bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.8 → 6.0.0-alpha.9

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

@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-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

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,305 +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>
-<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>