npm - @pennyfarthing/core - Versions diffs - 9.2.0 → 9.3.0 - Mend

@pennyfarthing/core 9.2.0 → 9.3.0

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Files changed (1039) hide show

package/pennyfarthing-dist/workflows/implementation-readiness/steps/step-04-ux-alignment.md DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,162 +0,0 @@
----
-name: 'step-04-ux-alignment'
-description: 'Check for UX document and validate alignment with PRD and Architecture'
-# Path Definitions
-workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
-# File References
-thisStepFile: './step-04-ux-alignment.md'
-nextStepFile: './step-05-epic-quality-review.md'
-workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
-outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
----
-<purpose>
-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.
-</purpose>
-<instructions>
-1. Search for UX documentation (whole or sharded formats)
-2. If found: validate alignment between UX, PRD, and Architecture
-3. If not found: assess whether UX/UI is implied in the project
-4. Document any alignment issues or gaps
-5. Add warnings if UX is implied but missing
-6. Add findings to assessment report
-7. Auto-proceed to next step for epic quality review
-</instructions>
-<output>
-UX alignment assessment section containing:
-- UX document status (found/not found)
-- Alignment validation results between UX-PRD and UX-Architecture
-- List of any misalignments or gaps
-- Warnings about implied but missing UX documentation
-- Recommendations for addressing gaps
-</output>
-# 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.
-## 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 a UX VALIDATOR ensuring user experience is properly addressed
-- ✅ UX requirements must be supported by architecture
-- ✅ Missing UX documentation is a warning if UI is implied
-- ✅ Alignment gaps must be documented
-### 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
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-- 🎯 Search for UX documentation
-- 💾 If found, validate alignment
-- 📖 If not found, assess if UX is implied
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without completing assessment
-## 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.
----
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-- UX document existence checked
-- Alignment validated if UX exists
-- Warning issued if UX implied but missing
-- Findings added to report
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-- Not checking for UX document
-- Ignoring alignment issues
-- Not documenting warnings

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

@@ -1,280 +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'
----
-<purpose>
-To validate epics and stories against create-epics-and-stories best practices, focusing on user value, independence, dependencies, and implementation readiness.
-</purpose>
-<instructions>
-1. Systematically validate each epic and story against best practices
-2. Check epic user value (not technical milestones)
-3. Verify epic independence (no forward dependencies)
-4. Assess story sizing and completeness
-5. Validate acceptance criteria quality
-6. Check database/entity creation timing
-7. Document all best practices violations by severity
-8. Execute autonomously without user input
-9. Update output file with comprehensive quality findings
-10. Load next step after review completion
-</instructions>
-<output>
-Epic quality review section containing:
-- All epics validated against best practices
-- Categorized violations (critical, major, minor)
-- Specific examples for each violation found
-- Dependencies analysis and forward dependency issues
-- Story sizing and acceptance criteria assessment
-- Clear, actionable remediation guidance
-- Overall quality assessment
-</output>
-# 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 DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,158 +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'
----
-<purpose>
-To provide a comprehensive summary of all findings and give the report a final polish, ensuring clear recommendations and overall readiness status.
-</purpose>
-<instructions>
-1. Review all findings from previous steps in the output file
-2. Compile comprehensive summary of all issues across categories
-3. Determine overall readiness status (READY/NEEDS WORK/NOT READY)
-4. Add final assessment section with critical issues and recommendations
-5. Ensure all findings are clearly documented and actionable
-6. Add date and assessor information
-7. Save final report
-8. Present completion message with report location
-</instructions>
-<output>
-Final assessment section containing:
-- Overall readiness status determination
-- Summary of all critical issues requiring immediate action
-- Comprehensive list of recommended next steps
-- Count of issues across categories
-- Final report with all previous sections and findings
-- Assessment completion confirmation
-</output>
-# 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 DELETED Viewed

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

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

@@ -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]