bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.9 → 6.0.2

package/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-09-project-type-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-09-project-type-validation'
+description: 'Project-Type Compliance Validation - Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-10-smart-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+projectTypesData: '../data/project-types.csv'
+---
+
+# Step 9: Project-Type Compliance Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented - different project types (api_backend, web_app, mobile_app, etc.) have different required and excluded sections.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring project type expertise and architectural knowledge
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on project-type compliance
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Validate required sections present, excluded sections absent
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check classification.projectType from PRD frontmatter
+- 🎯 Validate required sections for that project type are present
+- 🎯 Validate excluded sections for that project type are absent
+- 💾 Append compliance findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file with frontmatter classification, validation report
+- Focus: Project-type compliance only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-8 completed - domain and requirements validation done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load Project Types Data
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{projectTypesData}` (../data/project-types.csv)
+
+This CSV contains:
+- Detection signals for each project type
+- Required sections for each project type
+- Skip/excluded sections for each project type
+- Innovation signals
+
+Internalize this data - it drives what sections must be present or absent for each project type.
+
+### 2. Extract Project Type Classification
+
+From PRD frontmatter, extract:
+- `classification.projectType` - what type of project is this?
+
+**Common project types:**
+- api_backend
+- web_app
+- mobile_app
+- desktop_app
+- data_pipeline
+- ml_system
+- library_sdk
+- infrastructure
+- other
+
+**If no projectType classification found:**
+Assume "web_app" (most common) and note in findings
+
+### 3. Determine Required and Excluded Sections from CSV Data
+
+**From loaded project-types.csv data, for this project type:**
+
+**Required sections:** (from required_sections column)
+These MUST be present in the PRD
+
+**Skip sections:** (from skip_sections column)
+These MUST NOT be present in the PRD
+
+**Example mappings from CSV:**
+- api_backend: Required=[endpoint_specs, auth_model, data_schemas], Skip=[ux_ui, visual_design]
+- mobile_app: Required=[platform_reqs, device_permissions, offline_mode], Skip=[desktop_features, cli_commands]
+- cli_tool: Required=[command_structure, output_formats, config_schema], Skip=[visual_design, ux_principles, touch_interactions]
+- etc.
+
+### 4. Validate Against CSV-Based Requirements
+
+**Based on project type, determine:**
+
+**api_backend:**
+- Required: Endpoint Specs, Auth Model, Data Schemas, API Versioning
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections, mobile-specific sections
+
+**web_app:**
+- Required: User Journeys, UX/UI Requirements, Responsive Design
+- Excluded: None typically
+
+**mobile_app:**
+- Required: Mobile UX, Platform specifics (iOS/Android), Offline mode
+- Excluded: Desktop-specific sections
+
+**desktop_app:**
+- Required: Desktop UX, Platform specifics (Windows/Mac/Linux)
+- Excluded: Mobile-specific sections
+
+**data_pipeline:**
+- Required: Data Sources, Data Transformation, Data Sinks, Error Handling
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections
+
+**ml_system:**
+- Required: Model Requirements, Training Data, Inference Requirements, Model Performance
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections (unless ML UI)
+
+**library_sdk:**
+- Required: API Surface, Usage Examples, Integration Guide
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections, deployment sections
+
+**infrastructure:**
+- Required: Infrastructure Components, Deployment, Monitoring, Scaling
+- Excluded: Feature requirements (this is infrastructure, not product)
+
+### 4. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+"Perform project-type compliance validation for {projectType}:
+
+**Check that required sections are present:**
+{List required sections for this project type}
+For each: Is it present in PRD? Is it adequately documented?
+
+**Check that excluded sections are absent:**
+{List excluded sections for this project type}
+For each: Is it absent from PRD? (Should not be present)
+
+Build compliance table showing:
+- Required sections: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Excluded sections: [Absent/Present] (Present = violation)
+
+Return compliance table with findings."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually check PRD for required sections
+- Manually check PRD for excluded sections
+- Build compliance table
+
+### 5. Build Compliance Table
+
+**Required sections check:**
+- For each required section: Present / Missing / Incomplete
+- Count: Required sections present vs total required
+
+**Excluded sections check:**
+- For each excluded section: Absent / Present (violation)
+- Count: Excluded sections present (violations)
+
+**Total compliance score:**
+- Required: {present}/{total}
+- Excluded violations: {count}
+
+### 6. Report Project-Type Compliance Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Project-Type Compliance Validation
+
+**Project Type:** {projectType}
+
+### Required Sections
+
+**{Section 1}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps}
+
+**{Section 2}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps}
+
+[Continue for all required sections]
+
+### Excluded Sections (Should Not Be Present)
+
+**{Section 1}:** [Absent/Present] ✓
+{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}}
+
+**{Section 2}:** [Absent/Present] ✓
+{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}}
+
+[Continue for all excluded sections]
+
+### Compliance Summary
+
+**Required Sections:** {present}/{total} present
+**Excluded Sections Present:** {violations} (should be 0)
+**Compliance Score:** {percentage}%
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if required sections missing, Warning if incomplete, Pass if complete]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD is missing required sections for {projectType}. Add missing sections to properly specify this type of project."
+[If Warning] "Some required sections for {projectType} are incomplete. Strengthen documentation."
+[If Pass] "All required sections for {projectType} are present. No excluded sections found."
+```
+
+### 7. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Project-Type Compliance Validation Complete**
+
+Project Type: {projectType}
+Compliance: {score}%
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-10-smart-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Project type extracted correctly (or default assumed)
+- Required sections validated for presence and completeness
+- Excluded sections validated for absence
+- Compliance table built with status for all sections
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking project type before proceeding
+- Missing required section checks
+- Missing excluded section checks
+- Not building compliance table
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Different project types have different requirements. API PRDs don't need UX sections - validate accordingly.

package/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-10-smart-validation'
+description: 'SMART Requirements Validation - Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+---
+
+# Step 10: SMART Requirements Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable), ensuring high-quality requirements.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring requirements engineering expertise and quality assessment
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR quality assessment using SMART framework
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Score each FR on SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Extract all FRs from PRD
+- 🎯 Score each FR on SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable)
+- 💾 Flag FRs with score < 3 in any category
+- 📖 Append scoring table and suggestions to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report
+- Focus: FR quality assessment only using SMART framework
+- Limits: Don't validate NFRs or other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-9 completed - comprehensive validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Extract All Functional Requirements
+
+From the PRD's Functional Requirements section, extract:
+- All FRs with their FR numbers (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
+- Count total FRs
+
+### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform SMART requirements validation on these Functional Requirements:
+
+{List all FRs}
+
+**For each FR, score on SMART criteria (1-5 scale):**
+
+**Specific (1-5):**
+- 5: Clear, unambiguous, well-defined
+- 3: Somewhat clear but could be more specific
+- 1: Vague, ambiguous, unclear
+
+**Measurable (1-5):**
+- 5: Quantifiable metrics, testable
+- 3: Partially measurable
+- 1: Not measurable, subjective
+
+**Attainable (1-5):**
+- 5: Realistic, achievable with constraints
+- 3: Probably achievable but uncertain
+- 1: Unrealistic, technically infeasible
+
+**Relevant (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly aligned with user needs and business objectives
+- 3: Somewhat relevant but connection unclear
+- 1: Not relevant, doesn't align with goals
+
+**Traceable (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly traces to user journey or business objective
+- 3: Partially traceable
+- 1: Orphan requirement, no clear source
+
+**For each FR with score < 3 in any category:**
+- Provide specific improvement suggestions
+
+Return scoring table with all FR scores and improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually score each FR on SMART criteria
+- Note FRs with low scores
+- Provide improvement suggestions
+
+### 3. Build Scoring Table
+
+For each FR:
+- FR number
+- Specific score (1-5)
+- Measurable score (1-5)
+- Attainable score (1-5)
+- Relevant score (1-5)
+- Traceable score (1-5)
+- Average score
+- Flag if any category < 3
+
+**Calculate overall FR quality:**
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 3
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 4
+- Average score across all FRs and categories
+
+### 4. Report SMART Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## SMART Requirements Validation
+
+**Total Functional Requirements:** {count}
+
+### Scoring Summary
+
+**All scores ≥ 3:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**All scores ≥ 4:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**Overall Average Score:** {average}/5.0
+
+### Scoring Table
+
+| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag |
+|------|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----------|--------|------|
+| FR-001 | {s1} | {m1} | {a1} | {r1} | {t1} | {avg1} | {X if any <3} |
+| FR-002 | {s2} | {m2} | {a2} | {r2} | {t2} | {avg2} | {X if any <3} |
+[Continue for all FRs]
+
+**Legend:** 1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent
+**Flag:** X = Score < 3 in one or more categories
+
+### Improvement Suggestions
+
+**Low-Scoring FRs:**
+
+**FR-{number}:** {specific suggestion for improvement}
+[For each FR with score < 3 in any category]
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >30% flagged FRs, Warning if 10-30%, Pass if <10%]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Many FRs have quality issues. Revise flagged FRs using SMART framework to improve clarity and testability."
+[If Warning] "Some FRs would benefit from SMART refinement. Focus on flagged requirements above."
+[If Pass] "Functional Requirements demonstrate good SMART quality overall."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**SMART Requirements Validation Complete**
+
+FR Quality: {percentage}% with acceptable scores ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All FRs extracted from PRD
+- Each FR scored on all 5 SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- FRs with scores < 3 flagged for improvement
+- Improvement suggestions provided for low-scoring FRs
+- Scoring table built with all FR scores
+- Overall quality assessment calculated
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scoring all FRs on all SMART criteria
+- Missing improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs
+- Not building scoring table
+- Not calculating overall quality metrics
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** FRs should be high-quality, not just present. SMART framework provides objective quality measure.