@pennyfarthing/core 7.4.1 → 7.5.0

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/implementation-readiness/steps/step-05-epic-quality-review.md

@@ -1,252 +0,0 @@
----
-name: 'step-05-epic-quality-review'
-description: 'Validate epics and stories against create-epics-and-stories best practices'
-
-# Path Definitions
-workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
-
-# File References
-thisStepFile: './step-05-epic-quality-review.md'
-nextStepFile: './step-06-final-assessment.md'
-workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
-outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
-epicsBestPractices: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories'
----
-
-# 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.
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
-
-### Universal Rules:
-
-- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
-- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
-- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
-- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-
-### Role Reinforcement:
-
-- ✅ You are an EPIC QUALITY ENFORCER
-- ✅ You know what good epics look like - challenge anything deviating
-- ✅ Technical epics are wrong - find them
-- ✅ Forward dependencies are forbidden - catch them
-- ✅ Stories must be independently completable
-
-### 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
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Systematically validate each epic and story
-- 💾 Document all violations of best practices
-- 📖 Check every dependency relationship
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to accept structural problems
-
-## 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
-
-## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
-
-This step executes autonomously. Load {nextStepFile} only after complete epic quality review is documented.
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- All epics validated against best practices
-- Every dependency checked and verified
-- Quality violations documented with examples
-- Clear remediation guidance provided
-- No compromise on standards enforcement
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Accepting technical epics as valid
-- Ignoring forward dependencies
-- Not verifying story sizing
-- Overlooking obvious violations
-
-**Master Rule:** Enforce best practices rigorously. Find all violations.

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/implementation-readiness/steps/step-06-final-assessment.md

@@ -1,133 +0,0 @@
----
-name: 'step-06-final-assessment'
-description: 'Compile final assessment and polish the readiness report'
-
-# Path Definitions
-workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
-
-# File References
-thisStepFile: './step-06-final-assessment.md'
-workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
-outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
----
-
-# Step 6: Final Assessment
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-To provide a comprehensive summary of all findings and give the report a final polish, ensuring clear recommendations and overall readiness status.
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
-
-### Universal Rules:
-
-- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
-- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
-- 📖 You are at the final step - complete the assessment
-- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-
-### Role Reinforcement:
-
-- ✅ You are delivering the FINAL ASSESSMENT
-- ✅ Your findings are objective and backed by evidence
-- ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations
-- ✅ Success is measured by value of findings
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Compile and summarize all findings
-- 🚫 Don't soften the message - be direct
-- 💬 Provide specific examples for problems
-- 🚪 Add final section to the report
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Review all findings from previous steps
-- 💾 Add summary and recommendations
-- 📖 Determine overall readiness status
-- 🚫 Complete and present final report
-
-## FINAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS:
-
-### 1. Initialize Final Assessment
-
-"Completing **Final Assessment**.
-
-I will now:
-
-1. Review all findings from previous steps
-2. Provide a comprehensive summary
-3. Add specific recommendations
-4. Determine overall readiness status"
-
-### 2. Review Previous Findings
-
-Check the {outputFile} for sections added by previous steps:
-
-- File and FR Validation findings
-- UX Alignment issues
-- Epic Quality violations
-
-### 3. Add Final Assessment Section
-
-Append to {outputFile}:
-
-```markdown
-## Summary and Recommendations
-
-### Overall Readiness Status
-
-[READY/NEEDS WORK/NOT READY]
-
-### Critical Issues Requiring Immediate Action
-
-[List most critical issues that must be addressed]
-
-### Recommended Next Steps
-
-1. [Specific action item 1]
-2. [Specific action item 2]
-3. [Specific action item 3]
-
-### Final Note
-
-This assessment identified [X] issues across [Y] categories. Address the critical issues before proceeding to implementation. These findings can be used to improve the artifacts or you may choose to proceed as-is.
-```
-
-### 4. Complete the Report
-
-- Ensure all findings are clearly documented
-- Verify recommendations are actionable
-- Add date and assessor information
-- Save the final report
-
-### 5. Present Completion
-
-Display:
-"**Implementation Readiness Assessment Complete**
-
-Report generated: {outputFile}
-
-The assessment found [number] issues requiring attention. Review the detailed report for specific findings and recommendations."
-
-## WORKFLOW COMPLETE
-
-The implementation readiness workflow is now complete. The report contains all findings and recommendations for the user to consider.
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- All findings compiled and summarized
-- Clear recommendations provided
-- Readiness status determined
-- Final report saved
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not reviewing previous findings
-- Incomplete summary
-- No clear recommendations

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/implementation-readiness/templates/readiness-report-template.md

@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
-# Implementation Readiness Assessment Report
-
-**Date:** {{date}}
-**Project:** {{project_name}}

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/implementation-readiness/workflow.yaml

@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
-# BMAD Implementation Readiness Workflow - Imported for BMAD Compatibility
-#
-# This is a stepped workflow imported from BMAD that validates PRD, Architecture,
-# and Epics & Stories for completeness and alignment before implementation.
-# Uses an adversarial review approach to find gaps and issues.
-#
-# Purpose: Critical pre-implementation validation gate
-# Role: Expert PM and Scrum Master doing requirements traceability
-# Output: Implementation readiness assessment report
-#
-# Source: BMAD-METHOD/src/modules/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/
-# Migrated: 2026-01-21
-
-workflow:
-  name: implementation-readiness
-  description: |
-    BMAD reference workflow: Critical validation that assesses PRD, Architecture,
-    and Epics & Stories for completeness and alignment before Phase 4 implementation.
-    Uses adversarial review approach to find gaps and issues in planning artifacts.
-  version: "1.0.0"
-  type: stepped
-
-  # Step configuration
-  steps:
-    path: ./steps/
-    pattern: step-*.md
-
-  # Variables available in step files
-  variables:
-    project_root: .
-    planning_artifacts: ./artifacts
-    output_file: artifacts/implementation-readiness-report.md
-
-  # Agent assignment - PM/SM role for adversarial review
-  agent: sm
-
-  # Triggers - when to suggest this workflow
-  triggers:
-    types: [implementation-readiness, readiness-check, on_demand]
-    tags: [bmad, validation, assessment, pre-implementation]

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/prd/data/domain-complexity.csv

@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-domain,signals,complexity,key_concerns,required_knowledge,suggested_workflow,web_searches,special_sections
-healthcare,"medical,diagnostic,clinical,FDA,patient,treatment,HIPAA,therapy,pharma,drug",high,"FDA approval;Clinical validation;HIPAA compliance;Patient safety;Medical device classification;Liability","Regulatory pathways;Clinical trial design;Medical standards;Data privacy;Integration requirements","domain-research","FDA software medical device guidance {date};HIPAA compliance software requirements;Medical software standards {date};Clinical validation software","clinical_requirements;regulatory_pathway;validation_methodology;safety_measures"
-fintech,"payment,banking,trading,investment,crypto,wallet,transaction,KYC,AML,funds,fintech",high,"Regional compliance;Security standards;Audit requirements;Fraud prevention;Data protection","KYC/AML requirements;PCI DSS;Open banking;Regional laws (US/EU/APAC);Crypto regulations","domain-research","fintech regulations {date};payment processing compliance {date};open banking API standards;cryptocurrency regulations {date}","compliance_matrix;security_architecture;audit_requirements;fraud_prevention"
-govtech,"government,federal,civic,public sector,citizen,municipal,voting",high,"Procurement rules;Security clearance;Accessibility (508);FedRAMP;Privacy;Transparency","Government procurement;Security frameworks;Accessibility standards;Privacy laws;Open data requirements","domain-research","government software procurement {date};FedRAMP compliance requirements;section 508 accessibility;government security standards","procurement_compliance;security_clearance;accessibility_standards;transparency_requirements"
-edtech,"education,learning,student,teacher,curriculum,assessment,K-12,university,LMS",medium,"Student privacy (COPPA/FERPA);Accessibility;Content moderation;Age verification;Curriculum standards","Educational privacy laws;Learning standards;Accessibility requirements;Content guidelines;Assessment validity","domain-research","educational software privacy {date};COPPA FERPA compliance;WCAG education requirements;learning management standards","privacy_compliance;content_guidelines;accessibility_features;curriculum_alignment"
-aerospace,"aircraft,spacecraft,aviation,drone,satellite,propulsion,flight,radar,navigation",high,"Safety certification;DO-178C compliance;Performance validation;Simulation accuracy;Export controls","Aviation standards;Safety analysis;Simulation validation;ITAR/export controls;Performance requirements","domain-research + technical-model","DO-178C software certification;aerospace simulation standards {date};ITAR export controls software;aviation safety requirements","safety_certification;simulation_validation;performance_requirements;export_compliance"
-automotive,"vehicle,car,autonomous,ADAS,automotive,driving,EV,charging",high,"Safety standards;ISO 26262;V2X communication;Real-time requirements;Certification","Automotive standards;Functional safety;V2X protocols;Real-time systems;Testing requirements","domain-research","ISO 26262 automotive software;automotive safety standards {date};V2X communication protocols;EV charging standards","safety_standards;functional_safety;communication_protocols;certification_requirements"
-scientific,"research,algorithm,simulation,modeling,computational,analysis,data science,ML,AI",medium,"Reproducibility;Validation methodology;Peer review;Performance;Accuracy;Computational resources","Scientific method;Statistical validity;Computational requirements;Domain expertise;Publication standards","technical-model","scientific computing best practices {date};research reproducibility standards;computational modeling validation;peer review software","validation_methodology;accuracy_metrics;reproducibility_plan;computational_requirements"
-legaltech,"legal,law,contract,compliance,litigation,patent,attorney,court",high,"Legal ethics;Bar regulations;Data retention;Attorney-client privilege;Court system integration","Legal practice rules;Ethics requirements;Court filing systems;Document standards;Confidentiality","domain-research","legal technology ethics {date};law practice management software requirements;court filing system standards;attorney client privilege technology","ethics_compliance;data_retention;confidentiality_measures;court_integration"
-insuretech,"insurance,claims,underwriting,actuarial,policy,risk,premium",high,"Insurance regulations;Actuarial standards;Data privacy;Fraud detection;State compliance","Insurance regulations by state;Actuarial methods;Risk modeling;Claims processing;Regulatory reporting","domain-research","insurance software regulations {date};actuarial standards software;insurance fraud detection;state insurance compliance","regulatory_requirements;risk_modeling;fraud_detection;reporting_compliance"
-energy,"energy,utility,grid,solar,wind,power,electricity,oil,gas",high,"Grid compliance;NERC standards;Environmental regulations;Safety requirements;Real-time operations","Energy regulations;Grid standards;Environmental compliance;Safety protocols;SCADA systems","domain-research","energy sector software compliance {date};NERC CIP standards;smart grid requirements;renewable energy software standards","grid_compliance;safety_protocols;environmental_compliance;operational_requirements"
-gaming,"game,player,gameplay,level,character,multiplayer,quest",redirect,"REDIRECT TO GAME WORKFLOWS","Game design","game-brief","NA","NA"
-general,"",low,"Standard requirements;Basic security;User experience;Performance","General software practices","continue","software development best practices {date}","standard_requirements"

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/prd/data/prd-purpose.md

@@ -1,197 +0,0 @@
-# BMAD PRD Purpose
-
-**The PRD is the top of the required funnel that feeds all subsequent product development work in rhw BMad Method.**
-
----
-
-## What is a BMAD PRD?
-
-A dual-audience document serving:
-1. **Human Product Managers and builders** - Vision, strategy, stakeholder communication
-2. **LLM Downstream Consumption** - UX Design → Architecture → Epics → Development AI Agents
-
-Each successive document becomes more AI-tailored and granular.
-
----
-
-## Core Philosophy: Information Density
-
-**High Signal-to-Noise Ratio**
-
-Every sentence must carry information weight. LLMs consume precise, dense content efficiently.
-
-**Anti-Patterns (Eliminate These):**
-- ❌ "The system will allow users to..." → ✅ "Users can..."
-- ❌ "It is important to note that..." → ✅ State the fact directly
-- ❌ "In order to..." → ✅ "To..."
-- ❌ Conversational filler and padding → ✅ Direct, concise statements
-
-**Goal:** Maximum information per word. Zero fluff.
-
----
-
-## The Traceability Chain
-
-**PRD starts the chain:**
-```
-Vision → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements → (future: User Stories)
-```
-
-**In the PRD, establish:**
-- Vision → Success Criteria alignment
-- Success Criteria → User Journey coverage
-- User Journey → Functional Requirement mapping
-- All requirements traceable to user needs
-
-**Why:** Each downstream artifact (UX, Architecture, Epics, Stories) must trace back to documented user needs and business objectives. This chain ensures we build the right thing.
-
----
-
-## What Makes Great Functional Requirements?
-
-### FRs are Capabilities, Not Implementation
-
-**Good FR:** "Users can reset their password via email link"
-**Bad FR:** "System sends JWT via email and validates with database" (implementation leakage)
-
-**Good FR:** "Dashboard loads in under 2 seconds for 95th percentile"
-**Bad FR:** "Fast loading time" (subjective, unmeasurable)
-
-### SMART Quality Criteria
-
-**Specific:** Clear, precisely defined capability
-**Measurable:** Quantifiable with test criteria
-**Attainable:** Realistic within constraints
-**Relevant:** Aligns with business objectives
-**Traceable:** Links to source (executive summary or user journey)
-
-### FR Anti-Patterns
-
-**Subjective Adjectives:**
-- ❌ "easy to use", "intuitive", "user-friendly", "fast", "responsive"
-- ✅ Use metrics: "completes task in under 3 clicks", "loads in under 2 seconds"
-
-**Implementation Leakage:**
-- ❌ Technology names, specific libraries, implementation details
-- ✅ Focus on capability and measurable outcomes
-
-**Vague Quantifiers:**
-- ❌ "multiple users", "several options", "various formats"
-- ✅ "up to 100 concurrent users", "3-5 options", "PDF, DOCX, TXT formats"
-
-**Missing Test Criteria:**
-- ❌ "The system shall provide notifications"
-- ✅ "The system shall send email notifications within 30 seconds of trigger event"
-
----
-
-## What Makes Great Non-Functional Requirements?
-
-### NFRs Must Be Measurable
-
-**Template:**
-```
-"The system shall [metric] [condition] [measurement method]"
-```
-
-**Examples:**
-- ✅ "The system shall respond to API requests in under 200ms for 95th percentile as measured by APM monitoring"
-- ✅ "The system shall maintain 99.9% uptime during business hours as measured by cloud provider SLA"
-- ✅ "The system shall support 10,000 concurrent users as measured by load testing"
-
-### NFR Anti-Patterns
-
-**Unmeasurable Claims:**
-- ❌ "The system shall be scalable" → ✅ "The system shall handle 10x load growth through horizontal scaling"
-- ❌ "High availability required" → ✅ "99.9% uptime as measured by cloud provider SLA"
-
-**Missing Context:**
-- ❌ "Response time under 1 second" → ✅ "API response time under 1 second for 95th percentile under normal load"
-
----
-
-## Domain-Specific Requirements
-
-**Auto-Detect and Enforce Based on Project Context**
-
-Certain industries have mandatory requirements that must be present:
-
-- **Healthcare:** HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules, PHI encryption, audit logging, MFA
-- **Fintech:** PCI-DSS Level 1, AML/KYC compliance, SOX controls, financial audit trails
-- **GovTech:** NIST framework, Section 508 accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA), FedRAMP, data residency
-- **E-Commerce:** PCI-DSS for payments, inventory accuracy, tax calculation by jurisdiction
-
-**Why:** Missing these requirements in the PRD means they'll be missed in architecture and implementation, creating expensive rework. During PRD creation there is a step to cover this - during validation we want to make sure it was covered. For this purpose steps will utilize a domain-complexity.csv and project-types.csv.
-
----
-
-## Document Structure (Markdown, Human-Readable)
-
-### Required Sections
-1. **Executive Summary** - Vision, differentiator, target users
-2. **Success Criteria** - Measurable outcomes (SMART)
-3. **Product Scope** - MVP, Growth, Vision phases
-4. **User Journeys** - Comprehensive coverage
-5. **Domain Requirements** - Industry-specific compliance (if applicable)
-6. **Innovation Analysis** - Competitive differentiation (if applicable)
-7. **Project-Type Requirements** - Platform-specific needs
-8. **Functional Requirements** - Capability contract (FRs)
-9. **Non-Functional Requirements** - Quality attributes (NFRs)
-
-### Formatting for Dual Consumption
-
-**For Humans:**
-- Clear, professional language
-- Logical flow from vision to requirements
-- Easy for stakeholders to review and approve
-
-**For LLMs:**
-- ## Level 2 headers for all main sections (enables extraction)
-- Consistent structure and patterns
-- Precise, testable language
-- High information density
-
----
-
-## Downstream Impact
-
-**How the PRD Feeds Next Artifacts:**
-
-**UX Design:**
-- User journeys → interaction flows
-- FRs → design requirements
-- Success criteria → UX metrics
-
-**Architecture:**
-- FRs → system capabilities
-- NFRs → architecture decisions
-- Domain requirements → compliance architecture
-- Project-type requirements → platform choices
-
-**Epics & Stories (created after architecture):**
-- FRs → user stories (1 FR could map to 1-3 stories potentially)
-- Acceptance criteria → story acceptance tests
-- Priority → sprint sequencing
-- Traceability → stories map back to vision
-
-**Development AI Agents:**
-- Precise requirements → implementation clarity
-- Test criteria → automated test generation
-- Domain requirements → compliance enforcement
-- Measurable NFRs → performance targets
-
----
-
-## Summary: What Makes a Great BMAD PRD?
-
-✅ **High Information Density** - Every sentence carries weight, zero fluff
-✅ **Measurable Requirements** - All FRs and NFRs are testable with specific criteria
-✅ **Clear Traceability** - Each requirement links to user need and business objective
-✅ **Domain Awareness** - Industry-specific requirements auto-detected and included
-✅ **Zero Anti-Patterns** - No subjective adjectives, implementation leakage, or vague quantifiers
-✅ **Dual Audience Optimized** - Human-readable AND LLM-consumable
-✅ **Markdown Format** - Professional, clean, accessible to all stakeholders
-
----
-
-**Remember:** The PRD is the foundation. Quality here ripples through every subsequent phase. A dense, precise, well-traced PRD makes UX design, architecture, epic breakdown, and AI development dramatically more effective.

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/prd/data/project-types.csv

@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
-project_type,detection_signals,key_questions,required_sections,skip_sections,web_search_triggers,innovation_signals
-api_backend,"API,REST,GraphQL,backend,service,endpoints","Endpoints needed?;Authentication method?;Data formats?;Rate limits?;Versioning?;SDK needed?","endpoint_specs;auth_model;data_schemas;error_codes;rate_limits;api_docs","ux_ui;visual_design;user_journeys","framework best practices;OpenAPI standards","API composition;New protocol"
-mobile_app,"iOS,Android,app,mobile,iPhone,iPad","Native or cross-platform?;Offline needed?;Push notifications?;Device features?;Store compliance?","platform_reqs;device_permissions;offline_mode;push_strategy;store_compliance","desktop_features;cli_commands","app store guidelines;platform requirements","Gesture innovation;AR/VR features"
-saas_b2b,"SaaS,B2B,platform,dashboard,teams,enterprise","Multi-tenant?;Permission model?;Subscription tiers?;Integrations?;Compliance?","tenant_model;rbac_matrix;subscription_tiers;integration_list;compliance_reqs","cli_interface;mobile_first","compliance requirements;integration guides","Workflow automation;AI agents"
-developer_tool,"SDK,library,package,npm,pip,framework","Language support?;Package managers?;IDE integration?;Documentation?;Examples?","language_matrix;installation_methods;api_surface;code_examples;migration_guide","visual_design;store_compliance","package manager best practices;API design patterns","New paradigm;DSL creation"
-cli_tool,"CLI,command,terminal,bash,script","Interactive or scriptable?;Output formats?;Config method?;Shell completion?","command_structure;output_formats;config_schema;scripting_support","visual_design;ux_principles;touch_interactions","CLI design patterns;shell integration","Natural language CLI;AI commands"
-web_app,"website,webapp,browser,SPA,PWA","SPA or MPA?;Browser support?;SEO needed?;Real-time?;Accessibility?","browser_matrix;responsive_design;performance_targets;seo_strategy;accessibility_level","native_features;cli_commands","web standards;WCAG guidelines","New interaction;WebAssembly use"
-game,"game,player,gameplay,level,character","REDIRECT TO USE THE BMad Method Game Module Agent and Workflows - HALT","game-brief;GDD","most_sections","game design patterns","Novel mechanics;Genre mixing"
-desktop_app,"desktop,Windows,Mac,Linux,native","Cross-platform?;Auto-update?;System integration?;Offline?","platform_support;system_integration;update_strategy;offline_capabilities","web_seo;mobile_features","desktop guidelines;platform requirements","Desktop AI;System automation"
-iot_embedded,"IoT,embedded,device,sensor,hardware","Hardware specs?;Connectivity?;Power constraints?;Security?;OTA updates?","hardware_reqs;connectivity_protocol;power_profile;security_model;update_mechanism","visual_ui;browser_support","IoT standards;protocol specs","Edge AI;New sensors"
-blockchain_web3,"blockchain,crypto,DeFi,NFT,smart contract","Chain selection?;Wallet integration?;Gas optimization?;Security audit?","chain_specs;wallet_support;smart_contracts;security_audit;gas_optimization","traditional_auth;centralized_db","blockchain standards;security patterns","Novel tokenomics;DAO structure"