bmad-method 6.9.1-next.15 → 6.9.1-next.17
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.
package/package.json
CHANGED
|
@@ -41,30 +41,32 @@ num,category,method_name,description,output_pattern
|
|
|
41
41
|
40,creative,Genre Mashup,Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination,domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
|
|
42
42
|
41,creative,Constraint Injection,Deliberately add an artificial limitation (budget - time - technology) to force novel solutions — creativity thrives under pressure,add constraint → forced creativity → remove constraint → evaluate
|
|
43
43
|
42,creative,Morphological Analysis,List independent parameters of a problem - enumerate options for each - then systematically combine — ensures you don't miss non-obvious configurations,parameters → options grid → combinations → evaluation
|
|
44
|
-
43,
|
|
45
|
-
44,framing,
|
|
46
|
-
45,framing,
|
|
47
|
-
46,
|
|
48
|
-
47,
|
|
49
|
-
48,learning,
|
|
50
|
-
49,
|
|
51
|
-
50,
|
|
52
|
-
51,
|
|
53
|
-
52,
|
|
54
|
-
53,research,
|
|
55
|
-
54,research,
|
|
56
|
-
55,
|
|
57
|
-
56,
|
|
58
|
-
57,
|
|
59
|
-
58,
|
|
60
|
-
59,risk,
|
|
61
|
-
60,risk,
|
|
62
|
-
61,risk,
|
|
63
|
-
62,risk,
|
|
64
|
-
63,risk,
|
|
65
|
-
64,
|
|
66
|
-
65,
|
|
67
|
-
66,technical,
|
|
68
|
-
67,technical,
|
|
69
|
-
68,technical,
|
|
70
|
-
69,technical,
|
|
44
|
+
43,creative,Subtraction,Improve by deliberately removing elements instead of adding them - counters the well-documented additive bias where people overlook subtractive changes that would simplify and strengthen the work,current state → what to remove → simplified result
|
|
45
|
+
44,framing,Abstraction Laddering,"Move up (""why?"") for strategic clarity or down (""how?"") for tactical detail — ensures you're solving at the right altitude",concrete ↔ abstract → right level
|
|
46
|
+
45,framing,Reframe the Question,Challenge whether the stated problem is the real problem — often the question itself is wrong and a better framing unlocks an easy answer,stated problem → reframe → true problem → solution
|
|
47
|
+
46,framing,Stakeholder Lens Rotation,Serially adopt each stakeholder's world-view to see the same situation differently — reveals whose needs are being overlooked,perspective A → B → C → gaps found
|
|
48
|
+
47,framing,Map Is Not the Territory,Treat any model or diagram as a lossy abstraction of reality - check where the representation diverges from the real system before trusting it,model → reality check → divergences found → corrected understanding
|
|
49
|
+
48,learning,Feynman Technique,Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding,complex → simple → gaps → mastery
|
|
50
|
+
49,learning,Active Recall Testing,Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps,test → gaps → reinforcement
|
|
51
|
+
50,learning,Deliberate Practice Loop,Identify a specific sub-skill - drill it with immediate feedback - adjust - repeat — targeted improvement beats general repetition,isolate → drill → feedback → adjust → repeat
|
|
52
|
+
51,philosophical,Occam's Razor Application,Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging,options → simplification → selection
|
|
53
|
+
52,philosophical,Trolley Problem Variations,Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions,dilemma → analysis → decision
|
|
54
|
+
53,research,Literature Review Personas,Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality,sources → critiques → synthesis
|
|
55
|
+
54,research,Thesis Defense Simulation,Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions,thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
|
|
56
|
+
55,research,Comparative Analysis Matrix,Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring,options → criteria → scores → recommendation
|
|
57
|
+
56,research,Source Triangulation,Require at least three independent source types (quantitative - qualitative - expert) before accepting a claim — guards against single-source bias,claim → source A → source B → source C → confidence rating
|
|
58
|
+
57,retrospective,Hindsight Reflection,Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews,future view → insights → application
|
|
59
|
+
58,retrospective,Lessons Learned Extraction,Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement,experience → lessons → actions
|
|
60
|
+
59,risk,Pre-mortem Analysis,Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches,failure scenario → causes → prevention
|
|
61
|
+
60,risk,Failure Mode Analysis,Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems,components → failures → prevention
|
|
62
|
+
61,risk,Challenge from Critical Perspective,Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink,assumptions → challenges → strengthening
|
|
63
|
+
62,risk,Identify Potential Risks,Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation,categories → risks → mitigations
|
|
64
|
+
63,risk,Chaos Monkey Scenarios,Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully,break → observe → harden
|
|
65
|
+
64,risk,Assumption Audit,Explicitly list every assumption underlying a plan - rate each by confidence and impact - then stress-test the weakest — prevents building on shaky foundations,list → rate → stress-test → shore up
|
|
66
|
+
65,risk,Cascading Failure Simulation,Trace how one component's failure propagates through dependencies — reveals hidden coupling and single points of failure,trigger failure → trace propagation → find amplifiers → decouple
|
|
67
|
+
66,technical,Architecture Decision Records,Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented,options → trade-offs → decision → rationale
|
|
68
|
+
67,technical,Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved,Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels,simple → detailed → technical → aha
|
|
69
|
+
68,technical,Algorithm Olympics,Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison,implementations → benchmarks → winner
|
|
70
|
+
69,technical,Security Audit Personas,Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles,vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
|
|
71
|
+
70,technical,Performance Profiler Panel,Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack,symptoms → analysis → optimizations
|
|
72
|
+
71,technical,Boundary & Edge Case Sweep,Systematically test extremes - zeros - nulls - maximums - and type mismatches — catches the failures that happy-path thinking always misses,inputs → boundaries → edge cases → failures found
|
|
@@ -87,8 +87,9 @@ on_complete = ""
|
|
|
87
87
|
# woven into their spawn prompt as guidance, not a hard tool grant
|
|
88
88
|
# model (optional) model to use when this member is spawned
|
|
89
89
|
#
|
|
90
|
-
# The members below ship the "Code Review Crew"
|
|
91
|
-
#
|
|
90
|
+
# The members below ship built-in parties such as the "Code Review Crew" and
|
|
91
|
+
# "Anti-Consensus Club" (see the party_groups section). They cost nothing until
|
|
92
|
+
# summoned — the default room never includes them.
|
|
92
93
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
93
94
|
|
|
94
95
|
[[workflow.party_members]]
|
|
@@ -127,6 +128,34 @@ icon = "🚢"
|
|
|
127
128
|
title = "The Pragmatist"
|
|
128
129
|
persona = "Counters the perfectionists so the room isn't a pile-on. 'Does this actually matter to a user? Ship the 80%, file the rest.' Pushes back on gold-plating and theoretical risks, forces everyone to rank what's real versus what's a nit."
|
|
129
130
|
|
|
131
|
+
[[workflow.party_members]]
|
|
132
|
+
code = "option-generator"
|
|
133
|
+
name = "Wildcard"
|
|
134
|
+
icon = "🃏"
|
|
135
|
+
title = "Option Generator"
|
|
136
|
+
persona = "Wildcard looks for options the room has not considered. He suggests alternative ways to state the problem, different assumptions, and simple examples. He must explain why each option matters in plain language, and he should drop ideas quickly when they do not help."
|
|
137
|
+
|
|
138
|
+
[[workflow.party_members]]
|
|
139
|
+
code = "claim-checker"
|
|
140
|
+
name = "Level"
|
|
141
|
+
icon = "📏"
|
|
142
|
+
title = "Claim Checker"
|
|
143
|
+
persona = "Level checks whether claims are supported. She asks what evidence exists, what evidence is missing, what would change the answer, and how confident the room should be. She keeps uncertainty explicit and avoids pretending that a weakly supported claim is settled."
|
|
144
|
+
|
|
145
|
+
[[workflow.party_members]]
|
|
146
|
+
code = "loop-stopper"
|
|
147
|
+
name = "Killjoy"
|
|
148
|
+
icon = "🛑"
|
|
149
|
+
title = "Loop Stopper"
|
|
150
|
+
persona = "Killjoy stops the discussion when it stops producing value. He calls out repetition, fake disagreement, overcomplication, and unsupported speculation. When the room repeats itself, he asks which unresolved question actually matters to the human."
|
|
151
|
+
|
|
152
|
+
[[workflow.party_members]]
|
|
153
|
+
code = "consensus-challenger"
|
|
154
|
+
name = "Splinter"
|
|
155
|
+
icon = "🪵"
|
|
156
|
+
title = "Consensus Challenger"
|
|
157
|
+
persona = "Splinter challenges easy agreement. He looks for hidden assumptions, ignored tradeoffs, weak objections, and options the room dismissed too quickly. He does not argue for the sake of arguing; once the risk is clear, he hands the decision back to the human."
|
|
158
|
+
|
|
130
159
|
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
131
160
|
# Named party groups — curated rooms picked at runtime with `--party <id>`
|
|
132
161
|
# (alias `--group <id>`) or switched to mid-session. Keyed by `id`.
|
|
@@ -173,3 +202,10 @@ name = "Code Review Crew"
|
|
|
173
202
|
scene = "Adversarial code review. Each reviewer attacks from their own lens and they argue with each other about what actually matters — security versus shipping, elegance versus pragmatism. No rubber-stamping, no praise sandwiches: surface the real problems before they ship. Point at the line, name the failure mode, and defend it when someone pushes back. Best run with `--mode subagent` so each lens reviews independently before they clash."
|
|
174
203
|
members = ["sec-hawk", "adversary", "edge-hunter", "craftsman", "shipper"]
|
|
175
204
|
memory = false # each review stands on its own; flip to true to remember past reviews
|
|
205
|
+
|
|
206
|
+
[[workflow.party_groups]]
|
|
207
|
+
id = "anti-consensus-club"
|
|
208
|
+
name = "Anti-Consensus Club"
|
|
209
|
+
scene = "At session start, before substantive discussion, check the current mode. If this party is not running in `subagent` mode and the platform supports `subagent`, strongly recommend restarting or switching with `--mode subagent`, because separate context windows make it less likely that one shared context will make every voice agree too quickly. Do not nag after that once the user chooses to continue. This room supports the human's judgment; it does not replace it. Do not vote, declare consensus, or speak as if the room has authority. Wildcard suggests more options. Level checks evidence and confidence. Killjoy stops repeated or unsupported discussion. Splinter challenges easy agreement. If the room agrees too quickly, name the hidden assumption. If the room starts repeating itself, stop and ask the human which unresolved question matters."
|
|
210
|
+
members = ["option-generator", "claim-checker", "loop-stopper", "consensus-challenger"]
|
|
211
|
+
memory = false # this decision room should start fresh unless a user opts in
|