agentvibes 2.9.7 → 2.12.0

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/template.md

@@ -1,181 +0,0 @@
-# Product Brief: {{project_name}}
-
-**Date:** {{date}}
-**Author:** {{user_name}}
-**Context:** {{context_type}}
-
----
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-{{executive_summary}}
-
----
-
-## Core Vision
-
-### Problem Statement
-
-{{problem_statement}}
-
-{{#if problem_impact}}
-
-### Problem Impact
-
-{{problem_impact}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if existing_solutions_gaps}}
-
-### Why Existing Solutions Fall Short
-
-{{existing_solutions_gaps}}
-{{/if}}
-
-### Proposed Solution
-
-{{proposed_solution}}
-
-{{#if key_differentiators}}
-
-### Key Differentiators
-
-{{key_differentiators}}
-{{/if}}
-
----
-
-## Target Users
-
-### Primary Users
-
-{{primary_user_segment}}
-
-{{#if secondary_user_segment}}
-
-### Secondary Users
-
-{{secondary_user_segment}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if user_journey}}
-
-### User Journey
-
-{{user_journey}}
-{{/if}}
-
----
-
-{{#if success_metrics}}
-
-## Success Metrics
-
-{{success_metrics}}
-
-{{#if business_objectives}}
-
-### Business Objectives
-
-{{business_objectives}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if key_performance_indicators}}
-
-### Key Performance Indicators
-
-{{key_performance_indicators}}
-{{/if}}
-{{/if}}
-
----
-
-## MVP Scope
-
-### Core Features
-
-{{core_features}}
-
-{{#if out_of_scope}}
-
-### Out of Scope for MVP
-
-{{out_of_scope}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if mvp_success_criteria}}
-
-### MVP Success Criteria
-
-{{mvp_success_criteria}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if future_vision_features}}
-
-### Future Vision
-
-{{future_vision_features}}
-{{/if}}
-
----
-
-{{#if market_analysis}}
-
-## Market Context
-
-{{market_analysis}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if financial_considerations}}
-
-## Financial Considerations
-
-{{financial_considerations}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if technical_preferences}}
-
-## Technical Preferences
-
-{{technical_preferences}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if organizational_context}}
-
-## Organizational Context
-
-{{organizational_context}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if risks_and_assumptions}}
-
-## Risks and Assumptions
-
-{{risks_and_assumptions}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if timeline_constraints}}
-
-## Timeline
-
-{{timeline_constraints}}
-{{/if}}
-
-{{#if supporting_materials}}
-
-## Supporting Materials
-
-{{supporting_materials}}
-{{/if}}
-
----
-
-_This Product Brief captures the vision and requirements for {{project_name}}._
-
-_It was created through collaborative discovery and reflects the unique needs of this {{context_type}} project._
-
-{{#if next_workflow}}
-_Next: {{next_workflow}} will transform this brief into detailed planning artifacts._
-{{else}}
-_Next: Use the PRD workflow to create detailed product requirements from this brief._
-{{/if}}

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/workflow.yaml

@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
-# Product Brief - Interactive Workflow Configuration
-name: product-brief
-description: "Interactive product brief creation workflow that guides users through defining their product vision with multiple input sources and conversational collaboration"
-author: "BMad"
-
-# Critical variables from config
-config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
-output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
-user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
-communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
-document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
-user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
-date: system-generated
-
-# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
-# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
-# Strategy: How to load sharded documents (FULL_LOAD, SELECTIVE_LOAD, INDEX_GUIDED)
-input_file_patterns:
-  research:
-    description: "Market research or competitive analysis (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*research*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*research*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
-
-  brainstorming:
-    description: "Brainstorming session outputs (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*brainstorm*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*brainstorm*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
-
-  document_project:
-    description: "Brownfield project documentation (optional)"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "INDEX_GUIDED"
-
-# Module path and component files
-installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief"
-template: "{installed_path}/template.md"
-instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
-validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
-
-# Output configuration
-default_output_file: "{output_folder}/product-brief-{{project_name}}-{{date}}.md"
-
-standalone: true

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist-deep-prompt.md

@@ -1,144 +0,0 @@
-# Deep Research Prompt Validation Checklist
-
-## 🚨 CRITICAL: Anti-Hallucination Instructions (PRIORITY)
-
-### Citation Requirements Built Into Prompt
-
-- [ ] Prompt EXPLICITLY instructs: "Cite sources with URLs for ALL factual claims"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Include source name, date, and URL for every statistic"
-- [ ] Prompt mandates: "If you cannot find reliable data, state 'No verified data found for [X]'"
-- [ ] Prompt specifies inline citation format (e.g., "[Source: Company, Year, URL]")
-- [ ] Prompt requires References section at end with all sources listed
-
-### Multi-Source Verification Requirements
-
-- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Cross-reference critical claims with at least 2 independent sources"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Note when sources conflict and present all viewpoints"
-- [ ] Prompt specifies: "Verify version numbers and dates from official sources"
-- [ ] Prompt mandates: "Mark confidence levels: [Verified], [Single source], [Uncertain]"
-
-### Fact vs Analysis Distinction
-
-- [ ] Prompt requires clear labeling: "Distinguish FACTS (sourced), ANALYSIS (your interpretation), SPECULATION (projections)"
-- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Do not present assumptions or analysis as verified facts"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Label projections and forecasts clearly as such"
-- [ ] Prompt warns: "Avoid vague attributions like 'experts say' - name the expert/source"
-
-### Source Quality Guidance
-
-- [ ] Prompt specifies preferred sources (e.g., "Official docs > analyst reports > blog posts")
-- [ ] Prompt prioritizes recency: "Prioritize {{current_year}} sources for time-sensitive data"
-- [ ] Prompt requires credibility assessment: "Note source credibility for each citation"
-- [ ] Prompt warns against: "Do not rely on single blog posts for critical claims"
-
-### Anti-Hallucination Safeguards
-
-- [ ] Prompt warns: "If data seems convenient or too round, verify with additional sources"
-- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Flag suspicious claims that need third-party verification"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Provide date accessed for all web sources"
-- [ ] Prompt mandates: "Do NOT invent statistics - only use verified data"
-
-## Prompt Foundation
-
-### Topic and Scope
-
-- [ ] Research topic is specific and focused (not too broad)
-- [ ] Target platform is specified (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Claude)
-- [ ] Temporal scope defined and includes "current {{current_year}}" requirement
-- [ ] Source recency requirement specified (e.g., "prioritize 2024-2025 sources")
-
-## Content Requirements
-
-### Information Specifications
-
-- [ ] Types of information needed are listed (quantitative, qualitative, trends, case studies, etc.)
-- [ ] Preferred sources are specified (academic, industry reports, news, etc.)
-- [ ] Recency requirements are stated (e.g., "prioritize {{current_year}} sources")
-- [ ] Keywords and technical terms are included for search optimization
-- [ ] Validation criteria are defined (how to verify findings)
-
-### Output Structure
-
-- [ ] Desired format is clear (executive summary, comparison table, timeline, SWOT, etc.)
-- [ ] Key sections or questions are outlined
-- [ ] Depth level is specified (overview, standard, comprehensive, exhaustive)
-- [ ] Citation requirements are stated
-- [ ] Any special formatting needs are mentioned
-
-## Platform Optimization
-
-### Platform-Specific Elements
-
-- [ ] Prompt is optimized for chosen platform's capabilities
-- [ ] Platform-specific tips are included
-- [ ] Query limit considerations are noted (if applicable)
-- [ ] Platform strengths are leveraged (e.g., ChatGPT's multi-step search, Gemini's plan modification)
-
-### Execution Guidance
-
-- [ ] Research persona/perspective is specified (if applicable)
-- [ ] Special requirements are stated (bias considerations, recency, etc.)
-- [ ] Follow-up strategy is outlined
-- [ ] Validation approach is defined
-
-## Quality and Usability
-
-### Clarity and Completeness
-
-- [ ] Prompt language is clear and unambiguous
-- [ ] All placeholders and variables are replaced with actual values
-- [ ] Prompt can be copy-pasted directly into platform
-- [ ] No contradictory instructions exist
-- [ ] Prompt is self-contained (doesn't assume unstated context)
-
-### Practical Utility
-
-- [ ] Execution checklist is provided (before, during, after research)
-- [ ] Platform usage tips are included
-- [ ] Follow-up questions are anticipated
-- [ ] Success criteria are defined
-- [ ] Output file format is specified
-
-## Research Depth
-
-### Scope Appropriateness
-
-- [ ] Scope matches user's available time and resources
-- [ ] Depth is appropriate for decision at hand
-- [ ] Key questions that MUST be answered are identified
-- [ ] Nice-to-have vs. critical information is distinguished
-
-## Validation Criteria
-
-### Quality Standards
-
-- [ ] Method for cross-referencing sources is specified
-- [ ] Approach to handling conflicting information is defined
-- [ ] Confidence level indicators are requested
-- [ ] Gap identification is included
-- [ ] Fact vs. opinion distinction is required
-
----
-
-## Issues Found
-
-### Critical Issues
-
-_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
-
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
-
-### Minor Improvements
-
-_List minor improvements that would enhance the prompt:_
-
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
-
----
-
-**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Ready to Execute:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Reviewer:** {agent}
-**Date:** {date}

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist-technical.md

@@ -1,249 +0,0 @@
-# Technical/Architecture Research Validation Checklist
-
-## 🚨 CRITICAL: Source Verification and Fact-Checking (PRIORITY)
-
-### Version Number Verification (MANDATORY)
-
-- [ ] **EVERY** technology version number has cited source with URL
-- [ ] Version numbers verified via WebSearch from {{current_year}} (NOT from training data!)
-- [ ] Official documentation/release pages cited for each version
-- [ ] Release dates included with version numbers
-- [ ] LTS status verified from official sources (with URL)
-- [ ] No "assumed" or "remembered" version numbers - ALL must be verified
-
-### Technical Claim Source Verification
-
-- [ ] **EVERY** feature claim has source (official docs, release notes, website)
-- [ ] Performance benchmarks cite source (official benchmarks, third-party tests with URLs)
-- [ ] Compatibility claims verified (official compatibility matrix, documentation)
-- [ ] Community size/popularity backed by sources (GitHub stars, npm downloads, official stats)
-- [ ] "Supports X" claims verified via official documentation with URL
-- [ ] No invented capabilities or features
-
-### Source Quality for Technical Data
-
-- [ ] Official documentation prioritized (docs.technology.com > blog posts)
-- [ ] Version info from official release pages (highest credibility)
-- [ ] Benchmarks from official sources or reputable third-parties (not random blogs)
-- [ ] Community data from verified sources (GitHub, npm, official registries)
-- [ ] Pricing from official pricing pages (with URL and date verified)
-
-### Multi-Source Verification (Critical Technical Claims)
-
-- [ ] Major technical claims (performance, scalability) verified by 2+ sources
-- [ ] Technology comparisons cite multiple independent sources
-- [ ] "Best for X" claims backed by comparative analysis with sources
-- [ ] Production experience claims cite real case studies or articles with URLs
-- [ ] No single-source critical decisions without flagging need for verification
-
-### Anti-Hallucination for Technical Data
-
-- [ ] No invented version numbers or release dates
-- [ ] No assumed feature availability without verification
-- [ ] If current data not found, explicitly states "Could not verify {{current_year}} information"
-- [ ] Speculation clearly labeled (e.g., "Based on trends, technology may...")
-- [ ] No "probably supports" or "likely compatible" without verification
-
-## Technology Evaluation
-
-### Comprehensive Profiling
-
-For each evaluated technology:
-
-- [ ] Core capabilities and features are documented
-- [ ] Architecture and design philosophy are explained
-- [ ] Maturity level is assessed (experimental, stable, mature, legacy)
-- [ ] Community size and activity are measured
-- [ ] Maintenance status is verified (active, maintenance mode, abandoned)
-
-### Practical Considerations
-
-- [ ] Learning curve is evaluated
-- [ ] Documentation quality is assessed
-- [ ] Developer experience is considered
-- [ ] Tooling ecosystem is reviewed
-- [ ] Testing and debugging capabilities are examined
-
-### Operational Assessment
-
-- [ ] Deployment complexity is understood
-- [ ] Monitoring and observability options are evaluated
-- [ ] Operational overhead is estimated
-- [ ] Cloud provider support is verified
-- [ ] Container/Kubernetes compatibility is checked (if relevant)
-
-## Comparative Analysis
-
-### Multi-Dimensional Comparison
-
-- [ ] Technologies are compared across relevant dimensions
-- [ ] Performance benchmarks are included (if available)
-- [ ] Scalability characteristics are compared
-- [ ] Complexity trade-offs are analyzed
-- [ ] Total cost of ownership is estimated for each option
-
-### Trade-off Analysis
-
-- [ ] Key trade-offs between options are identified
-- [ ] Decision factors are prioritized based on user needs
-- [ ] Conditions favoring each option are specified
-- [ ] Weighted analysis reflects user's priorities
-
-## Real-World Evidence
-
-### Production Experience
-
-- [ ] Real-world production experiences are researched
-- [ ] Known issues and gotchas are documented
-- [ ] Performance data from actual deployments is included
-- [ ] Migration experiences are considered (if replacing existing tech)
-- [ ] Community discussions and war stories are referenced
-
-### Source Quality
-
-- [ ] Multiple independent sources validate key claims
-- [ ] Recent sources from {{current_year}} are prioritized
-- [ ] Practitioner experiences are included (blog posts, conference talks, forums)
-- [ ] Both proponent and critic perspectives are considered
-
-## Decision Support
-
-### Recommendations
-
-- [ ] Primary recommendation is clearly stated with rationale
-- [ ] Alternative options are explained with use cases
-- [ ] Fit for user's specific context is explained
-- [ ] Decision is justified by requirements and constraints
-
-### Implementation Guidance
-
-- [ ] Proof-of-concept approach is outlined
-- [ ] Key implementation decisions are identified
-- [ ] Migration path is described (if applicable)
-- [ ] Success criteria are defined
-- [ ] Validation approach is recommended
-
-### Risk Management
-
-- [ ] Technical risks are identified
-- [ ] Mitigation strategies are provided
-- [ ] Contingency options are outlined (if primary choice doesn't work)
-- [ ] Exit strategy considerations are discussed
-
-## Architecture Decision Record
-
-### ADR Completeness
-
-- [ ] Status is specified (Proposed, Accepted, Superseded)
-- [ ] Context and problem statement are clear
-- [ ] Decision drivers are documented
-- [ ] All considered options are listed
-- [ ] Chosen option and rationale are explained
-- [ ] Consequences (positive, negative, neutral) are identified
-- [ ] Implementation notes are included
-- [ ] References to research sources are provided
-
-## References and Source Documentation (CRITICAL)
-
-### References Section Completeness
-
-- [ ] Report includes comprehensive "References and Sources" section
-- [ ] Sources organized by category (official docs, benchmarks, community, architecture)
-- [ ] Every source includes: Title, Publisher/Site, Date Accessed, Full URL
-- [ ] URLs are clickable and functional (documentation links, release pages, GitHub)
-- [ ] Version verification sources clearly listed
-- [ ] Inline citations throughout report reference the sources section
-
-### Technology Source Documentation
-
-- [ ] For each technology evaluated, sources documented:
-  - Official documentation URL
-  - Release notes/changelog URL for version
-  - Pricing page URL (if applicable)
-  - Community/GitHub URL
-  - Benchmark source URLs
-- [ ] Comparison data cites source for each claim
-- [ ] Architecture pattern sources cited (articles, books, official guides)
-
-### Source Quality Metrics
-
-- [ ] Report documents total sources cited
-- [ ] Official sources count (highest credibility)
-- [ ] Third-party sources count (benchmarks, articles)
-- [ ] Version verification count (all technologies verified {{current_year}})
-- [ ] Outdated sources flagged (if any used)
-
-### Citation Format Standards
-
-- [ ] Inline citations format: [Source: Docs URL] or [Version: 1.2.3, Source: Release Page URL]
-- [ ] Consistent citation style throughout
-- [ ] No vague citations like "according to the community" without specifics
-- [ ] GitHub links include star count and last update date
-- [ ] Documentation links point to current stable version docs
-
-## Document Quality
-
-### Anti-Hallucination Final Check
-
-- [ ] Spot-check 5 random version numbers - can you find the cited source?
-- [ ] Verify feature claims against official documentation
-- [ ] Check any performance numbers have benchmark sources
-- [ ] Ensure no "cutting edge" or "latest" without specific version number
-- [ ] Cross-check technology comparisons with cited sources
-
-### Structure and Completeness
-
-- [ ] Executive summary captures key findings
-- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
-- [ ] References section is complete and properly formatted
-- [ ] Version verification audit trail included
-- [ ] Document ready for technical fact-checking by third party
-
-## Research Completeness
-
-### Coverage
-
-- [ ] All user requirements were addressed
-- [ ] All constraints were considered
-- [ ] Sufficient depth for the decision at hand
-- [ ] Optional analyses were considered and included/excluded appropriately
-- [ ] Web research was conducted for current market data
-
-### Data Freshness
-
-- [ ] Current {{current_year}} data was used throughout
-- [ ] Version information is up-to-date
-- [ ] Recent developments and trends are included
-- [ ] Outdated or deprecated information is flagged or excluded
-
----
-
-## Issues Found
-
-### Critical Issues
-
-_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
-
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
-
-### Minor Improvements
-
-_List minor improvements that would enhance the report:_
-
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
-
-### Additional Research Needed
-
-_List areas requiring further investigation:_
-
-- [ ] Topic 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Topic 2: [Description]
-
----
-
-**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Ready for Decision:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Reviewer:** {agent}
-**Date:** {date}