bmad-method 4.37.0-beta.6 → 5.0.0-beta.1

package/bmad-core/data/bmad-kb.md

@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ Each status change requires user verification and approval before proceeding.
 #### Greenfield Development
 
 - Business analysis and market research
-- Product requirements and feature definition  
+- Product requirements and feature definition
 - System architecture and design
 - Development execution
 - Testing and deployment
@@ -651,8 +651,11 @@ Templates with Level 2 headings (`##`) can be automatically sharded:
 
 ```markdown
 ## Goals and Background Context
-## Requirements  
+
+## Requirements
+
 ## User Interface Design Goals
+
 ## Success Metrics
 ```
 

package/bmad-core/data/elicitation-methods.md

@@ -3,16 +3,19 @@
 ## Core Reflective Methods
 
 **Expand or Contract for Audience**
+
 - Ask whether to 'expand' (add detail, elaborate) or 'contract' (simplify, clarify)
 - Identify specific target audience if relevant
 - Tailor content complexity and depth accordingly
 
 **Explain Reasoning (CoT Step-by-Step)**
+
 - Walk through the step-by-step thinking process
 - Reveal underlying assumptions and decision points
 - Show how conclusions were reached from current role's perspective
 
 **Critique and Refine**
+
 - Review output for flaws, inconsistencies, or improvement areas
 - Identify specific weaknesses from role's expertise
 - Suggest refined version reflecting domain knowledge
@@ -20,12 +23,14 @@
 ## Structural Analysis Methods
 
 **Analyze Logical Flow and Dependencies**
+
 - Examine content structure for logical progression
 - Check internal consistency and coherence
 - Identify and validate dependencies between elements
 - Confirm effective ordering and sequencing
 
 **Assess Alignment with Overall Goals**
+
 - Evaluate content contribution to stated objectives
 - Identify any misalignments or gaps
 - Interpret alignment from specific role's perspective
@@ -34,12 +39,14 @@
 ## Risk and Challenge Methods
 
 **Identify Potential Risks and Unforeseen Issues**
+
 - Brainstorm potential risks from role's expertise
 - Identify overlooked edge cases or scenarios
 - Anticipate unintended consequences
 - Highlight implementation challenges
 
 **Challenge from Critical Perspective**
+
 - Adopt critical stance on current content
 - Play devil's advocate from specified viewpoint
 - Argue against proposal highlighting weaknesses
@@ -48,12 +55,14 @@
 ## Creative Exploration Methods
 
 **Tree of Thoughts Deep Dive**
+
 - Break problem into discrete "thoughts" or intermediate steps
 - Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously
 - Use self-evaluation to classify each path as "sure", "likely", or "impossible"
 - Apply search algorithms (BFS/DFS) to find optimal solution paths
 
 **Hindsight is 20/20: The 'If Only...' Reflection**
+
 - Imagine retrospective scenario based on current content
 - Identify the one "if only we had known/done X..." insight
 - Describe imagined consequences humorously or dramatically
@@ -62,6 +71,7 @@
 ## Multi-Persona Collaboration Methods
 
 **Agile Team Perspective Shift**
+
 - Rotate through different Scrum team member viewpoints
 - Product Owner: Focus on user value and business impact
 - Scrum Master: Examine process flow and team dynamics
@@ -69,12 +79,14 @@
 - QA: Identify testing scenarios and quality concerns
 
 **Stakeholder Round Table**
+
 - Convene virtual meeting with multiple personas
 - Each persona contributes unique perspective on content
 - Identify conflicts and synergies between viewpoints
 - Synthesize insights into actionable recommendations
 
 **Meta-Prompting Analysis**
+
 - Step back to analyze the structure and logic of current approach
 - Question the format and methodology being used
 - Suggest alternative frameworks or mental models
@@ -83,24 +95,28 @@
 ## Advanced 2025 Techniques
 
 **Self-Consistency Validation**
+
 - Generate multiple reasoning paths for same problem
 - Compare consistency across different approaches
 - Identify most reliable and robust solution
 - Highlight areas where approaches diverge and why
 
 **ReWOO (Reasoning Without Observation)**
+
 - Separate parametric reasoning from tool-based actions
 - Create reasoning plan without external dependencies
 - Identify what can be solved through pure reasoning
 - Optimize for efficiency and reduced token usage
 
 **Persona-Pattern Hybrid**
+
 - Combine specific role expertise with elicitation pattern
 - Architect + Risk Analysis: Deep technical risk assessment
 - UX Expert + User Journey: End-to-end experience critique
 - PM + Stakeholder Analysis: Multi-perspective impact review
 
 **Emergent Collaboration Discovery**
+
 - Allow multiple perspectives to naturally emerge
 - Identify unexpected insights from persona interactions
 - Explore novel combinations of viewpoints
@@ -109,18 +125,21 @@
 ## Game-Based Elicitation Methods
 
 **Red Team vs Blue Team**
+
 - Red Team: Attack the proposal, find vulnerabilities
 - Blue Team: Defend and strengthen the approach
 - Competitive analysis reveals blind spots
 - Results in more robust, battle-tested solutions
 
 **Innovation Tournament**
+
 - Pit multiple alternative approaches against each other
 - Score each approach across different criteria
 - Crowd-source evaluation from different personas
 - Identify winning combination of features
 
 **Escape Room Challenge**
+
 - Present content as constraints to work within
 - Find creative solutions within tight limitations
 - Identify minimum viable approach
@@ -129,6 +148,7 @@
 ## Process Control
 
 **Proceed / No Further Actions**
+
 - Acknowledge choice to finalize current work
 - Accept output as-is or move to next step
 - Prepare to continue without additional elicitation

package/bmad-core/data/test-levels-framework.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+# Test Levels Framework
+
+Comprehensive guide for determining appropriate test levels (unit, integration, E2E) for different scenarios.
+
+## Test Level Decision Matrix
+
+### Unit Tests
+
+**When to use:**
+
+- Testing pure functions and business logic
+- Algorithm correctness
+- Input validation and data transformation
+- Error handling in isolated components
+- Complex calculations or state machines
+
+**Characteristics:**
+
+- Fast execution (immediate feedback)
+- No external dependencies (DB, API, file system)
+- Highly maintainable and stable
+- Easy to debug failures
+
+**Example scenarios:**
+
+```yaml
+unit_test:
+  component: "PriceCalculator"
+  scenario: "Calculate discount with multiple rules"
+  justification: "Complex business logic with multiple branches"
+  mock_requirements: "None - pure function"
+```
+
+### Integration Tests
+
+**When to use:**
+
+- Component interaction verification
+- Database operations and transactions
+- API endpoint contracts
+- Service-to-service communication
+- Middleware and interceptor behavior
+
+**Characteristics:**
+
+- Moderate execution time
+- Tests component boundaries
+- May use test databases or containers
+- Validates system integration points
+
+**Example scenarios:**
+
+```yaml
+integration_test:
+  components: ["UserService", "AuthRepository"]
+  scenario: "Create user with role assignment"
+  justification: "Critical data flow between service and persistence"
+  test_environment: "In-memory database"
+```
+
+### End-to-End Tests
+
+**When to use:**
+
+- Critical user journeys
+- Cross-system workflows
+- Visual regression testing
+- Compliance and regulatory requirements
+- Final validation before release
+
+**Characteristics:**
+
+- Slower execution
+- Tests complete workflows
+- Requires full environment setup
+- Most realistic but most brittle
+
+**Example scenarios:**
+
+```yaml
+e2e_test:
+  journey: "Complete checkout process"
+  scenario: "User purchases with saved payment method"
+  justification: "Revenue-critical path requiring full validation"
+  environment: "Staging with test payment gateway"
+```
+
+## Test Level Selection Rules
+
+### Favor Unit Tests When:
+
+- Logic can be isolated
+- No side effects involved
+- Fast feedback needed
+- High cyclomatic complexity
+
+### Favor Integration Tests When:
+
+- Testing persistence layer
+- Validating service contracts
+- Testing middleware/interceptors
+- Component boundaries critical
+
+### Favor E2E Tests When:
+
+- User-facing critical paths
+- Multi-system interactions
+- Regulatory compliance scenarios
+- Visual regression important
+
+## Anti-patterns to Avoid
+
+- E2E testing for business logic validation
+- Unit testing framework behavior
+- Integration testing third-party libraries
+- Duplicate coverage across levels
+
+## Duplicate Coverage Guard
+
+**Before adding any test, check:**
+
+1. Is this already tested at a lower level?
+2. Can a unit test cover this instead of integration?
+3. Can an integration test cover this instead of E2E?
+
+**Coverage overlap is only acceptable when:**
+
+- Testing different aspects (unit: logic, integration: interaction, e2e: user experience)
+- Critical paths requiring defense in depth
+- Regression prevention for previously broken functionality
+
+## Test Naming Conventions
+
+- Unit: `test_{component}_{scenario}`
+- Integration: `test_{flow}_{interaction}`
+- E2E: `test_{journey}_{outcome}`
+
+## Test ID Format
+
+`{EPIC}.{STORY}-{LEVEL}-{SEQ}`
+
+Examples:
+
+- `1.3-UNIT-001`
+- `1.3-INT-002`
+- `1.3-E2E-001`

package/bmad-core/data/test-priorities-matrix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+# Test Priorities Matrix
+
+Guide for prioritizing test scenarios based on risk, criticality, and business impact.
+
+## Priority Levels
+
+### P0 - Critical (Must Test)
+
+**Criteria:**
+
+- Revenue-impacting functionality
+- Security-critical paths
+- Data integrity operations
+- Regulatory compliance requirements
+- Previously broken functionality (regression prevention)
+
+**Examples:**
+
+- Payment processing
+- Authentication/authorization
+- User data creation/deletion
+- Financial calculations
+- GDPR/privacy compliance
+
+**Testing Requirements:**
+
+- Comprehensive coverage at all levels
+- Both happy and unhappy paths
+- Edge cases and error scenarios
+- Performance under load
+
+### P1 - High (Should Test)
+
+**Criteria:**
+
+- Core user journeys
+- Frequently used features
+- Features with complex logic
+- Integration points between systems
+- Features affecting user experience
+
+**Examples:**
+
+- User registration flow
+- Search functionality
+- Data import/export
+- Notification systems
+- Dashboard displays
+
+**Testing Requirements:**
+
+- Primary happy paths required
+- Key error scenarios
+- Critical edge cases
+- Basic performance validation
+
+### P2 - Medium (Nice to Test)
+
+**Criteria:**
+
+- Secondary features
+- Admin functionality
+- Reporting features
+- Configuration options
+- UI polish and aesthetics
+
+**Examples:**
+
+- Admin settings panels
+- Report generation
+- Theme customization
+- Help documentation
+- Analytics tracking
+
+**Testing Requirements:**
+
+- Happy path coverage
+- Basic error handling
+- Can defer edge cases
+
+### P3 - Low (Test if Time Permits)
+
+**Criteria:**
+
+- Rarely used features
+- Nice-to-have functionality
+- Cosmetic issues
+- Non-critical optimizations
+
+**Examples:**
+
+- Advanced preferences
+- Legacy feature support
+- Experimental features
+- Debug utilities
+
+**Testing Requirements:**
+
+- Smoke tests only
+- Can rely on manual testing
+- Document known limitations
+
+## Risk-Based Priority Adjustments
+
+### Increase Priority When:
+
+- High user impact (affects >50% of users)
+- High financial impact (>$10K potential loss)
+- Security vulnerability potential
+- Compliance/legal requirements
+- Customer-reported issues
+- Complex implementation (>500 LOC)
+- Multiple system dependencies
+
+### Decrease Priority When:
+
+- Feature flag protected
+- Gradual rollout planned
+- Strong monitoring in place
+- Easy rollback capability
+- Low usage metrics
+- Simple implementation
+- Well-isolated component
+
+## Test Coverage by Priority
+
+| Priority | Unit Coverage | Integration Coverage | E2E Coverage       |
+| -------- | ------------- | -------------------- | ------------------ |
+| P0       | >90%          | >80%                 | All critical paths |
+| P1       | >80%          | >60%                 | Main happy paths   |
+| P2       | >60%          | >40%                 | Smoke tests        |
+| P3       | Best effort   | Best effort          | Manual only        |
+
+## Priority Assignment Rules
+
+1. **Start with business impact** - What happens if this fails?
+2. **Consider probability** - How likely is failure?
+3. **Factor in detectability** - Would we know if it failed?
+4. **Account for recoverability** - Can we fix it quickly?
+
+## Priority Decision Tree
+
+```
+Is it revenue-critical?
+├─ YES → P0
+└─ NO → Does it affect core user journey?
+    ├─ YES → Is it high-risk?
+    │   ├─ YES → P0
+    │   └─ NO → P1
+    └─ NO → Is it frequently used?
+        ├─ YES → P1
+        └─ NO → Is it customer-facing?
+            ├─ YES → P2
+            └─ NO → P3
+```
+
+## Test Execution Order
+
+1. Execute P0 tests first (fail fast on critical issues)
+2. Execute P1 tests second (core functionality)
+3. Execute P2 tests if time permits
+4. P3 tests only in full regression cycles
+
+## Continuous Adjustment
+
+Review and adjust priorities based on:
+
+- Production incident patterns
+- User feedback and complaints
+- Usage analytics
+- Test failure history
+- Business priority changes

package/bmad-core/tasks/create-brownfield-story.md

@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ Critical: For brownfield, ALWAYS include criteria about maintaining existing fun
 Standard structure:
 
 1. New functionality works as specified
-2. Existing {{affected feature}} continues to work unchanged  
+2. Existing {{affected feature}} continues to work unchanged
 3. Integration with {{existing system}} maintains current behavior
 4. No regression in {{related area}}
 5. Performance remains within acceptable bounds
@@ -139,16 +139,19 @@ Critical: This is where you'll need to be interactive with the user if informati
 
 Create Dev Technical Guidance section with available information:
 
-```markdown
+````markdown
 ## Dev Technical Guidance
 
 ### Existing System Context
+
 [Extract from available documentation]
 
 ### Integration Approach
+
 [Based on patterns found or ask user]
 
 ### Technical Constraints
+
 [From documentation or user input]
 
 ### Missing Information
@@ -191,6 +194,7 @@ Example task structure for brownfield:
   - [ ] Integration test for {{integration point}}
   - [ ] Update existing tests if needed
 ```
+````
 
 ### 5. Risk Assessment and Mitigation
 
@@ -202,14 +206,17 @@ Add section for brownfield-specific risks:
 ## Risk Assessment
 
 ### Implementation Risks
+
 - **Primary Risk**: {{main risk to existing system}}
 - **Mitigation**: {{how to address}}
 - **Verification**: {{how to confirm safety}}
 
 ### Rollback Plan
+
 - {{Simple steps to undo changes if needed}}
 
 ### Safety Checks
+
 - [ ] Existing {{feature}} tested before changes
 - [ ] Changes can be feature-flagged or isolated
 - [ ] Rollback procedure documented
@@ -252,6 +259,7 @@ Include header noting documentation context:
 <!-- Context: Brownfield enhancement to {{existing system}} -->
 
 ## Status: Draft
+
 [Rest of story content...]
 ```
 
@@ -272,7 +280,7 @@ Key Integration Points Identified:
 Risks Noted:
 - {{primary risk}}
 
-{{If missing info}}: 
+{{If missing info}}:
 Note: Some technical details were unclear. The story includes exploration tasks to gather needed information during implementation.
 
 Next Steps:

package/bmad-core/tasks/create-deep-research-prompt.md

@@ -21,63 +21,54 @@ CRITICAL: First, help the user select the most appropriate research focus based
 Present these numbered options to the user:
 
 1. **Product Validation Research**
-
    - Validate product hypotheses and market fit
    - Test assumptions about user needs and solutions
    - Assess technical and business feasibility
    - Identify risks and mitigation strategies
 
 2. **Market Opportunity Research**
-
    - Analyze market size and growth potential
    - Identify market segments and dynamics
    - Assess market entry strategies
    - Evaluate timing and market readiness
 
 3. **User & Customer Research**
-
    - Deep dive into user personas and behaviors
    - Understand jobs-to-be-done and pain points
    - Map customer journeys and touchpoints
    - Analyze willingness to pay and value perception
 
 4. **Competitive Intelligence Research**
-
    - Detailed competitor analysis and positioning
    - Feature and capability comparisons
    - Business model and strategy analysis
    - Identify competitive advantages and gaps
 
 5. **Technology & Innovation Research**
-
    - Assess technology trends and possibilities
    - Evaluate technical approaches and architectures
    - Identify emerging technologies and disruptions
    - Analyze build vs. buy vs. partner options
 
 6. **Industry & Ecosystem Research**
-
    - Map industry value chains and dynamics
    - Identify key players and relationships
    - Analyze regulatory and compliance factors
    - Understand partnership opportunities
 
 7. **Strategic Options Research**
-
    - Evaluate different strategic directions
    - Assess business model alternatives
    - Analyze go-to-market strategies
    - Consider expansion and scaling paths
 
 8. **Risk & Feasibility Research**
-
    - Identify and assess various risk factors
    - Evaluate implementation challenges
    - Analyze resource requirements
    - Consider regulatory and legal implications
 
 9. **Custom Research Focus**
-
    - User-defined research objectives
    - Specialized domain investigation
    - Cross-functional research needs
@@ -246,13 +237,11 @@ CRITICAL: collaborate with the user to develop specific, actionable research que
 ### 5. Review and Refinement
 
 1. **Present Complete Prompt**
-
    - Show the full research prompt
    - Explain key elements and rationale
    - Highlight any assumptions made
 
 2. **Gather Feedback**
-
    - Are the objectives clear and correct?
    - Do the questions address all concerns?
    - Is the scope appropriate?

package/bmad-core/tasks/document-project.md

@@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ This document captures the CURRENT STATE of the [Project Name] codebase, includi
 
 ### Change Log
 
-| Date | Version | Description | Author |
-|------|---------|-------------|--------|
-| [Date] | 1.0 | Initial brownfield analysis | [Analyst] |
+| Date   | Version | Description                 | Author    |
+| ------ | ------- | --------------------------- | --------- |
+| [Date] | 1.0     | Initial brownfield analysis | [Analyst] |
 
 ## Quick Reference - Key Files and Entry Points
 
@@ -136,11 +136,11 @@ This document captures the CURRENT STATE of the [Project Name] codebase, includi
 
 ### Actual Tech Stack (from package.json/requirements.txt)
 
-| Category | Technology | Version | Notes |
-|----------|------------|---------|--------|
-| Runtime | Node.js | 16.x | [Any constraints] |
-| Framework | Express | 4.18.2 | [Custom middleware?] |
-| Database | PostgreSQL | 13 | [Connection pooling setup] |
+| Category  | Technology | Version | Notes                      |
+| --------- | ---------- | ------- | -------------------------- |
+| Runtime   | Node.js    | 16.x    | [Any constraints]          |
+| Framework | Express    | 4.18.2  | [Custom middleware?]       |
+| Database  | PostgreSQL | 13      | [Connection pooling setup] |
 
 etc...
 
@@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ project-root/
 ### Data Models
 
 Instead of duplicating, reference actual model files:
+
 - **User Model**: See `src/models/User.js`
 - **Order Model**: See `src/models/Order.js`
 - **Related Types**: TypeScript definitions in `src/types/`
@@ -208,10 +209,10 @@ Instead of duplicating, reference actual model files:
 
 ### External Services
 
-| Service | Purpose | Integration Type | Key Files |
-|---------|---------|------------------|-----------|
-| Stripe | Payments | REST API | `src/integrations/stripe/` |
-| SendGrid | Emails | SDK | `src/services/emailService.js` |
+| Service  | Purpose  | Integration Type | Key Files                      |
+| -------- | -------- | ---------------- | ------------------------------ |
+| Stripe   | Payments | REST API         | `src/integrations/stripe/`     |
+| SendGrid | Emails   | SDK              | `src/services/emailService.js` |
 
 etc...
 
@@ -256,6 +257,7 @@ npm run test:integration  # Runs integration tests (requires local DB)
 ### Files That Will Need Modification
 
 Based on the enhancement requirements, these files will be affected:
+
 - `src/services/userService.js` - Add new user fields
 - `src/models/User.js` - Update schema
 - `src/routes/userRoutes.js` - New endpoints
@@ -338,4 +340,4 @@ Apply the advanced elicitation task after major sections to refine based on user
 - References actual files rather than duplicating content when possible
 - Documents technical debt, workarounds, and constraints honestly
 - For brownfield projects with PRD: Provides clear enhancement impact analysis
-- The goal is PRACTICAL documentation for AI agents doing real work
+- The goal is PRACTICAL documentation for AI agents doing real work