bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.5 → 6.0.0-alpha.7

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/instructions.md

@@ -1,322 +0,0 @@
-# Implementation Ready Check - Workflow Instructions
-
-<critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
-<critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/workflow.yaml</critical>
-<critical>Communicate all findings and analysis in {communication_language} throughout the assessment</critical>
-
-## 📚 Input Document Discovery
-
-This workflow validates: PRD, epics/stories, architecture, and may reference UX design, tech specs, or brownfield project documentation.
-
-**Discovery Process** (execute for each referenced document):
-
-1. **Search for whole document first** - Use fuzzy file matching to find the complete document
-2. **Check for sharded version** - If whole document not found, look for `{doc-name}/index.md`
-3. **If sharded version found**:
-   - Read `index.md` to understand the document structure
-   - Read ALL section files listed in the index
-   - Treat the combined content as if it were a single document
-4. **Brownfield projects**: The `document-project` workflow always creates `{output_folder}/docs/index.md`
-
-**Priority**: If both whole and sharded versions exist, use the whole document.
-
-**Fuzzy matching**: Be flexible with document names - users may use variations in naming conventions.
-
-<workflow>
-
-<step n="0" goal="Validate workflow readiness" tag="workflow-status">
-<action>Check if {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml exists</action>
-
-<check if="status file not found">
-  <output>No workflow status file found. Implementation Ready Check can run standalone or as part of BMM workflow path.</output>
-  <output>**Recommended:** Run `workflow-init` first for project context tracking and workflow sequencing.</output>
-  <ask>Continue in standalone mode or exit to run workflow-init? (continue/exit)</ask>
-  <check if="continue">
-    <action>Set standalone_mode = true</action>
-  </check>
-  <check if="exit">
-    <action>Exit workflow</action>
-  </check>
-</check>
-
-<check if="status file found">
-  <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
-  <action>Parse workflow_status section</action>
-  <action>Check status of "solutioning-gate-check" workflow</action>
-  <action>Get project_level from YAML metadata</action>
-  <action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
-
-<action>Based on the project_level, understand what artifacts should exist: - Level 0-1: Tech spec and simple stories only (no PRD, minimal solutioning) - Level 2: PRD, tech spec, epics/stories (no separate architecture doc) - Level 3-4: Full suite - PRD, architecture document, epics/stories, possible UX artifacts
-</action>
-
-  <check if="solutioning-gate-check status is file path (already completed)">
-    <output>⚠️ Gate check already completed: {{solutioning-gate-check status}}</output>
-    <ask>Re-running will create a new validation report. Continue? (y/n)</ask>
-    <check if="n">
-      <output>Exiting. Use workflow-status to see your next step.</output>
-      <action>Exit workflow</action>
-    </check>
-  </check>
-
-  <check if="solutioning-gate-check is not the next expected workflow">
-    <output>⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Gate check is out of sequence.</output>
-    <ask>Continue with gate check anyway? (y/n)</ask>
-    <check if="n">
-      <output>Exiting. Run {{next_workflow}} instead.</output>
-      <action>Exit workflow</action>
-    </check>
-  </check>
-
-<action>Set standalone_mode = false</action>
-</check>
-
-<critical>The validation approach must adapt to the project level - don't look for documents that shouldn't exist at lower levels</critical>
-
-<template-output>project_context</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="1" goal="Discover and inventory project artifacts">
-<action>Search the {output_folder} for relevant planning and solutioning documents based on project level identified in Step 0</action>
-
-<action>For Level 0-1 projects, locate:
-
-- Technical specification document(s)
-- Story/task lists or simple epic breakdowns
-- Any API or interface definitions
-  </action>
-
-<action>For Level 2-4 projects, locate:
-
-- Product Requirements Document (PRD)
-- Architecture document (architecture.md) (Level 3-4 only)
-- Technical Specification (Level 2 includes architecture within)
-- Epic and story breakdowns
-- UX artifacts if the active path includes UX workflow
-- Any supplementary planning documents
-  </action>
-
-<action>Create an inventory of found documents with:
-
-- Document type and purpose
-- File path and last modified date
-- Brief description of what each contains
-- Any missing expected documents flagged as potential issues
-  </action>
-
-<template-output>document_inventory</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="2" goal="Deep analysis of core planning documents">
-<action>Load and thoroughly analyze each discovered document to extract:
-- Core requirements and success criteria
-- Architectural decisions and constraints
-- Technical implementation approaches
-- User stories and acceptance criteria
-- Dependencies and sequencing requirements
-- Any assumptions or risks documented
-</action>
-
-<action>For PRD analysis (Level 2-4), focus on:
-
-- User requirements and use cases
-- Functional and non-functional requirements
-- Success metrics and acceptance criteria
-- Scope boundaries and explicitly excluded items
-- Priority levels for different features
-  </action>
-
-<action>For Architecture/Tech Spec analysis, focus on:
-
-- System design decisions and rationale
-- Technology stack and framework choices
-- Integration points and APIs
-- Data models and storage decisions
-- Security and performance considerations
-- Any architectural constraints that might affect story implementation
-  </action>
-
-<action>For Epic/Story analysis, focus on:
-
-- Coverage of PRD requirements
-- Story sequencing and dependencies
-- Acceptance criteria completeness
-- Technical tasks within stories
-- Estimated complexity and effort indicators
-  </action>
-
-<template-output>document_analysis</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="3" goal="Cross-reference validation and alignment check">
-<action>Systematically validate alignment between all artifacts, adapting validation based on project level</action>
-
-<action>PRD ↔ Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4):
-
-- Verify every PRD requirement has corresponding architectural support
-- Check that architectural decisions don't contradict PRD constraints
-- Identify any architectural additions beyond PRD scope (potential gold-plating)
-- Ensure non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture document
-- If using new architecture workflow: verify implementation patterns are defined
-  </action>
-
-<action>PRD ↔ Stories Coverage (Level 2-4):
-
-- Map each PRD requirement to implementing stories
-- Identify any PRD requirements without story coverage
-- Find stories that don't trace back to PRD requirements
-- Validate that story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
-  </action>
-
-<action>Architecture ↔ Stories Implementation Check:
-
-- Verify architectural decisions are reflected in relevant stories
-- Check that story technical tasks align with architectural approach
-- Identify any stories that might violate architectural constraints
-- Ensure infrastructure and setup stories exist for architectural components
-  </action>
-
-<action>For Level 0-1 projects (Tech Spec only):
-
-- Validate internal consistency within tech spec
-- Check that all specified features have corresponding stories
-- Verify story sequencing matches technical dependencies
-  </action>
-
-<template-output>alignment_validation</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="4" goal="Gap and risk analysis">
-<action>Identify and categorize all gaps, risks, and potential issues discovered during validation</action>
-
-<action>Check for Critical Gaps:
-
-- Missing stories for core requirements
-- Unaddressed architectural concerns
-- Absent infrastructure or setup stories for greenfield projects
-- Missing error handling or edge case coverage
-- Security or compliance requirements not addressed
-  </action>
-
-<action>Identify Sequencing Issues:
-
-- Dependencies not properly ordered
-- Stories that assume components not yet built
-- Parallel work that should be sequential
-- Missing prerequisite technical tasks
-  </action>
-
-<action>Detect Potential Contradictions:
-
-- Conflicts between PRD and architecture approaches
-- Stories with conflicting technical approaches
-- Acceptance criteria that contradict requirements
-- Resource or technology conflicts
-  </action>
-
-<action>Find Gold-Plating and Scope Creep:
-
-- Features in architecture not required by PRD
-- Stories implementing beyond requirements
-- Technical complexity beyond project needs
-- Over-engineering indicators
-  </action>
-
-<template-output>gap_risk_analysis</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="5" goal="UX and special concerns validation" optional="true">
-<check if="UX artifacts exist or UX workflow in active path">
-<action>Review UX artifacts and validate integration:
-- Check that UX requirements are reflected in PRD
-- Verify stories include UX implementation tasks
-- Ensure architecture supports UX requirements (performance, responsiveness)
-- Identify any UX concerns not addressed in stories
-</action>
-
-<action>Validate accessibility and usability coverage:
-
-- Check for accessibility requirement coverage in stories
-- Verify responsive design considerations if applicable
-- Ensure user flow completeness across stories
-  </action>
-  </check>
-
-<template-output>ux_validation</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="6" goal="Generate comprehensive readiness assessment">
-<action>Compile all findings into a structured readiness report with:
-- Executive summary of readiness status
-- Project context and validation scope
-- Document inventory and coverage assessment
-- Detailed findings organized by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
-- Specific recommendations for each issue
-- Overall readiness recommendation (Ready, Ready with Conditions, Not Ready)
-</action>
-
-<action>Provide actionable next steps:
-
-- List any critical issues that must be resolved
-- Suggest specific document updates needed
-- Recommend additional stories or tasks required
-- Propose sequencing adjustments if needed
-  </action>
-
-<action>Include positive findings:
-
-- Highlight well-aligned areas
-- Note particularly thorough documentation
-- Recognize good architectural decisions
-- Commend comprehensive story coverage where found
-  </action>
-
-<template-output>readiness_assessment</template-output>
-</step>
-
-<step n="7" goal="Update status and complete" tag="workflow-status">
-<check if="standalone_mode != true">
-  <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
-  <action>Find workflow_status key "solutioning-gate-check"</action>
-  <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
-  <action>Update workflow_status["solutioning-gate-check"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-readiness-assessment-{{date}}.md"</action>
-  <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS</action>
-
-<action>Find first non-completed workflow in workflow_status (next workflow to do)</action>
-<action>Determine next agent from path file based on next workflow</action>
-</check>
-
-<output>**✅ Implementation Ready Check Complete!**
-
-**Assessment Report:**
-
-- Readiness assessment saved to: {output_folder}/bmm-readiness-assessment-{{date}}.md
-
-{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
-**Status Updated:**
-
-- Progress tracking updated: solutioning-gate-check marked complete
-- Next workflow: {{next_workflow}}
-  {{else}}
-  **Note:** Running in standalone mode (no progress tracking)
-  {{/if}}
-
-**Next Steps:**
-
-{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
-
-- **Next workflow:** {{next_workflow}} ({{next_agent}} agent)
-- Review the assessment report and address any critical issues before proceeding
-
-Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
-{{else}}
-Since no workflow is in progress:
-
-- Refer to the BMM workflow guide if unsure what to do next
-- Or run `workflow-init` to create a workflow path and get guided next steps
-  {{/if}}
-  </output>
-
-<template-output>status_update_result</template-output>
-</step>
-
-</workflow>

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/template.md

@@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
-# Implementation Readiness Assessment Report
-
-**Date:** {{date}}
-**Project:** {{project_name}}
-**Assessed By:** {{user_name}}
-**Assessment Type:** Phase 3 to Phase 4 Transition Validation
-
----
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-{{readiness_assessment}}
-
----
-
-## Project Context
-
-{{project_context}}
-
----
-
-## Document Inventory
-
-### Documents Reviewed
-
-{{document_inventory}}
-
-### Document Analysis Summary
-
-{{document_analysis}}
-
----
-
-## Alignment Validation Results
-
-### Cross-Reference Analysis
-
-{{alignment_validation}}
-
----
-
-## Gap and Risk Analysis
-
-### Critical Findings
-
-{{gap_risk_analysis}}
-
----
-
-## UX and Special Concerns
-
-{{ux_validation}}
-
----
-
-## Detailed Findings
-
-### 🔴 Critical Issues
-
-_Must be resolved before proceeding to implementation_
-
-{{critical_issues}}
-
-### 🟠 High Priority Concerns
-
-_Should be addressed to reduce implementation risk_
-
-{{high_priority_concerns}}
-
-### 🟡 Medium Priority Observations
-
-_Consider addressing for smoother implementation_
-
-{{medium_priority_observations}}
-
-### 🟢 Low Priority Notes
-
-_Minor items for consideration_
-
-{{low_priority_notes}}
-
----
-
-## Positive Findings
-
-### ✅ Well-Executed Areas
-
-{{positive_findings}}
-
----
-
-## Recommendations
-
-### Immediate Actions Required
-
-{{immediate_actions}}
-
-### Suggested Improvements
-
-{{suggested_improvements}}
-
-### Sequencing Adjustments
-
-{{sequencing_adjustments}}
-
----
-
-## Readiness Decision
-
-### Overall Assessment: {{overall_readiness_status}}
-
-{{readiness_rationale}}
-
-### Conditions for Proceeding (if applicable)
-
-{{conditions_for_proceeding}}
-
----
-
-## Next Steps
-
-{{recommended_next_steps}}
-
-### Workflow Status Update
-
-{{status_update_result}}
-
----
-
-## Appendices
-
-### A. Validation Criteria Applied
-
-{{validation_criteria_used}}
-
-### B. Traceability Matrix
-
-{{traceability_matrix}}
-
-### C. Risk Mitigation Strategies
-
-{{risk_mitigation_strategies}}
-
----
-
-_This readiness assessment was generated using the BMad Method Implementation Ready Check workflow (v6-alpha)_

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/validation-criteria.yaml

@@ -1,189 +0,0 @@
-# Implementation Readiness Validation Criteria
-# Defines systematic validation rules by project level
-
-validation_rules:
-  # Level 0-1 Projects (Simple, minimal planning)
-  level_0_1:
-    required_documents:
-      - tech_spec
-      - stories_or_tasks
-
-    validations:
-      - name: "Tech Spec Completeness"
-        checks:
-          - "All features defined with implementation approach"
-          - "Technical dependencies identified"
-          - "API contracts defined if applicable"
-          - "Data models specified"
-
-      - name: "Story Coverage"
-        checks:
-          - "All tech spec features have corresponding stories"
-          - "Stories are sequenced logically"
-          - "Technical tasks are defined"
-          - "No critical gaps in coverage"
-
-  # Level 2 Projects (PRD + Tech Spec, no separate architecture)
-  level_2:
-    required_documents:
-      - prd
-      - tech_spec # Includes architecture decisions
-      - epics_and_stories
-
-    validations:
-      - name: "PRD to Tech Spec Alignment"
-        checks:
-          - "All PRD requirements addressed in tech spec"
-          - "Architecture embedded in tech spec covers PRD needs"
-          - "Non-functional requirements are specified"
-          - "Technical approach supports business goals"
-
-      - name: "Story Coverage and Alignment"
-        checks:
-          - "Every PRD requirement has story coverage"
-          - "Stories align with tech spec approach"
-          - "Epic breakdown is complete"
-          - "Acceptance criteria match PRD success criteria"
-
-      - name: "Sequencing Validation"
-        checks:
-          - "Foundation stories come first"
-          - "Dependencies are properly ordered"
-          - "Iterative delivery is possible"
-          - "No circular dependencies"
-
-  # Level 3-4 Projects (Full planning with separate architecture)
-  level_3_4:
-    required_documents:
-      - prd
-      - architecture
-      - epics_and_stories
-
-    validations:
-      - name: "PRD Completeness"
-        checks:
-          - "User requirements fully documented"
-          - "Success criteria are measurable"
-          - "Scope boundaries clearly defined"
-          - "Priorities are assigned"
-
-      - name: "Architecture Coverage"
-        checks:
-          - "All PRD requirements have architectural support"
-          - "System design is complete"
-          - "Integration points defined"
-          - "Security architecture specified"
-          - "Performance considerations addressed"
-          - "If architecture.md: Implementation patterns defined"
-          - "If architecture.md: Technology versions verified and current"
-          - "If architecture.md: Starter template command documented (if applicable)"
-
-      - name: "PRD-Architecture Alignment"
-        checks:
-          - "No architecture gold-plating beyond PRD"
-          - "NFRs from PRD reflected in architecture"
-          - "Technology choices support requirements"
-          - "Scalability matches expected growth"
-          - "If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements"
-          - "If UX spec exists: Component library supports interaction patterns"
-
-      - name: "Story Implementation Coverage"
-        checks:
-          - "All architectural components have stories"
-          - "Infrastructure setup stories exist"
-          - "Integration implementation planned"
-          - "Security implementation stories present"
-
-      - name: "Comprehensive Sequencing"
-        checks:
-          - "Infrastructure before features"
-          - "Authentication before protected resources"
-          - "Core features before enhancements"
-          - "Dependencies properly ordered"
-          - "Allows for iterative releases"
-
-# Special validation contexts
-special_contexts:
-  greenfield:
-    additional_checks:
-      - "Project initialization stories exist"
-      - "If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization"
-      - "Development environment setup documented"
-      - "CI/CD pipeline stories included"
-      - "Initial data/schema setup planned"
-      - "Deployment infrastructure stories present"
-
-  ux_workflow_active:
-    additional_checks:
-      - "UX requirements in PRD"
-      - "UX implementation stories exist"
-      - "Accessibility requirements covered"
-      - "Responsive design addressed"
-      - "User flow continuity maintained"
-
-  api_heavy:
-    additional_checks:
-      - "API contracts fully defined"
-      - "Versioning strategy documented"
-      - "Authentication/authorization specified"
-      - "Rate limiting considered"
-      - "API documentation stories included"
-
-# Severity definitions
-severity_levels:
-  critical:
-    description: "Must be resolved before implementation"
-    examples:
-      - "Missing stories for core requirements"
-      - "Conflicting technical approaches"
-      - "No infrastructure setup for greenfield"
-      - "Security requirements not addressed"
-
-  high:
-    description: "Should be addressed to reduce risk"
-    examples:
-      - "Incomplete acceptance criteria"
-      - "Unclear story dependencies"
-      - "Missing error handling coverage"
-      - "Performance requirements not validated"
-
-  medium:
-    description: "Consider addressing for smoother implementation"
-    examples:
-      - "Documentation gaps"
-      - "Test strategy not defined"
-      - "Monitoring approach unclear"
-      - "Minor sequencing improvements possible"
-
-  low:
-    description: "Minor improvements for consideration"
-    examples:
-      - "Formatting inconsistencies"
-      - "Optional enhancements identified"
-      - "Style guide compliance"
-      - "Nice-to-have features noted"
-
-# Readiness decision criteria
-readiness_decisions:
-  ready:
-    criteria:
-      - "No critical issues found"
-      - "All required documents present"
-      - "Core alignments validated"
-      - "Story sequencing logical"
-      - "Team can begin implementation"
-
-  ready_with_conditions:
-    criteria:
-      - "Only high/medium issues found"
-      - "Mitigation plans identified"
-      - "Core path to MVP clear"
-      - "Issues won't block initial stories"
-
-  not_ready:
-    criteria:
-      - "Critical issues identified"
-      - "Major gaps in coverage"
-      - "Conflicting approaches found"
-      - "Required documents missing"
-      - "Blocking dependencies unresolved"