bmad-method 5.0.0 → 5.0.1

package/bmad-core/data/brainstorming-techniques.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Brainstorming Techniques Data
+
+## Creative Expansion
+
+1. **What If Scenarios**: Ask one provocative question, get their response, then ask another
+2. **Analogical Thinking**: Give one example analogy, ask them to find 2-3 more
+3. **Reversal/Inversion**: Pose the reverse question, let them work through it
+4. **First Principles Thinking**: Ask "What are the fundamentals?" and guide them to break it down
+
+## Structured Frameworks
+
+5. **SCAMPER Method**: Go through one letter at a time, wait for their ideas before moving to next
+6. **Six Thinking Hats**: Present one hat, ask for their thoughts, then move to next hat
+7. **Mind Mapping**: Start with central concept, ask them to suggest branches
+
+## Collaborative Techniques
+
+8. **"Yes, And..." Building**: They give idea, you "yes and" it, they "yes and" back - alternate
+9. **Brainwriting/Round Robin**: They suggest idea, you build on it, ask them to build on yours
+10. **Random Stimulation**: Give one random prompt/word, ask them to make connections
+
+## Deep Exploration
+
+11. **Five Whys**: Ask "why" and wait for their answer before asking next "why"
+12. **Morphological Analysis**: Ask them to list parameters first, then explore combinations together
+13. **Provocation Technique (PO)**: Give one provocative statement, ask them to extract useful ideas
+
+## Advanced Techniques
+
+14. **Forced Relationships**: Connect two unrelated concepts and ask them to find the bridge
+15. **Assumption Reversal**: Challenge their core assumptions and ask them to build from there
+16. **Role Playing**: Ask them to brainstorm from different stakeholder perspectives
+17. **Time Shifting**: "How would you solve this in 1995? 2030?"
+18. **Resource Constraints**: "What if you had only $10 and 1 hour?"
+19. **Metaphor Mapping**: Use extended metaphors to explore solutions
+20. **Question Storming**: Generate questions instead of answers first

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

@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+# Elicitation Methods Data
+
+## 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
+
+## 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
+- Suggest adjustments to better serve goals
+
+## 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
+- Apply YAGNI principles when appropriate (scope trimming)
+
+## 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
+- Extract actionable learnings for current context
+
+## 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
+- Developer: Assess technical implementation and complexity
+- 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
+- Optimize the elicitation process itself
+
+## 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
+- Capture serendipitous discoveries from multi-agent thinking
+
+## 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
+- Discover innovative workarounds and optimizations
+
+## 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/advanced-elicitation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+# Advanced Elicitation Task
+
+## Purpose
+
+- Provide optional reflective and brainstorming actions to enhance content quality
+- Enable deeper exploration of ideas through structured elicitation techniques
+- Support iterative refinement through multiple analytical perspectives
+- Usable during template-driven document creation or any chat conversation
+
+## Usage Scenarios
+
+### Scenario 1: Template Document Creation
+
+After outputting a section during document creation:
+
+1. **Section Review**: Ask user to review the drafted section
+2. **Offer Elicitation**: Present 9 carefully selected elicitation methods
+3. **Simple Selection**: User types a number (0-8) to engage method, or 9 to proceed
+4. **Execute & Loop**: Apply selected method, then re-offer choices until user proceeds
+
+### Scenario 2: General Chat Elicitation
+
+User can request advanced elicitation on any agent output:
+
+- User says "do advanced elicitation" or similar
+- Agent selects 9 relevant methods for the context
+- Same simple 0-9 selection process
+
+## Task Instructions
+
+### 1. Intelligent Method Selection
+
+**Context Analysis**: Before presenting options, analyze:
+
+- **Content Type**: Technical specs, user stories, architecture, requirements, etc.
+- **Complexity Level**: Simple, moderate, or complex content
+- **Stakeholder Needs**: Who will use this information
+- **Risk Level**: High-impact decisions vs routine items
+- **Creative Potential**: Opportunities for innovation or alternatives
+
+**Method Selection Strategy**:
+
+1. **Always Include Core Methods** (choose 3-4):
+   - Expand or Contract for Audience
+   - Critique and Refine
+   - Identify Potential Risks
+   - Assess Alignment with Goals
+
+2. **Context-Specific Methods** (choose 4-5):
+   - **Technical Content**: Tree of Thoughts, ReWOO, Meta-Prompting
+   - **User-Facing Content**: Agile Team Perspective, Stakeholder Roundtable
+   - **Creative Content**: Innovation Tournament, Escape Room Challenge
+   - **Strategic Content**: Red Team vs Blue Team, Hindsight Reflection
+
+3. **Always Include**: "Proceed / No Further Actions" as option 9
+
+### 2. Section Context and Review
+
+When invoked after outputting a section:
+
+1. **Provide Context Summary**: Give a brief 1-2 sentence summary of what the user should look for in the section just presented
+
+2. **Explain Visual Elements**: If the section contains diagrams, explain them briefly before offering elicitation options
+
+3. **Clarify Scope Options**: If the section contains multiple distinct items, inform the user they can apply elicitation actions to:
+   - The entire section as a whole
+   - Individual items within the section (specify which item when selecting an action)
+
+### 3. Present Elicitation Options
+
+**Review Request Process:**
+
+- Ask the user to review the drafted section
+- In the SAME message, inform them they can suggest direct changes OR select an elicitation method
+- Present 9 intelligently selected methods (0-8) plus "Proceed" (9)
+- Keep descriptions short - just the method name
+- Await simple numeric selection
+
+**Action List Presentation Format:**
+
+```text
+**Advanced Elicitation Options**
+Choose a number (0-8) or 9 to proceed:
+
+0. [Method Name]
+1. [Method Name]
+2. [Method Name]
+3. [Method Name]
+4. [Method Name]
+5. [Method Name]
+6. [Method Name]
+7. [Method Name]
+8. [Method Name]
+9. Proceed / No Further Actions
+```
+
+**Response Handling:**
+
+- **Numbers 0-8**: Execute the selected method, then re-offer the choice
+- **Number 9**: Proceed to next section or continue conversation
+- **Direct Feedback**: Apply user's suggested changes and continue
+
+### 4. Method Execution Framework
+
+**Execution Process:**
+
+1. **Retrieve Method**: Access the specific elicitation method from the elicitation-methods data file
+2. **Apply Context**: Execute the method from your current role's perspective
+3. **Provide Results**: Deliver insights, critiques, or alternatives relevant to the content
+4. **Re-offer Choice**: Present the same 9 options again until user selects 9 or gives direct feedback
+
+**Execution Guidelines:**
+
+- **Be Concise**: Focus on actionable insights, not lengthy explanations
+- **Stay Relevant**: Tie all elicitation back to the specific content being analyzed
+- **Identify Personas**: For multi-persona methods, clearly identify which viewpoint is speaking
+- **Maintain Flow**: Keep the process moving efficiently

package/{.bmad-core → bmad-core}/tasks/correct-course.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 
 ## Purpose
 
-- Guide a structured response to a change trigger using the `change-checklist`.
+- Guide a structured response to a change trigger using the `{root}/checklists/change-checklist`.
 - Analyze the impacts of the change on epics, project artifacts, and the MVP, guided by the checklist's structure.
-- Explore potential solutions (e.g., adjust scope, rollback elements, rescope features) as prompted by the checklist.
+- Explore potential solutions (e.g., adjust scope, rollback elements, re-scope features) as prompted by the checklist.
 - Draft specific, actionable proposed updates to any affected project artifacts (e.g., epics, user stories, PRD sections, architecture document sections) based on the analysis.
 - Produce a consolidated "Sprint Change Proposal" document that contains the impact analysis and the clearly drafted proposed edits for user review and approval.
 - Ensure a clear handoff path if the nature of the changes necessitates fundamental replanning by other core agents (like PM or Architect).
@@ -16,19 +16,16 @@
 - **Acknowledge Task & Inputs:**
   - Confirm with the user that the "Correct Course Task" (Change Navigation & Integration) is being initiated.
   - Verify the change trigger and ensure you have the user's initial explanation of the issue and its perceived impact.
-  - Confirm access to all relevant project artifacts (e.g., PRD, Epics/Stories, Architecture Documents, UI/UX Specifications) and, critically, the `change-checklist` (e.g., `change-checklist`).
+  - Confirm access to all relevant project artifacts (e.g., PRD, Epics/Stories, Architecture Documents, UI/UX Specifications) and, critically, the `{root}/checklists/change-checklist`.
 - **Establish Interaction Mode:**
   - Ask the user their preferred interaction mode for this task:
-    - **"Incrementally (Default & Recommended):** Shall we work through the `change-checklist` section by section, discussing findings and collaboratively drafting proposed changes for each relevant part before moving to the next? This allows for detailed, step-by-step refinement."
+    - **"Incrementally (Default & Recommended):** Shall we work through the change-checklist section by section, discussing findings and collaboratively drafting proposed changes for each relevant part before moving to the next? This allows for detailed, step-by-step refinement."
     - **"YOLO Mode (Batch Processing):** Or, would you prefer I conduct a more batched analysis based on the checklist and then present a consolidated set of findings and proposed changes for a broader review? This can be quicker for initial assessment but might require more extensive review of the combined proposals."
-  - Request the user to select their preferred mode.
-  - Once the user chooses, confirm the selected mode (e.g., "Okay, we will proceed in Incremental mode."). This chosen mode will govern how subsequent steps in this task are executed.
-- **Explain Process:** Briefly inform the user: "We will now use the `change-checklist` to analyze the change and draft proposed updates. I will guide you through the checklist items based on our chosen interaction mode."
-  <rule>When asking multiple questions or presenting multiple points for user input at once, number them clearly (e.g., 1., 2a., 2b.) to make it easier for the user to provide specific responses.</rule>
+  - Once the user chooses, confirm the selected mode and then inform the user: "We will now use the change-checklist to analyze the change and draft proposed updates. I will guide you through the checklist items based on our chosen interaction mode."
 
 ### 2. Execute Checklist Analysis (Iteratively or Batched, per Interaction Mode)
 
-- Systematically work through Sections 1-4 of the `change-checklist` (typically covering Change Context, Epic/Story Impact Analysis, Artifact Conflict Resolution, and Path Evaluation/Recommendation).
+- Systematically work through Sections 1-4 of the change-checklist (typically covering Change Context, Epic/Story Impact Analysis, Artifact Conflict Resolution, and Path Evaluation/Recommendation).
 - For each checklist item or logical group of items (depending on interaction mode):
   - Present the relevant prompt(s) or considerations from the checklist to the user.
   - Request necessary information and actively analyze the relevant project artifacts (PRD, epics, architecture documents, story history, etc.) to assess the impact.
@@ -51,7 +48,7 @@
 
 ### 4. Generate "Sprint Change Proposal" with Edits
 
-- Synthesize the complete `change-checklist` analysis (covering findings from Sections 1-4) and all the agreed-upon proposed edits (from Instruction 3) into a single document titled "Sprint Change Proposal." This proposal should align with the structure suggested by Section 5 of the `change-checklist` (Proposal Components).
+- Synthesize the complete change-checklist analysis (covering findings from Sections 1-4) and all the agreed-upon proposed edits (from Instruction 3) into a single document titled "Sprint Change Proposal." This proposal should align with the structure suggested by Section 5 of the change-checklist.
 - The proposal must clearly present:
   - **Analysis Summary:** A concise overview of the original issue, its analyzed impact (on epics, artifacts, MVP scope), and the rationale for the chosen path forward.
   - **Specific Proposed Edits:** For each affected artifact, clearly show or describe the exact changes (e.g., "Change Story X.Y from: [old text] To: [new text]", "Add new Acceptance Criterion to Story A.B: [new AC]", "Update Section 3.2 of Architecture Document as follows: [new/modified text or diagram description]").
@@ -68,6 +65,6 @@
 ## Output Deliverables
 
 - **Primary:** A "Sprint Change Proposal" document (in markdown format). This document will contain:
-  - A summary of the `change-checklist` analysis (issue, impact, rationale for the chosen path).
+  - A summary of the change-checklist analysis (issue, impact, rationale for the chosen path).
   - Specific, clearly drafted proposed edits for all affected project artifacts.
-- **Implicit:** An annotated `change-checklist` (or the record of its completion) reflecting the discussions, findings, and decisions made during the process.
+- **Implicit:** An annotated change-checklist (or the record of its completion) reflecting the discussions, findings, and decisions made during the process.