agentvibes 3.0.0 → 3.2.0

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design/workflow.yaml

@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
-# Create UX Design Workflow Configuration
-name: create-ux-design
-description: "Collaborative UX design facilitation workflow that creates exceptional user experiences through visual exploration and informed decision-making. Unlike template-driven approaches, this workflow facilitates discovery, generates visual options, and collaboratively designs the UX with the user at every step."
-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:
-  prd:
-    description: "Features and user journeys (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*prd*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*prd*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
-
-  product_brief:
-    description: "Product vision and target users (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*brief*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*brief*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
-
-  epics:
-    description: "Epic and story breakdown (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*epic*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*epic*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
-
-  brainstorming:
-    description: "Brainstorming ideas and concepts (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/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design"
-instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
-validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
-template: "{installed_path}/ux-design-template.md"
-
-# Output configuration - Progressive saves throughout workflow
-default_output_file: "{output_folder}/ux-design-specification.md"
-color_themes_html: "{output_folder}/ux-color-themes.html"
-design_directions_html: "{output_folder}/ux-design-directions.html"
-
-standalone: true
-
-# Web bundle configuration for standalone deployment

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/checklist.md

@@ -1,346 +0,0 @@
-# PRD + Epics + Stories Validation Checklist
-
-**Purpose**: Comprehensive validation that PRD, epics, and stories form a complete, implementable product plan.
-
-**Scope**: Validates the complete planning output (PRD.md + epics.md) for Levels 2-4 software projects
-
-**Expected Outputs**:
-
-- PRD.md with complete requirements
-- epics.md with detailed epic and story breakdown
-- Updated bmm-workflow-status.yaml
-
----
-
-## 1. PRD Document Completeness
-
-### Core Sections Present
-
-- [ ] Executive Summary with vision alignment
-- [ ] Product differentiator clearly articulated
-- [ ] Project classification (type, domain, complexity)
-- [ ] Success criteria defined
-- [ ] Product scope (MVP, Growth, Vision) clearly delineated
-- [ ] Functional requirements comprehensive and numbered
-- [ ] Non-functional requirements (when applicable)
-- [ ] References section with source documents
-
-### Project-Specific Sections
-
-- [ ] **If complex domain:** Domain context and considerations documented
-- [ ] **If innovation:** Innovation patterns and validation approach documented
-- [ ] **If API/Backend:** Endpoint specification and authentication model included
-- [ ] **If Mobile:** Platform requirements and device features documented
-- [ ] **If SaaS B2B:** Tenant model and permission matrix included
-- [ ] **If UI exists:** UX principles and key interactions documented
-
-### Quality Checks
-
-- [ ] No unfilled template variables ({{variable}})
-- [ ] All variables properly populated with meaningful content
-- [ ] Product differentiator reflected throughout (not just stated once)
-- [ ] Language is clear, specific, and measurable
-- [ ] Project type correctly identified and sections match
-- [ ] Domain complexity appropriately addressed
-
----
-
-## 2. Functional Requirements Quality
-
-### FR Format and Structure
-
-- [ ] Each FR has unique identifier (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
-- [ ] FRs describe WHAT capabilities, not HOW to implement
-- [ ] FRs are specific and measurable
-- [ ] FRs are testable and verifiable
-- [ ] FRs focus on user/business value
-- [ ] No technical implementation details in FRs (those belong in architecture)
-
-### FR Completeness
-
-- [ ] All MVP scope features have corresponding FRs
-- [ ] Growth features documented (even if deferred)
-- [ ] Vision features captured for future reference
-- [ ] Domain-mandated requirements included
-- [ ] Innovation requirements captured with validation needs
-- [ ] Project-type specific requirements complete
-
-### FR Organization
-
-- [ ] FRs organized by capability/feature area (not by tech stack)
-- [ ] Related FRs grouped logically
-- [ ] Dependencies between FRs noted when critical
-- [ ] Priority/phase indicated (MVP vs Growth vs Vision)
-
----
-
-## 3. Epics Document Completeness
-
-### Required Files
-
-- [ ] epics.md exists in output folder
-- [ ] Epic list in PRD.md matches epics in epics.md (titles and count)
-- [ ] All epics have detailed breakdown sections
-
-### Epic Quality
-
-- [ ] Each epic has clear goal and value proposition
-- [ ] Each epic includes complete story breakdown
-- [ ] Stories follow proper user story format: "As a [role], I want [goal], so that [benefit]"
-- [ ] Each story has numbered acceptance criteria
-- [ ] Prerequisites/dependencies explicitly stated per story
-- [ ] Stories are AI-agent sized (completable in 2-4 hour session)
-
----
-
-## 4. FR Coverage Validation (CRITICAL)
-
-### Complete Traceability
-
-- [ ] **Every FR from PRD.md is covered by at least one story in epics.md**
-- [ ] Each story references relevant FR numbers
-- [ ] No orphaned FRs (requirements without stories)
-- [ ] No orphaned stories (stories without FR connection)
-- [ ] Coverage matrix verified (can trace FR → Epic → Stories)
-
-### Coverage Quality
-
-- [ ] Stories sufficiently decompose FRs into implementable units
-- [ ] Complex FRs broken into multiple stories appropriately
-- [ ] Simple FRs have appropriately scoped single stories
-- [ ] Non-functional requirements reflected in story acceptance criteria
-- [ ] Domain requirements embedded in relevant stories
-
----
-
-## 5. Story Sequencing Validation (CRITICAL)
-
-### Epic 1 Foundation Check
-
-- [ ] **Epic 1 establishes foundational infrastructure**
-- [ ] Epic 1 delivers initial deployable functionality
-- [ ] Epic 1 creates baseline for subsequent epics
-- [ ] Exception: If adding to existing app, foundation requirement adapted appropriately
-
-### Vertical Slicing
-
-- [ ] **Each story delivers complete, testable functionality** (not horizontal layers)
-- [ ] No "build database" or "create UI" stories in isolation
-- [ ] Stories integrate across stack (data + logic + presentation when applicable)
-- [ ] Each story leaves system in working/deployable state
-
-### No Forward Dependencies
-
-- [ ] **No story depends on work from a LATER story or epic**
-- [ ] Stories within each epic are sequentially ordered
-- [ ] Each story builds only on previous work
-- [ ] Dependencies flow backward only (can reference earlier stories)
-- [ ] Parallel tracks clearly indicated if stories are independent
-
-### Value Delivery Path
-
-- [ ] Each epic delivers significant end-to-end value
-- [ ] Epic sequence shows logical product evolution
-- [ ] User can see value after each epic completion
-- [ ] MVP scope clearly achieved by end of designated epics
-
----
-
-## 6. Scope Management
-
-### MVP Discipline
-
-- [ ] MVP scope is genuinely minimal and viable
-- [ ] Core features list contains only true must-haves
-- [ ] Each MVP feature has clear rationale for inclusion
-- [ ] No obvious scope creep in "must-have" list
-
-### Future Work Captured
-
-- [ ] Growth features documented for post-MVP
-- [ ] Vision features captured to maintain long-term direction
-- [ ] Out-of-scope items explicitly listed
-- [ ] Deferred features have clear reasoning for deferral
-
-### Clear Boundaries
-
-- [ ] Stories marked as MVP vs Growth vs Vision
-- [ ] Epic sequencing aligns with MVP → Growth progression
-- [ ] No confusion about what's in vs out of initial scope
-
----
-
-## 7. Research and Context Integration
-
-### Source Document Integration
-
-- [ ] **If product brief exists:** Key insights incorporated into PRD
-- [ ] **If domain brief exists:** Domain requirements reflected in FRs and stories
-- [ ] **If research documents exist:** Research findings inform requirements
-- [ ] **If competitive analysis exists:** Differentiation strategy clear in PRD
-- [ ] All source documents referenced in PRD References section
-
-### Research Continuity to Architecture
-
-- [ ] Domain complexity considerations documented for architects
-- [ ] Technical constraints from research captured
-- [ ] Regulatory/compliance requirements clearly stated
-- [ ] Integration requirements with existing systems documented
-- [ ] Performance/scale requirements informed by research data
-
-### Information Completeness for Next Phase
-
-- [ ] PRD provides sufficient context for architecture decisions
-- [ ] Epics provide sufficient detail for technical design
-- [ ] Stories have enough acceptance criteria for implementation
-- [ ] Non-obvious business rules documented
-- [ ] Edge cases and special scenarios captured
-
----
-
-## 8. Cross-Document Consistency
-
-### Terminology Consistency
-
-- [ ] Same terms used across PRD and epics for concepts
-- [ ] Feature names consistent between documents
-- [ ] Epic titles match between PRD and epics.md
-- [ ] No contradictions between PRD and epics
-
-### Alignment Checks
-
-- [ ] Success metrics in PRD align with story outcomes
-- [ ] Product differentiator articulated in PRD reflected in epic goals
-- [ ] Technical preferences in PRD align with story implementation hints
-- [ ] Scope boundaries consistent across all documents
-
----
-
-## 9. Readiness for Implementation
-
-### Architecture Readiness (Next Phase)
-
-- [ ] PRD provides sufficient context for architecture workflow
-- [ ] Technical constraints and preferences documented
-- [ ] Integration points identified
-- [ ] Performance/scale requirements specified
-- [ ] Security and compliance needs clear
-
-### Development Readiness
-
-- [ ] Stories are specific enough to estimate
-- [ ] Acceptance criteria are testable
-- [ ] Technical unknowns identified and flagged
-- [ ] Dependencies on external systems documented
-- [ ] Data requirements specified
-
-### Track-Appropriate Detail
-
-**If BMad Method:**
-
-- [ ] PRD supports full architecture workflow
-- [ ] Epic structure supports phased delivery
-- [ ] Scope appropriate for product/platform development
-- [ ] Clear value delivery through epic sequence
-
-**If Enterprise Method:**
-
-- [ ] PRD addresses enterprise requirements (security, compliance, multi-tenancy)
-- [ ] Epic structure supports extended planning phases
-- [ ] Scope includes security, devops, and test strategy considerations
-- [ ] Clear value delivery with enterprise gates
-
----
-
-## 10. Quality and Polish
-
-### Writing Quality
-
-- [ ] Language is clear and free of jargon (or jargon is defined)
-- [ ] Sentences are concise and specific
-- [ ] No vague statements ("should be fast", "user-friendly")
-- [ ] Measurable criteria used throughout
-- [ ] Professional tone appropriate for stakeholder review
-
-### Document Structure
-
-- [ ] Sections flow logically
-- [ ] Headers and numbering consistent
-- [ ] Cross-references accurate (FR numbers, section references)
-- [ ] Formatting consistent throughout
-- [ ] Tables/lists formatted properly
-
-### Completeness Indicators
-
-- [ ] No [TODO] or [TBD] markers remain
-- [ ] No placeholder text
-- [ ] All sections have substantive content
-- [ ] Optional sections either complete or omitted (not half-done)
-
----
-
-## Critical Failures (Auto-Fail)
-
-If ANY of these are true, validation FAILS:
-
-- [ ] ❌ **No epics.md file exists** (two-file output required)
-- [ ] ❌ **Epic 1 doesn't establish foundation** (violates core sequencing principle)
-- [ ] ❌ **Stories have forward dependencies** (breaks sequential implementation)
-- [ ] ❌ **Stories not vertically sliced** (horizontal layers block value delivery)
-- [ ] ❌ **Epics don't cover all FRs** (orphaned requirements)
-- [ ] ❌ **FRs contain technical implementation details** (should be in architecture)
-- [ ] ❌ **No FR traceability to stories** (can't validate coverage)
-- [ ] ❌ **Template variables unfilled** (incomplete document)
-
----
-
-## Validation Summary
-
-- **Pass Rate ≥ 95%:** ✅ EXCELLENT - Ready for architecture phase
-- **Pass Rate 85-94%:** ⚠️ GOOD - Minor fixes needed
-- **Pass Rate 70-84%:** ⚠️ FAIR - Important issues to address
-- **Pass Rate < 70%:** ❌ POOR - Significant rework required
-
-### Critical Issue Threshold
-
-- **0 Critical Failures:** Proceed to fixes
-- **1+ Critical Failures:** STOP - Must fix critical issues first
-
----
-
-## Validation Execution Notes
-
-**When validating:**
-
-1. **Load ALL documents - whole or sharded (but not both of each) for example epics.md vs epics/\*.md:**
-   - PRD.md (required)
-   - epics.md (required)
-   - product-brief.md (if exists)
-   - domain-brief.md (if exists)
-   - research documents (if referenced)
-
-2. **Validate in order:**
-   - Check critical failures first (immediate stop if any found)
-   - Verify PRD completeness
-   - Verify epics completeness
-   - Cross-reference FR coverage (most important)
-   - Check sequencing (second most important)
-   - Validate research integration
-   - Check polish and quality
-
-3. **Report findings:**
-   - List critical failures prominently
-   - Group issues by severity
-   - Provide specific line numbers/sections
-   - Suggest concrete fixes
-   - Highlight what's working well
-
-4. **Provide actionable next steps:**
-   - If validation passes: "Ready for architecture workflow"
-   - If minor issues: "Fix [X] items then re-validate"
-   - If major issues: "Rework [sections] then re-validate"
-   - If critical failures: "Must fix critical items before proceeding"
-
----
-
-**Remember:** This validation ensures the entire planning phase is complete and the implementation phase has everything needed to succeed. Be thorough but fair - the goal is quality, not perfection.