npm - bmad-method - Versions diffs - 6.0.0-alpha.9 → 6.0.2 - Mend

bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.9 → 6.0.2

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Files changed (933) hide show

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/template.md DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,181 +0,0 @@
-# Product Brief: {{project_name}}
-**Date:** {{date}}
-**Author:** {{user_name}}
-**Context:** {{context_type}}
----
-## Executive Summary
-{{executive_summary}}
----
-## Core Vision
-### Problem Statement
-{{problem_statement}}
-{{#if problem_impact}}
-### Problem Impact
-{{problem_impact}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if existing_solutions_gaps}}
-### Why Existing Solutions Fall Short
-{{existing_solutions_gaps}}
-{{/if}}
-### Proposed Solution
-{{proposed_solution}}
-{{#if key_differentiators}}
-### Key Differentiators
-{{key_differentiators}}
-{{/if}}
----
-## Target Users
-### Primary Users
-{{primary_user_segment}}
-{{#if secondary_user_segment}}
-### Secondary Users
-{{secondary_user_segment}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if user_journey}}
-### User Journey
-{{user_journey}}
-{{/if}}
----
-{{#if success_metrics}}
-## Success Metrics
-{{success_metrics}}
-{{#if business_objectives}}
-### Business Objectives
-{{business_objectives}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if key_performance_indicators}}
-### Key Performance Indicators
-{{key_performance_indicators}}
-{{/if}}
-{{/if}}
----
-## MVP Scope
-### Core Features
-{{core_features}}
-{{#if out_of_scope}}
-### Out of Scope for MVP
-{{out_of_scope}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if mvp_success_criteria}}
-### MVP Success Criteria
-{{mvp_success_criteria}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if future_vision_features}}
-### Future Vision
-{{future_vision_features}}
-{{/if}}
----
-{{#if market_analysis}}
-## Market Context
-{{market_analysis}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if financial_considerations}}
-## Financial Considerations
-{{financial_considerations}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if technical_preferences}}
-## Technical Preferences
-{{technical_preferences}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if organizational_context}}
-## Organizational Context
-{{organizational_context}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if risks_and_assumptions}}
-## Risks and Assumptions
-{{risks_and_assumptions}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if timeline_constraints}}
-## Timeline
-{{timeline_constraints}}
-{{/if}}
-{{#if supporting_materials}}
-## Supporting Materials
-{{supporting_materials}}
-{{/if}}
----
-_This Product Brief captures the vision and requirements for {{project_name}}._
-_It was created through collaborative discovery and reflects the unique needs of this {{context_type}} project._
-{{#if next_workflow}}
-_Next: {{next_workflow}} will transform this brief into detailed planning artifacts._
-{{else}}
-_Next: Use the PRD workflow to create detailed product requirements from this brief._
-{{/if}}

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/workflow.yaml DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,65 +0,0 @@
-# Product Brief - Interactive Workflow Configuration
-name: product-brief
-description: "Interactive product brief creation workflow that guides users through defining their product vision with multiple input sources and conversational collaboration"
-author: "BMad"
-# Critical variables from config
-config_source: "{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/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
-# Optional input documents
-recommended_inputs:
-  - market_research: "Market research document (optional)"
-  - brainstorming_results: "Brainstorming session outputs (optional)"
-  - competitive_analysis: "Competitive analysis (optional)"
-  - initial_ideas: "Initial product ideas or notes (optional)"
-# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
-# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
-# Strategy: How to load sharded documents (FULL_LOAD, SELECTIVE_LOAD, INDEX_GUIDED)
-input_file_patterns:
-  research:
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*research*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*research*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
-  brainstorming:
-    whole: "{output_folder}/*brainstorm*.md"
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/*brainstorm*/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
-  document_project:
-    sharded: "{output_folder}/docs/index.md"
-    load_strategy: "INDEX_GUIDED"
-# Module path and component files
-installed_path: "{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief"
-template: "{installed_path}/template.md"
-instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
-validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
-# Output configuration
-default_output_file: "{output_folder}/product-brief-{{project_name}}-{{date}}.md"
-standalone: true
-web_bundle:
-  name: "product-brief"
-  description: "Interactive product brief creation workflow that guides users through defining their product vision with multiple input sources and conversational collaboration"
-  author: "BMad"
-  instructions: "{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/instructions.md"
-  validation: "{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/checklist.md"
-  template: "{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/template.md"
-  web_bundle_files:
-    # Core workflow files
-    - "{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/template.md"
-    - "{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/instructions.md"
-    - "{bmad_folder}/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/checklist.md"
-    # Task dependencies (referenced in instructions.md)
-    - "{bmad_folder}/core/tasks/workflow.xml"

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist-deep-prompt.md DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,144 +0,0 @@
-# Deep Research Prompt Validation Checklist
-## 🚨 CRITICAL: Anti-Hallucination Instructions (PRIORITY)
-### Citation Requirements Built Into Prompt
-- [ ] Prompt EXPLICITLY instructs: "Cite sources with URLs for ALL factual claims"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Include source name, date, and URL for every statistic"
-- [ ] Prompt mandates: "If you cannot find reliable data, state 'No verified data found for [X]'"
-- [ ] Prompt specifies inline citation format (e.g., "[Source: Company, Year, URL]")
-- [ ] Prompt requires References section at end with all sources listed
-### Multi-Source Verification Requirements
-- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Cross-reference critical claims with at least 2 independent sources"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Note when sources conflict and present all viewpoints"
-- [ ] Prompt specifies: "Verify version numbers and dates from official sources"
-- [ ] Prompt mandates: "Mark confidence levels: [Verified], [Single source], [Uncertain]"
-### Fact vs Analysis Distinction
-- [ ] Prompt requires clear labeling: "Distinguish FACTS (sourced), ANALYSIS (your interpretation), SPECULATION (projections)"
-- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Do not present assumptions or analysis as verified facts"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Label projections and forecasts clearly as such"
-- [ ] Prompt warns: "Avoid vague attributions like 'experts say' - name the expert/source"
-### Source Quality Guidance
-- [ ] Prompt specifies preferred sources (e.g., "Official docs > analyst reports > blog posts")
-- [ ] Prompt prioritizes recency: "Prioritize {{current_year}} sources for time-sensitive data"
-- [ ] Prompt requires credibility assessment: "Note source credibility for each citation"
-- [ ] Prompt warns against: "Do not rely on single blog posts for critical claims"
-### Anti-Hallucination Safeguards
-- [ ] Prompt warns: "If data seems convenient or too round, verify with additional sources"
-- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Flag suspicious claims that need third-party verification"
-- [ ] Prompt requires: "Provide date accessed for all web sources"
-- [ ] Prompt mandates: "Do NOT invent statistics - only use verified data"
-## Prompt Foundation
-### Topic and Scope
-- [ ] Research topic is specific and focused (not too broad)
-- [ ] Target platform is specified (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Claude)
-- [ ] Temporal scope defined and includes "current {{current_year}}" requirement
-- [ ] Source recency requirement specified (e.g., "prioritize 2024-2025 sources")
-## Content Requirements
-### Information Specifications
-- [ ] Types of information needed are listed (quantitative, qualitative, trends, case studies, etc.)
-- [ ] Preferred sources are specified (academic, industry reports, news, etc.)
-- [ ] Recency requirements are stated (e.g., "prioritize {{current_year}} sources")
-- [ ] Keywords and technical terms are included for search optimization
-- [ ] Validation criteria are defined (how to verify findings)
-### Output Structure
-- [ ] Desired format is clear (executive summary, comparison table, timeline, SWOT, etc.)
-- [ ] Key sections or questions are outlined
-- [ ] Depth level is specified (overview, standard, comprehensive, exhaustive)
-- [ ] Citation requirements are stated
-- [ ] Any special formatting needs are mentioned
-## Platform Optimization
-### Platform-Specific Elements
-- [ ] Prompt is optimized for chosen platform's capabilities
-- [ ] Platform-specific tips are included
-- [ ] Query limit considerations are noted (if applicable)
-- [ ] Platform strengths are leveraged (e.g., ChatGPT's multi-step search, Gemini's plan modification)
-### Execution Guidance
-- [ ] Research persona/perspective is specified (if applicable)
-- [ ] Special requirements are stated (bias considerations, recency, etc.)
-- [ ] Follow-up strategy is outlined
-- [ ] Validation approach is defined
-## Quality and Usability
-### Clarity and Completeness
-- [ ] Prompt language is clear and unambiguous
-- [ ] All placeholders and variables are replaced with actual values
-- [ ] Prompt can be copy-pasted directly into platform
-- [ ] No contradictory instructions exist
-- [ ] Prompt is self-contained (doesn't assume unstated context)
-### Practical Utility
-- [ ] Execution checklist is provided (before, during, after research)
-- [ ] Platform usage tips are included
-- [ ] Follow-up questions are anticipated
-- [ ] Success criteria are defined
-- [ ] Output file format is specified
-## Research Depth
-### Scope Appropriateness
-- [ ] Scope matches user's available time and resources
-- [ ] Depth is appropriate for decision at hand
-- [ ] Key questions that MUST be answered are identified
-- [ ] Nice-to-have vs. critical information is distinguished
-## Validation Criteria
-### Quality Standards
-- [ ] Method for cross-referencing sources is specified
-- [ ] Approach to handling conflicting information is defined
-- [ ] Confidence level indicators are requested
-- [ ] Gap identification is included
-- [ ] Fact vs. opinion distinction is required
----
-## Issues Found
-### Critical Issues
-_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
-### Minor Improvements
-_List minor improvements that would enhance the prompt:_
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
----
-**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Ready to Execute:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Reviewer:** {agent}
-**Date:** {date}

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist-technical.md DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,249 +0,0 @@
-# Technical/Architecture Research Validation Checklist
-## 🚨 CRITICAL: Source Verification and Fact-Checking (PRIORITY)
-### Version Number Verification (MANDATORY)
-- [ ] **EVERY** technology version number has cited source with URL
-- [ ] Version numbers verified via WebSearch from {{current_year}} (NOT from training data!)
-- [ ] Official documentation/release pages cited for each version
-- [ ] Release dates included with version numbers
-- [ ] LTS status verified from official sources (with URL)
-- [ ] No "assumed" or "remembered" version numbers - ALL must be verified
-### Technical Claim Source Verification
-- [ ] **EVERY** feature claim has source (official docs, release notes, website)
-- [ ] Performance benchmarks cite source (official benchmarks, third-party tests with URLs)
-- [ ] Compatibility claims verified (official compatibility matrix, documentation)
-- [ ] Community size/popularity backed by sources (GitHub stars, npm downloads, official stats)
-- [ ] "Supports X" claims verified via official documentation with URL
-- [ ] No invented capabilities or features
-### Source Quality for Technical Data
-- [ ] Official documentation prioritized (docs.technology.com > blog posts)
-- [ ] Version info from official release pages (highest credibility)
-- [ ] Benchmarks from official sources or reputable third-parties (not random blogs)
-- [ ] Community data from verified sources (GitHub, npm, official registries)
-- [ ] Pricing from official pricing pages (with URL and date verified)
-### Multi-Source Verification (Critical Technical Claims)
-- [ ] Major technical claims (performance, scalability) verified by 2+ sources
-- [ ] Technology comparisons cite multiple independent sources
-- [ ] "Best for X" claims backed by comparative analysis with sources
-- [ ] Production experience claims cite real case studies or articles with URLs
-- [ ] No single-source critical decisions without flagging need for verification
-### Anti-Hallucination for Technical Data
-- [ ] No invented version numbers or release dates
-- [ ] No assumed feature availability without verification
-- [ ] If current data not found, explicitly states "Could not verify {{current_year}} information"
-- [ ] Speculation clearly labeled (e.g., "Based on trends, technology may...")
-- [ ] No "probably supports" or "likely compatible" without verification
-## Technology Evaluation
-### Comprehensive Profiling
-For each evaluated technology:
-- [ ] Core capabilities and features are documented
-- [ ] Architecture and design philosophy are explained
-- [ ] Maturity level is assessed (experimental, stable, mature, legacy)
-- [ ] Community size and activity are measured
-- [ ] Maintenance status is verified (active, maintenance mode, abandoned)
-### Practical Considerations
-- [ ] Learning curve is evaluated
-- [ ] Documentation quality is assessed
-- [ ] Developer experience is considered
-- [ ] Tooling ecosystem is reviewed
-- [ ] Testing and debugging capabilities are examined
-### Operational Assessment
-- [ ] Deployment complexity is understood
-- [ ] Monitoring and observability options are evaluated
-- [ ] Operational overhead is estimated
-- [ ] Cloud provider support is verified
-- [ ] Container/Kubernetes compatibility is checked (if relevant)
-## Comparative Analysis
-### Multi-Dimensional Comparison
-- [ ] Technologies are compared across relevant dimensions
-- [ ] Performance benchmarks are included (if available)
-- [ ] Scalability characteristics are compared
-- [ ] Complexity trade-offs are analyzed
-- [ ] Total cost of ownership is estimated for each option
-### Trade-off Analysis
-- [ ] Key trade-offs between options are identified
-- [ ] Decision factors are prioritized based on user needs
-- [ ] Conditions favoring each option are specified
-- [ ] Weighted analysis reflects user's priorities
-## Real-World Evidence
-### Production Experience
-- [ ] Real-world production experiences are researched
-- [ ] Known issues and gotchas are documented
-- [ ] Performance data from actual deployments is included
-- [ ] Migration experiences are considered (if replacing existing tech)
-- [ ] Community discussions and war stories are referenced
-### Source Quality
-- [ ] Multiple independent sources validate key claims
-- [ ] Recent sources from {{current_year}} are prioritized
-- [ ] Practitioner experiences are included (blog posts, conference talks, forums)
-- [ ] Both proponent and critic perspectives are considered
-## Decision Support
-### Recommendations
-- [ ] Primary recommendation is clearly stated with rationale
-- [ ] Alternative options are explained with use cases
-- [ ] Fit for user's specific context is explained
-- [ ] Decision is justified by requirements and constraints
-### Implementation Guidance
-- [ ] Proof-of-concept approach is outlined
-- [ ] Key implementation decisions are identified
-- [ ] Migration path is described (if applicable)
-- [ ] Success criteria are defined
-- [ ] Validation approach is recommended
-### Risk Management
-- [ ] Technical risks are identified
-- [ ] Mitigation strategies are provided
-- [ ] Contingency options are outlined (if primary choice doesn't work)
-- [ ] Exit strategy considerations are discussed
-## Architecture Decision Record
-### ADR Completeness
-- [ ] Status is specified (Proposed, Accepted, Superseded)
-- [ ] Context and problem statement are clear
-- [ ] Decision drivers are documented
-- [ ] All considered options are listed
-- [ ] Chosen option and rationale are explained
-- [ ] Consequences (positive, negative, neutral) are identified
-- [ ] Implementation notes are included
-- [ ] References to research sources are provided
-## References and Source Documentation (CRITICAL)
-### References Section Completeness
-- [ ] Report includes comprehensive "References and Sources" section
-- [ ] Sources organized by category (official docs, benchmarks, community, architecture)
-- [ ] Every source includes: Title, Publisher/Site, Date Accessed, Full URL
-- [ ] URLs are clickable and functional (documentation links, release pages, GitHub)
-- [ ] Version verification sources clearly listed
-- [ ] Inline citations throughout report reference the sources section
-### Technology Source Documentation
-- [ ] For each technology evaluated, sources documented:
-  - Official documentation URL
-  - Release notes/changelog URL for version
-  - Pricing page URL (if applicable)
-  - Community/GitHub URL
-  - Benchmark source URLs
-- [ ] Comparison data cites source for each claim
-- [ ] Architecture pattern sources cited (articles, books, official guides)
-### Source Quality Metrics
-- [ ] Report documents total sources cited
-- [ ] Official sources count (highest credibility)
-- [ ] Third-party sources count (benchmarks, articles)
-- [ ] Version verification count (all technologies verified {{current_year}})
-- [ ] Outdated sources flagged (if any used)
-### Citation Format Standards
-- [ ] Inline citations format: [Source: Docs URL] or [Version: 1.2.3, Source: Release Page URL]
-- [ ] Consistent citation style throughout
-- [ ] No vague citations like "according to the community" without specifics
-- [ ] GitHub links include star count and last update date
-- [ ] Documentation links point to current stable version docs
-## Document Quality
-### Anti-Hallucination Final Check
-- [ ] Spot-check 5 random version numbers - can you find the cited source?
-- [ ] Verify feature claims against official documentation
-- [ ] Check any performance numbers have benchmark sources
-- [ ] Ensure no "cutting edge" or "latest" without specific version number
-- [ ] Cross-check technology comparisons with cited sources
-### Structure and Completeness
-- [ ] Executive summary captures key findings
-- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
-- [ ] References section is complete and properly formatted
-- [ ] Version verification audit trail included
-- [ ] Document ready for technical fact-checking by third party
-## Research Completeness
-### Coverage
-- [ ] All user requirements were addressed
-- [ ] All constraints were considered
-- [ ] Sufficient depth for the decision at hand
-- [ ] Optional analyses were considered and included/excluded appropriately
-- [ ] Web research was conducted for current market data
-### Data Freshness
-- [ ] Current {{current_year}} data was used throughout
-- [ ] Version information is up-to-date
-- [ ] Recent developments and trends are included
-- [ ] Outdated or deprecated information is flagged or excluded
----
-## Issues Found
-### Critical Issues
-_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
-### Minor Improvements
-_List minor improvements that would enhance the report:_
-- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
-### Additional Research Needed
-_List areas requiring further investigation:_
-- [ ] Topic 1: [Description]
-- [ ] Topic 2: [Description]
----
-**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Ready for Decision:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
-**Reviewer:** {agent}
-**Date:** {date}