bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.12 → 6.0.0-alpha.13

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/workflow.yaml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Epic and Story Decomposition Workflow
 name: create-epics-and-stories
-description: "Transform PRD requirements into bite-sized stories organized into deliverable functional epics. This workflow takes a Product Requirements Document (PRD) and breaks it down into epics and user stories that can be easily assigned to development teams. It ensures that all functional requirements are captured in a structured format, making it easier for teams to understand and implement the necessary features."
+description: "Transform PRD requirements and Architecture decisions into comprehensive stories organized by user value. This workflow requires completed PRD + Architecture documents (UX recommended if UI exists) and breaks down requirements into implementation-ready epics and user stories that incorporate all available technical and design context. Creates detailed, actionable stories with complete acceptance criteria for development teams."
 author: "BMad"
 
 # Critical variables from config
@@ -17,30 +17,20 @@ date: system-generated
 # Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
 input_file_patterns:
   prd:
-    description: "Product Requirements Document with FRs and NFRs"
+    description: "Product Requirements Document with FRs and NFRs (required)"
     whole: "{output_folder}/*prd*.md"
     sharded: "{output_folder}/*prd*/index.md"
     load_strategy: "INDEX_GUIDED"
-  product_brief:
-    description: "Product vision and goals (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*product*brief*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*product*brief*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "INDEX_GUIDED"
-  domain_brief:
-    description: "Domain-specific requirements and context (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*domain*brief*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*domain*brief*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "INDEX_GUIDED"
-  ux_design:
-    description: "UX design specification for interaction patterns (optional)"
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*ux*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*ux*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
   architecture:
-    description: "Architecture decisions and technical design (optional)"
+    description: "Architecture decisions and technical design (required)"
     whole: "{output_folder}/*architecture*.md"
     sharded: "{output_folder}/*architecture*/index.md"
     load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  ux_design:
+    description: "UX design specification for interaction patterns (recommended if UI exists)"
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*ux*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*ux*/index.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
 
 # Module path and component files
 installed_path: "{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories"

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+<workflow>
+  <critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/{bmad_folder}/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
+  <critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+  <critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+  <critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+
+  <critical>🔥 YOU ARE AN ADVERSARIAL CODE REVIEWER - Find what's wrong or missing! 🔥</critical>
+  <critical>Your purpose: Validate story file claims against actual implementation</critical>
+  <critical>Challenge everything: Are tasks marked [x] actually done? Are ACs really implemented?</critical>
+  <critical>Find 3-10 specific issues in every review minimum - no lazy "looks good" reviews - YOU are so much better than the dev agent
+    that wrote this slop</critical>
+  <critical>Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation against story requirements</critical>
+  <critical>Tasks marked complete but not done = CRITICAL finding</critical>
+  <critical>Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity finding</critical>
+
+  <step n="1" goal="Load story and discover changes">
+    <action>Use provided {{story_path}} or ask user which story file to review</action>
+    <action>Read COMPLETE story file</action>
+    <action>Parse sections: Story, Acceptance Criteria, Tasks/Subtasks, Dev Agent Record → File List, Change Log</action>
+
+    <!-- Discover actual changes via git -->
+    <action>Check if git repository detected in current directory</action>
+    <check if="git repository exists">
+      <action>Run `git status --porcelain` to find uncommitted changes</action>
+      <action>Run `git diff --name-only` to see modified files</action>
+      <action>Run `git diff --cached --name-only` to see staged files</action>
+      <action>Compile list of actually changed files from git output</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <!-- Cross-reference story File List vs git reality -->
+    <action>Compare story's Dev Agent Record → File List with actual git changes</action>
+    <action>Note discrepancies:
+      - Files in git but not in story File List
+      - Files in story File List but no git changes
+      - Missing documentation of what was actually changed
+    </action>
+
+    <invoke-protocol name="discover_inputs" />
+    <action>Load {project_context} for coding standards (if exists)</action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="2" goal="Build review attack plan">
+    <action>Extract ALL Acceptance Criteria from story</action>
+    <action>Extract ALL Tasks/Subtasks with completion status ([x] vs [ ])</action>
+    <action>From Dev Agent Record → File List, compile list of claimed changes</action>
+
+    <action>Create review plan:
+      1. **AC Validation**: Verify each AC is actually implemented
+      2. **Task Audit**: Verify each [x] task is really done
+      3. **Code Quality**: Security, performance, maintainability
+      4. **Test Quality**: Real tests vs placeholder bullshit
+    </action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="3" goal="Execute adversarial review">
+    <critical>VALIDATE EVERY CLAIM - Check git reality vs story claims</critical>
+
+    <!-- Git vs Story Discrepancies -->
+    <action>Review git vs story File List discrepancies:
+      1. **Files changed but not in story File List** → MEDIUM finding (incomplete documentation)
+      2. **Story lists files but no git changes** → HIGH finding (false claims)
+      3. **Uncommitted changes not documented** → MEDIUM finding (transparency issue)
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Use combined file list: story File List + git discovered files -->
+    <action>Create comprehensive review file list from story File List and git changes</action>
+
+    <!-- AC Validation -->
+    <action>For EACH Acceptance Criterion:
+      1. Read the AC requirement
+      2. Search implementation files for evidence
+      3. Determine: IMPLEMENTED, PARTIAL, or MISSING
+      4. If MISSING/PARTIAL → HIGH SEVERITY finding
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Task Completion Audit -->
+    <action>For EACH task marked [x]:
+      1. Read the task description
+      2. Search files for evidence it was actually done
+      3. **CRITICAL**: If marked [x] but NOT DONE → CRITICAL finding
+      4. Record specific proof (file:line)
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Code Quality Deep Dive -->
+    <action>For EACH file in comprehensive review list:
+      1. **Security**: Look for injection risks, missing validation, auth issues
+      2. **Performance**: N+1 queries, inefficient loops, missing caching
+      3. **Error Handling**: Missing try/catch, poor error messages
+      4. **Code Quality**: Complex functions, magic numbers, poor naming
+      5. **Test Quality**: Are tests real assertions or placeholders?
+    </action>
+
+    <check if="total_issues_found lt 3">
+      <critical>NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH - Find more problems!</critical>
+      <action>Re-examine code for:
+        - Edge cases and null handling
+        - Architecture violations
+        - Documentation gaps
+        - Integration issues
+        - Dependency problems
+        - Git commit message quality (if applicable)
+      </action>
+      <action>Find at least 3 more specific, actionable issues</action>
+    </check>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="4" goal="Present findings and fix them">
+    <action>Categorize findings: HIGH (must fix), MEDIUM (should fix), LOW (nice to fix)</action>
+
+    <output>**🔥 CODE REVIEW FINDINGS, {user_name}!**
+
+      **Story:** {{story_file}}
+      **Git vs Story Discrepancies:** {{git_discrepancy_count}} found
+      **Issues Found:** {{high_count}} High, {{medium_count}} Medium, {{low_count}} Low
+
+      ## 🔴 CRITICAL ISSUES
+      - Tasks marked [x] but not actually implemented
+      - Acceptance Criteria not implemented
+      - Story claims files changed but no git evidence
+      - Security vulnerabilities
+
+      ## 🟡 MEDIUM ISSUES
+      - Files changed but not documented in story File List
+      - Uncommitted changes not tracked
+      - Performance problems
+      - Poor test coverage/quality
+      - Code maintainability issues
+
+      ## 🟢 LOW ISSUES
+      - Code style improvements
+      - Documentation gaps
+      - Git commit message quality
+    </output>
+
+    <ask>What should I do with these issues?
+
+      1. **Fix them automatically** - I'll update the code and tests
+      2. **Create action items** - Add to story Tasks/Subtasks for later
+      3. **Show me details** - Deep dive into specific issues
+
+      Choose [1], [2], or specify which issue to examine:</ask>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 1">
+      <action>Fix all HIGH and MEDIUM issues in the code</action>
+      <action>Add/update tests as needed</action>
+      <action>Update File List in story if files changed</action>
+      <action>Update story Dev Agent Record with fixes applied</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 2">
+      <action>Add "Review Follow-ups (AI)" subsection to Tasks/Subtasks</action>
+      <action>For each issue: `- [ ] [AI-Review][Severity] Description [file:line]`</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 3">
+      <action>Show detailed explanation with code examples</action>
+      <action>Return to fix decision</action>
+    </check>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="5" goal="Update story status">
+    <action>If all HIGH issues fixed and ACs implemented → Update story Status to "done"</action>
+    <action>If issues remain → Update story Status to "in-progress"</action>
+    <action>Save story file</action>
+
+    <output>**✅ Review Complete!**
+
+      **Story Status:** {{new_status}}
+      **Issues Fixed:** {{fixed_count}}
+      **Action Items Created:** {{action_count}}
+
+      {{#if new_status == "done"}}Story is ready for next work!{{else}}Address the action items and continue development.{{/if}}
+    </output>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/workflow.yaml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Review Story Workflow
 name: code-review
-description: "Perform a Senior Developer code review on a completed story flagged Ready for Review, leveraging story-context, epic tech-spec, repo docs, MCP servers for latest best-practices, and web search as fallback. Appends structured review notes to the story."
+description: "Perform an ADVERSARIAL Senior Developer code review that finds 3-10 specific problems in every story. Challenges everything: code quality, test coverage, architecture compliance, security, performance. NEVER accepts 'looks good' - must find minimum issues and can auto-fix with user approval."
 author: "BMad"
 
 # Critical variables from config
@@ -16,21 +16,14 @@ sprint_status: "{sprint_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml || {output_folder}/sprint-
 
 # Workflow components
 installed_path: "{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review"
-instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.xml"
 validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
 template: false
 
 variables:
+  # Project context
+  project_context: "**/project-context.md"
   story_dir: "{sprint_artifacts}"
-  tech_spec_search_dir: "{output_folder}"
-  tech_spec_glob_template: "tech-spec-epic-{{epic_num}}*.md"
-  arch_docs_search_dirs: |
-    - "{output_folder}"
-  arch_docs_file_names: |
-    - architecture.md
-  backlog_file: "{output_folder}/backlog.md"
-  update_epic_followups: true
-  epic_followups_section_title: "Post-Review Follow-ups"
 
 # Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
 # Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version