bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.2 → 6.0.0-alpha.4

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/narrative/narrative-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+# {{game_name}} - Narrative Design Document
+
+**Author:** {{user_name}}
+**Game Type:** {{game_type}}
+**Narrative Complexity:** {{narrative_complexity}}
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+### Narrative Premise
+
+{{narrative_premise}}
+
+### Core Themes
+
+{{core_themes}}
+
+### Tone and Atmosphere
+
+{{tone_atmosphere}}
+
+---
+
+## Story Structure
+
+### Story Type
+
+{{story_type}}
+
+**Structure used:** (3-act, hero's journey, kishōtenketsu, episodic, branching, etc.)
+
+### Act Breakdown
+
+{{act_breakdown}}
+
+### Story Beats
+
+{{story_beats}}
+
+### Pacing and Flow
+
+{{pacing_flow}}
+
+---
+
+## Characters
+
+### Protagonist(s)
+
+{{protagonists}}
+
+### Antagonist(s)
+
+{{antagonists}}
+
+### Supporting Characters
+
+{{supporting_characters}}
+
+### Character Arcs
+
+{{character_arcs}}
+
+---
+
+## World and Lore
+
+### World Overview
+
+{{world_overview}}
+
+### History and Backstory
+
+{{history_backstory}}
+
+### Factions and Organizations
+
+{{factions_organizations}}
+
+### Locations
+
+{{locations}}
+
+### Cultural Elements
+
+{{cultural_elements}}
+
+---
+
+## Dialogue Framework
+
+### Dialogue Style
+
+{{dialogue_style}}
+
+### Key Conversations
+
+{{key_conversations}}
+
+### Branching Dialogue
+
+{{branching_dialogue}}
+
+### Voice and Characterization
+
+{{voice_characterization}}
+
+---
+
+## Environmental Storytelling
+
+### Visual Storytelling
+
+{{visual_storytelling}}
+
+### Audio Storytelling
+
+{{audio_storytelling}}
+
+### Found Documents
+
+{{found_documents}}
+
+### Environmental Clues
+
+{{environmental_clues}}
+
+---
+
+## Narrative Delivery
+
+### Cutscenes and Cinematics
+
+{{cutscenes}}
+
+### In-Game Storytelling
+
+{{ingame_storytelling}}
+
+### Optional Content
+
+{{optional_content}}
+
+### Multiple Endings
+
+{{multiple_endings}}
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Gameplay
+
+### Narrative-Gameplay Harmony
+
+{{narrative_gameplay}}
+
+### Story Gates
+
+{{story_gates}}
+
+### Player Agency
+
+{{player_agency}}
+
+---
+
+## Production Notes
+
+### Writing Scope
+
+{{writing_scope}}
+
+### Localization Considerations
+
+{{localization}}
+
+### Voice Acting
+
+{{voice_acting}}
+
+---
+
+## Appendix
+
+### Character Relationship Map
+
+{{relationship_map}}
+
+### Timeline
+
+{{timeline}}
+
+### References and Inspirations
+
+{{references}}

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/narrative/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# Narrative Design Workflow
+name: narrative
+description: "Narrative design workflow for story-driven games and applications. Creates comprehensive narrative documentation including story structure, character arcs, dialogue systems, and narrative implementation guidance."
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Workflow components
+installed_path: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/narrative"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions-narrative.md"
+template: "{installed_path}/narrative-template.md"
+
+# Output configuration
+default_output_file: "{output_folder}/narrative-design.md"
+
+# Recommended input documents
+recommended_inputs:
+  - game_brief: "{output_folder}/game-brief.md"
+  - gdd: "{output_folder}/GDD.md"
+  - product_brief: "{output_folder}/product-brief.md"
+
+standalone: true

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,349 @@
+# PRD + Epics + Stories Validation Checklist
+
+**Purpose**: Comprehensive validation that PRD, epics, and stories form a complete, implementable product plan.
+
+**Scope**: Validates the complete planning output (PRD.md + epics.md) for Levels 2-4 software projects
+
+**Expected Outputs**:
+
+- PRD.md with complete requirements
+- epics.md with detailed epic and story breakdown
+- Updated bmm-workflow-status.yaml
+
+---
+
+## 1. PRD Document Completeness
+
+### Core Sections Present
+
+- [ ] Executive Summary with vision alignment
+- [ ] Product magic essence clearly articulated
+- [ ] Project classification (type, domain, complexity)
+- [ ] Success criteria defined
+- [ ] Product scope (MVP, Growth, Vision) clearly delineated
+- [ ] Functional requirements comprehensive and numbered
+- [ ] Non-functional requirements (when applicable)
+- [ ] References section with source documents
+
+### Project-Specific Sections
+
+- [ ] **If complex domain:** Domain context and considerations documented
+- [ ] **If innovation:** Innovation patterns and validation approach documented
+- [ ] **If API/Backend:** Endpoint specification and authentication model included
+- [ ] **If Mobile:** Platform requirements and device features documented
+- [ ] **If SaaS B2B:** Tenant model and permission matrix included
+- [ ] **If UI exists:** UX principles and key interactions documented
+
+### Quality Checks
+
+- [ ] No unfilled template variables ({{variable}})
+- [ ] All variables properly populated with meaningful content
+- [ ] Product magic woven throughout (not just stated once)
+- [ ] Language is clear, specific, and measurable
+- [ ] Project type correctly identified and sections match
+- [ ] Domain complexity appropriately addressed
+
+---
+
+## 2. Functional Requirements Quality
+
+### FR Format and Structure
+
+- [ ] Each FR has unique identifier (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
+- [ ] FRs describe WHAT capabilities, not HOW to implement
+- [ ] FRs are specific and measurable
+- [ ] FRs are testable and verifiable
+- [ ] FRs focus on user/business value
+- [ ] No technical implementation details in FRs (those belong in architecture)
+
+### FR Completeness
+
+- [ ] All MVP scope features have corresponding FRs
+- [ ] Growth features documented (even if deferred)
+- [ ] Vision features captured for future reference
+- [ ] Domain-mandated requirements included
+- [ ] Innovation requirements captured with validation needs
+- [ ] Project-type specific requirements complete
+
+### FR Organization
+
+- [ ] FRs organized by capability/feature area (not by tech stack)
+- [ ] Related FRs grouped logically
+- [ ] Dependencies between FRs noted when critical
+- [ ] Priority/phase indicated (MVP vs Growth vs Vision)
+
+---
+
+## 3. Epics Document Completeness
+
+### Required Files
+
+- [ ] epics.md exists in output folder
+- [ ] Epic list in PRD.md matches epics in epics.md (titles and count)
+- [ ] All epics have detailed breakdown sections
+
+### Epic Quality
+
+- [ ] Each epic has clear goal and value proposition
+- [ ] Each epic includes complete story breakdown
+- [ ] Stories follow proper user story format: "As a [role], I want [goal], so that [benefit]"
+- [ ] Each story has numbered acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Prerequisites/dependencies explicitly stated per story
+- [ ] Stories are AI-agent sized (completable in 2-4 hour session)
+
+---
+
+## 4. FR Coverage Validation (CRITICAL)
+
+### Complete Traceability
+
+- [ ] **Every FR from PRD.md is covered by at least one story in epics.md**
+- [ ] Each story references relevant FR numbers
+- [ ] No orphaned FRs (requirements without stories)
+- [ ] No orphaned stories (stories without FR connection)
+- [ ] Coverage matrix verified (can trace FR → Epic → Stories)
+
+### Coverage Quality
+
+- [ ] Stories sufficiently decompose FRs into implementable units
+- [ ] Complex FRs broken into multiple stories appropriately
+- [ ] Simple FRs have appropriately scoped single stories
+- [ ] Non-functional requirements reflected in story acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Domain requirements embedded in relevant stories
+
+---
+
+## 5. Story Sequencing Validation (CRITICAL)
+
+### Epic 1 Foundation Check
+
+- [ ] **Epic 1 establishes foundational infrastructure**
+- [ ] Epic 1 delivers initial deployable functionality
+- [ ] Epic 1 creates baseline for subsequent epics
+- [ ] Exception: If adding to existing app, foundation requirement adapted appropriately
+
+### Vertical Slicing
+
+- [ ] **Each story delivers complete, testable functionality** (not horizontal layers)
+- [ ] No "build database" or "create UI" stories in isolation
+- [ ] Stories integrate across stack (data + logic + presentation when applicable)
+- [ ] Each story leaves system in working/deployable state
+
+### No Forward Dependencies
+
+- [ ] **No story depends on work from a LATER story or epic**
+- [ ] Stories within each epic are sequentially ordered
+- [ ] Each story builds only on previous work
+- [ ] Dependencies flow backward only (can reference earlier stories)
+- [ ] Parallel tracks clearly indicated if stories are independent
+
+### Value Delivery Path
+
+- [ ] Each epic delivers significant end-to-end value
+- [ ] Epic sequence shows logical product evolution
+- [ ] User can see value after each epic completion
+- [ ] MVP scope clearly achieved by end of designated epics
+
+---
+
+## 6. Scope Management
+
+### MVP Discipline
+
+- [ ] MVP scope is genuinely minimal and viable
+- [ ] Core features list contains only true must-haves
+- [ ] Each MVP feature has clear rationale for inclusion
+- [ ] No obvious scope creep in "must-have" list
+
+### Future Work Captured
+
+- [ ] Growth features documented for post-MVP
+- [ ] Vision features captured to maintain long-term direction
+- [ ] Out-of-scope items explicitly listed
+- [ ] Deferred features have clear reasoning for deferral
+
+### Clear Boundaries
+
+- [ ] Stories marked as MVP vs Growth vs Vision
+- [ ] Epic sequencing aligns with MVP → Growth progression
+- [ ] No confusion about what's in vs out of initial scope
+
+---
+
+## 7. Research and Context Integration
+
+### Source Document Integration
+
+- [ ] **If product brief exists:** Key insights incorporated into PRD
+- [ ] **If domain brief exists:** Domain requirements reflected in FRs and stories
+- [ ] **If research documents exist:** Research findings inform requirements
+- [ ] **If competitive analysis exists:** Differentiation strategy clear in PRD
+- [ ] All source documents referenced in PRD References section
+
+### Research Continuity to Architecture
+
+- [ ] Domain complexity considerations documented for architects
+- [ ] Technical constraints from research captured
+- [ ] Regulatory/compliance requirements clearly stated
+- [ ] Integration requirements with existing systems documented
+- [ ] Performance/scale requirements informed by research data
+
+### Information Completeness for Next Phase
+
+- [ ] PRD provides sufficient context for architecture decisions
+- [ ] Epics provide sufficient detail for technical design
+- [ ] Stories have enough acceptance criteria for implementation
+- [ ] Non-obvious business rules documented
+- [ ] Edge cases and special scenarios captured
+
+---
+
+## 8. Cross-Document Consistency
+
+### Terminology Consistency
+
+- [ ] Same terms used across PRD and epics for concepts
+- [ ] Feature names consistent between documents
+- [ ] Epic titles match between PRD and epics.md
+- [ ] No contradictions between PRD and epics
+
+### Alignment Checks
+
+- [ ] Success metrics in PRD align with story outcomes
+- [ ] Product magic articulated in PRD reflected in epic goals
+- [ ] Technical preferences in PRD align with story implementation hints
+- [ ] Scope boundaries consistent across all documents
+
+---
+
+## 9. Readiness for Implementation
+
+### Architecture Readiness (Next Phase)
+
+- [ ] PRD provides sufficient context for architecture workflow
+- [ ] Technical constraints and preferences documented
+- [ ] Integration points identified
+- [ ] Performance/scale requirements specified
+- [ ] Security and compliance needs clear
+
+### Development Readiness
+
+- [ ] Stories are specific enough to estimate
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria are testable
+- [ ] Technical unknowns identified and flagged
+- [ ] Dependencies on external systems documented
+- [ ] Data requirements specified
+
+### Level-Appropriate Detail
+
+**If Level 2:**
+
+- [ ] PRD supports lightweight tech-spec workflow
+- [ ] 5-15 story scope reasonable for project size
+- [ ] Complexity appropriate for small team/solo dev
+
+**If Level 3-4:**
+
+- [ ] PRD supports full architecture workflow
+- [ ] Epic structure supports phased delivery
+- [ ] Scope appropriate for team-based development
+- [ ] Clear value delivery through epic sequence
+
+---
+
+## 10. Quality and Polish
+
+### Writing Quality
+
+- [ ] Language is clear and free of jargon (or jargon is defined)
+- [ ] Sentences are concise and specific
+- [ ] No vague statements ("should be fast", "user-friendly")
+- [ ] Measurable criteria used throughout
+- [ ] Professional tone appropriate for stakeholder review
+
+### Document Structure
+
+- [ ] Sections flow logically
+- [ ] Headers and numbering consistent
+- [ ] Cross-references accurate (FR numbers, section references)
+- [ ] Formatting consistent throughout
+- [ ] Tables/lists formatted properly
+
+### Completeness Indicators
+
+- [ ] No [TODO] or [TBD] markers remain
+- [ ] No placeholder text
+- [ ] All sections have substantive content
+- [ ] Optional sections either complete or omitted (not half-done)
+
+---
+
+## Critical Failures (Auto-Fail)
+
+If ANY of these are true, validation FAILS:
+
+- [ ] ❌ **No epics.md file exists** (two-file output required)
+- [ ] ❌ **Epic 1 doesn't establish foundation** (violates core sequencing principle)
+- [ ] ❌ **Stories have forward dependencies** (breaks sequential implementation)
+- [ ] ❌ **Stories not vertically sliced** (horizontal layers block value delivery)
+- [ ] ❌ **Epics don't cover all FRs** (orphaned requirements)
+- [ ] ❌ **FRs contain technical implementation details** (should be in architecture)
+- [ ] ❌ **No FR traceability to stories** (can't validate coverage)
+- [ ] ❌ **Template variables unfilled** (incomplete document)
+
+---
+
+## Validation Summary
+
+**Total Validation Points:** ~85
+
+### Scoring Guide
+
+- **Pass Rate ≥ 95% (81+/85):** ✅ EXCELLENT - Ready for architecture phase
+- **Pass Rate 85-94% (72-80/85):** ⚠️ GOOD - Minor fixes needed
+- **Pass Rate 70-84% (60-71/85):** ⚠️ FAIR - Important issues to address
+- **Pass Rate < 70% (<60/85):** ❌ POOR - Significant rework required
+
+### Critical Issue Threshold
+
+- **0 Critical Failures:** Proceed to fixes
+- **1+ Critical Failures:** STOP - Must fix critical issues first
+
+---
+
+## Validation Execution Notes
+
+**When validating:**
+
+1. **Load ALL documents:**
+   - PRD.md (required)
+   - epics.md (required)
+   - product-brief.md (if exists)
+   - domain-brief.md (if exists)
+   - research documents (if referenced)
+
+2. **Validate in order:**
+   - Check critical failures first (immediate stop if any found)
+   - Verify PRD completeness
+   - Verify epics completeness
+   - Cross-reference FR coverage (most important)
+   - Check sequencing (second most important)
+   - Validate research integration
+   - Check polish and quality
+
+3. **Report findings:**
+   - List critical failures prominently
+   - Group issues by severity
+   - Provide specific line numbers/sections
+   - Suggest concrete fixes
+   - Highlight what's working well
+
+4. **Provide actionable next steps:**
+   - If validation passes: "Ready for architecture workflow"
+   - If minor issues: "Fix [X] items then re-validate"
+   - If major issues: "Rework [sections] then re-validate"
+   - If critical failures: "Must fix critical items before proceeding"
+
+---
+
+**Remember:** This validation ensures the entire planning phase is complete and the implementation phase has everything needed to succeed. Be thorough but fair - the goal is quality, not perfection.