@sugar-crash-studios/vibe-forge 0.4.0

package/tasks/completed/review-bmad-ember.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+id: review-bmad-ember
+title: "BMAD vs Vibe Forge: DevOps & Infrastructure Review"
+type: review
+priority: high
+status: completed
+assigned_to: ember
+blocked_by: []
+depends_on: []
+created: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+updated: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+estimated_complexity: medium
+epic: BMAD-REVIEW
+---
+
+# Context
+
+## Background
+We are doing a comprehensive comparison of Vibe Forge (this framework) against BMAD-METHOD (https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD) to identify gaps and improvements to bring into Vibe Forge.
+
+You are Ember - the DevOps/infrastructure specialist. Your job is to review BOTH frameworks through the lens of: CI/CD integration, deployment tooling, infrastructure-as-code support, automation quality, and how well each framework handles operational concerns.
+
+## Your Review Focus
+1. **CI/CD** - What GitHub Actions / CI workflows does Vibe Forge provide vs BMAD? What's missing?
+2. **Daemon architecture** - Review /bin/forge-daemon.sh in depth. How robust is it? What does BMAD's equivalent look like?
+3. **Cross-platform support** - How well does each framework handle Windows/Mac/Linux? What breaks?
+4. **Automation quality** - Review the forge shell scripts for robustness, error handling, idempotency.
+5. **Monitoring** - Does BMAD provide better monitoring/observability into agent activity?
+6. **Container support** - Does BMAD have Docker/container integration? Should Vibe Forge?
+7. **Environment management** - How does each framework handle different environments (dev/staging/prod)?
+8. **Release automation** - Compare Herald's capabilities to BMAD's release tooling.
+
+## Files to Read
+- /agents/ember/personality.md (your own definition)
+- /agents/herald/personality.md
+- /bin/forge-daemon.sh
+- /bin/forge.sh
+- /bin/forge-setup.sh
+- /.github/workflows/ (existing CI config)
+- /bin/lib/ (all lib scripts)
+- Then fetch and read BMAD: https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD
+
+---
+
+# Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Read all relevant scripts and CI configs
+- [ ] Fetch and review BMAD repo
+- [ ] Identify daemon/orchestration improvements
+- [ ] Assess CI/CD gaps
+- [ ] Write findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-ember.md
+
+---
+
+# Agent Instructions
+
+Ember: Infrastructure-first. Automate everything repeatable. Look at what Vibe Forge's operational story is vs BMAD's. What would break in production? What needs monitoring? What can't be repeated reliably?
+
+**Boundaries:**
+- DO read: all scripts, CI configs, BMAD repo (via web fetch)
+- DO write: tasks/review/bmad-review-ember.md
+- DO NOT modify: any framework files
+
+**On Completion:**
+1. Write your findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-ember.md
+2. Move this file to /tasks/completed/
+
+---
+
+# Output Expected
+
+- [ ] tasks/review/bmad-review-ember.md created with findings
+- [ ] Daemon robustness assessment
+- [ ] CI/CD and automation gap analysis
+
+---
+
+# Completion Summary
+```yaml
+completed_by: ember
+completed_at: 2026-03-31T00:00:00Z
+files_created:
+  - tasks/review/bmad-review-ember.md
+notes: >
+  Reviewed forge-daemon.sh, forge.sh, forge-setup.sh, all CI workflows,
+  bin/lib/constants.sh, bin/lib/database.sh. Fetched BMAD-METHOD v6.2.2.
+  Identified 13 actionable gaps across CI/CD, daemon robustness, and
+  cross-platform support. P1 items include macOS date bug, Windows stat bug,
+  dead status_history wiring, and missing .nvmrc.
+```

package/tasks/completed/review-bmad-furnace.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+id: review-bmad-furnace
+title: "BMAD vs Vibe Forge: Backend/Infrastructure Review"
+type: review
+priority: high
+status: pending
+assigned_to: furnace
+blocked_by: []
+depends_on: []
+created: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+updated: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+estimated_complexity: medium
+epic: BMAD-REVIEW
+---
+
+# Context
+
+## Background
+We are doing a comprehensive comparison of Vibe Forge (this framework) against BMAD-METHOD (https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD) to identify gaps and improvements to bring into Vibe Forge.
+
+You are Furnace - the backend dev. Your job is to review BOTH frameworks through the lens of: backend agent capabilities, API/service project support, data flow, task system internals, and how well each framework supports backend-heavy projects.
+
+## Your Review Focus
+1. **Backend agent** - Compare your own personality/capabilities vs BMAD's equivalent. What does BMAD's backend agent do that yours doesn't?
+2. **Task data model** - How does Vibe Forge's task format (config/task-template.md) compare to BMAD's? What metadata is missing? What's better?
+3. **API/service project scaffolding** - Does BMAD provide better templates or patterns for backend projects?
+4. **Data flow between agents** - How does each framework handle agent-to-agent data passing? What's more robust?
+5. **Error handling patterns** - Does BMAD have opinions on how agents should handle failures, blockers, and edge cases?
+6. **Daemon/orchestration** - Compare Vibe Forge's daemon (bin/forge-daemon.sh) to BMAD's equivalent orchestration. What's missing?
+
+## Files to Read
+- /agents/furnace/personality.md (your own definition)
+- /bin/forge-daemon.sh (orchestration daemon)
+- /config/task-template.md and task-types.yaml
+- /bin/lib/ (all lib scripts)
+- Then fetch and read BMAD: https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD
+
+---
+
+# Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Read your own personality file and BMAD's equivalent agent
+- [ ] Fetch and review the BMAD repo
+- [ ] Identify 3-5 specific improvements to the task system or backend agent
+- [ ] Evaluate the daemon/orchestration gap
+- [ ] Write findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-furnace.md
+
+---
+
+# Agent Instructions
+
+Furnace: Think in data flows, error states, and system contracts. Be specific about what's broken or missing vs what just needs improvement. Reference actual files.
+
+**Boundaries:**
+- DO read: all agent files, daemon scripts, task templates, BMAD repo (via web fetch)
+- DO write: tasks/review/bmad-review-furnace.md
+- DO NOT modify: any framework files
+
+**On Completion:**
+1. Write your findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-furnace.md
+2. Move this file to /tasks/completed/
+
+---
+
+# Output Expected
+
+- [ ] tasks/review/bmad-review-furnace.md created with findings
+- [ ] Task system gap analysis
+- [ ] Daemon/orchestration improvement recommendations
+
+---
+
+# Completion Summary
+```yaml
+completed_by: null
+completed_at: null
+files_created: []
+notes: ""
+```

package/tasks/completed/review-bmad-pixel.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+id: review-bmad-pixel
+title: "BMAD vs Vibe Forge: UX & User Experience Review"
+type: review
+priority: high
+status: completed
+assigned_to: pixel
+blocked_by: []
+depends_on: []
+created: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+updated: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+estimated_complexity: medium
+epic: BMAD-REVIEW
+---
+
+# Context
+
+## Background
+We are doing a comprehensive comparison of Vibe Forge (this framework) against BMAD-METHOD (https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD) to identify gaps and improvements to bring into Vibe Forge.
+
+You are Pixel - the UX specialist. Your job is to review BOTH frameworks through the lens of: developer experience, user flows, clarity of mental models, how intuitive each framework is to use, and how well each framework supports UX-focused projects.
+
+## Your Review Focus
+1. **Developer experience (DX)** - How does it feel to use each framework day-to-day? What friction exists?
+2. **Mental model clarity** - Do the agent names, roles, and interactions make intuitive sense? Which framework's mental model is easier to grasp?
+3. **Command design** - Compare the CLI UX of both frameworks. What's more intuitive?
+4. **Dashboard UX** - How well does Vibe Forge's dashboard serve users? What does BMAD provide for visibility?
+5. **Onboarding flow** - Which framework gets you productive faster without confusion?
+6. **Error messages and feedback** - How well does each framework communicate state, errors, and progress to the developer?
+7. **Agent personality UX** - Do the agent personalities in each framework create a pleasant working experience?
+8. **UX project support** - Does BMAD have better support for UX/design work than Vibe Forge?
+
+## Files to Read
+- /agents/pixel/personality.md (your own definition)
+- /agents/planning-hub/personality.md (hub interaction design)
+- /bin/dashboard/ (current dashboard)
+- /README.md
+- Then fetch and read BMAD: https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD
+
+---
+
+# Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Read your own personality and the hub personality
+- [ ] Fetch and review BMAD repo
+- [ ] Map out the user flow for both frameworks
+- [ ] Identify top UX friction points in Vibe Forge
+- [ ] Write findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-pixel.md
+
+---
+
+# Agent Instructions
+
+Pixel: Think like the developer using the framework, not the developer building it. Every click, command, and interaction is a UX decision. Where does each framework confuse or delight?
+
+**Boundaries:**
+- DO read: all agent files, dashboard, README, BMAD repo (via web fetch)
+- DO write: tasks/review/bmad-review-pixel.md
+- DO NOT modify: any framework files
+
+**On Completion:**
+1. Write your findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-pixel.md
+2. Move this file to /tasks/completed/
+
+---
+
+# Output Expected
+
+- [ ] tasks/review/bmad-review-pixel.md created with findings
+- [ ] DX comparison
+- [ ] Top friction points and recommendations
+
+---
+
+# Completion Summary
+```yaml
+completed_by: pixel
+completed_at: 2026-03-31T00:00:00Z
+files_created:
+  - tasks/review/bmad-review-pixel.md
+notes: "Comprehensive UX/DX comparison of BMAD vs Vibe Forge. Fetched live BMAD repo. Identified P0 README agent name inconsistency. Key recommendation: build forge-help command and celebrate the dashboard as hero feature."
+```

package/tasks/completed/review-bmad-scribe.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+---
+id: review-bmad-scribe
+title: "BMAD vs Vibe Forge: Documentation Quality Review"
+type: review
+priority: high
+status: pending
+assigned_to: scribe
+blocked_by: []
+depends_on: []
+created: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+updated: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+estimated_complexity: medium
+epic: BMAD-REVIEW
+---
+
+# Context
+
+## Background
+We are doing a comprehensive comparison of Vibe Forge (this framework) against BMAD-METHOD (https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD) to identify gaps and improvements to bring into Vibe Forge.
+
+You are Scribe - the documentation specialist. Your job is to review BOTH frameworks through the lens of: documentation quality, onboarding experience, template completeness, and how well each framework communicates its concepts.
+
+## Your Review Focus
+1. **Onboarding** - How does a new developer get started with each framework? What's the first-run experience?
+2. **README quality** - Compare READMEs. Which is clearer, more complete, better structured?
+3. **Agent documentation** - How well are the agents documented? Do users know what each agent does and when to use it?
+4. **Template completeness** - Compare the task template, context templates, and any other templates. What's missing in Vibe Forge?
+5. **Example projects** - Does BMAD provide examples that Vibe Forge doesn't?
+6. **Concept documentation** - Does BMAD explain its methodology more clearly than Vibe Forge?
+7. **In-code documentation** - Compare inline comments and docstrings between the frameworks.
+8. **Context template** - Compare /context/project-context-template.md to BMAD's equivalent. What questions does BMAD ask that Vibe Forge doesn't?
+
+## Files to Read
+- /README.md
+- /context/project-context-template.md
+- /config/task-template.md
+- /agents/scribe/personality.md (your own definition)
+- /docs/ (any existing docs)
+- Then fetch and read BMAD: https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD
+
+---
+
+# Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [x] Read Vibe Forge's documentation completely
+- [x] Fetch and review BMAD's documentation
+- [x] Identify 5+ specific documentation improvements
+- [x] Compare template quality and completeness
+- [x] Write findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-scribe.md
+
+---
+
+# Agent Instructions
+
+Scribe: Think about the newcomer experience. If someone had never used either framework, which would get them productive faster? What confusion would each cause? Documentation is teaching - evaluate how well each framework teaches.
+
+**Boundaries:**
+- DO read: all docs, templates, README files, BMAD repo (via web fetch)
+- DO write: tasks/review/bmad-review-scribe.md
+- DO NOT modify: any framework files
+
+**On Completion:**
+1. Write your findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-scribe.md
+2. Move this file to /tasks/completed/
+
+---
+
+# Output Expected
+
+- [x] tasks/review/bmad-review-scribe.md created with findings
+- [x] Onboarding experience comparison
+- [x] Template improvement recommendations
+
+---
+
+# Completion Summary
+```yaml
+completed_by: scribe
+completed_at: 2026-03-31T06:30:00Z
+duration_minutes: 35
+files_created:
+  - tasks/review/bmad-review-scribe.md
+notes: >
+  Reviewed README, getting-started.md, agents.md, commands.md, architecture.md,
+  project-context-template.md, task-template.md, and scribe personality.md.
+  Fetched and analyzed BMAD-METHOD GitHub repo structure, README, workflow map,
+  agent definitions, and docs organization. Identified 12 specific improvements
+  across 4 priority levels. Key finding: 25-point documentation quality gap,
+  concentrated in methodology docs, context template quality, and missing
+  root-level files (CONTRIBUTING.md, CHANGELOG.md).
+ready_for_review: true
+```

package/tasks/completed/review-bmad-sentinel.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+---
+id: review-bmad-sentinel
+title: "BMAD vs Vibe Forge: Architecture & Code Quality Review"
+type: review
+priority: high
+status: completed
+assigned_to: sentinel
+blocked_by: []
+depends_on: []
+created: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+updated: 2026-03-31T00:00:00-05:00
+estimated_complexity: medium
+epic: BMAD-REVIEW
+---
+
+# Context
+
+## Background
+We are doing a comprehensive comparison of Vibe Forge (this framework) against BMAD-METHOD (https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD) to identify gaps and improvements to bring into Vibe Forge.
+
+You are Sentinel - the code reviewer. Your job is to review BOTH frameworks with adversarial scrutiny: architecture quality, code cleanliness, security posture, agent prompt quality, and overall framework robustness.
+
+## Your Review Focus
+1. **Architecture** - Is Vibe Forge's architecture sound? What does BMAD do structurally that's better or worse?
+2. **Prompt engineering quality** - Compare agent personality files side by side. Which are more effective prompts? What techniques does BMAD use that Vibe Forge doesn't?
+3. **Security** - Are there security issues in Vibe Forge's scripts or agent design that BMAD handles better?
+4. **Code quality** - Review the bash scripts, node.js code, and configuration files in Vibe Forge for quality issues.
+5. **Agent boundary enforcement** - Does BMAD do a better job constraining what agents can/can't do?
+6. **Consistency** - Are the agent personalities consistent with each other? Do they have conflicting instructions?
+7. **What's missing** - What critical components does BMAD have that Vibe Forge simply doesn't have at all?
+
+## Files to Read
+- ALL files in /agents/ (every personality file)
+- /bin/forge-daemon.sh
+- /bin/cli.js
+- /config/agents.json
+- /config/task-template.md
+- /bin/lib/ (all lib files)
+- Then fetch and read BMAD: https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD
+
+---
+
+# Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Read ALL agent personality files
+- [ ] Fetch and review the BMAD repo thoroughly
+- [ ] Give an honest architectural verdict on Vibe Forge
+- [ ] Identify top 5 most critical gaps
+- [ ] Write findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-sentinel.md
+
+---
+
+# Agent Instructions
+
+Sentinel: Don't pull punches. Find problems others rationalized away. Every system hides at least one critical flaw - find Vibe Forge's. Be adversarial toward both frameworks equally.
+
+**Boundaries:**
+- DO read: everything in the repo, BMAD repo (via web fetch)
+- DO write: tasks/review/bmad-review-sentinel.md
+- DO NOT modify: any framework files
+
+**On Completion:**
+1. Write your findings to tasks/review/bmad-review-sentinel.md
+2. Move this file to /tasks/completed/
+
+---
+
+# Output Expected
+
+- [ ] tasks/review/bmad-review-sentinel.md created with findings
+- [ ] Honest architectural assessment
+- [ ] Top critical gaps ranked by impact
+
+---
+
+# Completion Summary
+```yaml
+completed_by: sentinel
+completed_at: 2026-03-31T00:00:00Z
+files_created:
+  - tasks/review/bmad-review-sentinel.md
+notes: "14 issues found (5 critical, 5 important, 4 minor). Top critical: eval injection risk, design alias collision, missing planning pipeline, no token management, constants.sh sync drift."
+```

package/tasks/pending/ARCH-004-git-bash-detection-duplication.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+id: ARCH-004
+title: "Consolidate Git Bash detection logic"
+type: architecture
+priority: low
+assigned_to: architect
+created_at: 2026-01-15T17:00:00Z
+created_by: architect-review
+---
+
+## Summary
+Git Bash path detection is implemented in four different places with slightly different logic and paths checked.
+
+## Current State
+Git Bash detection exists in:
+
+1. **bin/cli.js** - getBashPath() function (lines 105-136)
+   - Checks 3 hardcoded paths
+   - Uses `where git` fallback
+   - Returns null if not found
+
+2. **bin/forge.cmd** - Batch script (lines 42-74)
+   - Checks 4 hardcoded paths (different from cli.js)
+   - Uses `where git` fallback
+   - Shows error if not found
+
+3. **bin/forge-setup.sh** - find_git_bash() function (lines 59-134)
+   - Checks 6+ paths including $LOCALAPPDATA
+   - Uses `where git` fallback
+   - Offers to install via winget
+
+4. **bin/lib/terminal.js** - findGitBash() function (lines 195-223)
+   - Checks 3 hardcoded paths
+   - Uses `where git` fallback
+   - Returns null if not found
+
+Problems:
+- Different paths checked in each implementation
+- Logic duplicated 4 times
+- Different fallback behaviors
+- D: drive paths only in some implementations
+- $LOCALAPPDATA only in some implementations
+
+## Proposed State
+Single shared implementation:
+
+1. Create `bin/lib/git-bash.js` with comprehensive path detection
+2. Export for use in cli.js and terminal.js
+3. Provide bash-callable interface for shell scripts
+4. Or: store detected path in config, read from all scripts
+
+## Affected Files
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\bin\cli.js
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\bin\forge.cmd
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\bin\forge-setup.sh
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\bin\lib\terminal.js
+
+## Migration/Remediation Steps
+1. Create unified git-bash.js module with all known paths
+2. Export as CLI: `node git-bash.js` -> outputs path
+3. Update cli.js to use shared module
+4. Update terminal.js to use shared module
+5. Update forge-setup.sh to call Node.js module
+6. Update forge.cmd to read from config (set during init)
+7. Ensure all 6+ paths are checked consistently
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] Single source of truth for Git Bash detection
+- [ ] All known paths (C:, D:, LOCALAPPDATA) checked consistently
+- [ ] Detection works from bash and Node.js
+- [ ] All tests passing
+- [ ] Windows functionality unchanged

package/tasks/pending/ARCH-005-missing-src-directory.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+id: ARCH-005
+title: "Establish proper source code organization with src/ directory"
+type: architecture
+priority: low
+assigned_to: architect
+created_at: 2026-01-15T17:00:00Z
+created_by: architect-review
+---
+
+## Summary
+The codebase lacks a conventional src/ directory structure. All source files are in bin/ or bin/lib/, mixing executable entry points with library code.
+
+## Current State
+Current structure:
+```
+bin/
+  cli.js           <- Entry point
+  forge.sh         <- Entry point
+  forge.cmd        <- Entry point
+  forge-setup.sh   <- Could be library
+  forge-spawn.sh   <- Could be library
+  forge-daemon.sh  <- Could be library
+  lib/
+    colors.sh      <- Library
+    constants.sh   <- Library
+    config.sh      <- Library
+    agents.sh      <- Library
+    database.sh    <- Library
+    terminal.js    <- Library
+```
+
+Problems:
+- Entry points mixed with implementation files
+- No clear distinction between bin/ (executables) and src/ (source)
+- .gitignore references src/ as a tool internal (line 232) but no src/ exists
+- Node convention is bin/ for CLI entry points, src/ for implementation
+
+## Proposed State
+Reorganize to:
+```
+bin/
+  cli.js           <- Entry point (thin wrapper)
+  forge            <- Symlink or wrapper to src/cli/forge.sh
+src/
+  cli/
+    forge.sh       <- Main CLI implementation
+    setup.sh       <- Setup logic
+    spawn.sh       <- Spawn logic
+    daemon.sh      <- Daemon logic
+  lib/
+    colors.sh      <- Shared utilities
+    constants.sh   <- Constants
+    config.sh      <- Config utilities
+    agents.sh      <- Agent utilities
+    database.sh    <- DB utilities
+    terminal.js    <- Terminal utilities
+    git-bash.js    <- Git bash detection
+```
+
+Or for Node.js migration:
+```
+bin/
+  vibe-forge.js    <- CLI entry point
+src/
+  cli/
+    index.js       <- Command routing
+    init.js        <- Init command
+    start.js       <- Start command
+    spawn.js       <- Spawn command
+  lib/
+    config.js
+    agents.js
+    terminal.js
+```
+
+## Affected Files
+- All files in G:\dev\vibe-forge\bin\
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\package.json (files array)
+
+## Migration/Remediation Steps
+1. Create src/ directory
+2. Move bin/lib/* to src/lib/
+3. Update imports/sources in bin/*.sh scripts
+4. Update package.json files array if needed
+5. Ensure tests still work
+6. Update documentation
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] Clear separation between entry points and implementation
+- [ ] src/ directory exists with organized code
+- [ ] bin/ contains only entry point wrappers
+- [ ] All imports updated
+- [ ] Tests passing
+- [ ] Documentation updated

package/tasks/pending/ARCH-006-task-template-location.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+id: ARCH-006
+title: "Move task-template.md to templates directory"
+type: architecture
+priority: low
+assigned_to: architect
+created_at: 2026-01-15T17:00:00Z
+created_by: architect-review
+---
+
+## Summary
+Task template is stored in config/ but is not a configuration file - it's a template. Should be in a dedicated templates directory.
+
+## Current State
+```
+config/
+  agents.json         <- Configuration
+  agent-manifest.yaml <- Configuration (or docs)
+  task-types.yaml     <- Configuration
+  task-template.md    <- Template (not config!)
+```
+
+The task-template.md is referenced from:
+- .claude/commands/forge.md (line 124): `@_vibe-forge/config/task-template.md`
+
+## Proposed State
+Create templates/ directory:
+```
+config/
+  agents.json
+  task-types.yaml
+templates/
+  task-template.md
+  project-context-template.md  <- Move from context/
+```
+
+Or alternatively, rename to config/templates/:
+```
+config/
+  agents.json
+  task-types.yaml
+  templates/
+    task.md
+    project-context.md
+```
+
+## Affected Files
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\config\task-template.md
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\context\project-context-template.md
+- G:\dev\vibe-forge\.claude\commands\forge.md
+
+## Migration/Remediation Steps
+1. Create templates/ directory
+2. Move config/task-template.md to templates/
+3. Move context/project-context-template.md to templates/
+4. Update reference in .claude/commands/forge.md
+5. Update any other references (forge-setup.sh uses context template)
+6. Update package.json files array if needed
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] Templates in dedicated templates/ directory
+- [ ] All references updated
+- [ ] Functionality unchanged
+- [ ] Package includes templates directory