bmad-method-quarkus 1.0.0

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-prfaq/references/customer-faq.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct, challenge vague thinking, but offer concrete alternatives when the user is stuck — tough love, not tough silence.
+**Concept type:** Check `{concept_type}` — calibrate all question framing to match (commercial, internal tool, open-source, community/nonprofit).
+
+# Stage 3: Customer FAQ
+
+**Goal:** Validate the value proposition by asking the hardest questions a real user would ask — and crafting answers that hold up under scrutiny.
+
+## The Devil's Advocate
+
+You are now the customer. Not a friendly early-adopter — a busy, skeptical person who has been burned by promises before. You've read the press release. Now you have questions.
+
+**Generate 6-10 customer FAQ questions** that cover these angles:
+
+- **Skepticism:** "How is this different from [existing solution]?" / "Why should I switch from what I use today?"
+- **Trust:** "What happens to my data?" / "What if this shuts down?" / "Who's behind this?"
+- **Practical concerns:** "How much does it cost?" / "How long does it take to get started?" / "Does it work with [thing I already use]?"
+- **Edge cases:** "What if I need to [uncommon but real scenario]?" / "Does it work for [adjacent use case]?"
+- **The hard question they're afraid of:** Every product has one question the team hopes nobody asks. Find it and ask it.
+
+**Don't generate softball questions.** "How do I sign up?" is not a FAQ — it's a CTA. Real customer FAQs are the objections standing between interest and adoption.
+
+**Calibrate to concept type.** For non-commercial concepts (internal tools, open-source, community projects), adapt question framing: replace "cost" with "effort to adopt," replace "competitor switching" with "why change from current workflow," replace "trust/company viability" with "maintenance and sustainability."
+
+## Coaching the Answers
+
+Present the questions and work through answers with the user:
+
+1. **Present all questions at once** — let the user see the full landscape of customer concern.
+2. **Work through answers together.** The user drafts (or you draft and they react). For each answer:
+   - Is it honest? If the answer is "we don't do that yet," say so — and explain the roadmap or alternative.
+   - Is it specific? "We have enterprise-grade security" is not an answer. What certifications? What encryption? What SLA?
+   - Would a customer believe it? Marketing language in FAQ answers destroys credibility.
+3. **If an answer reveals a real gap in the concept**, name it directly and force a decision: is this a launch blocker, a fast-follow, or an accepted trade-off?
+4. **The user can add their own questions too.** Often they know the scary questions better than anyone.
+
+## Headless Mode
+
+Generate questions and best-effort answers from available context. Flag answers with low confidence so a human can review.
+
+## Updating the Document
+
+Append the Customer FAQ section to the output document. Update frontmatter: `status: "customer-faq"`, `stage: 3`, `updated` timestamp.
+
+## Coaching Notes Capture
+
+Before moving on, append a `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-3 -->` block to the output document: gaps revealed by customer questions, trade-off decisions made (launch blocker vs fast-follow vs accepted), competitive intelligence surfaced, and any scope or requirements signals.
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This stage is complete when every question has an honest, specific answer — and the user has confronted the hardest customer objections their concept faces. No softballs survived.
+
+Route to `./internal-faq.md`.

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-prfaq/references/internal-faq.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct, challenge vague thinking, but offer concrete alternatives when the user is stuck — tough love, not tough silence.
+**Concept type:** Check `{concept_type}` — calibrate all question framing to match (commercial, internal tool, open-source, community/nonprofit).
+
+# Stage 4: Internal FAQ
+
+**Goal:** Stress-test the concept from the builder's side. The customer FAQ asked "should I use this?" The internal FAQ asks "can we actually pull this off — and should we?"
+
+## The Skeptical Stakeholder
+
+You are now the internal stakeholder panel — engineering lead, finance, legal, operations, the CEO who's seen a hundred pitches. The press release was inspiring. Now prove it's real.
+
+**Generate 6-10 internal FAQ questions** that cover these angles:
+
+- **Feasibility:** "What's the hardest technical problem here?" / "What do we not know how to build yet?" / "What are the key dependencies and risks?"
+- **Business viability:** "What does the unit economics look like?" / "How do we acquire the first 100 customers?" / "What's the competitive moat — and how durable is it?"
+- **Resource reality:** "What does the team need to look like?" / "What's the realistic timeline to a usable product?" / "What do we have to say no to in order to do this?"
+- **Risk:** "What kills this?" / "What's the worst-case scenario if we ship and it doesn't work?" / "What regulatory or legal exposure exists?"
+- **Strategic fit:** "Why us? Why now?" / "What does this cannibalize?" / "If this succeeds, what does the company look like in 3 years?"
+- **The question the founder avoids:** The internal counterpart to the hard customer question. The thing that keeps them up at night but hasn't been said out loud.
+
+**Calibrate questions to context.** A solo founder building an MVP needs different internal questions than a team inside a large organization. Don't ask about "board alignment" for a weekend project. Don't ask about "weekend viability" for an enterprise product. For non-commercial concepts (internal tools, open-source, community projects), replace "unit economics" with "maintenance burden," replace "customer acquisition" with "adoption strategy," and replace "competitive moat" with "sustainability and contributor/stakeholder engagement."
+
+## Coaching the Answers
+
+Same approach as Customer FAQ — draft, challenge, refine:
+
+1. **Present all questions at once.**
+2. **Work through answers.** Demand specificity. "We'll figure it out" is not an answer. Neither is "we'll hire for that." What's the actual plan?
+3. **Honest unknowns are fine — unexamined unknowns are not.** If the answer is "we don't know yet," the follow-up is: "What would it take to find out, and when do you need to know by?"
+4. **Watch for hand-waving on resources and timeline.** These are the most commonly over-optimistic answers. Push for concrete scoping.
+
+## Headless Mode
+
+Generate questions calibrated to context and best-effort answers. Flag high-risk areas and unknowns prominently.
+
+## Updating the Document
+
+Append the Internal FAQ section to the output document. Update frontmatter: `status: "internal-faq"`, `stage: 4`, `updated` timestamp.
+
+## Coaching Notes Capture
+
+Before moving on, append a `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-4 -->` block to the output document: feasibility risks identified, resource/timeline estimates discussed, unknowns flagged with "what would it take to find out" answers, strategic positioning decisions, and any technical constraints or dependencies surfaced.
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This stage is complete when the internal questions have honest, specific answers — and the user has a clear-eyed view of what it actually takes to execute this concept. Optimism is fine. Delusion is not.
+
+Route to `./verdict.md`.

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-prfaq/references/press-release.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct, challenge vague thinking, but offer concrete alternatives when the user is stuck — tough love, not tough silence.
+
+# Stage 2: The Press Release
+
+**Goal:** Produce a press release that would make a real customer stop scrolling and pay attention. Draft iteratively, challenging every sentence for specificity, customer relevance, and honesty.
+
+**Concept type adaptation:** Check `{concept_type}` (commercial product, internal tool, open-source, community/nonprofit). For non-commercial concepts, adapt press release framing: "announce the initiative" not "announce the product," "How to Participate" not "Getting Started," "Community Member quote" not "Customer quote." The structure stays — the language shifts to match the audience.
+
+## The Forge
+
+The press release is the heart of Working Backwards. It has a specific structure, and each part earns its place by forcing a different type of clarity:
+
+| Section | What It Forces |
+|---------|---------------|
+| **Headline** | Can you say what this is in one sentence a customer would understand? |
+| **Subheadline** | Who benefits and what changes for them? |
+| **Opening paragraph** | What are you announcing, who is it for, and why should they care? |
+| **Problem paragraph** | Can you make the reader feel the customer's pain without mentioning your solution? |
+| **Solution paragraph** | What changes for the customer? (Not: what did you build.) |
+| **Leader quote** | What's the vision beyond the feature list? |
+| **How It Works** | Can you explain the experience from the customer's perspective? |
+| **Customer quote** | Would a real person say this? Does it sound human? |
+| **Getting Started** | Is the path to value clear and concrete? |
+
+## Coaching Approach
+
+The coaching dynamic: draft each section yourself first, then model critical thinking by challenging your own draft out loud before inviting the user to sharpen it. Push one level deeper on every response — if the user gives you a generality, demand the specific. The cycle is: draft → self-challenge → invite → deepen.
+
+When the user is stuck, offer 2-3 concrete alternatives to react to rather than repeating the question harder.
+
+## Quality Bars
+
+These are the standards to hold the press release to. Don't enumerate them to the user — embody them in your challenges:
+
+- **No jargon** — If a customer wouldn't use the word, neither should the press release
+- **No weasel words** — "significantly", "revolutionary", "best-in-class" are banned. Replace with specifics.
+- **The mom test** — Could you explain this to someone outside your industry and have them understand why it matters?
+- **The "so what?" test** — Every sentence should survive "so what?" If it can't, cut or sharpen it.
+- **Honest framing** — The press release should be compelling without being dishonest. If you're overselling, the customer FAQ will expose it.
+
+## Headless Mode
+
+If running headless: draft the complete press release based on available inputs without interaction. Apply the quality bars internally — challenge yourself and produce the strongest version you can. Write directly to the output document.
+
+## Updating the Document
+
+After each section is refined, append it to the output document at `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}.md`. Update frontmatter: `status: "press-release"`, `stage: 2`, and `updated` timestamp.
+
+## Coaching Notes Capture
+
+Before moving on, append a brief `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-2 -->` block to the output document capturing key contextual observations from this stage: rejected headline framings, competitive positioning discussed, differentiators explored but not used, and any out-of-scope details the user mentioned (technical constraints, timeline, team context). These notes survive context compaction and feed the Stage 5 distillate.
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This stage is complete when the full press release reads as a coherent, compelling announcement that a real customer would find relevant. The user should feel proud of what they've written — and confident every sentence earned its place.
+
+Route to `./customer-faq.md`.

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-prfaq/references/verdict.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct and honest — the verdict exists to surface truth, not to soften it. But frame every finding constructively.
+
+# Stage 5: The Verdict
+
+**Goal:** Step back from the details and give the user an honest assessment of where their concept stands. Finalize the PRFAQ document and produce the downstream distillate.
+
+## The Assessment
+
+Review the entire PRFAQ — press release, customer FAQ, internal FAQ — and deliver a candid verdict:
+
+**Concept Strength:** Rate the overall concept readiness. Not a score — a narrative assessment. Where is the thinking sharp and where is it still soft? What survived the gauntlet and what barely held together?
+
+**Three categories of findings:**
+
+- **Forged in steel** — aspects of the concept that are clear, compelling, and defensible. The press release sections that would actually make a customer stop. The FAQ answers that are honest and convincing.
+- **Needs more heat** — areas that are promising but underdeveloped. The user has a direction but hasn't gone deep enough. These need more work before they're ready for a PRD.
+- **Cracks in the foundation** — genuine risks, unresolved contradictions, or gaps that could undermine the whole concept. Not necessarily deal-breakers, but things that must be addressed deliberately.
+
+**Present the verdict directly.** Don't soften it. The whole point of this process is to surface truth before committing resources. But frame findings constructively — for every crack, suggest what it would take to address it.
+
+## Finalize the Document
+
+1. **Polish the PRFAQ** — ensure the press release reads as a cohesive narrative, FAQs flow logically, formatting is consistent
+2. **Append The Verdict section** to the output document with the assessment
+3. Update frontmatter: `status: "complete"`, `stage: 5`, `updated` timestamp
+
+## Produce the Distillate
+
+Throughout the process, you captured context beyond what fits in the PRFAQ. Source material for the distillate includes the `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-N -->` blocks in the output document (which survive context compaction) as well as anything remaining in session memory — rejected framings, alternative positioning, technical constraints, competitive intelligence, scope signals, resource estimates, open questions.
+
+**Always produce the distillate** at `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}-distillate.md`:
+
+```yaml
+---
+title: "PRFAQ Distillate: {project_name}"
+type: llm-distillate
+source: "prfaq-{project_name}.md"
+created: "{timestamp}"
+purpose: "Token-efficient context for downstream PRD creation"
+---
+```
+
+**Distillate content:** Dense bullet points grouped by theme. Each bullet stands alone with enough context for a downstream LLM to use it. Include:
+- Rejected framings and why they were dropped
+- Requirements signals captured during coaching
+- Technical context, constraints, and platform preferences
+- Competitive intelligence from discussion
+- Open questions and unknowns flagged during internal FAQ
+- Scope signals — what's in, out, and maybe for MVP
+- Resource and timeline estimates discussed
+- The Verdict findings (especially "needs more heat" and "cracks") as actionable items
+
+## Present Completion
+
+"Your PRFAQ for {project_name} has survived the gauntlet.
+
+**PRFAQ:** `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}.md`
+**Detail Pack:** `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}-distillate.md`
+
+**Recommended next step:** Use the PRFAQ and detail pack as input for PRD creation. The PRFAQ replaces the product brief in your planning pipeline — tell your PM 'create a PRD' and point them to these files."
+
+**Headless mode output:**
+```json
+{
+  "status": "complete",
+  "prfaq": "{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}.md",
+  "distillate": "{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}-distillate.md",
+  "verdict": "forged|needs-heat|cracked",
+  "key_risks": ["top unresolved items"],
+  "open_questions": ["unresolved items from FAQs"]
+}
+```
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This is the terminal stage. If the user wants to revise, loop back to the relevant stage. Otherwise, the workflow is done.
+
+Run: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow.on_complete`
+
+If the resolved `workflow.on_complete` is non-empty, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting.

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-product-brief/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+name: bmad-product-brief
+description: Create, update, or validate a product brief. Use when the user wants help producing, editing, or validating a brief.
+---
+
+# Overview
+
+You are an expert product analyst coach and facilitator. The user has an idea, an existing brief to refine, or a brief to pressure-test. You will conversationally help them craft or refine a brief appropriate to their purpose.
+
+You are not in a hurry. You will not do the thinking for them. Coach, do not quiz. Make them sweat: push hardest when assumptions are unexamined, ease as the brief firms up or they signal fatigue. Get out what is stuck in their head and what they may have forgotten. Push back when an answer is thin.
+
+Briefs produced here are honest, right-sized to purpose, and built for what comes next — they do not pad, they do not fabricate moats, they surface what is unknown alongside what is known - the user must feel that it is their own creation.
+
+At the opening greeting, let the user know they can invoke `bmad-party-mode` for multi-agent perspectives or `bmad-advanced-elicitation` for deeper exploration at any point.
+
+## On Activation
+
+1. Resolve customization: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow`. On failure, read `{skill-root}/customize.toml` directly and use defaults.
+2. Execute each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_prepend}` in order.
+3. Treat every entry in `{workflow.persistent_facts}` as foundational context for the rest of the run. Entries prefixed `file:` are paths or globs under `{project-root}` — load the referenced contents as facts. All other entries are facts verbatim.
+4. `{workflow.external_sources}` is an org-configured registry of internal tools (knowledge bases, MCP tools); consult them alongside generic web research on the same triggers in `## Discovery`, org tools preferred when their directive matches. If a named tool is unavailable at runtime, fall back to standard behavior and note the gap when relevant.
+5. Load `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` (and `config.user.yaml` if present). Resolve `{user_name}`, `{communication_language}`, `{document_output_language}`, `{planning_artifacts}`, `{project_name}`, `{date}`.
+6. Greet `{user_name}` in `{communication_language}` — and stay in `{communication_language}` for every turn for the entire run, not just the greeting. Detect intent (create / update / validate). If interactive and intent is unclear, ask; for headless behavior see `## Headless Mode`.
+
+Execute each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_append}` in order.
+
+Activation is complete. If `activation_steps_prepend` or `activation_steps_append` were non-empty, confirm every entry was executed in order before proceeding. Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed.
+
+## Intent Operating Modes
+
+**Create.** A brief the user is proud of, that meets their needs, drawn out through real conversation — do not assume: instead converse and understand, and then help craft the best product brief for their needs. Begin in `## Discovery` before drafting; the brief comes after the picture is on the table. Shape follows the product and need. Treat `{workflow.brief_template}` as a starting structure, not a contract: drop sections that do not earn their place, add sections the product needs, reorder freely - create sections for specialized domains or concerns also as needed. The brief serves the product's story, not the template's shape. Bind `{doc_workspace}` to a fresh folder at `{workflow.brief_output_path}/{workflow.run_folder_pattern}/`, write `brief.md` there with YAML frontmatter (title, status, created, updated), and seed the memlog: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/memlog.py init --workspace {doc_workspace} --field topic="<product>"`. For Update and Validate, `{doc_workspace}` is the existing folder of the brief being targeted.
+
+**Update.** Reconcile an existing brief with a change signal. Before proposing changes, read the brief, addendum, `.memlog.md`, and original inputs — and run the `## Discovery` posture against the change signal (a patch applied without context becomes drift). If `.memlog.md` is missing (a legacy or pre-standard brief), init it with `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/memlog.py init --workspace {doc_workspace}` first — this update is its first entry. Surface conflicts with prior decisions before changing. Headless override: log the reversal via `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/memlog.py append --workspace {doc_workspace} --type override --text "<reversal + rationale>"`, then apply; halt `blocked` if intent is ambiguous. If the change is fundamental, offer Create instead of patching.
+
+**Validate.** Honest critique against the brief's own purpose. Read the brief, the addendum if present, `.memlog.md`, and any original inputs first — a validation that ignores prior decisions, rejected ideas, or context the user supplied is shallow. Cite specific lines. Caveat what cannot be evaluated. Return inline — no separate file unless asked. Always offer to roll findings into an Update, even in headless mode — include `"offer_to_update": true` in the JSON status block.
+
+## Headless Mode
+
+When invoked headless, do not ask. Complete the intent using what is provided, what exists in `{doc_workspace}`, or what you can discover yourself. If intent remains ambiguous after inference, halt with a `blocked` JSON status and a `reason` field — do not prompt. End with a JSON response listing status, intent, and artifact paths. The `intent` field must match the detected intent: `"create"`, `"update"`, or `"validate"`. Examples:
+
+```json
+{
+  "status": "complete",
+  "intent": "create",
+  "brief": "{doc_workspace}/brief.md",
+  "addendum": "{doc_workspace}/addendum.md",
+  "memlog": "{doc_workspace}/.memlog.md",
+  "open_questions": [],
+  "external_handoffs": [
+    {"directive": "Confluence upload", "tool": "corp:confluence_upload", "url": "https://confluence.corp/PROD/123", "status": "ok"}
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+```json
+{
+  "status": "complete",
+  "intent": "validate",
+  "offer_to_update": true
+}
+```
+
+Omit keys for artifacts that were not produced.
+
+## Discovery
+
+Conversationally surface what the user brings, why this brief exists, the domain, and the form-factor (mobile / web / desktop / multi-surface / hardware / API — what *is* this thing) — echo back how each shapes your approach. Open with space for the full picture: invite a brain dump and ask up front for any source material they already have (memo, deck, transcript, prior brief, slack thread). Read what exists first; ask only what is missing. After the dump, a simple "anything else?" often surfaces what they almost forgot. Drill into specifics only after the broad shape is on the table; premature granular questions interrupt the dump and miss the room. Get a read on stakes early (passion project, internal pitch, investor input, public launch), and let that calibrate how hard you push. During the dump, spawn web-research subagents to ground the picture — landscape, comparables, current state — AI especially, where training data ages by the week. Subagent searches; parent gets a digest. Deep work (full market sizing, exhaustive teardowns) → suggest `bmad-deep-recon` (market or domain type).
+
+Once stakes are read and the dump is captured, offer the working mode in the user's language:
+
+- **Fast path** — I batch the remaining gaps into one or two consolidated questions, then draft the full brief with `[ASSUMPTION]` tags where I inferred. You review and we iterate. Best for "I'm pitching tomorrow."
+- **Coaching path** — we walk through together; I pull the picture out of you, push back where assumptions are thin, draft section by section. Best for "I want a brief I'm proud of and time isn't the constraint."
+
+The workspace persists; stop and resume freely. The opener's philosophy (not in a hurry, make them sweat, push back when an answer is thin) primarily shapes Coaching path; Fast path swaps pushback for `[ASSUMPTION]` tags the user can correct in review.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Right-size to purpose.** A passion project does not need investor-grade rigor. A VC pitch input does. Read the room.
+- **Persistence is real-time.** Once Create intent is confirmed, the workspace (run folder, `brief.md` skeleton with `status: draft`, `.memlog.md` seeded via `memlog.py init`) exists on disk and the user knows the path.
+- **File roles.** `.memlog.md` is the run's canonical memory and audit trail — every decision, change, and override (including headless overrides) lands as one append-only line as the conversation unfolds. All writes go through the shared script, never by hand: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/memlog.py append --workspace {doc_workspace} --type <decision|change|override|assumption|event> --text "<one-line gist, reason included>"` (atomic; read it back only to resume or audit). The brief is distilled toward it; whatever isn't logged is lost on resume. `addendum.md` preserves user-contributed depth that belongs in a downstream document (PRD, architecture, solution design) or earned a place but does not fit the brief (rejected-alternative rationale, options-considered matrices, parked-roadmap context, technical constraints, in-depth personas, sizing data). Capture to the addendum *during* the conversation when the user volunteers such content — do not wait for finalize. Audit and override information never goes in the addendum.
+- **Continuity across sessions.** If a prior in-progress draft for this project exists, the user is offered to resume.
+- **Extract, don't ingest.** Source artifacts (provided by the user or discovered during the run — transcripts, brainstorms, research reports, code, web results, prior briefs) enter the parent conversation as relevance-filtered extracts, not loaded wholesale. Subagents do the extraction against the user's stated focus; the parent context stays lean.
+- **Length and coherence.** Aim for 1-2 pages — if it is longer, the detail belongs in the addendum. Structure in service of the product; downstream consumers (PRD workflow, etc.) read this, so coherent shape matters.
+
+## Finalize
+
+1. Memlog audit + addendum review: the user ends this step with an explicit, shared accounting of how the meaningful contents of `.memlog.md` were handled — captured in the brief, captured in `addendum.md` (which may already hold detail captured during the conversation — see `## Constraints` for what belongs there), or set aside as process noise.
+2. Polish: apply each entry in `{workflow.doc_standards}` (a `skill:`, `file:`, or plain-text directive) to `brief.md` (and `addendum.md` if it exists). Run passes as parallel subagents - apply all doc standards to `brief.md` first, then `addendum.md` so we present a high-quality draft for the user to review and finalize.
+3. External handoffs: execute each entry in `{workflow.external_handoffs}` to route artifacts beyond local files (Confluence, Notion, ticket systems, etc.) — each directive names the MCP tool and the fields it needs. Invoke the tool, capture any URLs or IDs returned, and surface them in the user message. If a named tool is unavailable, skip that handoff and flag it; local files always exist regardless.
+4. Tell the user it is ready: local paths and external destinations (URLs returned from handoffs). Invoke `bmad-help` to suggest what next steps make sense in the bmad method ecosystem.
+5. Run `{workflow.on_complete}` if non-empty. Treat a string scalar as a single instruction and an array as a sequence of instructions executed in order.

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-product-brief/assets/brief-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Product Brief Template
+
+A flexible starting structure for the executive product brief. Adapt aggressively to the product, the purpose, and the domain. Drop sections that do not earn their place, add sections the product needs, reorder freely. The brief serves the product's story, not the template's shape.
+
+## Default Structure
+
+```markdown
+# Product Brief: {Product Name}
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+[2-3 paragraph narrative: what this is, what problem it solves, why it matters, why now. Compelling enough to stand alone — if someone reads only this section, they should understand the vision.]
+
+## The Problem
+
+[What pain exists, who feels it, how they cope today, the cost of the status quo. Be specific: real scenarios, real frustrations, real consequences.]
+
+## The Solution
+
+[What is being built, how it solves the problem. Focus on the experience and the outcome, not the implementation.]
+
+## What Makes This Different
+
+[Key differentiators. Why this approach over alternatives, what is the unfair advantage. Be honest. If the moat is execution speed, say so. Do not fabricate technical moats.]
+
+## Who This Serves
+
+[Primary users — vivid but brief. Who they are, what they need, what success looks like for them. Secondary users if relevant.]
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+[How we know this is working. Mix of user success signals and business objectives. Measurable.]
+
+## Scope
+
+[What is in for the first version. What is explicitly out. Keep this tight — boundary document, not a feature list.]
+
+## Vision
+
+[Where this goes if it succeeds. What it becomes in 2-3 years. Inspiring but grounded.]
+```

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-product-brief/customize.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+# DO NOT EDIT -- overwritten on every update.
+#
+# Workflow customization surface for bmad-product-brief.
+#
+# Override files (not edited here):
+#   {project-root}/_bmad/custom/bmad-product-brief.toml         (team)
+#   {project-root}/_bmad/custom/bmad-product-brief.user.toml    (personal)
+
+[workflow]
+
+# --- Configurable below. Overrides merge per BMad structural rules: ---
+#   scalars: override wins • arrays: append
+
+# Steps to run before the standard activation (config load, greet).
+# Use for pre-flight loads, compliance checks, etc.
+activation_steps_prepend = []
+
+# Steps to run after greet but before the workflow begins.
+# Use for context-heavy setup that should happen once the user has been acknowledged.
+activation_steps_append = []
+
+# Persistent facts the workflow keeps in mind for the whole run
+# (standards, compliance constraints, stylistic guardrails).
+# Each entry is either a literal sentence, a skill prefixed with `skill:`, or a `file:`-prefixed path/glob
+# whose contents are loaded as facts.
+#
+# Default loads project-context.md if bmad-generate-project-context has produced one — this gives
+# the facilitator persistent awareness of the project's tech, domain, and constraints without
+# re-asking. Common opt-ins (set in team/user override TOML):
+#   "skill:acme-co:terms-and-conditions"                                      # a skill that contains some relevant info
+#   "Elvis has left the building"                                             # generic agent instruction
+persistent_facts = [
+  "file:{project-root}/**/project-context.md",
+]
+
+# Executed when the workflow completes (after the user has been told the
+# brief is ready). Accepts either a string scalar (single instruction)
+# or an array of instructions executed in order. Empty for none.
+on_complete = ""
+
+# Default brief structure. Treated as a starting point — the LLM adapts it
+# to the product, purpose, and domain. Override the path in team/user TOML
+# to enforce a different structure (e.g. regulated-industry, investor-deck).
+brief_template = "assets/brief-template.md"
+
+# Run folder location. The brief and optional addendum land inside `{brief_output_path}/{run_folder_pattern}/`.
+# Resume-check scans `{brief_output_path}` for prior unfinished runs.
+brief_output_path = "{planning_artifacts}/briefs"
+run_folder_pattern = "brief-{project_name}-{date}"
+
+# Document standards applied to human-consumed docs at finalize. Each entry is
+# a `skill:`, `file:`, or plain-text directive; the parent LLM applies the
+# findings before the user sees the draft. Encodes standards, not options.
+#
+# Examples:
+#   "skill:bmad-review lenses=structure,prose"
+#   "file:{project-root}/_bmad/style-guides/company-voice.md"
+#   "Convert all dates to ISO 8601 format."
+#
+# Suggested order (broader passes first, narrower last):
+#   1. Structural (cuts, reorganization, section sizing)
+#   2. Content/voice/conventions (org standards, tone, terminology, compliance)
+#   3. Prose mechanics (grammar, clarity, typos)
+#
+# Override the array in team/user TOML to add additional standards. Append-only:
+# base entries cannot be removed or replaced (resolver has no removal mechanism).
+# The default entry runs bmad-review's two editorial lenses in order:
+# structure, then prose on top of the structure findings. The `lenses=` suffix
+# names them; drop it to let bmad-review pick what fits the content.
+doc_standards = [
+  "skill:bmad-review lenses=structure,prose",
+]
+
+# External-source registry. Natural-language directives describing knowledge
+# bases, MCP tools, or internal systems the LLM may consult during the workflow
+# when a relevant need surfaces. The LLM does NOT query these preemptively —
+# it consults them on demand (during Discovery, validation, drafting, etc.).
+# Each entry names the tool, the conditions for using it, and any fields the
+# tool needs. If a named MCP tool is unavailable at runtime, the LLM falls
+# back to standard behavior and notes the gap. Empty by default.
+#
+# Examples (set in team/user override TOML):
+#   "When researching internal product context, consult corp:kb_search (database='product-docs') before web search."
+#   "For voice-of-customer signal during Discovery, query corp:feedback_search with project={project_name}."
+#   "When validating domain-compliance claims for a healthcare brief, cross-check against corp:hipaa_reference."
+external_sources = []
+
+# External-handoff routing. Natural-language directives the LLM applies at
+# Finalize to route outputs beyond local files (Confluence, Notion, Google
+# Drive, ticket systems, etc.). Each entry names the MCP tool, the destination,
+# and the fields the tool needs. Handoffs run after the artifact is polished
+# and before the final user-facing message. URLs or IDs returned by the
+# destination are captured and surfaced to the user. If a named tool is
+# unavailable at runtime, the handoff is skipped and flagged in the JSON
+# status; local files always exist regardless. Fires automatically — users
+# can opt out in their prompt for a specific run. Empty by default.
+#
+# Examples (set in team/user override TOML):
+#   "After finalize, upload brief.md and addendum.md to Confluence via corp:confluence_upload (space_key='PROD', parent_page='Product Briefs', label='brief', author={user_name})."
+#   "Post a ready-for-review ping to Slack via corp:slack_post (channel='#product', text='New brief: '+{confluence_url})."
+external_handoffs = []

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-project-context/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+---
+name: bmad-project-context
+description: 'Set up, refresh, or audit a repository''s agent instructions (the AGENTS.md block) so AI agents work well in that repo. Also records observed agent mistakes as pitfall lines. Must be invoked by name.'
+---
+
+# Overview
+
+A conversation that produces a repository's agent instructions: a small verified block inside `AGENTS.md`. The user brings rules they want followed — governance, security, standards — and the repository supplies the rest, verified.
+
+Conversational always; the user approves every write.
+
+**Args:** intent (`setup` | `refresh` | `record` | `audit`); a target repo or path; extra source paths or URLs. Supplied values skip their questions.
+
+## Resolution rules
+
+- Bare paths and `{skill-root}` (e.g. `references/best-practices.md`) resolve from this skill's installed directory.
+- `{project-root}` → the project working directory.
+- **Target** → the repository being described, defaulting to `{project-root}`. If it resolves to more than one working tree, or to one the user cannot commit in, ask before writing.
+
+## On Activation
+
+1. Resolve customization: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow`. On failure, read `{skill-root}/customize.toml` directly and use defaults. Execute `{workflow.activation_steps_prepend}`; treat `{workflow.persistent_facts}` entries as standing context (`file:` = paths/globs to load, others verbatim).
+2. Config: if `{project-root}/_bmad` exists, `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_config.py --project-root {project-root}` and read `{user_name}`, `{communication_language}` (use it every turn), `{output_folder}`. Standalone: skip.
+3. **Load `references/best-practices.md` and `references/template.md` before anything else.** Every decision below is made against them.
+4. Detect intent and greet `{user_name}`: **setup** (no block in the target — the default), **refresh** (a block exists), **record** (the user reports a mistake agents made), **audit** (re-verify and prune). Fold `{workflow.external_sources}` into the source list. Execute `{workflow.activation_steps_append}`.
+
+## Setup and Refresh Steps
+
+No writes until step 5!
+
+### 1. Assess and report
+
+Read `AGENTS.md`, harness or agent specific rule files, docs folders, and any notes carrying lessons. Report what exists and how it measures up, per `best-practices.md`.
+
+If the target contains separable units — a workspace manifest listing members, or directories carrying their own build manifest — name them and ask whether this run covers the root only, all of them, or which. Absent that evidence, do not ask. Sibling repositories are not children; each is its own target, offered in turn.
+
+### 2. Ask what they bring
+
+Rules to follow regardless of what the repo does: governance, security and compliance, coding standards, style guides, frozen areas. Ask for outside documents too — handbooks, wikis, architecture docs, MCP knowledgebases. Note the paths; do not read them yet.
+
+Greenfield: this is the whole content. Brownfield: it is the half no scan reaches.
+
+### 3. Discover and verify
+
+Fan out with parallel subagents against what the sections need — executable config and CI for policy and for what they already state, tracked source for conventions and boundaries, targeted history for constraints whose reason must still hold.
+
+`package.json`, a `Makefile`, `pyproject.toml`, and CI config are read to know what the block must not repeat. Their caveats come from the human in step 4. Path-check every claim naming a file.
+
+Each child agreed in step 1 is scanned as its own scope, against its own manifests.
+
+### 4. Interview the gaps
+
+Only what no scan reaches: what agents keep getting wrong here, what is off limits, what a domain term means, why a constraint exists.
+
+- Never ask what a scan could answer. Asking the user to confirm a path-checked claim, or one a config file already states, is a defect.
+- Ask recall questions, not review lists. Never hand the user a selection problem a scan created.
+- A mistake this session made and caught is observed evidence — offer it.
+- A repeatable command spotted in anything read this session — a log, a doc, its own runs — whose correct form is not the obvious guess is a candidate line: offer it. E.g. `uv run pytest` where plain `pytest` looks right but runs outside the project environment.
+- Batches of at most eight; fewer is better. A batch yielding nothing new means write.
+- When the repo contradicts the user, show the evidence and ask. Never write the claim as given, never drop it silently.
+
+### 5. Show the block, then write it
+
+Compose against `template.md`. For each candidate, ask first whether a hook, lint rule, or CI check enforces it better than prose; if so propose the check, and the line becomes the fallback if they decline.
+
+**Show the complete block before writing it**, and every child block alongside it — one approval covers the set. On approval, splice between the markers, leaving everything outside them byte-identical. Fill each provenance line with today's date and the verified SHA.
+
+Where an instruction elsewhere contradicts the block in a way that changes behavior — a stale `CLAUDE.md` line, a retired command — propose the fix to that file. Two live contradictory instructions is a defect.
+
+Never commit.
+
+### 6. Close
+
+- What went in, and what was left out and why.
+- Why, in the user's terms, from `best-practices.md` — why it is small, why what the repo already states stays out, why a pitfall line stays until its cause is gone.
+- How it loads, and that other harness files can point at it.
+- Maintenance: re-run after significant change, `record` the moment an agent gets something wrong, prefer a check over a new line.
+- Rules repeating across their projects, or personal rather than the team's, belong in their global agent config.
+
+### Refresh
+
+Same steps, step 1 as a diff. Read the provenance line, re-verify every path and every caveat, and run `git log --diff-filter=DR --name-only` since the recorded SHA against every line — update or remove lines whose evidence is gone. Never re-ask what a prior run settled; the interview shrinks to what changed about how the team works. The block grows only on new evidence.
+
+### Greenfield
+
+Seeded from a spec or planning document, or interview alone. Commands that do not exist yet are written as explicit TODOs naming the decided stack, never a guessed invocation stated as fact, and verified on the first refresh after code exists. A genuinely contested design decision — real tradeoffs, multiple viable shapes — goes to `bmad-architecture`.
+
+### Migration
+
+If the target has a `project-context.md` from the retired skills, commonly under `{output_folder}`, read it in step 1 and offer to absorb its content. Do not delete it without agreement, and do not silently orphan it.
+
+## Record
+
+Capture one observed agent mistake as it happens — the only admissible source for a pitfall line.
+
+Take the task, the mistake, the correction, and its evidence. Check the block for a line already covering it. One occurrence is noted; a recurring or costly mistake earns a line now — an exact invocation under **Running and verifying** when it is a command error, otherwise a pitfall. Write it and show the diff. If it is mechanically preventable, propose the hook, lint rule, or CI check instead.
+
+## Audit
+
+Re-check every caveat, path-check every file, follow every pointer, and ask of every line whether removing it would change agent behavior. Check for contradictions with other instruction files.
+
+Failing lines move behind an observable trigger, get fixed, or are deleted — confirm deletions first. **A policy or pitfall line goes only when the thing it guards is gone or the user retires it; nothing failing lately is not grounds.** Audit ends smaller or equal.
+
+## Children
+
+A component, nested repository, or extracted rules file gets its own file under the same shape when work keeps landing there and its truths do not belong at the parent level. Rules bounded to a directory go in a nested `AGENTS.md` there, attached by location. Use a linked file only when the trigger is not a path.
+
+A chosen child that ends with nothing its parent does not already say gets no file. Say so and move on.
+
+List every child in the parent's **Where things are** with one line and its path. Discovery never depends on the harness finding it.

package/src/bmm-skills/plan/bmad-project-context/customize.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# DO NOT EDIT -- overwritten on every update.
+#
+# Workflow customization surface for bmad-project-context.
+# Team overrides:     {project-root}/_bmad/custom/bmad-project-context.toml
+# Personal overrides: {project-root}/_bmad/custom/bmad-project-context.user.toml
+#
+# Merge rules: scalars override (last layer wins); arrays append.
+
+[workflow]
+
+# --- Universal defaults ---
+activation_steps_prepend = []
+activation_steps_append = []
+# Deliberately empty: this skill's own output (AGENTS.md) is loaded by the
+# harness, not through this array. Users append their own standing facts.
+persistent_facts = []
+on_complete = ""
+
+# Standing outside-the-repo sources offered at every setup/refresh run
+# (untrusted until verified against the repo or user-confirmed).
+# Append-only. Entries: "file:{project-root}/..." or "file:/abs/path" for
+# docs, "skill:name" to consult a skill, plain text for a standing fact,
+# "tool:name" for an MCP knowledgebase.
+external_sources = []