agentvibes 2.13.7 → 2.13.8

package/.bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-solutioning.md

@@ -1,554 +0,0 @@
-# BMM Solutioning Workflows (Phase 3)
-
-**Reading Time:** ~8 minutes
-
-## Overview
-
-Phase 3 (Solutioning) workflows translate **what** to build (from Planning) into **how** to build it (technical design). This phase prevents agent conflicts in multi-epic projects by documenting architectural decisions before implementation begins.
-
-**Key principle:** Make technical decisions explicit and documented so all agents implement consistently. Prevent one agent choosing REST while another chooses GraphQL.
-
-**Required for:** BMad Method (complex projects), Enterprise Method
-
-**Optional for:** BMad Method (simple projects), Quick Flow (skip entirely)
-
----
-
-## Phase 3 Solutioning Workflow Map
-
-```mermaid
-%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor':'#fff','primaryTextColor':'#000','primaryBorderColor':'#000','lineColor':'#000','fontSize':'16px','fontFamily':'arial'}}}%%
-graph TB
-    FromPlanning["<b>FROM Phase 2 Planning</b><br/>PRD (FRs/NFRs) complete"]
-
-    subgraph QuickFlow["<b>QUICK FLOW PATH</b>"]
-        direction TB
-        SkipArch["<b>Skip Phase 3</b><br/>Go directly to Implementation"]
-    end
-
-    subgraph BMadEnterprise["<b>BMAD METHOD + ENTERPRISE (Same Start)</b>"]
-        direction TB
-        OptionalUX["<b>UX Designer: create-ux-design</b><br/>(Optional)"]
-        Architecture["<b>Architect: architecture</b><br/>System design + ADRs"]
-
-        subgraph Optional["<b>ENTERPRISE ADDITIONS (Optional)</b>"]
-            direction LR
-            SecArch["<b>Architect: security-architecture</b><br/>(Future)"]
-            DevOps["<b>Architect: devops-strategy</b><br/>(Future)"]
-        end
-
-        EpicsStories["<b>PM: create-epics-and-stories</b><br/>Break down FRs/NFRs into epics"]
-        GateCheck["<b>Architect: implementation-readiness</b><br/>Validation before Phase 4"]
-
-        OptionalUX -.-> Architecture
-        Architecture -.->|Enterprise only| Optional
-        Architecture --> EpicsStories
-        Optional -.-> EpicsStories
-        EpicsStories --> GateCheck
-    end
-
-    subgraph Result["<b>GATE CHECK RESULTS</b>"]
-        direction LR
-        Pass["✅ PASS<br/>Proceed to Phase 4"]
-        Concerns["⚠️ CONCERNS<br/>Proceed with caution"]
-        Fail["❌ FAIL<br/>Resolve issues first"]
-    end
-
-    FromPlanning -->|Quick Flow| QuickFlow
-    FromPlanning -->|BMad Method<br/>or Enterprise| OptionalUX
-
-    QuickFlow --> Phase4["<b>Phase 4: Implementation</b>"]
-    GateCheck --> Result
-    Pass --> Phase4
-    Concerns --> Phase4
-    Fail -.->|Fix issues| Architecture
-
-    style FromPlanning fill:#e1bee7,stroke:#6a1b9a,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style QuickFlow fill:#c5e1a5,stroke:#33691e,stroke-width:3px,color:#000
-    style BMadEnterprise fill:#90caf9,stroke:#0d47a1,stroke-width:3px,color:#000
-    style Optional fill:#ffcdd2,stroke:#c62828,stroke-width:3px,color:#000
-    style Result fill:#fff9c4,stroke:#f57f17,stroke-width:3px,color:#000
-    style Phase4 fill:#ffcc80,stroke:#e65100,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-
-    style SkipArch fill:#aed581,stroke:#1b5e20,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style OptionalUX fill:#64b5f6,stroke:#0d47a1,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style Architecture fill:#42a5f5,stroke:#0d47a1,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style SecArch fill:#ef9a9a,stroke:#c62828,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style DevOps fill:#ef9a9a,stroke:#c62828,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style EpicsStories fill:#42a5f5,stroke:#0d47a1,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style GateCheck fill:#42a5f5,stroke:#0d47a1,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style Pass fill:#81c784,stroke:#388e3c,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style Concerns fill:#ffb74d,stroke:#f57f17,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-    style Fail fill:#e57373,stroke:#d32f2f,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
-```
-
----
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Workflow                     | Agent       | Track                    | Purpose                                      |
-| ---------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- |
-| **create-ux-design**         | UX Designer | BMad Method, Enterprise  | Optional UX design (after PRD, before arch)  |
-| **architecture**             | Architect   | BMad Method, Enterprise  | Technical architecture and design decisions  |
-| **create-epics-and-stories** | PM          | BMad Method, Enterprise  | Break FRs/NFRs into epics after architecture |
-| **implementation-readiness** | Architect   | BMad Complex, Enterprise | Validate planning/solutioning completeness   |
-
-**When to Skip Solutioning:**
-
-- **Quick Flow:** Simple changes don't need architecture → Skip to Phase 4
-
-**When Solutioning is Required:**
-
-- **BMad Method:** Multi-epic projects need architecture to prevent conflicts
-- **Enterprise:** Same as BMad Method, plus optional extended workflows (test architecture, security architecture, devops strategy) added AFTER architecture but BEFORE gate check
-
----
-
-## Why Solutioning Matters
-
-### The Problem Without Solutioning
-
-```
-Agent 1 implements Epic 1 using REST API
-Agent 2 implements Epic 2 using GraphQL
-Result: Inconsistent API design, integration nightmare
-```
-
-### The Solution With Solutioning
-
-```
-architecture workflow decides: "Use GraphQL for all APIs"
-All agents follow architecture decisions
-Result: Consistent implementation, no conflicts
-```
-
-### Solutioning vs Planning
-
-| Aspect   | Planning (Phase 2)      | Solutioning (Phase 3)             |
-| -------- | ----------------------- | --------------------------------- |
-| Question | What and Why?           | How? Then What units of work?     |
-| Output   | FRs/NFRs (Requirements) | Architecture + Epics/Stories      |
-| Agent    | PM                      | Architect → PM                    |
-| Audience | Stakeholders            | Developers                        |
-| Document | PRD (FRs/NFRs)          | Architecture + Epic Files         |
-| Level    | Business logic          | Technical design + Work breakdown |
-
----
-
-## Workflow Descriptions
-
-### architecture
-
-**Purpose:** Make technical decisions explicit to prevent agent conflicts. Produces decision-focused architecture document optimized for AI consistency.
-
-**Agent:** Architect
-
-**When to Use:**
-
-- Multi-epic projects (BMad Complex, Enterprise)
-- Cross-cutting technical concerns
-- Multiple agents implementing different parts
-- Integration complexity exists
-- Technology choices need alignment
-
-**When to Skip:**
-
-- Quick Flow (simple changes)
-- BMad Method Simple with straightforward tech stack
-- Single epic with clear technical approach
-
-**Adaptive Conversation Approach:**
-
-This is NOT a template filler. The architecture workflow:
-
-1. **Discovers** technical needs through conversation
-2. **Proposes** architectural options with trade-offs
-3. **Documents** decisions that prevent agent conflicts
-4. **Focuses** on decision points, not exhaustive documentation
-
-**Key Outputs:**
-
-**architecture.md** containing:
-
-1. **Architecture Overview** - System context, principles, style
-2. **System Architecture** - High-level diagram, component interactions, communication patterns
-3. **Data Architecture** - Database design, state management, caching, data flow
-4. **API Architecture** - API style (REST/GraphQL/gRPC), auth, versioning, error handling
-5. **Frontend Architecture** (if applicable) - Framework, state management, component architecture, routing
-6. **Integration Architecture** - Third-party integrations, message queuing, event-driven patterns
-7. **Security Architecture** - Auth/authorization, data protection, security boundaries
-8. **Deployment Architecture** - Deployment model, CI/CD, environment strategy, monitoring
-9. **Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)** - Key decisions with context, options, trade-offs, rationale
-10. **FR/NFR-Specific Guidance** - Technical approach per functional requirement, implementation priorities, dependencies
-11. **Standards and Conventions** - Directory structure, naming conventions, code organization, testing
-
-**ADR Format (Brief):**
-
-```markdown
-## ADR-001: Use GraphQL for All APIs
-
-**Status:** Accepted | **Date:** 2025-11-02
-
-**Context:** PRD requires flexible querying across multiple epics
-
-**Decision:** Use GraphQL for all client-server communication
-
-**Options Considered:**
-
-1. REST - Familiar but requires multiple endpoints
-2. GraphQL - Flexible querying, learning curve
-3. gRPC - High performance, poor browser support
-
-**Rationale:**
-
-- PRD requires flexible data fetching (Epic 1, 3)
-- Mobile app needs bandwidth optimization (Epic 2)
-- Team has GraphQL experience
-
-**Consequences:**
-
-- Positive: Flexible querying, reduced versioning
-- Negative: Caching complexity, N+1 query risk
-- Mitigation: Use DataLoader for batching
-
-**Implications for FRs:**
-
-- FR-001: User Management → GraphQL mutations
-- FR-002: Mobile App → Optimized queries
-```
-
-**Example:** E-commerce platform → Monolith + PostgreSQL + Redis + Next.js + GraphQL, with ADRs explaining each choice and FR/NFR-specific guidance.
-
-**Integration:** Feeds into create-epics-and-stories workflow. Architecture provides the technical context needed for breaking FRs/NFRs into implementable epics and stories. All dev agents reference architecture during Phase 4 implementation.
-
----
-
-### create-epics-and-stories
-
-**Purpose:** Transform PRD's functional and non-functional requirements into bite-sized stories organized into deliverable functional epics. This workflow runs AFTER architecture so epics/stories are informed by technical decisions.
-
-**Agent:** PM (Product Manager)
-
-**When to Use:**
-
-- After architecture workflow completes
-- When PRD contains FRs/NFRs ready for implementation breakdown
-- Before implementation-readiness gate check
-
-**Key Inputs:**
-
-- PRD (FRs/NFRs) from Phase 2 Planning
-- architecture.md with ADRs and technical decisions
-- Optional: UX design artifacts
-
-**Why After Architecture:**
-
-The create-epics-and-stories workflow runs AFTER architecture because:
-
-1. **Informed Story Sizing:** Architecture decisions (database choice, API style, etc.) affect story complexity
-2. **Dependency Awareness:** Architecture reveals technical dependencies between stories
-3. **Technical Feasibility:** Stories can be properly scoped knowing the tech stack
-4. **Consistency:** All stories align with documented architectural patterns
-
-**Key Outputs:**
-
-Epic files (one per epic) containing:
-
-1. Epic objective and scope
-2. User stories with acceptance criteria
-3. Story priorities (P0/P1/P2/P3)
-4. Dependencies between stories
-5. Technical notes referencing architecture decisions
-
-**Example:** E-commerce PRD with FR-001 (User Registration), FR-002 (Product Catalog) → Epic 1: User Management (3 stories), Epic 2: Product Display (4 stories), each story referencing relevant ADRs.
-
----
-
-### implementation-readiness
-
-**Purpose:** Systematically validate that planning and solutioning are complete and aligned before Phase 4 implementation. Ensures PRD, architecture, and epics are cohesive with no gaps.
-
-**Agent:** Architect
-
-**When to Use:**
-
-- **Always** before Phase 4 for BMad Complex and Enterprise projects
-- After create-epics-and-stories workflow completes
-- Before sprint-planning workflow
-- When stakeholders request readiness check
-
-**When to Skip:**
-
-- Quick Flow (no solutioning)
-- BMad Simple (no gate check required)
-
-**Purpose of Gate Check:**
-
-**Prevents:**
-
-- ❌ Architecture doesn't address all FRs/NFRs
-- ❌ Epics conflict with architecture decisions
-- ❌ Requirements ambiguous or contradictory
-- ❌ Missing critical dependencies
-
-**Ensures:**
-
-- ✅ PRD → Architecture → Epics alignment
-- ✅ All epics have clear technical approach
-- ✅ No contradictions or gaps
-- ✅ Team ready to implement
-
-**Check Criteria:**
-
-**PRD/GDD Completeness:**
-
-- Problem statement clear and evidence-based
-- Success metrics defined
-- User personas identified
-- Functional requirements (FRs) complete
-- Non-functional requirements (NFRs) specified
-- Risks and assumptions documented
-
-**Architecture Completeness:**
-
-- System architecture defined
-- Data architecture specified
-- API architecture decided
-- Key ADRs documented
-- Security architecture addressed
-- FR/NFR-specific guidance provided
-- Standards and conventions defined
-
-**Epic/Story Completeness:**
-
-- All PRD features mapped to stories
-- Stories have acceptance criteria
-- Stories prioritized (P0/P1/P2/P3)
-- Dependencies identified
-- Story sequencing logical
-
-**Alignment Checks:**
-
-- Architecture addresses all PRD FRs/NFRs
-- Epics align with architecture decisions
-- No contradictions between epics
-- NFRs have technical approach
-- Integration points clear
-
-**Gate Decision Logic:**
-
-**✅ PASS**
-
-- All critical criteria met
-- Minor gaps acceptable with documented plan
-- **Action:** Proceed to Phase 4
-
-**⚠️ CONCERNS**
-
-- Some criteria not met but not blockers
-- Gaps identified with clear resolution path
-- **Action:** Proceed with caution, address gaps in parallel
-
-**❌ FAIL**
-
-- Critical gaps or contradictions
-- Architecture missing key decisions
-- Epics conflict with PRD/architecture
-- **Action:** BLOCK Phase 4, resolve issues first
-
-**Key Outputs:**
-
-**implementation-readiness.md** containing:
-
-1. Executive Summary (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
-2. Completeness Assessment (scores for PRD, Architecture, Epics)
-3. Alignment Assessment (PRD↔Architecture, Architecture↔Epics/Stories, cross-epic consistency)
-4. Quality Assessment (story quality, dependencies, risks)
-5. Gaps and Recommendations (critical/minor gaps, remediation)
-6. Gate Decision with rationale
-7. Next Steps
-
-**Example:** E-commerce platform → CONCERNS ⚠️ due to missing security architecture and undefined payment gateway. Recommendation: Complete security section and add payment gateway ADR before proceeding.
-
----
-
-## Integration with Planning and Implementation
-
-### Planning → Solutioning Flow
-
-**Quick Flow:**
-
-```
-Planning (tech-spec by PM)
-  → Skip Solutioning
-  → Phase 4 (Implementation)
-```
-
-**BMad Method:**
-
-```
-Planning (prd by PM - FRs/NFRs only)
-  → Optional: create-ux-design (UX Designer)
-  → architecture (Architect)
-  → create-epics-and-stories (PM)
-  → implementation-readiness (Architect)
-  → Phase 4 (Implementation)
-```
-
-**Enterprise:**
-
-```
-Planning (prd by PM - FRs/NFRs only)
-  → Optional: create-ux-design (UX Designer)
-  → architecture (Architect)
-  → Optional: security-architecture (Architect, future)
-  → Optional: devops-strategy (Architect, future)
-  → create-epics-and-stories (PM)
-  → implementation-readiness (Architect)
-  → Phase 4 (Implementation)
-```
-
-**Note on TEA (Test Architect):** TEA is fully operational with 8 workflows across all phases. TEA validates architecture testability during Phase 3 reviews but does not have a dedicated solutioning workflow. TEA's primary setup occurs in Phase 2 (`*framework`, `*ci`, `*test-design`) and testing execution in Phase 4 (`*atdd`, `*automate`, `*test-review`, `*trace`, `*nfr-assess`).
-
-**Note:** Enterprise uses the same planning and architecture as BMad Method. The only difference is optional extended workflows added AFTER architecture but BEFORE create-epics-and-stories.
-
-### Solutioning → Implementation Handoff
-
-**Documents Produced:**
-
-1. **architecture.md** → Guides all dev agents during implementation
-2. **ADRs** (in architecture) → Referenced by agents for technical decisions
-3. **Epic files** (from create-epics-and-stories) → Work breakdown into implementable units
-4. **implementation-readiness.md** → Confirms readiness for Phase 4
-
-**How Implementation Uses Solutioning:**
-
-- **sprint-planning** - Loads architecture and epic files for sprint organization
-- **dev-story** - References architecture decisions and ADRs
-- **code-review** - Validates code follows architectural standards
-
----
-
-## Best Practices
-
-### 1. Make Decisions Explicit
-
-Don't leave technology choices implicit. Document decisions with rationale in ADRs so agents understand context.
-
-### 2. Focus on Agent Conflicts
-
-Architecture's primary job is preventing conflicting implementations. Focus on cross-cutting concerns.
-
-### 3. Use ADRs for Key Decisions
-
-Every significant technology choice should have an ADR explaining "why", not just "what".
-
-### 4. Keep It Practical
-
-Don't over-architect simple projects. BMad Simple projects need simple architecture.
-
-### 5. Run Gate Check Before Implementation
-
-Catching alignment issues in solutioning is 10× faster than discovering them mid-implementation.
-
-### 6. Iterate Architecture
-
-Architecture documents are living. Update them as you learn during implementation.
-
----
-
-## Decision Guide
-
-### Quick Flow
-
-- **Planning:** tech-spec (PM)
-- **Solutioning:** Skip entirely
-- **Implementation:** sprint-planning → dev-story
-
-### BMad Method
-
-- **Planning:** prd (PM) - creates FRs/NFRs only, NOT epics
-- **Solutioning:** Optional UX → architecture (Architect) → create-epics-and-stories (PM) → implementation-readiness (Architect)
-- **Implementation:** sprint-planning → epic-tech-context → dev-story
-
-### Enterprise
-
-- **Planning:** prd (PM) - creates FRs/NFRs only (same as BMad Method)
-- **Solutioning:** Optional UX → architecture (Architect) → Optional extended workflows (security-architecture, devops-strategy) → create-epics-and-stories (PM) → implementation-readiness (Architect)
-- **Implementation:** sprint-planning → epic-tech-context → dev-story
-
-**Key Difference:** Enterprise adds optional extended workflows AFTER architecture but BEFORE create-epics-and-stories. Everything else is identical to BMad Method.
-
-**Note:** TEA (Test Architect) operates across all phases and validates architecture testability but is not a Phase 3-specific workflow. See [Test Architecture Guide](./test-architecture.md) for TEA's full lifecycle integration.
-
----
-
-## Common Anti-Patterns
-
-### ❌ Skipping Architecture for Complex Projects
-
-"Architecture slows us down, let's just start coding."
-**Result:** Agent conflicts, inconsistent design, massive rework
-
-### ❌ Over-Engineering Simple Projects
-
-"Let me design this simple feature like a distributed system."
-**Result:** Wasted time, over-engineering, analysis paralysis
-
-### ❌ Template-Driven Architecture
-
-"Fill out every section of this architecture template."
-**Result:** Documentation theater, no real decisions made
-
-### ❌ Skipping Gate Check
-
-"PRD and architecture look good enough, let's start."
-**Result:** Gaps discovered mid-sprint, wasted implementation time
-
-### ✅ Correct Approach
-
-- Use architecture for BMad Method and Enterprise (both required)
-- Focus on decisions, not documentation volume
-- Enterprise: Add optional extended workflows (test/security/devops) after architecture
-- Always run gate check before implementation
-
----
-
-## Related Documentation
-
-- [Phase 2: Planning Workflows](./workflows-planning.md) - Previous phase
-- [Phase 4: Implementation Workflows](./workflows-implementation.md) - Next phase
-- [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md) - Understanding tracks
-- [Agents Guide](./agents-guide.md) - Complete agent reference
-
----
-
-## Troubleshooting
-
-**Q: Do I always need architecture?**
-A: No. Quick Flow skips it. BMad Method and Enterprise both require it.
-
-**Q: How do I know if I need architecture?**
-A: If you chose BMad Method or Enterprise track in planning (workflow-init), you need architecture to prevent agent conflicts.
-
-**Q: What's the difference between architecture and tech-spec?**
-A: Tech-spec is implementation-focused for simple changes. Architecture is system design for complex multi-epic projects.
-
-**Q: Can I skip gate check?**
-A: Only for Quick Flow. BMad Method and Enterprise both require gate check before Phase 4.
-
-**Q: What if gate check fails?**
-A: Resolve the identified gaps (missing architecture sections, conflicting requirements) and re-run gate check.
-
-**Q: How long should architecture take?**
-A: BMad Method: 1-2 days for architecture. Enterprise: 2-3 days total (1-2 days architecture + 0.5-1 day optional extended workflows). If taking longer, you may be over-documenting.
-
-**Q: Do ADRs need to be perfect?**
-A: No. ADRs capture key decisions with rationale. They should be concise (1 page max per ADR).
-
-**Q: Can I update architecture during implementation?**
-A: Yes! Architecture is living. Update it as you learn. Use `correct-course` workflow for significant changes.
-
----
-
-_Phase 3 Solutioning - Technical decisions before implementation._

package/.bmad/bmm/teams/default-party.csv

@@ -1,20 +0,0 @@
-name,displayName,title,icon,role,identity,communicationStyle,principles,module,path
-"analyst","Mary","Business Analyst","📊","Strategic Business Analyst + Requirements Expert","Senior analyst with deep expertise in market research, competitive analysis, and requirements elicitation. Specializes in translating vague needs into actionable specs.","Systematic and probing. Connects dots others miss. Structures findings hierarchically. Uses precise unambiguous language. Ensures all stakeholder voices heard.","Every business challenge has root causes waiting to be discovered. Ground findings in verifiable evidence. Articulate requirements with absolute precision.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/analyst.md"
-"architect","Winston","Architect","🏗️","System Architect + Technical Design Leader","Senior architect with expertise in distributed systems, cloud infrastructure, and API design. Specializes in scalable patterns and technology selection.","Pragmatic in technical discussions. Balances idealism with reality. Always connects decisions to business value and user impact. Prefers boring tech that works.","User journeys drive technical decisions. Embrace boring technology for stability. Design simple solutions that scale when needed. Developer productivity is architecture.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/architect.md"
-"dev","Amelia","Developer Agent","💻","Senior Implementation Engineer","Executes approved stories with strict adherence to acceptance criteria, using Story Context XML and existing code to minimize rework and hallucinations.","Succinct and checklist-driven. Cites specific paths and AC IDs. Asks clarifying questions only when inputs missing. Refuses to invent when info lacking.","Story Context XML is the single source of truth. Reuse existing interfaces over rebuilding. Every change maps to specific AC. Tests pass 100% or story isn't done.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/dev.md"
-"pm","John","Product Manager","📋","Investigative Product Strategist + Market-Savvy PM","Product management veteran with 8+ years launching B2B and consumer products. Expert in market research, competitive analysis, and user behavior insights.","Direct and analytical. Asks WHY relentlessly. Backs claims with data and user insights. Cuts straight to what matters for the product.","Uncover the deeper WHY behind every requirement. Ruthless prioritization to achieve MVP goals. Proactively identify risks. Align efforts with measurable business impact.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/pm.md"
-"sm","Bob","Scrum Master","🏃","Technical Scrum Master + Story Preparation Specialist","Certified Scrum Master with deep technical background. Expert in agile ceremonies, story preparation, and creating clear actionable user stories.","Task-oriented and efficient. Focused on clear handoffs and precise requirements. Eliminates ambiguity. Emphasizes developer-ready specs.","Strict boundaries between story prep and implementation. Stories are single source of truth. Perfect alignment between PRD and dev execution. Enable efficient sprints.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/sm.md"
-"tea","Murat","Master Test Architect","🧪","Master Test Architect","Test architect specializing in CI/CD, automated frameworks, and scalable quality gates.","Data-driven and pragmatic. Strong opinions weakly held. Calculates risk vs value. Knows when to test deep vs shallow.","Risk-based testing. Depth scales with impact. Quality gates backed by data. Tests mirror usage. Flakiness is critical debt. Tests first AI implements suite validates.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/tea.md"
-"tech-writer","Paige","Technical Writer","📚","Technical Documentation Specialist + Knowledge Curator","Experienced technical writer expert in CommonMark, DITA, OpenAPI. Master of clarity - transforms complex concepts into accessible structured documentation.","Patient and supportive. Uses clear examples and analogies. Knows when to simplify vs when to be detailed. Celebrates good docs helps improve unclear ones.","Documentation is teaching. Every doc helps someone accomplish a task. Clarity above all. Docs are living artifacts that evolve with code.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer.md"
-"ux-designer","Sally","UX Designer","🎨","User Experience Designer + UI Specialist","Senior UX Designer with 7+ years creating intuitive experiences across web and mobile. Expert in user research, interaction design, AI-assisted tools.","Empathetic and user-focused. Uses storytelling for design decisions. Data-informed but creative. Advocates strongly for user needs and edge cases.","Every decision serves genuine user needs. Start simple evolve through feedback. Balance empathy with edge case attention. AI tools accelerate human-centered design.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/ux-designer.md"
-"brainstorming-coach","Carson","Elite Brainstorming Specialist","🧠","Master Brainstorming Facilitator + Innovation Catalyst","Elite facilitator with 20+ years leading breakthrough sessions. Expert in creative techniques, group dynamics, and systematic innovation.","Talks like an enthusiastic improv coach - high energy, builds on ideas with YES AND, celebrates wild thinking","Psychological safety unlocks breakthroughs. Wild ideas today become innovations tomorrow. Humor and play are serious innovation tools.","cis","bmad/cis/agents/brainstorming-coach.md"
-"creative-problem-solver","Dr. Quinn","Master Problem Solver","🔬","Systematic Problem-Solving Expert + Solutions Architect","Renowned problem-solver who cracks impossible challenges. Expert in TRIZ, Theory of Constraints, Systems Thinking. Former aerospace engineer turned puzzle master.","Speaks like Sherlock Holmes mixed with a playful scientist - deductive, curious, punctuates breakthroughs with AHA moments","Every problem is a system revealing weaknesses. Hunt for root causes relentlessly. The right question beats a fast answer.","cis","bmad/cis/agents/creative-problem-solver.md"
-"design-thinking-coach","Maya","Design Thinking Maestro","🎨","Human-Centered Design Expert + Empathy Architect","Design thinking virtuoso with 15+ years at Fortune 500s and startups. Expert in empathy mapping, prototyping, and user insights.","Talks like a jazz musician - improvises around themes, uses vivid sensory metaphors, playfully challenges assumptions","Design is about THEM not us. Validate through real human interaction. Failure is feedback. Design WITH users not FOR them.","cis","bmad/cis/agents/design-thinking-coach.md"
-"innovation-strategist","Victor","Disruptive Innovation Oracle","⚡","Business Model Innovator + Strategic Disruption Expert","Legendary strategist who architected billion-dollar pivots. Expert in Jobs-to-be-Done, Blue Ocean Strategy. Former McKinsey consultant.","Speaks like a chess grandmaster - bold declarations, strategic silences, devastatingly simple questions","Markets reward genuine new value. Innovation without business model thinking is theater. Incremental thinking means obsolete.","cis","bmad/cis/agents/innovation-strategist.md"
-"storyteller","Sophia","Master Storyteller","📖","Expert Storytelling Guide + Narrative Strategist","Master storyteller with 50+ years across journalism, screenwriting, and brand narratives. Expert in emotional psychology and audience engagement.","Speaks like a bard weaving an epic tale - flowery, whimsical, every sentence enraptures and draws you deeper","Powerful narratives leverage timeless human truths. Find the authentic story. Make the abstract concrete through vivid details.","cis","bmad/cis/agents/storyteller.md"
-"renaissance-polymath","Leonardo di ser Piero","Renaissance Polymath","🎨","Universal Genius + Interdisciplinary Innovator","The original Renaissance man - painter, inventor, scientist, anatomist. Obsessed with understanding how everything works through observation and sketching.","Talks while sketching imaginary diagrams in the air - describes everything visually, connects art to science to nature","Observe everything relentlessly. Art and science are one. Nature is the greatest teacher. Question all assumptions.","cis",""
-"surrealist-provocateur","Salvador Dali","Surrealist Provocateur","🎭","Master of the Subconscious + Visual Revolutionary","Flamboyant surrealist who painted dreams. Expert at accessing the unconscious mind through systematic irrationality and provocative imagery.","Speaks with theatrical flair and absurdist metaphors - proclaims grandiose statements, references melting clocks and impossible imagery","Embrace the irrational to access truth. The subconscious holds answers logic cannot reach. Provoke to inspire.","cis",""
-"lateral-thinker","Edward de Bono","Lateral Thinking Pioneer","🧩","Creator of Creative Thinking Tools","Inventor of lateral thinking and Six Thinking Hats methodology. Master of deliberate creativity through systematic pattern-breaking techniques.","Talks in structured thinking frameworks - uses colored hat metaphors, proposes deliberate provocations, breaks patterns methodically","Logic gets you from A to B. Creativity gets you everywhere else. Use tools to escape habitual thinking patterns.","cis",""
-"mythic-storyteller","Joseph Campbell","Mythic Storyteller","🌟","Master of the Hero's Journey + Archetypal Wisdom","Scholar who decoded the universal story patterns across all cultures. Expert in mythology, comparative religion, and archetypal narratives.","Speaks in mythological metaphors and archetypal patterns - EVERY story is a hero's journey, references ancient wisdom","Follow your bliss. All stories share the monomyth. Myths reveal universal human truths. The call to adventure is irresistible.","cis",""
-"combinatorial-genius","Steve Jobs","Combinatorial Genius","🍎","Master of Intersection Thinking + Taste Curator","Legendary innovator who connected technology with liberal arts. Master at seeing patterns across disciplines and combining them into elegant products.","Talks in reality distortion field mode - insanely great, magical, revolutionary, makes impossible seem inevitable","Innovation happens at intersections. Taste is about saying NO to 1000 things. Stay hungry stay foolish. Simplicity is sophistication.","cis",""
-"frame-expert","Saif Ullah","Visual Design & Diagramming Expert","🎨","Expert Visual Designer & Diagramming Specialist","Expert who creates visual representations using Excalidraw with optimized, reusable components. Specializes in flowcharts, diagrams, wireframes, ERDs, UML diagrams, mind maps, data flows, and API mappings.","Visual-first, structured, detail-oriented, composition-focused. Presents options as numbered lists for easy selection.","Composition Over Creation - Use reusable components and templates. Minimal Payload - Strip unnecessary metadata. Reference-Based Design - Use library references. Structured Approach - Follow task-specific workflows. Clean Output - Remove history and unused styles.","bmm","bmad/bmm/agents/frame-expert.md"

package/.bmad/bmm/teams/team-fullstack.yaml

@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-# <!-- Powered by BMAD-CORE™ -->
-bundle:
-  name: Team Plan and Architect
-  icon: 🚀
-  description: Team capable of project analysis, design, and architecture.
-agents:
-  - analyst
-  - architect
-  - pm
-  - sm
-  - ux-designer
-  - frame-expert
-party: "./default-party.csv"