bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.4 → 6.0.0-alpha.5

package/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,670 @@
+# BMM Analysis Workflows (Phase 1)
+
+**Reading Time:** ~12 minutes
+
+## Overview
+
+Phase 1 (Analysis) workflows are **optional** exploration and discovery tools that help you understand your project space before committing to detailed planning. These workflows facilitate creative thinking, market validation, and strategic alignment.
+
+**When to use Analysis workflows:**
+
+- Starting a new project from scratch
+- Exploring a problem space or opportunity
+- Validating market fit before significant investment
+- Gathering strategic context for planning phases
+
+**When to skip Analysis workflows:**
+
+- Continuing an existing project with clear requirements
+- Working on well-defined features with known solutions
+- Operating under strict time constraints where discovery is complete
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Workflow           | Agent   | Duration  | Required    | Purpose                                                     |
+| ------------------ | ------- | --------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
+| brainstorm-project | Analyst | 30-60 min | No          | Explore solution approaches and architectures               |
+| brainstorm-game    | Analyst | 45-90 min | No          | Generate game concepts using creative techniques            |
+| product-brief      | PM      | 60-90 min | Recommended | Define product vision and strategy                          |
+| game-brief         | PM      | 60-90 min | Recommended | Capture game vision before GDD                              |
+| research           | Analyst | Varies    | No          | Multi-type research system (market, technical, competitive) |
+
+---
+
+## brainstorm-project
+
+### Purpose
+
+Generate multiple solution approaches for software projects through parallel ideation tracks that align technical and business thinking from inception.
+
+**Agent:** Analyst
+**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
+**Required:** No
+**Typical Duration:** 30-60 minutes
+
+### When to Use
+
+- You have a business objective but unclear technical approach
+- Multiple solution paths exist and you need to evaluate trade-offs
+- Hidden assumptions need discovery before planning
+- Innovation beyond obvious solutions is valuable
+
+### Prerequisites
+
+- Business objectives and constraints
+- Technical environment context
+- Stakeholder needs identified
+- Success criteria defined (at least preliminary)
+
+### Process Overview
+
+**1. Context Capture**
+
+- Business objectives and constraints
+- Technical environment
+- Stakeholder needs
+- Success criteria
+
+**2. Parallel Ideation**
+
+- **Architecture Track**: Technical approaches with trade-offs
+- **UX Track**: Interface paradigms and user journeys
+- **Integration Track**: System connection patterns
+- **Value Track**: Feature prioritization and delivery sequences
+
+**3. Solution Synthesis**
+
+- Evaluate feasibility and impact
+- Align with strategic objectives
+- Surface hidden assumptions
+- Generate recommendations with rationale
+
+### Inputs
+
+| Input             | Type     | Purpose                                       |
+| ----------------- | -------- | --------------------------------------------- |
+| Project Context   | Document | Business objectives, environment, constraints |
+| Problem Statement | Optional | Core challenge or opportunity to address      |
+
+### Outputs
+
+| Output                   | Content                                     |
+| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------- |
+| Architecture Proposals   | Multiple approaches with trade-off analysis |
+| Value Framework          | Prioritized features aligned to objectives  |
+| Risk Analysis            | Dependencies, challenges, opportunities     |
+| Strategic Recommendation | Synthesized direction with rationale        |
+
+### Example Scenario
+
+**Starting Point:**
+"We need a customer dashboard for our SaaS product"
+
+**After brainstorm-project:**
+
+- **Architecture Option A**: Monolith with server-side rendering (faster to market, easier ops)
+- **Architecture Option B**: Microservices + SPA (better scalability, more complex)
+- **Architecture Option C**: Hybrid approach (SSR shell + client-side islands)
+- **Recommendation**: Option A for MVP, with clear path to Option C as we scale
+- **Risk**: Option A may require rewrite if we hit 10K+ concurrent users
+
+### Related Workflows
+
+- **research** - Deep investigation of market/technical options
+- **product-brief** - Strategic planning document
+- **prd** (Phase 2) - Requirements document from chosen approach
+
+---
+
+## brainstorm-game
+
+### Purpose
+
+Generate and refine game concepts through systematic creative exploration using five distinct brainstorming techniques, grounded in practical constraints.
+
+**Agent:** Analyst
+**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
+**Required:** No
+**Typical Duration:** 45-90 minutes
+
+### When to Use
+
+- Generating original game concepts
+- Exploring variations on a theme
+- Breaking creative blocks
+- Validating game ideas against constraints
+
+### Prerequisites
+
+- Platform specifications (mobile, PC, console, web)
+- Genre preferences or inspirations
+- Technical constraints understood
+- Target audience defined
+- Core design pillars identified (at least preliminary)
+
+### Process Overview
+
+**Five Brainstorming Methods** (applied in isolation, then synthesized):
+
+| Method                  | Focus                    | Output Characteristics             |
+| ----------------------- | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------- |
+| SCAMPER                 | Systematic modification  | Structured transformation analysis |
+| Mind Mapping            | Hierarchical exploration | Visual concept relationships       |
+| Lotus Blossom           | Radial expansion         | Layered thematic development       |
+| Six Thinking Hats       | Multi-perspective        | Balanced evaluation framework      |
+| Random Word Association | Lateral thinking         | Unexpected conceptual combinations |
+
+Each method generates distinct artifacts that are then evaluated against design pillars, technical feasibility, and market positioning.
+
+### Inputs
+
+- **Game Context Document**: Platform specs, genre, technical constraints, target audience, monetization approach, design pillars
+- **Initial Concept Seed** (optional): High-level game idea or theme
+
+### Outputs
+
+- **Method-Specific Artifacts**: Five separate brainstorming documents
+- **Consolidated Concept Document**: Synthesized game concepts with feasibility assessments and unique value propositions
+- **Design Pillar Alignment Matrix**: Evaluation of concepts against stated objectives
+
+### Example Scenario
+
+**Starting Point:**
+"A roguelike with psychological themes"
+
+**After brainstorm-game:**
+
+- **SCAMPER Result**: "What if standard roguelike death → becomes emotional regression?"
+- **Mind Map Result**: Emotion types (anger, fear, joy) as character classes
+- **Lotus Blossom Result**: Inner demons as enemies, therapy sessions as rest points
+- **Six Thinking Hats Result**: White (data) - mental health market growing; Red (emotion) - theme may alienate hardcore players
+- **Random Word Association Result**: "Mirror" + "Roguelike" = reflection mechanics that change gameplay
+
+**Synthesized Concept:**
+"Mirror of Mind: A roguelike card battler where you play as emotions battling inner demons. Deck composition affects narrative, emotional theme drives mechanics, 3 characters representing anger/fear/joy, target audience: core gamers interested in mental health themes."
+
+### Related Workflows
+
+- **game-brief** - Capture validated concept in structured brief
+- **gdd** (Phase 2) - Full game design document
+
+---
+
+## product-brief
+
+### Purpose
+
+Interactive product brief creation that guides users through defining their product vision with multiple input sources and conversational collaboration.
+
+**Agent:** PM
+**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
+**Required:** Recommended (skip only if PRD already exists)
+**Typical Duration:** 60-90 minutes (Interactive), 20-30 minutes (YOLO)
+
+### When to Use
+
+- Starting a new product or major feature initiative
+- Aligning stakeholders before detailed planning
+- Transitioning from exploration to strategy
+- Creating executive-level product documentation
+
+### Prerequisites
+
+- Business context understood
+- Problem or opportunity identified
+- Stakeholders accessible for input
+- Strategic objectives defined
+
+### Modes of Operation
+
+**Interactive Mode** (Recommended):
+
+- Step-by-step collaborative development
+- Probing questions to refine thinking
+- Deep exploration of problem/solution fit
+- 60-90 minutes with high-quality output
+
+**YOLO Mode**:
+
+- AI generates complete draft from initial context
+- User reviews and refines sections iteratively
+- 20-30 minutes for rapid draft
+- Best for time-constrained situations or when you have clear vision
+
+### Process Overview
+
+**Phase 1: Initialization and Context (Steps 0-2)**
+
+- Project setup and context capture
+- Input document gathering
+- Mode selection
+- Context extraction
+
+**Phase 2: Interactive Development (Steps 3-12) - Interactive Mode**
+
+- Problem definition and pain points
+- Solution articulation and value proposition
+- User segmentation
+- Success metrics and KPIs
+- MVP scoping (ruthlessly defined)
+- Financial planning and ROI
+- Technical context
+- Risk assessment and assumptions
+
+**Phase 3: Rapid Generation (Steps 3-4) - YOLO Mode**
+
+- Complete draft generation from context
+- Iterative refinement of sections
+- Quality validation
+
+**Phase 4: Finalization (Steps 13-15)**
+
+- Executive summary creation
+- Supporting materials compilation
+- Final review and handoff preparation
+
+### Inputs
+
+- Optional: Market research, competitive analysis, brainstorming results
+- User input through conversational process
+- Business context and objectives
+
+### Outputs
+
+**Primary Output:** `product-brief-{project_name}-{date}.md`
+
+**Output Structure:**
+
+1. Executive Summary
+2. Problem Statement (with evidence)
+3. Proposed Solution (core approach and differentiators)
+4. Target Users (primary and secondary segments)
+5. Goals and Success Metrics
+6. MVP Scope (must-have features)
+7. Post-MVP Vision
+8. Financial Impact (investment and ROI)
+9. Strategic Alignment
+10. Technical Considerations
+11. Constraints and Assumptions
+12. Risks and Open Questions
+13. Supporting Materials
+
+### Example Scenario
+
+**Starting Point:**
+"We see customers struggling with project tracking"
+
+**After product-brief (Interactive Mode):**
+
+- **Problem**: Teams using 3+ tools for project management, causing 40% efficiency loss
+- **Solution**: Unified workspace combining tasks, docs, and communication
+- **Target Users**: 10-50 person product teams, SaaS-first companies
+- **MVP Scope**: Task management + Real-time collaboration + Integrations (GitHub, Slack)
+- **Success Metrics**: 30% reduction in tool-switching time, 20% faster project completion
+- **Financial Impact**: $2M investment, $10M ARR target year 2
+
+### Related Workflows
+
+- **brainstorm-project** - Generate solution approaches first
+- **research** - Gather market/competitive intelligence
+- **prd** (Phase 2) - Detailed requirements from product brief
+
+---
+
+## game-brief
+
+### Purpose
+
+Lightweight, interactive brainstorming and planning session that captures game vision before diving into detailed Game Design Documents.
+
+**Agent:** PM
+**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
+**Required:** Recommended for game projects
+**Typical Duration:** 60-90 minutes
+
+### When to Use
+
+- Starting a new game project from scratch
+- Exploring a game idea before committing
+- Pitching a concept to team/stakeholders
+- Validating market fit and feasibility
+- Preparing input for GDD workflow
+
+**Skip if:**
+
+- You already have a complete GDD
+- Continuing an existing project
+- Prototyping without planning needs
+
+### Comparison: Game Brief vs GDD
+
+| Aspect          | Game Brief                  | GDD                       |
+| --------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------- |
+| Purpose         | Validate concept            | Design for implementation |
+| Detail Level    | High-level vision           | Detailed specifications   |
+| Time Investment | 1-2 hours                   | 4-10 hours                |
+| Audience        | Self, team, stakeholders    | Development team          |
+| Scope           | Concept validation          | Implementation roadmap    |
+| Format          | Conversational, exploratory | Structured, comprehensive |
+| Output          | 3-5 pages                   | 10-30+ pages              |
+
+### Comparison: Game Brief vs Product Brief
+
+| Aspect        | Game Brief                   | Product Brief                     |
+| ------------- | ---------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
+| Focus         | Player experience, fun, feel | User problems, features, value    |
+| Metrics       | Engagement, retention, fun   | Revenue, conversion, satisfaction |
+| Core Elements | Gameplay pillars, mechanics  | Problem/solution, user segments   |
+| References    | Other games                  | Competitors, market               |
+| Vision        | Emotional experience         | Business outcomes                 |
+
+### Workflow Structure
+
+**Interactive Mode** (Recommended):
+
+1. Game Vision (concept, pitch, vision statement)
+2. Target Market (audience, competition, positioning)
+3. Game Fundamentals (pillars, mechanics, experience goals)
+4. Scope and Constraints (platforms, timeline, budget, team)
+5. Reference Framework (inspiration, competitors, differentiators)
+6. Content Framework (world, narrative, volume)
+7. Art and Audio Direction
+8. Risk Assessment (risks, challenges, mitigation)
+9. Success Criteria (MVP, metrics, launch goals)
+10. Next Steps
+
+**YOLO Mode**: AI generates complete draft, then you refine iteratively
+
+### Inputs
+
+Optional:
+
+- Market research
+- Brainstorming results
+- Competitive analysis
+- Design notes
+- Reference game lists
+
+### Outputs
+
+**Primary Output:** `game-brief-{game_name}-{date}.md`
+
+**Sections:**
+
+- Executive summary
+- Complete game vision
+- Target market analysis
+- Core gameplay definition
+- Scope and constraints
+- Reference framework
+- Art/audio direction
+- Risk assessment
+- Success criteria
+- Next steps
+
+### Example Scenario
+
+**Starting Point:**
+"I want to make a roguelike card game with a twist"
+
+**After Game Brief:**
+
+- **Core Concept**: Roguelike card battler where you play as emotions battling inner demons
+- **Target Audience**: Core gamers who love Slay the Spire, interested in mental health themes
+- **Differentiator**: Emotional narrative system where deck composition affects story
+- **MVP Scope**: 3 characters, 80 cards, 30 enemy types, 3 bosses, 6-hour first run
+- **Platform**: PC (Steam) first, mobile later
+- **Timeline**: 12 months with 2-person team
+- **Key Risk**: Emotional theme might alienate hardcore roguelike fans
+- **Mitigation**: Prototype early, test with target audience, offer "mechanical-only" mode
+
+**Next Steps:**
+
+1. Build card combat prototype (2 weeks)
+2. Test emotional resonance with players
+3. Proceed to GDD workflow if prototype validates
+
+### Related Workflows
+
+- **brainstorm-game** - Generate initial concepts
+- **gdd** (Phase 2) - Full game design document
+- **narrative** (Phase 2) - For story-heavy games
+
+---
+
+## research
+
+### Purpose
+
+Comprehensive, adaptive multi-type research system that consolidates various research methodologies into a single powerful tool.
+
+**Agent:** Analyst
+**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
+**Required:** No
+**Typical Duration:** Varies by type (Quick: 30-60 min, Standard: 2-4 hours, Comprehensive: 4-8 hours)
+
+### Research Types
+
+**6 Research Types Available:**
+
+| Type            | Purpose                                                | Use When                            |
+| --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------- |
+| **market**      | Market intelligence, TAM/SAM/SOM, competitive analysis | Need market viability validation    |
+| **deep_prompt** | Generate optimized research prompts for AI platforms   | Need AI to research deeper topics   |
+| **technical**   | Technology evaluation, architecture decisions          | Choosing frameworks/platforms       |
+| **competitive** | Deep competitor analysis                               | Understanding competitive landscape |
+| **user**        | Customer insights, personas, JTBD                      | Need user understanding             |
+| **domain**      | Industry deep dives, trends                            | Understanding domain/industry       |
+
+### Market Research (Type: market)
+
+**Key Features:**
+
+- Real-time web research
+- TAM/SAM/SOM calculations with multiple methodologies
+- Competitive landscape analysis
+- Customer persona development
+- Porter's Five Forces and strategic frameworks
+- Go-to-market strategy recommendations
+
+**Inputs:**
+
+- Product or business description
+- Target customer hypotheses (optional)
+- Known competitors list (optional)
+
+**Outputs:**
+
+- Market size analysis (TAM/SAM/SOM)
+- Competitive positioning
+- Customer segments and personas
+- Market trends and opportunities
+- Strategic recommendations
+- Financial projections (optional)
+
+### Deep Research Prompt (Type: deep_prompt)
+
+**Key Features:**
+
+- Optimized for AI research platforms (ChatGPT Deep Research, Gemini, Grok, Claude Projects)
+- Prompt engineering best practices
+- Platform-specific optimization
+- Context packaging for optimal AI understanding
+- Research question refinement
+
+**Inputs:**
+
+- Research question or topic
+- Background context documents (optional)
+- Target AI platform preference (optional)
+
+**Outputs:**
+
+- Platform-optimized research prompt
+- Multi-stage research workflow
+- Context documents packaged
+- Execution guidance
+
+### Technical Research (Type: technical)
+
+**Key Features:**
+
+- Technology evaluation and comparison matrices
+- Architecture pattern research
+- Framework/library assessment
+- Technical feasibility studies
+- Cost-benefit analysis
+- Architecture Decision Records (ADR)
+
+**Inputs:**
+
+- Technical requirements
+- Current architecture (if brownfield)
+- Technical constraints
+
+**Outputs:**
+
+- Technology comparison matrix
+- Trade-off analysis
+- Cost-benefit assessment
+- ADR with recommendation
+- Implementation guidance
+
+### Configuration Options
+
+Can be customized through workflow.yaml:
+
+- **research_depth**: `quick`, `standard`, or `comprehensive`
+- **enable_web_research**: Enable real-time data gathering
+- **enable_competitor_analysis**: Competitive intelligence
+- **enable_financial_modeling**: Financial projections
+
+### Frameworks Available
+
+**Market Research:**
+
+- TAM/SAM/SOM Analysis
+- Porter's Five Forces
+- Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD)
+- Technology Adoption Lifecycle
+- SWOT Analysis
+- Value Chain Analysis
+
+**Technical Research:**
+
+- Trade-off Analysis Matrix
+- Architecture Decision Records (ADR)
+- Technology Radar
+- Comparison Matrix
+- Cost-Benefit Analysis
+- Technical Risk Assessment
+
+### Example Scenario
+
+**Type: market**
+
+**Input:**
+"SaaS project management tool for remote teams"
+
+**Output:**
+
+- **TAM**: $50B (global project management software)
+- **SAM**: $5B (remote-first teams 10-50 people)
+- **SOM**: $50M (achievable in year 3)
+- **Top Competitors**: Asana, Monday.com, ClickUp
+- **Positioning**: "Real-time collaboration focused, vs async-first competitors"
+- **Customer Personas**: Product Managers (primary), Engineering Leads (secondary)
+- **Key Trends**: Remote work permanence, tool consolidation, AI features
+- **Go-to-Market**: PLG motion, free tier, viral invite mechanics
+
+### Related Workflows
+
+- **product-brief** - Use research to inform brief
+- **prd** (Phase 2) - Research feeds requirements
+- **architecture** (Phase 3) - Technical research informs design
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices for Phase 1
+
+### 1. Don't Over-Invest in Analysis
+
+Analysis workflows are optional for a reason. If you already know what you're building and why, skip to Phase 2 (Planning).
+
+### 2. Iterate Between Workflows
+
+It's common to:
+
+1. Run **brainstorm-project** to explore
+2. Use **research** to validate
+3. Create **product-brief** to synthesize
+
+### 3. Document Assumptions
+
+Analysis phase is about surfacing and validating assumptions. Document them explicitly so planning can challenge them.
+
+### 4. Keep It Strategic
+
+Analysis workflows focus on "what" and "why", not "how". Leave implementation details for Planning and Solutioning phases.
+
+### 5. Involve Stakeholders
+
+Analysis workflows are collaborative. Use them to align stakeholders before committing to detailed planning.
+
+---
+
+## Decision Guide: Which Analysis Workflow?
+
+### Starting a Software Project
+
+1. **brainstorm-project** (if unclear solution) → **research** (market/technical) → **product-brief**
+
+### Starting a Game Project
+
+1. **brainstorm-game** (if generating concepts) → **research** (market/competitive) → **game-brief**
+
+### Validating an Idea
+
+1. **research** (market type) → **product-brief** or **game-brief**
+
+### Technical Decision
+
+1. **research** (technical type) → Use ADR in **architecture** (Phase 3)
+
+### Understanding Market
+
+1. **research** (market or competitive type) → **product-brief**
+
+### Generating Deep Research
+
+1. **research** (deep_prompt type) → External AI research platform → Return with findings
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Phase 2 (Planning)
+
+Analysis workflows feed directly into Planning:
+
+| Analysis Output             | Planning Input             |
+| --------------------------- | -------------------------- |
+| product-brief.md            | **prd** workflow           |
+| game-brief.md               | **gdd** workflow           |
+| market-research.md          | **prd** context            |
+| technical-research.md       | **architecture** (Phase 3) |
+| competitive-intelligence.md | **prd** positioning        |
+
+The Planning phase (Phase 2) will load these documents automatically if they exist in the output folder.
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Phase 1 Analysis workflows are your strategic thinking tools. Use them to:
+
+- **Explore** problem spaces and solutions
+- **Validate** ideas before heavy investment
+- **Align** stakeholders on vision
+- **Research** markets, competitors, and technologies
+- **Document** strategic thinking for future reference
+
+Remember: **These workflows are optional.** If you know what you're building and why, skip to Phase 2 (Planning) to define requirements and create your PRD/GDD.