bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.7 → 6.0.0-alpha.8

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/architecture/pattern-categories.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+category,when_needed,what_to_define,why_critical
+naming_patterns,Any technology with named entities,How things are named (format/case/structure),Agents will create different names for same concept
+structure_patterns,Any technology with organization,How things are organized (folders/modules/layers),Agents will put things in different places
+format_patterns,Any technology with data exchange,How data is formatted (JSON/XML/responses),Agents will use incompatible formats
+communication_patterns,Any technology with inter-component communication,How components talk (protocols/events/messages),Agents will use different communication methods
+lifecycle_patterns,Any technology with state or flow,How state changes and flows work,Agents will handle state transitions differently
+location_patterns,Any technology with storage or routing,Where things go (URLs/paths/storage),Agents will put things in different locations
+consistency_patterns,Always,Cross-cutting concerns (dates/errors/logs),Every agent will do these differently
+
+# PRINCIPLE FOR LLM:
+# Any time multiple agents might make the SAME decision DIFFERENTLY, that's a pattern to capture.
+# Think about: What could an agent encounter where they'd have to guess?
+# If they'd guess, define the pattern. If it's obvious from the tech choice, skip it.

package/.bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/architecture/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Architecture Workflow Configuration
+name: architecture
+description: "Collaborative architectural decision facilitation for AI-agent consistency. Replaces template-driven architecture with intelligent, adaptive conversation that produces a decision-focused architecture document optimized for preventing agent conflicts."
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables
+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
+
+# Input requirements - We work from PRD, Epics, and optionally UX Spec
+recommended_inputs:
+  - prd: "Product Requirements Document with FRs and NFRs"
+  - epics: "Epic definitions with user stories and acceptance criteria"
+  - ux_spec: "UX specification with interface designs and interaction patterns (optional)"
+
+# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
+# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
+input_file_patterns:
+  prd:
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*prd*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*prd*/index.md"
+
+  epics:
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*epic*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*epic*/index.md"
+
+  ux_design:
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*ux*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*ux*/index.md"
+
+  document_project:
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/docs/index.md"
+
+# Module path and component files
+installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/architecture"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+template: "{installed_path}/architecture-template.md"
+
+# Knowledge bases for intelligent decision making
+decision_catalog: "{installed_path}/decision-catalog.yaml"
+architecture_patterns: "{installed_path}/architecture-patterns.yaml"
+pattern_categories: "{installed_path}/pattern-categories.csv"
+
+# Output configuration
+default_output_file: "{output_folder}/architecture.md"
+
+# Workflow metadata
+version: "1.3.2"
+replaces: "architecture"
+paradigm: "facilitation-driven"
+execution_time: "30-90 minutes depending on user skill level"
+features:
+  - "Starter template discovery and integration"
+  - "Dynamic version verification via web search"
+  - "Adaptive facilitation by skill level"
+  - "Decision-focused architecture"
+  - "Novel pattern design for unique concepts"
+  - "Intelligent pattern identification - LLM figures out what patterns matter"
+  - "Implementation patterns for agent consistency"
+
+standalone: true
+# Web bundle configuration for standalone deployment

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

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+# Implementation Readiness Validation Checklist
+
+## Document Completeness
+
+### Core Planning Documents
+
+- [ ] PRD exists and is complete (Level 2-4 projects)
+- [ ] PRD contains measurable success criteria
+- [ ] PRD defines clear scope boundaries and exclusions
+- [ ] Architecture document exists (architecture\*.md) (Level 3-4 projects)
+- [ ] Technical Specification exists with implementation details
+- [ ] Epic and story breakdown document exists
+- [ ] All documents are dated and versioned
+
+### Document Quality
+
+- [ ] No placeholder sections remain in any document
+- [ ] All documents use consistent terminology
+- [ ] Technical decisions include rationale and trade-offs
+- [ ] Assumptions and risks are explicitly documented
+- [ ] Dependencies are clearly identified and documented
+
+## Alignment Verification
+
+### PRD to Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4)
+
+- [ ] Every functional requirement in PRD has architectural support documented
+- [ ] All non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture
+- [ ] Architecture doesn't introduce features beyond PRD scope
+- [ ] Performance requirements from PRD match architecture capabilities
+- [ ] Security requirements from PRD are fully addressed in architecture
+- [ ] If architecture.md: Implementation patterns are defined for consistency
+- [ ] If architecture.md: All technology choices have verified versions
+- [ ] If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements
+
+### PRD to Stories Coverage (Level 2-4)
+
+- [ ] Every PRD requirement maps to at least one story
+- [ ] All user journeys in PRD have complete story coverage
+- [ ] Story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
+- [ ] Priority levels in stories match PRD feature priorities
+- [ ] No stories exist without PRD requirement traceability
+
+### Architecture to Stories Implementation
+
+- [ ] All architectural components have implementation stories
+- [ ] Infrastructure setup stories exist for each architectural layer
+- [ ] Integration points defined in architecture have corresponding stories
+- [ ] Data migration/setup stories exist if required by architecture
+- [ ] Security implementation stories cover all architecture security decisions
+
+## Story and Sequencing Quality
+
+### Story Completeness
+
+- [ ] All stories have clear acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Technical tasks are defined within relevant stories
+- [ ] Stories include error handling and edge cases
+- [ ] Each story has clear definition of done
+- [ ] Stories are appropriately sized (no epic-level stories remaining)
+
+### Sequencing and Dependencies
+
+- [ ] Stories are sequenced in logical implementation order
+- [ ] Dependencies between stories are explicitly documented
+- [ ] No circular dependencies exist
+- [ ] Prerequisite technical tasks precede dependent stories
+- [ ] Foundation/infrastructure stories come before feature stories
+
+### Greenfield Project Specifics
+
+- [ ] Initial project setup and configuration stories exist
+- [ ] If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization command
+- [ ] Development environment setup is documented
+- [ ] CI/CD pipeline stories are included early in sequence
+- [ ] Database/storage initialization stories are properly placed
+- [ ] Authentication/authorization stories precede protected features
+
+## Risk and Gap Assessment
+
+### Critical Gaps
+
+- [ ] No core PRD requirements lack story coverage
+- [ ] No architectural decisions lack implementation stories
+- [ ] All integration points have implementation plans
+- [ ] Error handling strategy is defined and implemented
+- [ ] Security concerns are all addressed
+
+### Technical Risks
+
+- [ ] No conflicting technical approaches between stories
+- [ ] Technology choices are consistent across all documents
+- [ ] Performance requirements are achievable with chosen architecture
+- [ ] Scalability concerns are addressed if applicable
+- [ ] Third-party dependencies are identified with fallback plans
+
+## UX and Special Concerns (if applicable)
+
+### UX Coverage
+
+- [ ] UX requirements are documented in PRD
+- [ ] UX implementation tasks exist in relevant stories
+- [ ] Accessibility requirements have story coverage
+- [ ] Responsive design requirements are addressed
+- [ ] User flow continuity is maintained across stories
+
+### Special Considerations
+
+- [ ] Compliance requirements are fully addressed
+- [ ] Internationalization needs are covered if required
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks are defined and measurable
+- [ ] Monitoring and observability stories exist
+- [ ] Documentation stories are included where needed
+
+## Overall Readiness
+
+### Ready to Proceed Criteria
+
+- [ ] All critical issues have been resolved
+- [ ] High priority concerns have mitigation plans
+- [ ] Story sequencing supports iterative delivery
+- [ ] Team has necessary skills for implementation
+- [ ] No blocking dependencies remain unresolved
+
+### Quality Indicators
+
+- [ ] Documents demonstrate thorough analysis
+- [ ] Clear traceability exists across all artifacts
+- [ ] Consistent level of detail throughout documents
+- [ ] Risks are identified with mitigation strategies
+- [ ] Success criteria are measurable and achievable
+
+## Assessment Completion
+
+### Report Quality
+
+- [ ] All findings are supported by specific examples
+- [ ] Recommendations are actionable and specific
+- [ ] Severity levels are appropriately assigned
+- [ ] Positive findings are highlighted
+- [ ] Next steps are clearly defined
+
+### Process Validation
+
+- [ ] All expected documents were reviewed
+- [ ] Cross-references were systematically checked
+- [ ] Project level considerations were applied correctly
+- [ ] Workflow status was checked and considered
+- [ ] Output folder was thoroughly searched for artifacts
+
+---
+
+## Issue Log
+
+### Critical Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+### High Priority Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+### Medium Priority Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+---
+
+_Use this checklist to ensure comprehensive validation of implementation readiness_

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

@@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
+# 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>
+<critical>Input documents specified in workflow.yaml input_file_patterns - workflow engine handles fuzzy matching, whole vs sharded document discovery automatically</critical>
+
+<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>