting every 10 ideas)
-# - Quantity goal: 100+ ideas before organization
-# - Session continuation support via frontmatter state
-#
-# For Pennyfarthing projects, the /brainstorming command provides a simpler
-# brainstorming experience without the full BMAD ceremony format.
-#
-# Source: BMAD-METHOD/src/core/workflows/brainstorming/
-# Migrated: 2026-01-22
-
-workflow:
-  name: brainstorming
-  description: |
-    BMAD reference workflow: Facilitate interactive brainstorming sessions using
-    diverse creative techniques and ideation methods. Supports 62 techniques across
-    10 categories with four selection modes. This is imported for BMAD compatibility.
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  type: procedural
-  author: BMad
-
-  # Primary agent for this workflow
-  agent: pm
-
-  # Instructions and validation files
-  instructions: ./instructions.md
-  checklist: ./checklist.md
-
-  # Variables available in instruction files
-  variables:
-    project_root: .
-    config_source: "./_bmad/core/config.yaml"
-    output_folder: ./artifacts
-    techniques_csv: ./brain-methods.csv
-    default_output_file: "{output_folder}/analysis/brainstorming-session-{date}.md"
-
-  # Triggers - when to suggest this workflow
-  triggers:
-    types: [brainstorm, bmad-brainstorm, ideation, creative-session]
-    tags: [bmad, reference, procedural, brainstorming, creativity]

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/code-review/checklist.md

@@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
-# Senior Developer Review - Validation Checklist
-
-- [ ] Story file loaded from `{{story_path}}`
-- [ ] Story Status verified as reviewable (review)
-- [ ] Epic and Story IDs resolved ({{epic_num}}.{{story_num}})
-- [ ] Story Context located or warning recorded
-- [ ] Epic Tech Spec located or warning recorded
-- [ ] Architecture/standards docs loaded (as available)
-- [ ] Tech stack detected and documented
-- [ ] MCP doc search performed (or web fallback) and references captured
-- [ ] Acceptance Criteria cross-checked against implementation
-- [ ] File List reviewed and validated for completeness
-- [ ] Tests identified and mapped to ACs; gaps noted
-- [ ] Code quality review performed on changed files
-- [ ] Security review performed on changed files and dependencies
-- [ ] Outcome decided (Approve/Changes Requested/Blocked)
-- [ ] Review notes appended under "Senior Developer Review (AI)"
-- [ ] Change Log updated with review entry
-- [ ] Status updated according to settings (if enabled)
-- [ ] Sprint status synced (if sprint tracking enabled)
-- [ ] Story saved successfully
-
-_Reviewer: {{user_name}} on {{date}}_

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/code-review/instructions.md

@@ -1,234 +0,0 @@
-# BMAD Code Review Workflow Instructions
-
-This file contains the 5-step adversarial code review workflow imported from BMAD.
-The XML structure is preserved for BMAD compatibility.
-
-```xml
-<workflow>
-  <critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
-  <critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
-  <critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {user_skill_level}</critical>
-  <critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
-
-  <critical>YOU ARE AN ADVERSARIAL CODE REVIEWER - Find what's wrong or missing!</critical>
-  <critical>Your purpose: Validate story file claims against actual implementation</critical>
-  <critical>Challenge everything: Are tasks marked [x] actually done? Are ACs really implemented?</critical>
-  <critical>Find 3-10 specific issues in every review minimum - no lazy "looks good" reviews - YOU are so much better than the dev agent
-    that wrote this slop</critical>
-  <critical>Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation against story requirements</critical>
-  <critical>Tasks marked complete but not done = CRITICAL finding</critical>
-  <critical>Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity finding</critical>
-  <critical>Do not review files that are not part of the application's source code. Always exclude the _bmad/ and _bmad-output/ folders from the review. Always exclude IDE and CLI configuration folders like .cursor/ and .windsurf/ and .claude/</critical>
-
-
-  <step n="1" goal="Load story and discover changes">
-    <action>Use provided {{story_path}} or ask user which story file to review</action>
-    <action>Read COMPLETE story file</action>
-    <action>Set {{story_key}} = extracted key from filename (e.g., "1-2-user-authentication.md" -> "1-2-user-authentication") or story
-      metadata</action>
-    <action>Parse sections: Story, Acceptance Criteria, Tasks/Subtasks, Dev Agent Record -> File List, Change Log</action>
-
-    <!-- Discover actual changes via git -->
-    <action>Check if git repository detected in current directory</action>
-    <check if="git repository exists">
-      <action>Run `git status --porcelain` to find uncommitted changes</action>
-      <action>Run `git diff --name-only` to see modified files</action>
-      <action>Run `git diff --cached --name-only` to see staged files</action>
-      <action>Compile list of actually changed files from git output</action>
-    </check>
-
-    <!-- Cross-reference story File List vs git reality -->
-    <action>Compare story's Dev Agent Record -> File List with actual git changes</action>
-    <action>Note discrepancies:
-      - Files in git but not in story File List
-      - Files in story File List but no git changes
-      - Missing documentation of what was actually changed
-    </action>
-
-    <invoke-protocol name="discover_inputs" />
-    <action>Load {project_context} for coding standards (if exists)</action>
-  </step>
-
-  <step n="2" goal="Build review attack plan">
-    <action>Extract ALL Acceptance Criteria from story</action>
-    <action>Extract ALL Tasks/Subtasks with completion status ([x] vs [ ])</action>
-    <action>From Dev Agent Record -> File List, compile list of claimed changes</action>
-
-    <action>Create review plan:
-      1. **AC Validation**: Verify each AC is actually implemented
-      2. **Task Audit**: Verify each [x] task is really done
-      3. **Code Quality**: Security, performance, maintainability
-      4. **Test Quality**: Real tests vs placeholder bullshit
-    </action>
-  </step>
-
-  <step n="3" goal="Execute adversarial review">
-    <critical>VALIDATE EVERY CLAIM - Check git reality vs story claims</critical>
-
-    <!-- Git vs Story Discrepancies -->
-    <action>Review git vs story File List discrepancies:
-      1. **Files changed but not in story File List** -> MEDIUM finding (incomplete documentation)
-      2. **Story lists files but no git changes** -> HIGH finding (false claims)
-      3. **Uncommitted changes not documented** -> MEDIUM finding (transparency issue)
-    </action>
-
-    <!-- Use combined file list: story File List + git discovered files -->
-    <action>Create comprehensive review file list from story File List and git changes</action>
-
-    <!-- AC Validation -->
-    <action>For EACH Acceptance Criterion:
-      1. Read the AC requirement
-      2. Search implementation files for evidence
-      3. Determine: IMPLEMENTED, PARTIAL, or MISSING
-      4. If MISSING/PARTIAL -> HIGH SEVERITY finding
-    </action>
-
-    <!-- Task Completion Audit -->
-    <action>For EACH task marked [x]:
-      1. Read the task description
-      2. Search files for evidence it was actually done
-      3. **CRITICAL**: If marked [x] but NOT DONE -> CRITICAL finding
-      4. Record specific proof (file:line)
-    </action>
-
-    <!-- Code Quality Deep Dive -->
-    <action>For EACH file in comprehensive review list:
-      1. **Security**: Look for injection risks, missing validation, auth issues
-      2. **Performance**: N+1 queries, inefficient loops, missing caching
-      3. **Error Handling**: Missing try/catch, poor error messages
-      4. **Code Quality**: Complex functions, magic numbers, poor naming
-      5. **Test Quality**: Are tests real assertions or placeholders?
-    </action>
-
-    <check if="total_issues_found lt 3">
-      <critical>NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH - Find more problems!</critical>
-      <action>Re-examine code for:
-        - Edge cases and null handling
-        - Architecture violations
-        - Documentation gaps
-        - Integration issues
-        - Dependency problems
-        - Git commit message quality (if applicable)
-      </action>
-      <action>Find at least 3 more specific, actionable issues</action>
-    </check>
-  </step>
-
-  <step n="4" goal="Present findings and fix them">
-    <action>Categorize findings: HIGH (must fix), MEDIUM (should fix), LOW (nice to fix)</action>
-    <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = 0</action>
-    <action>Set {{action_count}} = 0</action>
-
-    <output>**CODE REVIEW FINDINGS, {user_name}!**
-
-      **Story:** {{story_file}}
-      **Git vs Story Discrepancies:** {{git_discrepancy_count}} found
-      **Issues Found:** {{high_count}} High, {{medium_count}} Medium, {{low_count}} Low
-
-      ## CRITICAL ISSUES
-      - Tasks marked [x] but not actually implemented
-      - Acceptance Criteria not implemented
-      - Story claims files changed but no git evidence
-      - Security vulnerabilities
-
-      ## MEDIUM ISSUES
-      - Files changed but not documented in story File List
-      - Uncommitted changes not tracked
-      - Performance problems
-      - Poor test coverage/quality
-      - Code maintainability issues
-
-      ## LOW ISSUES
-      - Code style improvements
-      - Documentation gaps
-      - Git commit message quality
-    </output>
-
-    <ask>What should I do with these issues?
-
-      1. **Fix them automatically** - I'll update the code and tests
-      2. **Create action items** - Add to story Tasks/Subtasks for later
-      3. **Show me details** - Deep dive into specific issues
-
-      Choose [1], [2], or specify which issue to examine:</ask>
-
-    <check if="user chooses 1">
-      <action>Fix all HIGH and MEDIUM issues in the code</action>
-      <action>Add/update tests as needed</action>
-      <action>Update File List in story if files changed</action>
-      <action>Update story Dev Agent Record with fixes applied</action>
-      <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = number of HIGH and MEDIUM issues fixed</action>
-      <action>Set {{action_count}} = 0</action>
-    </check>
-
-    <check if="user chooses 2">
-      <action>Add "Review Follow-ups (AI)" subsection to Tasks/Subtasks</action>
-      <action>For each issue: `- [ ] [AI-Review][Severity] Description [file:line]`</action>
-      <action>Set {{action_count}} = number of action items created</action>
-      <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = 0</action>
-    </check>
-
-    <check if="user chooses 3">
-      <action>Show detailed explanation with code examples</action>
-      <action>Return to fix decision</action>
-    </check>
-  </step>
-
-  <step n="5" goal="Update story status and sync sprint tracking">
-    <!-- Determine new status based on review outcome -->
-    <check if="all HIGH and MEDIUM issues fixed AND all ACs implemented">
-      <action>Set {{new_status}} = "done"</action>
-      <action>Update story Status field to "done"</action>
-    </check>
-    <check if="HIGH or MEDIUM issues remain OR ACs not fully implemented">
-      <action>Set {{new_status}} = "in-progress"</action>
-      <action>Update story Status field to "in-progress"</action>
-    </check>
-    <action>Save story file</action>
-
-    <!-- Determine sprint tracking status -->
-    <check if="{sprint_status} file exists">
-      <action>Set {{current_sprint_status}} = "enabled"</action>
-    </check>
-    <check if="{sprint_status} file does NOT exist">
-      <action>Set {{current_sprint_status}} = "no-sprint-tracking"</action>
-    </check>
-
-    <!-- Sync sprint-status.yaml when story status changes (only if sprint tracking enabled) -->
-    <check if="{{current_sprint_status}} != 'no-sprint-tracking'">
-      <action>Load the FULL file: {sprint_status}</action>
-      <action>Find development_status key matching {{story_key}}</action>
-
-      <check if="{{new_status}} == 'done'">
-        <action>Update development_status[{{story_key}}] = "done"</action>
-        <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure</action>
-        <output>Sprint status synced: {{story_key}} -> done</output>
-      </check>
-
-      <check if="{{new_status}} == 'in-progress'">
-        <action>Update development_status[{{story_key}}] = "in-progress"</action>
-        <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure</action>
-        <output>Sprint status synced: {{story_key}} -> in-progress</output>
-      </check>
-
-      <check if="story key not found in sprint status">
-        <output>Story file updated, but sprint-status sync failed: {{story_key}} not found in sprint-status.yaml</output>
-      </check>
-    </check>
-
-    <check if="{{current_sprint_status}} == 'no-sprint-tracking'">
-      <output>Story status updated (no sprint tracking configured)</output>
-    </check>
-
-    <output>**Review Complete!**
-
-      **Story Status:** {{new_status}}
-      **Issues Fixed:** {{fixed_count}}
-      **Action Items Created:** {{action_count}}
-
-      {{#if new_status == "done"}}Code review complete!{{else}}Address the action items and continue development.{{/if}}
-    </output>
-  </step>
-
-</workflow>
-```

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/code-review/workflow.yaml

@@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
-# BMAD Code Review Workflow - Imported for BMAD Compatibility
-#
-# This is a reference workflow imported from BMAD for compatibility with
-# BMAD-based projects. It provides adversarial code review with mandatory
-# issue discovery (3-10 specific issues minimum per review).
-#
-# Key features:
-# - Adversarial mindset: Find problems, never "looks good"
-# - Git-Story cross-reference: Compare story claims vs actual git changes
-# - AC validation: Verify each Acceptance Criterion is implemented
-# - Task audit: Verify marked-complete tasks are really done
-# - Auto-fix option: Can fix HIGH/MEDIUM issues or create action items
-# - Sprint sync: Updates sprint-status.yaml after review
-#
-# For Pennyfarthing projects, the Reviewer agent and /code-review skill provide
-# native code review without the full BMAD ceremony format.
-#
-# Source: BMAD-METHOD/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/
-# Migrated: 2026-01-22
-
-workflow:
-  name: code-review
-  description: |
-    BMAD reference workflow: Perform an ADVERSARIAL Senior Developer code review
-    that finds 3-10 specific problems in every story. Challenges everything: code
-    quality, test coverage, architecture compliance, security, performance. NEVER
-    accepts "looks good" - must find minimum issues and can auto-fix with user approval.
-    This is imported for BMAD compatibility.
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  type: procedural
-  author: BMad
-
-  # Primary agent for this workflow
-  agent: reviewer
-
-  # Instructions and validation files
-  instructions: ./instructions.md
-  checklist: ./checklist.md
-
-  # Variables available in instruction files
-  variables:
-    project_root: .
-    config_source: "./_bmad/core/config.yaml"
-    output_folder: ./artifacts
-    sprint_status: "{output_folder}/sprint-status.yaml"
-    project_context: "**/project-context.md"
-
-  # Triggers - when to suggest this workflow
-  triggers:
-    types: [code-review, bmad-review, adversarial-review, senior-review]
-    tags: [bmad, reference, procedural, code-review, quality]

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/dev-story/checklist.md

@@ -1,80 +0,0 @@
----
-title: 'Enhanced Dev Story Definition of Done Checklist'
-validation-target: 'Story markdown ({{story_path}})'
-validation-criticality: 'HIGHEST'
-required-inputs:
-  - 'Story markdown file with enhanced Dev Notes containing comprehensive implementation context'
-  - 'Completed Tasks/Subtasks section with all items marked [x]'
-  - 'Updated File List section with all changed files'
-  - 'Updated Dev Agent Record with implementation notes'
-optional-inputs:
-  - 'Test results output'
-  - 'CI logs'
-  - 'Linting reports'
-validation-rules:
-  - 'Only permitted story sections modified: Tasks/Subtasks checkboxes, Dev Agent Record, File List, Change Log, Status'
-  - 'All implementation requirements from story Dev Notes must be satisfied'
-  - 'Definition of Done checklist must pass completely'
-  - 'Enhanced story context must contain sufficient technical guidance'
----
-
-# Enhanced Definition of Done Checklist
-
-**Critical validation:** Story is truly ready for review only when ALL items below are satisfied
-
-## Context & Requirements Validation
-
-- [ ] **Story Context Completeness:** Dev Notes contains ALL necessary technical requirements, architecture patterns, and implementation guidance
-- [ ] **Architecture Compliance:** Implementation follows all architectural requirements specified in Dev Notes
-- [ ] **Technical Specifications:** All technical specifications (libraries, frameworks, versions) from Dev Notes are implemented correctly
-- [ ] **Previous Story Learnings:** Previous story insights incorporated (if applicable) and build upon appropriately
-
-## Implementation Completion
-
-- [ ] **All Tasks Complete:** Every task and subtask marked complete with [x]
-- [ ] **Acceptance Criteria Satisfaction:** Implementation satisfies EVERY Acceptance Criterion in the story
-- [ ] **No Ambiguous Implementation:** Clear, unambiguous implementation that meets story requirements
-- [ ] **Edge Cases Handled:** Error conditions and edge cases appropriately addressed
-- [ ] **Dependencies Within Scope:** Only uses dependencies specified in story or project-context.md
-
-## Testing & Quality Assurance
-
-- [ ] **Unit Tests:** Unit tests added/updated for ALL core functionality introduced/changed by this story
-- [ ] **Integration Tests:** Integration tests added/updated for component interactions when story requirements demand them
-- [ ] **End-to-End Tests:** End-to-end tests created for critical user flows when story requirements specify them
-- [ ] **Test Coverage:** Tests cover acceptance criteria and edge cases from story Dev Notes
-- [ ] **Regression Prevention:** ALL existing tests pass (no regressions introduced)
-- [ ] **Code Quality:** Linting and static checks pass when configured in project
-- [ ] **Test Framework Compliance:** Tests use project's testing frameworks and patterns from Dev Notes
-
-## Documentation & Tracking
-
-- [ ] **File List Complete:** File List includes EVERY new, modified, or deleted file (paths relative to repo root)
-- [ ] **Dev Agent Record Updated:** Contains relevant Implementation Notes and/or Debug Log for this work
-- [ ] **Change Log Updated:** Change Log includes clear summary of what changed and why
-- [ ] **Review Follow-ups:** All review follow-up tasks (marked [AI-Review]) completed and corresponding review items marked resolved (if applicable)
-- [ ] **Story Structure Compliance:** Only permitted sections of story file were modified
-
-## Final Status Verification
-
-- [ ] **Story Status Updated:** Story Status set to "review"
-- [ ] **Sprint Status Updated:** Sprint status updated to "review" (when sprint tracking is used)
-- [ ] **Quality Gates Passed:** All quality checks and validations completed successfully
-- [ ] **No HALT Conditions:** No blocking issues or incomplete work remaining
-- [ ] **User Communication Ready:** Implementation summary prepared for user review
-
-## Final Validation Output
-
-```
-Definition of Done: {{PASS/FAIL}}
-
-Story Ready for Review: {{story_key}}
-Completion Score: {{completed_items}}/{{total_items}} items passed
-Quality Gates: {{quality_gates_status}}
-Test Results: {{test_results_summary}}
-Documentation: {{documentation_status}}
-```
-
-**If FAIL:** List specific failures and required actions before story can be marked Ready for Review
-
-**If PASS:** Story is fully ready for code review and production consideration