bmad-method 5.1.3 → 6.0.0-alpha.1

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

@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,154 +0,0 @@
-# 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/technical-preferences.md

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-# User-Defined Preferred Patterns and Preferences
-
-None Listed

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

@@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,172 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,117 +0,0 @@
-# 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