bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.0 → 6.0.0-alpha.10

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist-technical.md

@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
+# Technical/Architecture Research Validation Checklist
+
+## 🚨 CRITICAL: Source Verification and Fact-Checking (PRIORITY)
+
+### Version Number Verification (MANDATORY)
+
+- [ ] **EVERY** technology version number has cited source with URL
+- [ ] Version numbers verified via WebSearch from {{current_year}} (NOT from training data!)
+- [ ] Official documentation/release pages cited for each version
+- [ ] Release dates included with version numbers
+- [ ] LTS status verified from official sources (with URL)
+- [ ] No "assumed" or "remembered" version numbers - ALL must be verified
+
+### Technical Claim Source Verification
+
+- [ ] **EVERY** feature claim has source (official docs, release notes, website)
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks cite source (official benchmarks, third-party tests with URLs)
+- [ ] Compatibility claims verified (official compatibility matrix, documentation)
+- [ ] Community size/popularity backed by sources (GitHub stars, npm downloads, official stats)
+- [ ] "Supports X" claims verified via official documentation with URL
+- [ ] No invented capabilities or features
+
+### Source Quality for Technical Data
+
+- [ ] Official documentation prioritized (docs.technology.com > blog posts)
+- [ ] Version info from official release pages (highest credibility)
+- [ ] Benchmarks from official sources or reputable third-parties (not random blogs)
+- [ ] Community data from verified sources (GitHub, npm, official registries)
+- [ ] Pricing from official pricing pages (with URL and date verified)
+
+### Multi-Source Verification (Critical Technical Claims)
+
+- [ ] Major technical claims (performance, scalability) verified by 2+ sources
+- [ ] Technology comparisons cite multiple independent sources
+- [ ] "Best for X" claims backed by comparative analysis with sources
+- [ ] Production experience claims cite real case studies or articles with URLs
+- [ ] No single-source critical decisions without flagging need for verification
+
+### Anti-Hallucination for Technical Data
+
+- [ ] No invented version numbers or release dates
+- [ ] No assumed feature availability without verification
+- [ ] If current data not found, explicitly states "Could not verify {{current_year}} information"
+- [ ] Speculation clearly labeled (e.g., "Based on trends, technology may...")
+- [ ] No "probably supports" or "likely compatible" without verification
+
+## Technology Evaluation
+
+### Comprehensive Profiling
+
+For each evaluated technology:
+
+- [ ] Core capabilities and features are documented
+- [ ] Architecture and design philosophy are explained
+- [ ] Maturity level is assessed (experimental, stable, mature, legacy)
+- [ ] Community size and activity are measured
+- [ ] Maintenance status is verified (active, maintenance mode, abandoned)
+
+### Practical Considerations
+
+- [ ] Learning curve is evaluated
+- [ ] Documentation quality is assessed
+- [ ] Developer experience is considered
+- [ ] Tooling ecosystem is reviewed
+- [ ] Testing and debugging capabilities are examined
+
+### Operational Assessment
+
+- [ ] Deployment complexity is understood
+- [ ] Monitoring and observability options are evaluated
+- [ ] Operational overhead is estimated
+- [ ] Cloud provider support is verified
+- [ ] Container/Kubernetes compatibility is checked (if relevant)
+
+## Comparative Analysis
+
+### Multi-Dimensional Comparison
+
+- [ ] Technologies are compared across relevant dimensions
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks are included (if available)
+- [ ] Scalability characteristics are compared
+- [ ] Complexity trade-offs are analyzed
+- [ ] Total cost of ownership is estimated for each option
+
+### Trade-off Analysis
+
+- [ ] Key trade-offs between options are identified
+- [ ] Decision factors are prioritized based on user needs
+- [ ] Conditions favoring each option are specified
+- [ ] Weighted analysis reflects user's priorities
+
+## Real-World Evidence
+
+### Production Experience
+
+- [ ] Real-world production experiences are researched
+- [ ] Known issues and gotchas are documented
+- [ ] Performance data from actual deployments is included
+- [ ] Migration experiences are considered (if replacing existing tech)
+- [ ] Community discussions and war stories are referenced
+
+### Source Quality
+
+- [ ] Multiple independent sources validate key claims
+- [ ] Recent sources from {{current_year}} are prioritized
+- [ ] Practitioner experiences are included (blog posts, conference talks, forums)
+- [ ] Both proponent and critic perspectives are considered
+
+## Decision Support
+
+### Recommendations
+
+- [ ] Primary recommendation is clearly stated with rationale
+- [ ] Alternative options are explained with use cases
+- [ ] Fit for user's specific context is explained
+- [ ] Decision is justified by requirements and constraints
+
+### Implementation Guidance
+
+- [ ] Proof-of-concept approach is outlined
+- [ ] Key implementation decisions are identified
+- [ ] Migration path is described (if applicable)
+- [ ] Success criteria are defined
+- [ ] Validation approach is recommended
+
+### Risk Management
+
+- [ ] Technical risks are identified
+- [ ] Mitigation strategies are provided
+- [ ] Contingency options are outlined (if primary choice doesn't work)
+- [ ] Exit strategy considerations are discussed
+
+## Architecture Decision Record
+
+### ADR Completeness
+
+- [ ] Status is specified (Proposed, Accepted, Superseded)
+- [ ] Context and problem statement are clear
+- [ ] Decision drivers are documented
+- [ ] All considered options are listed
+- [ ] Chosen option and rationale are explained
+- [ ] Consequences (positive, negative, neutral) are identified
+- [ ] Implementation notes are included
+- [ ] References to research sources are provided
+
+## References and Source Documentation (CRITICAL)
+
+### References Section Completeness
+
+- [ ] Report includes comprehensive "References and Sources" section
+- [ ] Sources organized by category (official docs, benchmarks, community, architecture)
+- [ ] Every source includes: Title, Publisher/Site, Date Accessed, Full URL
+- [ ] URLs are clickable and functional (documentation links, release pages, GitHub)
+- [ ] Version verification sources clearly listed
+- [ ] Inline citations throughout report reference the sources section
+
+### Technology Source Documentation
+
+- [ ] For each technology evaluated, sources documented:
+  - Official documentation URL
+  - Release notes/changelog URL for version
+  - Pricing page URL (if applicable)
+  - Community/GitHub URL
+  - Benchmark source URLs
+- [ ] Comparison data cites source for each claim
+- [ ] Architecture pattern sources cited (articles, books, official guides)
+
+### Source Quality Metrics
+
+- [ ] Report documents total sources cited
+- [ ] Official sources count (highest credibility)
+- [ ] Third-party sources count (benchmarks, articles)
+- [ ] Version verification count (all technologies verified {{current_year}})
+- [ ] Outdated sources flagged (if any used)
+
+### Citation Format Standards
+
+- [ ] Inline citations format: [Source: Docs URL] or [Version: 1.2.3, Source: Release Page URL]
+- [ ] Consistent citation style throughout
+- [ ] No vague citations like "according to the community" without specifics
+- [ ] GitHub links include star count and last update date
+- [ ] Documentation links point to current stable version docs
+
+## Document Quality
+
+### Anti-Hallucination Final Check
+
+- [ ] Spot-check 5 random version numbers - can you find the cited source?
+- [ ] Verify feature claims against official documentation
+- [ ] Check any performance numbers have benchmark sources
+- [ ] Ensure no "cutting edge" or "latest" without specific version number
+- [ ] Cross-check technology comparisons with cited sources
+
+### Structure and Completeness
+
+- [ ] Executive summary captures key findings
+- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
+- [ ] References section is complete and properly formatted
+- [ ] Version verification audit trail included
+- [ ] Document ready for technical fact-checking by third party
+
+## Research Completeness
+
+### Coverage
+
+- [ ] All user requirements were addressed
+- [ ] All constraints were considered
+- [ ] Sufficient depth for the decision at hand
+- [ ] Optional analyses were considered and included/excluded appropriately
+- [ ] Web research was conducted for current market data
+
+### Data Freshness
+
+- [ ] Current {{current_year}} data was used throughout
+- [ ] Version information is up-to-date
+- [ ] Recent developments and trends are included
+- [ ] Outdated or deprecated information is flagged or excluded
+
+---
+
+## Issues Found
+
+### Critical Issues
+
+_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+### Minor Improvements
+
+_List minor improvements that would enhance the report:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+### Additional Research Needed
+
+_List areas requiring further investigation:_
+
+- [ ] Topic 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Topic 2: [Description]
+
+---
+
+**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Ready for Decision:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Reviewer:** {agent}
+**Date:** {date}

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist.md

@@ -1,67 +1,129 @@
 # Market Research Report Validation Checklist
 
-## Research Foundation
+## 🚨 CRITICAL: Source Verification and Fact-Checking (PRIORITY)
 
-### Objectives and Scope
+### Source Citation Completeness
 
-- [ ] Research objectives are clearly stated with specific questions to answer
-- [ ] Market boundaries are explicitly defined (product category, geography, segments)
-- [ ] Research methodology is documented with data sources and timeframes
-- [ ] Limitations and assumptions are transparently acknowledged
+- [ ] **EVERY** market size claim has at least 2 cited sources with URLs
+- [ ] **EVERY** growth rate/CAGR has cited sources with URLs
+- [ ] **EVERY** competitive data point (pricing, features, funding) has sources with URLs
+- [ ] **EVERY** customer statistic or insight has cited sources
+- [ ] **EVERY** industry trend claim has sources from {{current_year}} or recent years
+- [ ] All sources include: Name, Date, URL (clickable links)
+- [ ] No claims exist without verifiable sources
 
-### Data Quality
+### Source Quality and Credibility
 
-- [ ] All data sources are cited with dates and links where applicable
-- [ ] Data is no more than 12 months old for time-sensitive metrics
-- [ ] At least 3 independent sources validate key market size claims
-- [ ] Source credibility is assessed (primary > industry reports > news articles)
-- [ ] Conflicting data points are acknowledged and reconciled
+- [ ] Market size sources are HIGH credibility (Gartner, Forrester, IDC, government data, industry associations)
+- [ ] NOT relying on single blog posts or unverified sources for critical data
+- [ ] Sources are recent ({{current_year}} or within 1-2 years for time-sensitive data)
+- [ ] Primary sources prioritized over secondary/tertiary sources
+- [ ] Paywalled reports are cited with proper attribution (e.g., "Gartner Market Report 2025")
 
-## Market Sizing Analysis
+### Multi-Source Verification (Critical Claims)
 
-### TAM Calculation
+- [ ] TAM calculation verified by at least 2 independent sources
+- [ ] SAM calculation methodology is transparent and sourced
+- [ ] SOM estimates are conservative and based on comparable benchmarks
+- [ ] Market growth rates corroborated by multiple analyst reports
+- [ ] Competitive market share data verified across sources
 
-- [ ] At least 2 different calculation methods are used (top-down, bottom-up, or value theory)
-- [ ] All assumptions are explicitly stated with rationale
-- [ ] Calculation methodology is shown step-by-step
-- [ ] Numbers are sanity-checked against industry benchmarks
-- [ ] Growth rate projections include supporting evidence
+### Conflicting Data Resolution
 
-### SAM and SOM
+- [ ] Where sources conflict, ALL conflicting estimates are presented
+- [ ] Variance between sources is explained (methodology, scope differences)
+- [ ] No arbitrary selection of "convenient" numbers without noting alternatives
+- [ ] Conflicting data is flagged with confidence levels
+- [ ] User is made aware of uncertainty in conflicting claims
 
-- [ ] SAM constraints are realistic and well-justified (geography, regulations, etc.)
-- [ ] SOM includes competitive analysis to support market share assumptions
-- [ ] Three scenarios (conservative, realistic, optimistic) are provided
-- [ ] Time horizons for market capture are specified (Year 1, 3, 5)
-- [ ] Market share percentages align with comparable company benchmarks
+### Confidence Level Marking
 
-## Customer Intelligence
+- [ ] Every major claim is marked with confidence level:
+  - **[Verified - 2+ sources]** = High confidence, multiple independent sources agree
+  - **[Single source - verify]** = Medium confidence, only one source found
+  - **[Estimated - low confidence]** = Low confidence, calculated/projected without strong sources
+- [ ] Low confidence claims are clearly flagged for user to verify independently
+- [ ] Speculative/projected data is labeled as PROJECTION or FORECAST, not presented as fact
 
-### Segment Analysis
+### Fact vs Analysis vs Speculation
 
-- [ ] At least 3 distinct customer segments are profiled
-- [ ] Each segment includes size estimates (number of customers or revenue)
-- [ ] Pain points are specific, not generic (e.g., "reduce invoice processing time by 50%" not "save time")
-- [ ] Willingness to pay is quantified with evidence
-- [ ] Buying process and decision criteria are documented
+- [ ] Clear distinction between:
+  - **FACT:** Sourced data with citations (e.g., "Market is $5.2B [Source: Gartner 2025]")
+  - **ANALYSIS:** Interpretation of facts (e.g., "This suggests strong growth momentum")
+  - **SPECULATION:** Educated guesses (e.g., "This trend may continue if...")
+- [ ] Analysis and speculation are NOT presented as verified facts
+- [ ] Recommendations are based on sourced facts, not unsupported assumptions
 
-### Jobs-to-be-Done
+### Anti-Hallucination Verification
 
-- [ ] Functional jobs describe specific tasks customers need to complete
-- [ ] Emotional jobs identify feelings and anxieties
-- [ ] Social jobs explain perception and status considerations
-- [ ] Jobs are validated with customer evidence, not assumptions
-- [ ] Priority ranking of jobs is provided
+- [ ] No invented statistics or "made up" market sizes
+- [ ] All percentages, dollar amounts, and growth rates are traceable to sources
+- [ ] If data couldn't be found, report explicitly states "No verified data available for [X]"
+- [ ] No use of vague sources like "industry experts say" without naming the expert/source
+- [ ] Version numbers, dates, and specific figures match source material exactly
 
-## Competitive Analysis
+## Market Sizing Analysis (Source-Verified)
 
-### Competitor Coverage
+### TAM Calculation Sources
 
-- [ ] At least 5 direct competitors are analyzed
-- [ ] Indirect competitors and substitutes are identified
-- [ ] Each competitor profile includes: company size, funding, target market, pricing
-- [ ] Recent developments (last 6 months) are included
-- [ ] Competitive advantages and weaknesses are specific, not generic
+- [ ] TAM figure has at least 2 independent source citations
+- [ ] Calculation methodology is sourced (not invented)
+- [ ] Industry benchmarks used for sanity-check are cited
+- [ ] Growth rate assumptions are backed by sourced projections
+- [ ] Any adjustments or filters applied are justified and documented
+
+### SAM and SOM Source Verification
+
+- [ ] SAM constraints are based on sourced data (addressable market scope)
+- [ ] SOM competitive assumptions cite actual competitor data
+- [ ] Market share benchmarks reference comparable companies with sources
+- [ ] Scenarios (conservative/realistic/optimistic) are justified with sourced reasoning
+
+## Competitive Analysis (Source-Verified)
+
+### Competitor Data Source Verification
+
+- [ ] **EVERY** competitor mentioned has source for basic company info
+- [ ] Competitor pricing data has sources (website URLs, pricing pages, reviews)
+- [ ] Funding amounts cite sources (Crunchbase, press releases, SEC filings)
+- [ ] Product features verified through sources (official website, documentation, reviews)
+- [ ] Market positioning claims are backed by sources (analyst reports, company statements)
+- [ ] Customer count/user numbers cite sources (company announcements, verified reports)
+- [ ] Recent news and developments cite article URLs with dates from {{current_year}}
+
+### Competitive Data Credibility
+
+- [ ] Company websites/official sources used for product info (highest credibility)
+- [ ] Financial data from Crunchbase, PitchBook, or SEC filings (not rumors)
+- [ ] Review sites cited for customer sentiment (G2, Capterra, TrustPilot with URLs)
+- [ ] Pricing verified from official pricing pages (with URL and date checked)
+- [ ] No assumptions about competitors without sourced evidence
+
+### Competitive Claims Verification
+
+- [ ] Market share claims cite analyst reports or verified data
+- [ ] "Leading" or "dominant" claims backed by sourced market data
+- [ ] Competitor weaknesses cited from reviews, articles, or public statements (not speculation)
+- [ ] Product comparison claims verified (feature lists from official sources)
+
+## Customer Intelligence (Source-Verified)
+
+### Customer Data Sources
+
+- [ ] Customer segment data cites research sources (reports, surveys, studies)
+- [ ] Demographics/firmographics backed by census data, industry reports, or studies
+- [ ] Pain points sourced from customer research, reviews, surveys (not assumed)
+- [ ] Willingness to pay backed by pricing studies, surveys, or comparable market data
+- [ ] Buying behavior sourced from research studies or industry data
+- [ ] Jobs-to-be-Done insights cite customer research or validated frameworks
+
+### Customer Insight Credibility
+
+- [ ] Primary research (if conducted) documents sample size and methodology
+- [ ] Secondary research cites the original study/report with full attribution
+- [ ] Customer quotes or testimonials cite the source (interview, review site, case study)
+- [ ] Persona data based on real research findings (not fictional archetypes)
+- [ ] No invented customer statistics or behaviors without source backing
 
 ### Positioning Analysis
 
@@ -115,23 +177,58 @@
 - [ ] Early warning indicators are defined
 - [ ] Contingency plans are outlined for high-impact risks
 
+## References and Source Documentation (CRITICAL)
+
+### References Section Completeness
+
+- [ ] Report includes comprehensive "References and Sources" section
+- [ ] Sources organized by category (market size, competitive, customer, trends)
+- [ ] Every source includes: Title/Name, Publisher, Date, Full URL
+- [ ] URLs are clickable and functional (not broken links)
+- [ ] Sources are numbered or organized for easy reference
+- [ ] Inline citations throughout report reference the sources section
+
+### Source Quality Metrics
+
+- [ ] Report documents total sources cited count
+- [ ] High confidence claims (2+ sources) count is reported
+- [ ] Single source claims are identified and counted
+- [ ] Low confidence/speculative claims are flagged
+- [ ] Web searches conducted count is included (for transparency)
+
+### Source Audit Trail
+
+- [ ] For each major section, sources are listed
+- [ ] TAM/SAM/SOM calculations show source for each number
+- [ ] Competitive data shows source for each competitor profile
+- [ ] Customer insights show research sources
+- [ ] Industry trends show article/report sources with dates
+
+### Citation Format Standards
+
+- [ ] Inline citations format: [Source: Company/Publication, Year, URL] or similar
+- [ ] Consistent citation style throughout document
+- [ ] No vague citations like "according to sources" without specifics
+- [ ] URLs are complete (not truncated)
+- [ ] Accessed/verified dates included for web sources
+
 ## Document Quality
 
-### Structure and Flow
+### Anti-Hallucination Final Check
 
-- [ ] Executive summary captures all key insights in 1-2 pages
-- [ ] Sections follow logical progression from market to strategy
-- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
-- [ ] Cross-references between sections are accurate
-- [ ] Table of contents matches actual sections
+- [ ] Read through entire report - does anything "feel" invented or too convenient?
+- [ ] Spot-check 5-10 random claims - can you find the cited source?
+- [ ] Check suspicious round numbers - are they actually from sources?
+- [ ] Verify any "shocking" statistics have strong sources
+- [ ] Cross-check key market size claims against multiple cited sources
 
-### Professional Standards
+### Structure and Completeness
 
-- [ ] Data visualizations effectively communicate insights
-- [ ] Technical terms are defined in glossary
-- [ ] Writing is concise and jargon-free
-- [ ] Formatting is consistent throughout
-- [ ] Document is ready for executive presentation
+- [ ] Executive summary captures all key insights
+- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
+- [ ] References section is complete and properly formatted
+- [ ] Source quality assessment included
+- [ ] Document ready for fact-checking by third party
 
 ## Research Completeness
 
@@ -198,5 +295,5 @@ _List areas requiring further investigation:_
 
 **Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
 **Ready for Distribution:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Reviewer:** **\*\***\_\_\_\_**\*\***
-**Date:** **\*\***\_\_\_\_**\*\***
+**Reviewer:** {reviewer}
+**Date:** {date}