bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.12 → 6.0.0-alpha.14

package/src/modules/bmb/workflows/edit-agent/instructions.md

@@ -1,654 +0,0 @@
-# Edit Agent - Agent Editor Instructions
-
-<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: {project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmb/workflows/edit-agent/workflow.yaml</critical>
-<critical>This workflow uses ADAPTIVE FACILITATION - adjust your communication based on context and user needs</critical>
-<critical>The goal is COLLABORATIVE IMPROVEMENT - work WITH the user, not FOR them</critical>
-<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language}</critical>
-
-<critical>Understanding Agent Persona Fields - ESSENTIAL for Editing Agents Correctly</critical>
-
-When editing an agent, you MUST understand how the compiled agent LLM interprets persona fields. This is the #1 issue found in agent edits:
-
-**The Four Persona Fields and LLM Interpretation:**
-
-- **role** → LLM reads: "What knowledge, skills, and capabilities do I possess?"
-  Example: "Senior Software Engineer" or "Strategic Business Analyst + Requirements Expert"
-
-- **identity** → LLM reads: "What background, experience, and context shape my responses?"
-  Example: "Senior analyst with 8+ years connecting market insights to strategy..."
-
-- **communication_style** → LLM reads: "What verbal patterns, word choice, quirks, and phrasing do I use?"
-  Example: "Treats analysis like a treasure hunt - excited by every clue"
-
-- **principles** → LLM reads: "What beliefs and operating philosophy drive my choices?"
-  Example: "Every business challenge has root causes. Ground findings in evidence."
-
-**MOST COMMON EDITING MISTAKE - Behaviors Mixed Into Communication Style:**
-
-BEFORE (incorrect - found in many legacy agents):
-
-```yaml
-communication_style: 'Experienced analyst who uses systematic approaches and ensures all stakeholders are heard'
-```
-
-^ This MIXES identity (experienced analyst) + behavior (ensures stakeholders heard) into style!
-
-AFTER (correct - persona fields properly separated):
-
-```yaml
-identity: 'Senior analyst with 8+ years connecting insights to strategy'
-communication_style: 'Systematic and probing. Structures findings hierarchically.'
-principles:
-  - 'Ensure all stakeholder voices heard'
-  - 'Ground findings in evidence'
-```
-
-**How to Recognize When Communication Style Needs Fixing:**
-
-Red flag words in communication_style indicate behaviors/role mixed in:
-
-- "ensures", "makes sure", "always", "never" → These are behaviors (move to principles)
-- "experienced", "expert who", "senior" → These are identity (move to identity field)
-- "believes in", "focused on" → These are principles (move to principles array)
-
-**Pure Communication Styles (from {communication_presets}):**
-
-Notice these contain ZERO role/identity/principles - only HOW they talk:
-
-- "Treats analysis like a treasure hunt - excited by every clue"
-- "Ultra-succinct. Speaks in file paths and AC IDs - every statement citable"
-- "Asks 'WHY?' relentlessly like a detective on a case"
-- "Poetic drama and flair with every turn of a phrase"
-
-Use {communication_presets} CSV and reference agents in {reference_agents} as your guide for pure communication styles.
-
-<workflow>
-
-<step n="1" goal="Load and deeply understand the target agent">
-<ask>What is the path to the agent you want to edit?</ask>
-
-<action>Detect agent type from provided path and load ALL relevant files:
-
-**If path is a .agent.yaml file (Simple Agent):**
-
-- Load the single YAML file
-- Note: Simple agent, all content in one file
-
-**If path is a folder (Expert Agent with sidecar files):**
-
-- Load the .agent.yaml file from inside the folder
-- Load ALL sidecar files in the folder:
-  - Templates (_.md, _.txt)
-  - Documentation files
-  - Knowledge base files (_.csv, _.json, \*.yaml)
-  - Any other resources referenced by the agent
-- Create inventory of sidecar files for reference
-- Note: Expert agent with sidecar structure
-
-**If path is ambiguous:**
-
-- Check if it's a folder containing .agent.yaml → Expert agent
-- Check if it's a direct .agent.yaml path → Simple agent
-- If neither, ask user to clarify
-
-Present what was loaded:
-
-- "Loaded [agent-name].agent.yaml"
-- If Expert: "Plus 5 sidecar files: [list them]"
-  </action>
-  <action>Load ALL agent documentation to inform understanding:
-
-**Core Concepts:**
-
-- Understanding agent types: {understanding_agent_types}
-- Agent compilation process: {agent_compilation}
-
-**Architecture Guides:**
-
-- Simple agent architecture: {simple_architecture}
-- Expert agent architecture: {expert_architecture}
-- Module agent architecture: {module_architecture}
-
-**Design Patterns:**
-
-- Menu patterns: {menu_patterns}
-- Communication presets: {communication_presets}
-- Brainstorm context: {brainstorm_context}
-
-**Reference Agents:**
-
-- Simple example: {reference_simple_agent}
-- Expert example: {reference_expert_agent}
-- Module examples: {reference_module_agents}
-- BMM agents (distinct voices): {bmm_agents}
-
-**Workflow execution engine:** {workflow_execution_engine}
-</action>
-
-<action>Analyze the agent structure thoroughly:
-
-**Basic Structure:**
-
-- Parse persona (role, identity, communication_style, principles)
-- Understand activation flow and steps
-- Map menu items and their workflows
-- Identify configuration dependencies
-- Assess agent type: Simple (single YAML), Expert (sidecar files), or Module (ecosystem integration)
-- Check workflow references for validity
-
-**If Expert Agent - Analyze Sidecar Files:**
-
-- Map which menu items reference which sidecar files (tmpl="path", data="path")
-- Check if all sidecar references in YAML actually exist
-- Identify unused sidecar files (not referenced in YAML)
-- Assess sidecar organization (are templates grouped logically?)
-- Note any sidecar files that might need editing (outdated templates, old docs)
-
-**CRITICAL - Persona Field Separation Analysis:**
-
-- Check if communication_style contains ONLY verbal patterns
-- Identify any behaviors mixed into communication_style (red flags: "ensures", "makes sure", "always")
-- Identify any role/identity statements in communication_style (red flags: "experienced", "expert who", "senior")
-- Identify any principles in communication_style (red flags: "believes in", "focused on")
-- Compare communication_style against {communication_presets} for purity
-- Compare against similar reference agents
-
-**Evaluate against best practices from loaded guides**
-</action>
-
-<action>Reflect understanding back to {user_name}:
-
-Present a warm, conversational summary adapted to the agent's complexity:
-
-- What this agent does (its role and purpose)
-- How it's structured (Simple/Expert/Module type, menu items, workflows)
-- **If Expert agent:** Describe the sidecar structure warmly:
-  - "This is an Expert agent with a nice sidecar structure - I see 3 templates, 2 knowledge files, and a README"
-  - Mention what the sidecar files are for (if clear from names/content)
-  - Note any sidecar issues (broken references, unused files)
-- **If persona field separation issues found:** Gently point out that communication_style has behaviors/role mixed in - explain this is common and fixable
-- What you notice (strengths, potential improvements, issues)
-- Your initial assessment of its health
-
-Be conversational, not clinical. Help {user_name} see their agent through your eyes.
-
-Example of mentioning persona issues warmly:
-"I notice the communication_style has some behaviors mixed in (like 'ensures stakeholders are heard'). This is super common - we can easily extract those to principles to make the persona clearer. The agent's core purpose is solid though!"
-
-Example of mentioning Expert agent sidecar structure:
-"This is beautifully organized as an Expert agent! The sidecar files include 3 journal templates (daily, weekly, breakthrough) and a mood-patterns knowledge file. Your menu items reference them nicely. I do notice 'old-template.md' isn't referenced anywhere - we could clean that up."
-</action>
-
-<ask>Does this match your understanding of what this agent should do?</ask>
-<template-output>agent_understanding</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="2" goal="Discover improvement goals collaboratively">
-<critical>Understand WHAT the user wants to improve and WHY before diving into edits</critical>
-
-<action>Engage in collaborative discovery:
-
-Ask open-ended questions to understand their goals:
-
-- What prompted you to want to edit this agent?
-- What isn't working the way you'd like?
-- Are there specific behaviors you want to change?
-- Is there functionality you want to add or remove?
-- How do users interact with this agent? What feedback have they given?
-
-Listen for clues about:
-
-- **Persona field separation issues** (communication_style contains behaviors/role/principles)
-- Functional issues (broken references, missing workflows)
-- **Sidecar file issues** (for Expert agents: outdated templates, unused files, missing references)
-- User experience issues (confusing menu, unclear communication)
-- Performance issues (too slow, too verbose, not adaptive enough)
-- Maintenance issues (hard to update, bloated, inconsistent)
-- Integration issues (doesn't work well with other agents/workflows)
-- **Legacy pattern issues** (using old "full/hybrid/standalone" terminology, outdated structures)
-  </action>
-
-<action>Based on their responses and your analysis from step 1, identify improvement opportunities:
-
-Organize by priority and user goals:
-
-- **CRITICAL issues blocking functionality** (broken paths, invalid references)
-- **PERSONA FIELD SEPARATION** (if found - this significantly improves LLM interpretation)
-- **IMPORTANT improvements enhancing user experience** (menu clarity, better workflows)
-- **NICE-TO-HAVE enhancements for polish** (better triggers, communication refinement)
-
-Present these conversationally, explaining WHY each matters and HOW it would help.
-
-If persona field separation issues found, explain the impact:
-"I found some behaviors in the communication_style field. When we separate these properly, the LLM will have much clearer understanding of the persona. Right now it's trying to interpret 'ensures stakeholders heard' as a verbal pattern, when it's actually an operating principle. Fixing this makes the agent more consistent and predictable."
-</action>
-
-<action>Collaborate on priorities:
-
-Don't just list options - discuss them:
-
-- "I noticed {{issue}} - this could cause {{problem}}. Does this concern you?"
-- "The agent could be more {{improvement}} which would help when {{use_case}}. Worth exploring?"
-- "Based on what you said about {{user_goal}}, we might want to {{suggestion}}. Thoughts?"
-
-Let the conversation flow naturally. Build a shared vision of what "better" looks like.
-</action>
-
-<template-output>improvement_goals</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="3" goal="Facilitate improvements collaboratively" repeat="until-user-satisfied">
-<critical>Work iteratively - improve, review, refine. Never dump all changes at once.</critical>
-
-<action>For each improvement area, facilitate collaboratively:
-
-1. **Explain the current state and why it matters**
-   - Show relevant sections of the agent
-   - Explain how it works now and implications
-   - Connect to user's goals from step 2
-
-2. **Propose improvements with rationale**
-   - Suggest specific changes that align with best practices
-   - Explain WHY each change helps
-   - Provide examples from the loaded guides when helpful
-   - Show before/after comparisons for clarity
-
-3. **Collaborate on the approach**
-   - Ask if the proposed change addresses their need
-   - Invite modifications or alternative approaches
-   - Explain tradeoffs when relevant
-   - Adapt based on their feedback
-
-4. **Apply changes iteratively**
-   - Make one focused improvement at a time
-   - Show the updated section
-   - Confirm it meets their expectation
-   - Move to next improvement or refine current one
-     </action>
-
-<action>Common improvement patterns to facilitate:
-
-**If fixing broken references:**
-
-- Identify all broken paths (workflow paths, sidecar file references)
-- Explain what each reference should point to
-- Verify new paths exist before updating
-- **For Expert agents:** Check both YAML references AND actual sidecar file existence
-- Update and confirm working
-
-**If editing sidecar files (Expert agents only):**
-
-<critical>Sidecar files are as much a part of the agent as the YAML!</critical>
-
-Common sidecar editing scenarios:
-
-**Updating templates:**
-
-- Read current template content
-- Discuss what needs to change with user
-- Show before/after of template updates
-- Verify menu item references still work
-- Test template variables resolve correctly
-
-**Adding new sidecar files:**
-
-- Create the new file (template, doc, knowledge base)
-- Add menu item in YAML that references it (tmpl="path/to/new-file.md")
-- Verify the reference path is correct
-- Test the menu item loads the sidecar file
-
-**Removing unused sidecar files:**
-
-- Confirm file is truly unused (not referenced in YAML)
-- Ask user if safe to delete (might be there for future use)
-- Delete file if approved
-- Clean up any stale references
-
-**Reorganizing sidecar structure:**
-
-- Discuss better organization (e.g., group templates in subfolder)
-- Move files to new locations
-- Update ALL references in YAML to new paths
-- Verify all menu items still work
-
-**Updating knowledge base files (.csv, .json, .yaml in sidecar):**
-
-- Understand what knowledge the file contains
-- Discuss what needs updating
-- Edit the knowledge file directly
-- Verify format is still valid
-- No YAML changes needed (data file just gets loaded)
-
-**If refining persona/communication (MOST COMMON IMPROVEMENT NEEDED):**
-
-<critical>Persona field separation is the #1 quality issue. Follow this pattern EXACTLY:</critical>
-
-**Step 1: Diagnose Current Communication Style**
-
-- Read current communication_style field word by word
-- Identify ANY content that isn't pure verbal patterns
-- Use red flag words as detection:
-  - "ensures", "makes sure", "always", "never" → Behaviors (belongs in principles)
-  - "experienced", "expert who", "senior", "seasoned" → Identity descriptors (belongs in role/identity)
-  - "believes in", "focused on", "committed to" → Philosophy (belongs in principles)
-  - "who does X", "that does Y" → Behavioral descriptions (belongs in role or principles)
-
-Example diagnosis:
-
-```yaml
-# CURRENT (problematic)
-communication_style: 'Experienced analyst who uses systematic approaches and ensures all stakeholders are heard'
-# IDENTIFIED ISSUES:
-# - "Experienced analyst" → identity descriptor
-# - "who uses systematic approaches" → behavioral description
-# - "ensures all stakeholders are heard" → operating principle
-# ONLY THIS IS STYLE: [nothing! Need to find the actual verbal pattern]
-```
-
-**Step 2: Extract Non-Style Content to Proper Fields**
-
-- Create a working copy with sections:
-  - ROLE (capabilities/skills)
-  - IDENTITY (background/context)
-  - PURE STYLE (verbal patterns only)
-  - PRINCIPLES (beliefs/behaviors)
-
-- Move identified content to proper sections:
-  ```yaml
-  # ROLE: "Strategic analyst"
-  # IDENTITY: "Experienced analyst who uses systematic approaches"
-  # PURE STYLE: [need to discover - interview user about HOW they talk]
-  # PRINCIPLES:
-  #   - "Ensure all stakeholder voices heard"
-  #   - "Use systematic, structured approaches"
-  ```
-
-**Step 3: Discover the TRUE Communication Style**
-Since style was buried under behaviors, interview the user:
-
-- "How should this agent SOUND when talking?"
-- "What verbal quirks or patterns make them distinctive?"
-- "Are they formal? Casual? Energetic? Measured?"
-- "Any metaphors or imagery that capture their voice?"
-
-Then explore {communication_presets} together:
-
-- Show relevant categories (Professional, Creative, Analytical, etc.)
-- Read examples of pure styles
-- Discuss which resonates with agent's essence
-
-**Step 4: Craft Pure Communication Style**
-Write 1-2 sentences focused ONLY on verbal patterns:
-
-Good examples from reference agents:
-
-- "Treats analysis like a treasure hunt - excited by every clue, thrilled when patterns emerge" (Mary/analyst)
-- "Ultra-succinct. Speaks in file paths and AC IDs - every statement citable" (Amelia/dev)
-- "Asks 'WHY?' relentlessly like a detective on a case" (John/pm)
-- "Poetic drama and flair with every turn of a phrase" (commit-poet)
-
-Bad example (what we're fixing):
-
-- "Experienced who ensures quality and uses best practices" ← ALL behaviors, NO style!
-
-**Step 5: Show Before/After With Full Context**
-Present the complete transformation:
-
-```yaml
-# BEFORE
-persona:
-  role: "Analyst"
-  communication_style: "Experienced analyst who uses systematic approaches and ensures all stakeholders are heard"
-
-# AFTER
-persona:
-  role: "Strategic Business Analyst + Requirements Expert"
-  identity: "Senior analyst with 8+ years connecting market insights to strategy and translating complex problems into clear requirements"
-  communication_style: "Treats analysis like a treasure hunt - excited by every clue, thrilled when patterns emerge. Asks questions that spark 'aha!' moments."
-  principles:
-    - "Ensure all stakeholder voices heard"
-    - "Use systematic, structured approaches to analysis"
-    - "Ground findings in evidence, not assumptions"
-```
-
-**Step 6: Validate Against Standards**
-
-- Communication style has ZERO red flag words
-- Communication style describes HOW they talk, not WHAT they do
-- Compare against {communication_presets} - similarly pure?
-- Compare against reference agents - similar quality?
-- Read it aloud - does it sound like a voice description?
-
-**Step 7: Confirm With User**
-
-- Explain WHAT changed and WHY each move happened
-- Read the new communication style dramatically to demonstrate the voice
-- Ask: "Does this capture how you want them to sound?"
-- Refine based on feedback
-
-**If updating activation:**
-
-- Walk through current activation flow
-- Identify bottlenecks or confusion points
-- Propose streamlined flow
-- Ensure config loading works correctly
-- Verify all session variables are set
-
-**If managing menu items:**
-
-- Review current menu organization
-- Discuss if structure serves user mental model
-- Add/remove/reorganize as needed
-- Ensure all workflow references are valid
-- Update triggers to be intuitive
-
-**If enhancing menu handlers:**
-
-- Explain current handler logic
-- Identify where handlers could be smarter
-- Propose enhanced logic based on agent architecture patterns
-- Ensure handlers properly invoke workflows
-
-**If optimizing agent type or migrating from legacy terminology:**
-
-<critical>Legacy agents may use outdated "full/hybrid/standalone" terminology. Migrate to Simple/Expert/Module:</critical>
-
-**Understanding the Modern Types:**
-
-- **Simple** = Self-contained in single .agent.yaml file
-  - NOT capability-limited! Can be as powerful as any agent
-  - Architecture choice: everything in one file
-  - Example: commit-poet (reference_simple_agent)
-
-- **Expert** = Includes sidecar files (templates, docs, knowledge bases)
-  - Folder structure with .agent.yaml + additional files
-  - Sidecar files referenced in menu items or prompts
-  - Example: journal-keeper (reference_expert_agent)
-
-- **Module** = Designed for BMAD ecosystem integration
-  - Integrated with specific module workflows (BMM, BMGD, CIS, etc.)
-  - Coordinates with other module agents
-  - Included in module's default bundle
-  - This is design INTENT, not capability limitation
-  - Examples: security-engineer, dev, analyst (reference_module_agents)
-
-**Migration Pattern from Legacy Types:**
-
-If agent uses "full/hybrid/standalone" terminology:
-
-1. **Identify current structure:**
-   - Single file? → Probably Simple
-   - Has sidecar files? → Probably Expert
-   - Part of module ecosystem? → Probably Module
-   - Multiple could apply? → Choose based on PRIMARY characteristic
-
-2. **Update any references in comments/docs:**
-   - Change "full agent" → Simple or Module (depending on context)
-   - Change "hybrid agent" → Usually Simple or Expert
-   - Change "standalone agent" → Usually Simple
-
-3. **Verify type choice:**
-   - Read {understanding_agent_types} together
-   - Compare against reference agents
-   - Confirm structure matches chosen type
-
-4. **Update validation checklist expectations** based on new type
-
-**If genuinely converting between types:**
-
-Simple → Expert (adding sidecar files):
-
-- Create folder with agent name
-- Move .agent.yaml into folder
-- Add sidecar files (templates, docs, etc.)
-- Update menu items to reference sidecar files
-- Test all references work
-
-Expert → Simple (consolidating):
-
-- Inline sidecar content into YAML (or remove if unused)
-- Move .agent.yaml out of folder
-- Update any menu references
-- Delete sidecar folder after verification
-
-Module ↔ Others:
-
-- Module is about design intent, not structure
-- Can be Simple OR Expert structurally
-- Change is about integration ecosystem, not file structure
-  </action>
-
-<action>Throughout improvements, educate when helpful:
-
-Share insights from the guides naturally:
-
-- "The agent architecture guide suggests {{pattern}} for this scenario"
-- "Looking at the command patterns, we could use {{approach}}"
-- "The communication styles guide has a great example of {{technique}}"
-
-Connect improvements to broader BMAD principles without being preachy.
-</action>
-
-<ask>After each significant change:
-
-- "Does this feel right for what you're trying to achieve?"
-- "Want to refine this further, or move to the next improvement?"
-- "Is there anything about this change that concerns you?"
-  </ask>
-
-<template-output>improvement_implementation</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="4" goal="Validate improvements holistically">
-<action>Run comprehensive validation conversationally:
-
-Don't just check boxes - explain what you're validating and why it matters:
-
-- "Let me verify all the workflow paths resolve correctly..."
-- **"If Expert agent: Checking all sidecar file references..."**
-- "Checking that the activation flow works smoothly..."
-- "Making sure menu handlers are wired up properly..."
-- "Validating config loading is robust..."
-- **"CRITICAL: Checking persona field separation - ensuring communication_style is pure..."**
-
-**For Expert Agents - Sidecar File Validation:**
-
-Walk through each sidecar reference:
-
-- "Your menu item 'daily-journal' references 'templates/daily.md'... checking... ✓ exists!"
-- "Menu item 'breakthrough' references 'templates/breakthrough.md'... checking... ✓ exists!"
-- Check for orphaned sidecar files not referenced anywhere
-- If found: "I noticed 'old-template.md' isn't referenced in any menu items. Should we keep it?"
-- Verify sidecar file formats (YAML is valid, CSV has headers, etc.)
-  </action>
-
-<action>Load validation checklist: {validation}</action>
-<action>Check all items from checklist systematically</action>
-
-<note>The validation checklist is shared between create-agent and edit-agent workflows to ensure consistent quality standards. Any agent (whether newly created or edited) is validated against the same comprehensive criteria.</note>
-
-<check if="validation_issues_found">
-  <action>Present issues conversationally:
-
-Explain what's wrong and implications:
-
-- "I found {{issue}} which could cause {{problem}}"
-- "The {{component}} needs {{fix}} because {{reason}}"
-
-Propose fixes immediately:
-
-- "I can fix this by {{solution}}. Should I?"
-- "We have a couple options here: {{option1}} or {{option2}}. Thoughts?"
-  </action>
-
-<action>Fix approved issues and re-validate</action>
-</check>
-
-<check if="validation_passes">
-  <action>Confirm success warmly:
-
-"Excellent! Everything validates cleanly:
-
-- ✓ Persona fields properly separated (communication_style is pure!)
-- ✓ All paths resolve correctly
-- ✓ **[If Expert agent: All sidecar file references valid - 5 sidecar files, all referenced correctly!]**
-- ✓ Activation flow is solid
-- ✓ Menu structure is clear
-- ✓ Handlers work properly
-- ✓ Config loading is robust
-- ✓ Agent type matches structure (Simple/Expert/Module)
-
-Your agent meets all BMAD quality standards. Great work!"
-</action>
-</check>
-
-<template-output>validation_results</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="5" goal="Review improvements and guide next steps">
-<action>Create a conversational summary of what improved:
-
-Tell the story of the transformation:
-
-- "We started with {{initial_state}}"
-- "You wanted to {{user_goals}}"
-- "We made these key improvements: {{changes_list}}"
-- "Now your agent {{improved_capabilities}}"
-
-Highlight the impact:
-
-- "This means users will experience {{benefit}}"
-- "The agent is now more {{quality}}"
-- "It follows best practices for {{patterns}}"
-  </action>
-
-<action>Guide next steps based on changes made:
-
-If significant structural changes:
-
-- "Since we restructured the activation, you should test the agent with a real user interaction"
-
-If workflow references changed:
-
-- "The agent now uses {{new_workflows}} - make sure those workflows are up to date"
-
-If this is part of larger module work:
-
-- "This agent is part of {{module}} - consider if other agents need similar improvements"
-
-Be a helpful guide to what comes next, not just a task completer.
-</action>
-
-<ask>Would you like to:
-
-- Test the edited agent by invoking it
-- Edit another agent
-- Make additional refinements to this one
-- Return to your module work
-  </ask>
-
-<template-output>completion_summary</template-output>
-</step>
-
-</workflow>