bmad-method 6.10.1-next.2 → 6.10.1-next.21

package/src/core-skills/bmad-brainstorming/analysis/catalog-analysis.md

@@ -1,239 +0,0 @@
-# BMad Brainstorming Catalog — Deep Analysis
-
-> Analysis of the brainstorming library (`assets/brain-methods.csv`) and the selection
-> experience (`assets/brain-selector.html`, generated by `scripts/brain.py`). Companion
-> data: `method-matrix.csv` (every method tagged on 4 axes).
->
-> **Status (implemented, uncommitted for review):** CSV extended with `provenance` /
-> `good_for` / `audience` columns; 8 researched `classic` methods added (108 total);
-> `brain.py` now renders a "Proven & Professional" lead group, super-group ordering, a
-> "Great for" goal filter, and a per-category "Invent a … technique" card; convergence
-> shipped as `references/converge.md` (diverge → converge → finalize) and wired into
-> `SKILL.md`. Sections below are the rationale.
-
----
-
-## 1. TL;DR
-
-The catalog is strong, distinctive, and well-built. The opportunities are not "more methods" so much as **navigation and intent**:
-
-1. **The selector sorts categories alphabetically.** There is no ordering/grouping layer, so the well-known professional methods (SCAMPER, Six Hats, Five Whys, etc.) are scattered across four categories and buried below `Absurdist` and `Biomimetic`. Enterprise users meet whimsy before they meet anything they recognize. → **Add a grouping + ordering layer; lead with a "Proven & Professional" group.**
-2. **Nothing connects the user's stated goal to technique choice.** The skill asks for the goal up front but then offers an alphabetical wall. The single highest-value addition is a **goal → technique affinity layer** so "I'm adding a feature to a brownfield app" surfaces a different short-list than "planning a sabbatical."
-3. **The catalog is 100% divergent (generative).** There is essentially no *convergence* (prioritize / cluster / decide). This is partly a sound principle and partly a real gap — see §5.
-4. **Real overlap exists**, but it's mostly "same cognitive move, different costume." Four mechanisms (perspective-shift, constraint, analogy, inversion) account for ~60 of 100 methods; sensory, questioning, systems, and time-shift are comparatively thin.
-5. **Descriptions should stay terse** — the brevity is correct. Only two targeted fixes are warranted: the `collaborative` category silently assumes multiple humans, and ~10 "vibe-only" methods lack an output anchor.
-6. **Per-category "invent on the fly" is a good idea** — but implement it as a generated synthetic card per section, not 13 near-duplicate CSV rows.
-
----
-
-## 2. Method — how this was analyzed
-
-Each of the 100 methods was tagged on **four independent axes** (see `method-matrix.csv`). Category alone only captures *aesthetic/mechanism*; these four axes are what expose grouping, overlap, gaps, and the goal-routing opportunity.
-
-| Axis | Values | Answers |
-|---|---|---|
-| **Provenance** | `classic` · `signature` · `playful` | What goes in the enterprise "proven" group? |
-| **Mechanism** (primary + secondary) | inversion · analogy · perspective · constraint · decomposition · time-shift · systems · sensory · questioning · combination · provocation · convergence | Where is the catalog redundant vs thin? |
-| **Goal affinity** (multi) | feature · novel · personal · strategy · planning · diagnosis · unstuck | Given the user's goal, what should we recommend? |
-| **Audience** | solo · group · either | What breaks in a 1:1 user+LLM session? |
-
----
-
-## 3. Findings
-
-### 3a. Provenance — the "proven & professional" set exists, but is scattered
-
-The methods an innovation consultant or enterprise facilitator would recognize by name are spread across `structured`, `deep`, `creative`, and `collaborative`. The **canonical core (~22)**:
-
-> SCAMPER · Six Thinking Hats · Mind Mapping · Lotus Blossom · Crazy 8s · Disney Method ·
-> Starbursting · Morphological Analysis · Five Whys · Laddering · Causal Loop Mapping ·
-> First Principles · Reverse Brainstorming · Assumption Reversal · Worst Possible Idea ·
-> Provocation (PO) · Question Storming · Brainwriting/Round Robin · Yes-And · Random Stimulation ·
-> Role Playing · Analogical Thinking
-
-A second tier is *recognizable-adjacent* (Concept Blending, Forced Relationships, Decision Tree, Solution Matrix, Failure Analysis/pre-mortem, Devil's Advocate, 1000x Budget). Everything else is `signature` (BMad-original, serious) or `playful` (the delight layer — `wild`, `absurdist`, `theatrical`, much of `quantum`/`cultural`).
-
-**Recommendation — lead with "Proven & Professional."** Three ways to implement (pick in review):
-
-- **Option A — Tag + generated lead section (recommended).** Add a `provenance` column to the CSV. `brain.py` renders a synthetic **"Proven & Professional"** section *first* (pulling all `classic`-tagged methods, cross-category), then the existing categories grouped and ordered (see §7). A method keeps its home category and also appears in the lead group. Pro: zero loss of mechanism categorization; enterprise sees credibility first. Con: those ~22 methods appear twice on the browse page (arguably fine — or filter them out of their home category).
-- **Option B — New `classic` category.** Move the ~22 into a single first category. Pro: simplest. Con: destroys the mechanism grouping (SCAMPER is *also* structured; Five Whys is *also* deep), and the category becomes a grab-bag.
-- **Option C — Two-level groups only, no provenance tag.** Reorder the 13 categories into super-groups (§7) so "serious" comes first, but don't pull classics out. Pro: cleanest data model. Con: doesn't actually cluster the *named* methods — they stay scattered within their categories.
-
-My pick: **A.** It satisfies "professional methods grouped and shown first" literally, without flattening the taxonomy that makes the rest of the catalog shine.
-
-### 3b. Mechanism — the catalog has four over-served "spines"
-
-Primary-mechanism distribution across the 100:
-
-| Mechanism | ~count | Read |
-|---|---|---|
-| **perspective-shift** | ~18 | Over-served. Role Playing, Six Hats, Persona, Alien, Ancestor Council, Inner Child, Future Self, Drunk Uncle, Golden Retriever, Infomercial… all "adopt another viewpoint," differentiated only by *who*. |
-| **constraint** | ~16 | Over-served. What If, the entire `constraint` category, 1000x, Post-Scarcity, Parallel Universe, Zombie, Quantum Tunneling, Permission Giving… all "add/remove/exaggerate a limit." |
-| **analogy / transfer** | ~12 | Healthy. Analogical, Metaphor, Cross-Pollination, Trait Transfer, Nature's Solutions, Fusion Cuisine, Proverb, Random Stimulation. |
-| **inversion** | ~11 | Healthy but clustered. Reverse, Assumption Reversal, Worst Idea, Anti-Solution, Failure Analysis, Devil's Advocate, Cursed Genie, Villain's Monologue, Trickster. |
-| **combination** | ~9 | Fine. |
-| **decomposition** | ~9 | Fine. |
-| **systems / emergence** | ~7 | Thin-ish (concentrated in `quantum`/`biomimetic`). |
-| **time-shift** | ~6 | Thin. |
-| **questioning** | ~5 | Thin. |
-| **sensory / intuitive** | ~5 | Thin (all in `introspective_delight`). |
-| **convergence** | ~1 | **Effectively absent** (only Superposition Collapse). See §5. |
-
-**Takeaway:** the redundancy is not a defect to delete — the *costume* (a villain's monologue vs. a courtroom vs. "make it worse") is exactly what makes a 30th inversion technique feel fresh to a user. But a curator should know the catalog leans hard on perspective + constraint, and that **convergence is the one genuinely empty cell.** New methods (§6) should target the thin cells, not the spines.
-
-### 3c. Goal affinity — the headline missing capability
-
-`SKILL.md` already opens with *"what are we brainstorming, and what's the goal?"* — but that goal never routes technique selection. Mapping the matrix's `goal_affinity` tags gives a ready recommendation table. This is what powers "AI picks N" intelligently and what an enterprise user wants:
-
-| Goal | Strong default techniques (lead picks **bold**) |
-|---|---|
-| **Build a feature** (greenfield/brownfield) | **First Principles**, **SCAMPER**, **Morphological Analysis**, Crazy 8s, Solution Matrix, Reverse Brainstorming, One Feature Only, Ship in 60 Minutes, Chaos Engineering, Cursed Genie (edge cases), Persona Journey, *+ new: Job to Be Done, Follow the Anomaly* |
-| **Novel concept / new product** | **Concept Blending**, **Cross-Pollination**, **Forced Relationships**, What If, Trait Transfer, Nature's Solutions, Fusion Cuisine, Emerging Tech Collision, Crank the Dial to 11, Quantum Tunneling |
-| **Personal / life decision** | **Future Self Interview**, **Values Archaeology**, **Laddering**, Six Hats, Ancestor Council, Proverb Mining, Mythic Frameworks, the `introspective_delight` set, *+ new: Build on What Works* |
-| **Strategy / positioning** | **Six Thinking Hats**, **Failure Analysis** (pre-mortem), Field Lines, Ecosystem Thinking, Utopia vs Dystopia, 1000x Budget, Disney Method, Relativity Frame Shift, Infomercial at 3AM, Predator & Prey |
-| **Concrete planning** (event/project) | **Mind Mapping**, **Lotus Blossom**, Morphological Analysis, Decision Tree, Six Hats, $0 Mandate, Constraint Roulette, Time Horizon Ladder |
-| **Root-cause / diagnosis** | **Five Whys**, **Causal Loop Mapping**, Failure Analysis, Constraint Mapping, Question Storming, Starbursting, Anti-Solution, Alien Anthropologist |
-| **Get unstuck / break fixation** | **Random Stimulation**, **Provocation**, **Worst Possible Idea**, Crank the Dial to 11, Constraint Roulette, Three Rounds of Stupid, Drunk History, most of `wild`/`absurdist`/`theatrical` |
-
-**Recommendation:** persist this as machine-readable affinity (a `goals` column on the CSV, sourced from `method-matrix.csv`), then (1) have the skill recommend a batch from the up-front goal, and (2) let the composer page filter/highlight "great for: [your goal]." This is the single change that most improves both enterprise and casual use.
-
-### 3d. Audience — the `collaborative` category quietly assumes a room of people
-
-5 of the 8 `collaborative` methods (Round Robin, Relay Race, Hot Potato, Fold the Paper, Steal & Upgrade) are written for *multiple humans passing artifacts*. In the default 1:1 user+LLM session they don't translate without the coach silently reinterpreting them. This is the one place the catalog can mislead. Options: tag `audience`, and either (a) add a one-clause solo adaptation to each, or (b) have the skill note "this one shines with a group" when picked solo. Low effort, removes the only real footgun.
-
-### 3e. Description anchoring — keep terse, fix ~12 specifically
-
-The deliberate brevity is **right** — the gist + a creative LLM beats over-specification, and it matches the catalog's house style. Do **not** bulk-expand. Two surgical passes only:
-
-1. **Group-dependent `collaborative` methods** (§3d) — add a short solo-mode clause or an audience tag.
-2. **~10 "vibe-only" methods** where the *evocation is great but the output is ambiguous*, so different LLM runs would diverge wildly: e.g. **Field Lines**, **Observer Effect**, **Guerrilla Gardening Ideas**, **Emergent Thinking**, **Entanglement Thinking**, **Elemental Forces**. A tiny "…so that ___" outcome clause anchors the deliverable without killing the brevity. Example: *Guerrilla Gardening Ideas* → add "…**so you surface where an unsanctioned, low-visibility pilot could prove the idea before anyone can veto it**."
-
-Everything crisp (Five Whys, SCAMPER, First Principles, Crazy 8s) stays untouched.
-
----
-
-## 4. Quick wins vs structural changes
-
-| Change | Effort | Impact | Type |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Goal→technique affinity (`goals` column + recommendation) | Med | **High** | structural |
-| "Proven & Professional" lead group + category ordering | Med | **High** (enterprise) | structural |
-| Per-category "invent in the spirit" card (§6) | Low | Med | quick win |
-| Convergence mini-set (§5) | Low–Med | Med–High | structural (philosophy) |
-| `audience` tag + collaborative fix (§3d) | Low | Med | quick win |
-| ~12 description anchors (§3e) | Low | Low–Med | quick win |
-| New gap-filling methods (§6) | Low | Med | additive |
-
----
-
-## 5. Divergent vs convergent — the answer, and a recommendation
-
-**What it is.** Divergent = generate (quantity, novelty, breadth). Convergent = evaluate, cluster, prioritize, decide. A complete creative process needs both (cf. the Double Diamond, Osborn-Parnes CPS): diverge wide, *then* converge to a choice.
-
-**Where the catalog stands.** All 100 methods are divergent. `SKILL.md` explicitly enforces divergence ("resist concluding… the urge to organize is the enemy of divergence"), and the only convergent-flavored technique is Quantum → *Superposition Collapse*. Synthesis is deferred entirely to `references/finalize.md` at wrap-up.
-
-**Is that a mistake?** Mostly a *good instinct taken to a defensible extreme.* Separating generation from judgment is the foundational brainstorming rule — premature convergence is the #1 killer of ideas, so a divergence-pure generator is legitimate. But the consequence is that the user has **no technique to pick when they're ready to narrow** — they hit "100 ideas" and the tool's stance is "keep going," with only the wrap-up doing light synthesis. For project/feature/life-decision work especially, people *do* want to land.
-
-**Recommendation — add a small, fenced convergence set, never mixed into the divergent flow.** Keep divergence pure during generation; offer convergence only at wrap-up or on explicit request ("okay, help me narrow"). Concretely: a new `converge` category (4 methods, §6), tagged `mechanism=convergence`, surfaced by `finalize.md` / on demand — not in the default 3–4 sweet-spot batch. This completes the loop while honoring the separate-generation-from-judgment principle. **This is a philosophy decision for you to confirm** — it's the one recommendation that changes what the skill *is*, not just what's in the library.
-
----
-
-## 6. Proposed new methods (fill the thin cells)
-
-Targeting the under-served mechanisms (§3b), the empty convergence cell (§5), and the goal gaps (§3c). CSV-style (`category, name, description`) so they can drop straight in:
-
-**Feature/product & enterprise gaps (mechanism: questioning/decomposition):**
-- `structured, Job to Be Done, "Ask what the user is really hiring this to do; brainstorm around that underlying job, not the feature you assumed"`
-- `structured, Empathy Map, "Map what the user says, thinks, does, and feels around the problem; mine each quadrant for the unmet need hiding there"`
-- `deep, Follow the Anomaly, "Start from one surprising number or outlier and ideate only from what would explain it or exploit it"`
-
-**Strengths-based (the missing positive frame — Appreciative Inquiry is a glaring classic-tier omission):**
-- `deep, Build on What Works, "Name what's already succeeding and why, then ideate how to amplify and extend it instead of fixing what's broken"`
-
-**Convergence set (new `converge` category — only if §5 is adopted):**
-- `converge, Impact Effort Triage, "Plot every idea by impact against effort; harvest the high-impact, low-effort quadrant first and quarantine the rest"`
-- `converge, Forced Ranking, "Make the ideas fight: each must beat another to survive to a ranked top-N, no ties allowed"`
-- `converge, NUF Test, "Score each idea New, Useful, Feasible 1-10; the totals expose the quiet winners and the dazzling dead-ends"`
-- `converge, Affinity Clustering, "Group the raw ideas into themes, name each cluster, then ideate fresh at the theme level"`
-
-(Optional, lower priority: `structured, Storyboarding` for sequenced/experience ideation.)
-
----
-
-## 7. Category roster & ordering recommendations
-
-**Ordering (replace alphabetical with a deliberate progression):** add a `CATEGORY_ORDER` + `GROUP` map in `brain.py` (mirroring the existing `_HUES` map — derived for the shipped set, alphabetical fallback for custom catalogs). Proposed super-groups, in order:
-
-1. **Proven & Professional** — the `classic` lead section (§3a, Option A)
-2. **Structured & Analytical** — structured, deep
-3. **Creative & Generative** — creative, biomimetic, cultural, speculative_future, quantum
-4. **Wild & Playful** — wild, absurdist, theatrical, constraint
-5. **Introspective & Personal** — introspective_delight, collaborative
-6. **Decide & Converge** — converge *(if §5 adopted)*
-
-**Roster notes:**
-- No category should be deleted. The overlap (§3b) is intentional costume variety.
-- `quantum` and `cultural` are the most abstract/uneven — a couple of their members (Field Lines, Observer Effect) are the vaguest in the whole set; anchor per §3e rather than cut.
-- `constraint` is excellent and tight — leave as is.
-
----
-
-## 8. Per-category "invent in the spirit of this category"
-
-You asked whether each category should also offer an on-the-fly invented technique in its own spirit. **Yes — but don't add 13 near-duplicate rows to the CSV.** The composer already has a global **Invent N** stepper, and `brain.py` already generates section markup from the catalog. So:
-
-> Have `brain.py` append **one synthetic card per category section** — a dashed "✨ Invent a *{Category}* technique" card. Selecting it emits a paste directive like `invent 1 (in the spirit of {category})`, reused by the existing Inventive-Flow plumbing in `SKILL.md` (which already handles `invent N` and offering keepers to `additional_techniques`).
-
-Benefits: CSV stays a clean library of *real* techniques; behavior is consistent everywhere; it leverages plumbing that already exists; and it gives the user the "surprise me, but on-theme" affordance per category without library bloat.
-
----
-
-## 9. Open decisions for BMad (in priority order)
-
-1. **Goal-affinity layer** — adopt the `goals` column + recommendation routing? (Highest impact.)
-2. **Proven & Professional grouping** — Option A (tag + generated lead section, recommended), B, or C? (§3a)
-3. **Convergence** — add the fenced `converge` set, or stay divergence-pure? (§5 — philosophy decision.)
-4. **New methods** — approve the §6 set? Which ones?
-5. **Per-category invent card** — approve the generated-card approach? (§8)
-6. **Description anchoring** — approve the targeted ~12 (incl. collaborative fix), keep everything else terse? (§3e)
-7. **Category ordering / super-groups** — adopt §7?
-
-Once you mark these, the implementation is: extend the CSV schema (`provenance`, `good_for`, `audience` columns — additive, backward-compatible with `brain.py`'s `DictReader`), add the ordering/grouping + synthetic-card logic to `brain.py`, regenerate `brain-selector.html`, update the relevant `SKILL.md` / `references/*` flow, and run `scripts/tests/`.
-
----
-
-## 10. Revised convergence architecture (per BMad direction)
-
-**Decision locked:** convergence is **not** a CSV category of selectable cards. It's a **reference phase**, mirroring `references/finalize.md`. The catalog stays a pure *divergent* library; convergence lives in `references/converge.md`.
-
-**Flow:** diverge (pick & run techniques) → **converge** (`references/converge.md`, on demand or once divergence is spent) → **finalize** (`references/finalize.md`, last). The coach already does ad-hoc convergence implicitly; this makes it an explicit, repeatable phase, and `converge.md` ends by instructing the coach to load `finalize.md` to synthesize and produce artifacts.
-
-`references/converge.md` contents — a tight set of real, established convergence moves (the coach picks what fits, never dumps a menu):
-
-- **Affinity Clustering (KJ method)** — group the raw ideas into themes, name each cluster, surface the through-line.
-- **Dot Voting / Multivoting** — heat-map the favorites; discuss why the hot spots are hot.
-- **Impact–Effort Matrix** — plot each idea on impact vs effort; harvest high-impact/low-effort first.
-- **NUF Test** — score New, Useful, Feasible (1–10 each); totals expose quiet winners and dazzling dead-ends.
-- **PMI (Plus / Minus / Interesting)** — de Bono's fast evaluator for pressure-testing a single strong candidate.
-- *(optional)* **MoSCoW** (Must/Should/Could/Won't) for product scoping; **Nominal Group Technique** when it's genuinely a group.
-
-`SKILL.md` change: at the point where a divergent batch is spent, offer "keep diverging / converge & decide / wrap up" — "converge & decide" loads `converge.md`; wrap-up still goes to `finalize.md`.
-
-## 11. Researched gap-filling additions (real, established methods)
-
-Web-researched (sources below), chosen to fill the **thin mechanism cells** (questioning, diagnosis, time-shift, empathy) — *not* the over-served spines — and all `classic`-tier, so they also strengthen the "Proven & Professional" group. CSV-style, ready to drop in:
-
-| Category | Technique | Gist (house style) | Fills |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| structured | **How Might We** | "Reframe the problem as a batch of 'How might we…' opportunity questions first, then ideate against the sharpest one" | questioning / problem-framing (design-thinking staple, currently absent) |
-| deep | **TRIZ Contradiction** | "Name the core contradiction — what only improves by making something else worse — then brainstorm ways to win both instead of trading off" | engineering/feature (no systematic technical method today) |
-| deep | **Fishbone Diagram** | "Branch the problem's spine into cause categories — people, process, tools, environment — and mine each bone for contributing causes" | diagnosis (named classic complementing Five Whys / Causal Loop) |
-| structured | **Backcasting** | "Fix the finished future in vivid detail, then work backward step by step to the one move you'd have to make first" | strategy/planning time-shift (serious counterpart to playful future methods) |
-| speculative_future | **Scenario Cross** | "Pick two high-impact uncertainties, cross them into four futures, and ideate the move that wins in every one" | strategy (2×2 scenario planning — the serious sibling of the playful speculative set) |
-| structured | **Job to Be Done** | "Ask what the user is really hiring this to do, then ideate around that underlying job, not the feature you assumed" | feature/empathy (enterprise staple) |
-| structured | **Empathy Map** | "Map what the user says, thinks, does, and feels around the problem; mine each quadrant for the unmet need" | empathy/feature |
-| deep | **Build on What Works** | "Name what's already succeeding and why, then ideate how to amplify and extend it instead of fixing what's broken" | strengths-based (Appreciative Inquiry — a glaring classic-tier omission) |
-
-Deliberately **not** added (would deepen an already over-served spine or duplicate): Synectics (≈ analogy/metaphor), SWOT (analysis, not ideation), Rolestorming (≈ Role Playing), Brainwalking/Braindumping (≈ Brainwriting), Pre-mortem (≈ Failure Analysis).
-
-**Sources:** [IxDF — essential ideation techniques](https://ixdf.org/literature/article/introduction-to-the-essential-ideation-techniques-which-are-the-heart-of-design-thinking) · [Quality Magazine — TRIZ](https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/98566-triz-the-backbone-of-innovation-and-problem-solving) · [ASQ — Fishbone/Ishikawa](https://asq.org/quality-resources/fishbone) · [Futures Platform — 2×2 scenario matrix](https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/2x2-scenario-planning-matrix-guideline) · [NN/g — Dot Voting](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dot-voting/) · [Quality Gurus — divergent vs convergent](https://www.qualitygurus.com/divergent-vs-convergent-thinking/)

package/src/core-skills/bmad-brainstorming/analysis/method-matrix.csv

@@ -1,109 +0,0 @@
-category,technique,provenance,mechanism_primary,mechanism_secondary,goal_affinity,audience
-collaborative,Yes And Building,classic,combination,perspective,novel|unstuck|planning,group
-collaborative,Brain Writing Round Robin,classic,combination,decomposition,novel|feature,group
-collaborative,Random Stimulation,classic,analogy,,unstuck|novel,either
-collaborative,Role Playing,classic,perspective,,strategy|personal|feature,either
-collaborative,Ideation Relay Race,playful,combination,,unstuck,group
-collaborative,Idea Hot Potato,playful,combination,,unstuck,group
-collaborative,Steal And Upgrade,signature,combination,analogy,novel|unstuck,group
-collaborative,Fold The Paper,playful,combination,,unstuck|novel,group
-creative,What If Scenarios,signature,constraint,,novel|strategy|unstuck,either
-creative,Analogical Thinking,signature,analogy,,feature|novel|diagnosis,either
-creative,First Principles Thinking,classic,decomposition,,feature|novel|diagnosis|strategy,either
-creative,Forced Relationships,signature,combination,analogy,novel|unstuck,either
-creative,Time Shifting,signature,time-shift,perspective,novel|unstuck,either
-creative,Metaphor Mapping,signature,analogy,,novel|diagnosis,either
-creative,Cross-Pollination,signature,analogy,,novel|feature|strategy,either
-creative,Concept Blending,signature,combination,,novel,either
-creative,Reverse Brainstorming,classic,inversion,,diagnosis|feature|unstuck,either
-creative,Sensory Exploration,signature,sensory,,novel|unstuck,either
-deep,Five Whys,classic,questioning,,diagnosis,either
-deep,Provocation Technique,classic,provocation,inversion,unstuck|novel,either
-deep,Assumption Reversal,classic,inversion,,novel|diagnosis|strategy,either
-deep,Question Storming,classic,questioning,,diagnosis|strategy|unstuck,either
-deep,Constraint Mapping,signature,constraint,decomposition,feature|strategy|diagnosis,either
-deep,Failure Analysis,signature,inversion,diagnosis,diagnosis|strategy|feature,either
-deep,Emergent Thinking,signature,systems,,strategy|novel,either
-deep,Causal Loop Mapping,classic,systems,,diagnosis|strategy,either
-deep,Morphological Analysis,classic,decomposition,combination,feature|novel|planning,either
-deep,Laddering,classic,questioning,decomposition,personal|strategy|diagnosis,either
-introspective_delight,Inner Child Conference,signature,perspective,sensory,personal|unstuck,solo
-introspective_delight,Shadow Work Mining,signature,sensory,,personal|diagnosis,solo
-introspective_delight,Values Archaeology,signature,questioning,,personal|strategy,solo
-introspective_delight,Future Self Interview,signature,perspective,time-shift,personal,solo
-introspective_delight,Body Wisdom Dialogue,signature,sensory,,personal,solo
-introspective_delight,Permission Giving,signature,provocation,constraint,personal|unstuck,solo
-introspective_delight,Secret Wish Confession,signature,sensory,,personal,solo
-introspective_delight,Mood Weather Report,signature,sensory,,personal|unstuck,solo
-structured,SCAMPER Method,classic,combination,decomposition,feature|novel,either
-structured,Six Thinking Hats,classic,perspective,,strategy|diagnosis|planning|personal,either
-structured,Decision Tree Mapping,signature,decomposition,,planning|strategy|diagnosis,either
-structured,Solution Matrix,signature,decomposition,,feature|planning,either
-structured,Trait Transfer,signature,analogy,,novel|feature,either
-structured,Lotus Blossom,classic,decomposition,,feature|planning|novel,either
-structured,Worst Possible Idea,classic,inversion,,unstuck|novel,either
-structured,Disney Method,classic,perspective,,feature|strategy|planning,either
-structured,Starbursting,classic,questioning,,feature|planning|diagnosis,either
-structured,Mind Mapping,classic,decomposition,,planning|novel|feature,either
-structured,Crazy 8s,classic,combination,,feature|novel|unstuck,either
-theatrical,Time Travel Talk Show,playful,perspective,time-shift,novel|personal,either
-theatrical,Alien Anthropologist,playful,perspective,,diagnosis|unstuck|strategy,either
-theatrical,Dream Fusion Laboratory,signature,constraint,time-shift,novel|unstuck,either
-theatrical,Emotion Orchestra,playful,sensory,perspective,personal|strategy,either
-theatrical,Parallel Universe Cafe,playful,constraint,,novel|unstuck,either
-theatrical,Persona Journey,signature,perspective,,feature|strategy,either
-theatrical,Devil's Advocate Courtroom,signature,inversion,perspective,strategy|diagnosis,group
-wild,Chaos Engineering,signature,inversion,constraint,feature|diagnosis|strategy,either
-wild,Guerrilla Gardening Ideas,playful,analogy,,strategy|unstuck,either
-wild,Pirate Code Brainstorm,playful,combination,analogy,novel|unstuck,either
-wild,Zombie Apocalypse Planning,playful,constraint,,feature|strategy|unstuck,either
-wild,Drunk History Retelling,playful,perspective,,unstuck|diagnosis,either
-wild,Anti-Solution,signature,inversion,,diagnosis|unstuck,either
-wild,Elemental Forces,playful,perspective,analogy,novel|unstuck,either
-biomimetic,Nature's Solutions,signature,analogy,,feature|novel,either
-biomimetic,Ecosystem Thinking,signature,systems,,strategy|diagnosis,either
-biomimetic,Evolutionary Pressure,signature,systems,,feature|novel,either
-biomimetic,Predator & Prey,signature,perspective,inversion,strategy|feature,either
-biomimetic,Metamorphosis Stages,signature,time-shift,decomposition,novel|strategy,either
-biomimetic,Swarm Logic,signature,systems,,feature|strategy,either
-quantum,Observer Effect,signature,systems,perspective,strategy|diagnosis,either
-quantum,Entanglement Thinking,signature,systems,,diagnosis|strategy,either
-quantum,Superposition Collapse,signature,convergence,decomposition,strategy|diagnosis,either
-quantum,Relativity Frame Shift,signature,perspective,,strategy|novel,either
-quantum,Field Lines,signature,systems,,strategy,either
-quantum,Quantum Tunneling,signature,constraint,,unstuck|novel,either
-cultural,Indigenous Wisdom,signature,perspective,analogy,personal|strategy|novel,either
-cultural,Fusion Cuisine,signature,combination,analogy,novel,either
-cultural,Ritual Innovation,signature,analogy,,novel|personal,either
-cultural,Mythic Frameworks,signature,analogy,perspective,strategy|personal|novel,either
-cultural,Proverb Mining,signature,analogy,,personal|strategy,either
-cultural,Ancestor Council,signature,perspective,,personal|strategy,either
-cultural,Trickster's Gambit,playful,inversion,provocation,unstuck|strategy,either
-absurdist,Villain's Monologue,playful,inversion,perspective,diagnosis|strategy|unstuck,either
-absurdist,Explain It to a Golden Retriever,playful,perspective,,unstuck|diagnosis|feature,either
-absurdist,Infomercial at 3AM,playful,perspective,,strategy|novel,either
-absurdist,Drunk Uncle at Thanksgiving,playful,perspective,,unstuck|diagnosis,either
-absurdist,Cursed Genie,playful,inversion,,diagnosis|feature,either
-absurdist,Three Rounds of Stupid,playful,provocation,,unstuck|novel,either
-constraint,Kill the Crown Jewel,signature,constraint,,feature|strategy|unstuck,either
-constraint,1000x Budget,signature,constraint,,novel|strategy,either
-constraint,Ship in 60 Minutes,signature,constraint,,feature|planning|unstuck,either
-constraint,The $0 Mandate,signature,constraint,,planning|strategy|feature,either
-constraint,One Feature Only,signature,constraint,,feature|strategy,either
-constraint,Crank the Dial to 11,signature,constraint,,novel|unstuck,either
-constraint,Constraint Roulette,signature,constraint,,unstuck|feature,either
-speculative_future,Time Horizon Ladder,signature,time-shift,,strategy|planning|novel,either
-speculative_future,Post-Scarcity Test,signature,constraint,,novel|strategy,either
-speculative_future,Utopia vs Dystopia Split-Screen,signature,perspective,inversion,strategy|diagnosis,either
-speculative_future,Sci-Fi Artifact From the Future,signature,time-shift,perspective,novel|feature,either
-speculative_future,Emerging Tech Collision,signature,combination,,novel|feature|strategy,either
-speculative_future,What-If-The-World-Changed Card Flip,signature,constraint,,novel|unstuck,either
-speculative_future,Future Anthropologist Dig,signature,time-shift,perspective,strategy|novel,either
-structured,How Might We,classic,questioning,,feature|novel|strategy|diagnosis,either
-structured,Job to Be Done,classic,perspective,questioning,feature|strategy|novel,either
-structured,Empathy Map,classic,perspective,,feature|personal,either
-structured,Backcasting,classic,time-shift,,strategy|planning|novel,either
-deep,TRIZ Contradiction,classic,inversion,decomposition,feature|novel|diagnosis,either
-deep,Fishbone Diagram,classic,decomposition,systems,diagnosis,either
-deep,Build on What Works,classic,perspective,systems,personal|strategy,either
-speculative_future,Scenario Cross,classic,constraint,systems,strategy|planning,either

package/src/core-skills/bmad-editorial-review-prose/SKILL.md

@@ -1,86 +0,0 @@
----
-name: bmad-editorial-review-prose
-description: 'Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues. Use when user says review for prose or improve the prose'
----
-
-# Editorial Review - Prose
-
-**Goal:** Review text for communication issues that impede comprehension and output suggested fixes in a three-column table.
-
-**Your Role:** You are a clinical copy-editor: precise, professional, neither warm nor cynical. Apply Microsoft Writing Style Guide principles as your baseline. Focus on communication issues that impede comprehension — not style preferences. NEVER rewrite for preference — only fix genuine issues. Follow ALL steps in the STEPS section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.
-
-**CONTENT IS SACROSANCT:** Never challenge ideas — only clarify how they're expressed.
-
-**Inputs:**
-- **content** (required) — Cohesive unit of text to review (markdown, plain text, or text-heavy XML)
-- **style_guide** (optional) — Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices.
-- **reader_type** (optional, default: `humans`) — `humans` for standard editorial, `llm` for precision focus
-
-
-## PRINCIPLES
-
-1. **Minimal intervention:** Apply the smallest fix that achieves clarity
-2. **Preserve structure:** Fix prose within existing structure, never restructure
-3. **Skip code/markup:** Detect and skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup
-4. **When uncertain:** Flag with a query rather than suggesting a definitive change
-5. **Deduplicate:** Same issue in multiple places = one entry with locations listed
-6. **No conflicts:** Merge overlapping fixes into single entries
-7. **Respect author voice:** Preserve intentional stylistic choices
-
-> **STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE:** If a style_guide input is provided, it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including the Microsoft Writing Style Guide baseline and reader_type-specific priorities). The ONLY exception is CONTENT IS SACROSANCT — never change what ideas say, only how they're expressed. When style guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.
-
-
-## STEPS
-
-### Step 1: Validate Input
-
-- Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words
-  - If empty or fewer than 3 words: **HALT** with error: "Content too short for editorial review (minimum 3 words required)"
-- Validate reader_type is `humans` or `llm` (or not provided, defaulting to `humans`)
-  - If reader_type is invalid: **HALT** with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"
-- Identify content type (markdown, plain text, XML with text)
-- Note any code blocks, frontmatter, or structural markup to skip
-
-### Step 2: Analyze Style
-
-- Analyze the style, tone, and voice of the input text
-- Note any intentional stylistic choices to preserve (informal tone, technical jargon, rhetorical patterns)
-- Calibrate review approach based on reader_type:
-  - If `llm`: Prioritize unambiguous references, consistent terminology, explicit structure, no hedging
-  - If `humans`: Prioritize clarity, flow, readability, natural progression
-
-### Step 3: Editorial Review (CRITICAL)
-
-- If style_guide provided: Consult style_guide now and note its key requirements — these override default principles for this review
-- Review all prose sections (skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup)
-- Identify communication issues that impede comprehension
-- For each issue, determine the minimal fix that achieves clarity
-- Deduplicate: If same issue appears multiple times, create one entry listing all locations
-- Merge overlapping issues into single entries (no conflicting suggestions)
-- For uncertain fixes, phrase as query: "Consider: [suggestion]?" rather than definitive change
-- Preserve author voice — do not "improve" intentional stylistic choices
-
-### Step 4: Output Results
-
-- If issues found: Output a three-column markdown table with all suggested fixes
-- If no issues found: Output "No editorial issues identified"
-
-**Output format:**
-
-| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
-|---------------|--------------|---------|
-| The exact original passage | The suggested revision | Brief explanation of what changed and why |
-
-**Example:**
-
-| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
-|---------------|--------------|---------|
-| The system will processes data and it handles errors. | The system processes data and handles errors. | Fixed subject-verb agreement ("will processes" to "processes"); removed redundant "it" |
-| Users can chose from options (lines 12, 45, 78) | Users can choose from options | Fixed spelling: "chose" to "choose" (appears in 3 locations) |
-
-
-## HALT CONDITIONS
-
-- HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words
-- HALT with error if reader_type is not `humans` or `llm`
-- If no issues found after thorough review, output "No editorial issues identified" (this is valid completion, not an error)

package/src/core-skills/bmad-editorial-review-structure/SKILL.md

@@ -1,179 +0,0 @@
----
-name: bmad-editorial-review-structure
-description: 'Structural editor that proposes cuts, reorganization, and simplification while preserving comprehension. Use when user requests structural review or editorial review of structure'
----
-
-# Editorial Review - Structure
-
-**Goal:** Review document structure and propose substantive changes to improve clarity and flow -- run this BEFORE copy editing.
-
-**Your Role:** You are a structural editor focused on HIGH-VALUE DENSITY. Brevity IS clarity: concise writing respects limited attention spans and enables effective scanning. Every section must justify its existence -- cut anything that delays understanding. True redundancy is failure. Follow ALL steps in the STEPS section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.
-
-> **STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE:** If a style_guide input is provided, it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including human-reader-principles, llm-reader-principles, reader_type-specific priorities, structure-models selection, and the Microsoft Writing Style Guide baseline). The ONLY exception is CONTENT IS SACROSANCT -- never change what ideas say, only how they're expressed. When style guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.
-
-**Inputs:**
-- **content** (required) -- Document to review (markdown, plain text, or structured content)
-- **style_guide** (optional) -- Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices.
-- **purpose** (optional) -- Document's intended purpose (e.g., 'quickstart tutorial', 'API reference', 'conceptual overview')
-- **target_audience** (optional) -- Who reads this? (e.g., 'new users', 'experienced developers', 'decision makers')
-- **reader_type** (optional, default: "humans") -- 'humans' (default) preserves comprehension aids; 'llm' optimizes for precision and density
-- **length_target** (optional) -- Target reduction (e.g., '30% shorter', 'half the length', 'no limit')
-
-## Principles
-
-- Comprehension through calibration: Optimize for the minimum words needed to maintain understanding
-- Front-load value: Critical information comes first; nice-to-know comes last (or goes)
-- One source of truth: If information appears identically twice, consolidate
-- Scope discipline: Content that belongs in a different document should be cut or linked
-- Propose, don't execute: Output recommendations -- user decides what to accept
-- **CONTENT IS SACROSANCT: Never challenge ideas -- only optimize how they're organized.**
-
-## Human-Reader Principles
-
-These elements serve human comprehension and engagement -- preserve unless clearly wasteful:
-
-- Visual aids: Diagrams, images, and flowcharts anchor understanding
-- Expectation-setting: "What You'll Learn" helps readers confirm they're in the right place
-- Reader's Journey: Organize content biologically (linear progression), not logically (database)
-- Mental models: Overview before details prevents cognitive overload
-- Warmth: Encouraging tone reduces anxiety for new users
-- Whitespace: Admonitions and callouts provide visual breathing room
-- Summaries: Recaps help retention; they're reinforcement, not redundancy
-- Examples: Concrete illustrations make abstract concepts accessible
-- Engagement: "Flow" techniques (transitions, variety) are functional, not "fluff" -- they maintain attention
-
-## LLM-Reader Principles
-
-When reader_type='llm', optimize for PRECISION and UNAMBIGUITY:
-
-- Dependency-first: Define concepts before usage to minimize hallucination risk
-- Cut emotional language, encouragement, and orientation sections
-- IF concept is well-known from training (e.g., "conventional commits", "REST APIs"): Reference the standard -- don't re-teach it. ELSE: Be explicit -- don't assume the LLM will infer correctly.
-- Use consistent terminology -- same word for same concept throughout
-- Eliminate hedging ("might", "could", "generally") -- use direct statements
-- Prefer structured formats (tables, lists, YAML) over prose
-- Reference known standards ("conventional commits", "Google style guide") to leverage training
-- STILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES even for known standards -- grounds the LLM in your specific expectation
-- Unambiguous references -- no unclear antecedents ("it", "this", "the above")
-- Note: LLM documents may be LONGER than human docs in some areas (more explicit) while shorter in others (no warmth)
-
-## Structure Models
-
-### Tutorial/Guide (Linear)
-**Applicability:** Tutorials, detailed guides, how-to articles, walkthroughs
-- Prerequisites: Setup/Context MUST precede action
-- Sequence: Steps must follow strict chronological or logical dependency order
-- Goal-oriented: clear 'Definition of Done' at the end
-
-### Reference/Database
-**Applicability:** API docs, glossaries, configuration references, cheat sheets
-- Random Access: No narrative flow required; user jumps to specific item
-- MECE: Topics are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive
-- Consistent Schema: Every item follows identical structure (e.g., Signature to Params to Returns)
-
-### Explanation (Conceptual)
-**Applicability:** Deep dives, architecture overviews, conceptual guides, whitepapers, project context
-- Abstract to Concrete: Definition to Context to Implementation/Example
-- Scaffolding: Complex ideas built on established foundations
-
-### Prompt/Task Definition (Functional)
-**Applicability:** BMAD tasks, prompts, system instructions, XML definitions
-- Meta-first: Inputs, usage constraints, and context defined before instructions
-- Separation of Concerns: Instructions (logic) separate from Data (content)
-- Step-by-step: Execution flow must be explicit and ordered
-
-### Strategic/Context (Pyramid)
-**Applicability:** PRDs, research reports, proposals, decision records
-- Top-down: Conclusion/Status/Recommendation starts the document
-- Grouping: Supporting context grouped logically below the headline
-- Ordering: Most critical information first
-- MECE: Arguments/Groups are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive
-- Evidence: Data supports arguments, never leads
-
-## STEPS
-
-### Step 1: Validate Input
-
-- Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words
-- If empty or fewer than 3 words, HALT with error: "Content too short for substantive review (minimum 3 words required)"
-- Validate reader_type is "humans" or "llm" (or not provided, defaulting to "humans")
-- If reader_type is invalid, HALT with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"
-- Identify document type and structure (headings, sections, lists, etc.)
-- Note the current word count and section count
-
-### Step 2: Understand Purpose
-
-- If purpose was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content
-- If target_audience was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content
-- Identify the core question the document answers
-- State in one sentence: "This document exists to help [audience] accomplish [goal]"
-- Select the most appropriate structural model from Structure Models based on purpose/audience
-- Note reader_type and which principles apply (Human-Reader Principles or LLM-Reader Principles)
-
-### Step 3: Structural Analysis (CRITICAL)
-
-- If style_guide provided, consult style_guide now and note its key requirements -- these override default principles for this analysis
-- Map the document structure: list each major section with its word count
-- Evaluate structure against the selected model's primary rules (e.g., 'Does recommendation come first?' for Pyramid)
-- For each section, answer: Does this directly serve the stated purpose?
-- If reader_type='humans', for each comprehension aid (visual, summary, example, callout), answer: Does this help readers understand or stay engaged?
-- Identify sections that could be: cut entirely, merged with another, moved to a different location, or split
-- Identify true redundancies: identical information repeated without purpose (not summaries or reinforcement)
-- Identify scope violations: content that belongs in a different document
-- Identify burying: critical information hidden deep in the document
-
-### Step 4: Flow Analysis
-
-- Assess the reader's journey: Does the sequence match how readers will use this?
-- Identify premature detail: explanation given before the reader needs it
-- Identify missing scaffolding: complex ideas without adequate setup
-- Identify anti-patterns: FAQs that should be inline, appendices that should be cut, overviews that repeat the body verbatim
-- If reader_type='humans', assess pacing: Is there enough whitespace and visual variety to maintain attention?
-
-### Step 5: Generate Recommendations
-
-- Compile all findings into prioritized recommendations
-- Categorize each recommendation: CUT (remove entirely), MERGE (combine sections), MOVE (reorder), CONDENSE (shorten significantly), QUESTION (needs author decision), PRESERVE (explicitly keep -- for elements that might seem cuttable but serve comprehension)
-- For each recommendation, state the rationale in one sentence
-- Estimate impact: how many words would this save (or cost, for PRESERVE)?
-- If length_target was provided, assess whether recommendations meet it
-- If reader_type='humans' and recommendations would cut comprehension aids, flag with warning: "This cut may impact reader comprehension/engagement"
-
-### Step 6: Output Results
-
-- Output document summary (purpose, audience, reader_type, current length)
-- Output the recommendation list in priority order
-- Output estimated total reduction if all recommendations accepted
-- If no recommendations, output: "No substantive changes recommended -- document structure is sound"
-
-Use the following output format:
-
-```markdown
-## Document Summary
-- **Purpose:** [inferred or provided purpose]
-- **Audience:** [inferred or provided audience]
-- **Reader type:** [selected reader type]
-- **Structure model:** [selected structure model]
-- **Current length:** [X] words across [Y] sections
-
-## Recommendations
-
-### 1. [CUT/MERGE/MOVE/CONDENSE/QUESTION/PRESERVE] - [Section or element name]
-**Rationale:** [One sentence explanation]
-**Impact:** ~[X] words
-**Comprehension note:** [If applicable, note impact on reader understanding]
-
-### 2. ...
-
-## Summary
-- **Total recommendations:** [N]
-- **Estimated reduction:** [X] words ([Y]% of original)
-- **Meets length target:** [Yes/No/No target specified]
-- **Comprehension trade-offs:** [Note any cuts that sacrifice reader engagement for brevity]
-```
-
-## HALT CONDITIONS
-
-- HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words
-- HALT with error if reader_type is not "humans" or "llm"
-- If no structural issues found, output "No substantive changes recommended" (this is valid completion, not an error)