bmad-method 6.9.1-next.2 → 6.9.1-next.20

package/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-investigate/SKILL.md

@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
----
-name: bmad-investigate
-description: Forensic case investigation with evidence-graded findings, calibrated to the input. Use when the user asks to investigate a bug, trace what caused an incident, walk through unfamiliar code, or build a mental model of a code area before working on it.
----
-
-# Investigate
-
-## Overview
-
-Reconstruct what's happening, or what an unfamiliar area does, from the available evidence. Produce a structured case
-file another engineer can pick up cold. Calibrate continuously between defect-chasing (symptom-driven) and
-area-exploration (no symptom); the same discipline applies on both ends.
-
-**Args:** A ticket ID, log file path, diagnostic archive, error message, code area name, problem description, or a path
-to an existing case file. The last form resumes a prior investigation; everything else opens a new case.
-
-**Output:** `{implementation_artifacts}/{workflow.case_file_subdir}/{workflow.case_file_filename}`. Reference inputs
-are recorded; raw content is not read into the parent context until an outcome calls for it.
-
-`{slug}` is the ticket ID when one is provided, otherwise a short descriptive name agreed with the user, sanitized to
-lowercase alphanumeric with hyphens. On collision with an existing case file at the resolved path, ask whether to
-rename to `slug-YYYY-MM-DD.md` or resume the existing file (resuming routes to Outcome 0).
-
-After every outcome, present what was learned and pause for the user before continuing.
-
-## Principles
-
-- **Evidence grading.**
-  - **Confirmed.** Directly observed; cite `path:line`, log timestamp, or commit hash.
-  - **Deduced.** Logically follows from Confirmed evidence; show the chain.
-  - **Hypothesized.** Plausible but unconfirmed; state what would confirm or refute it.
-- **Stronghold first.** Anchor in one Confirmed piece of evidence and expand outward. Never start from a theory and
-  hunt for support. When evidence is sparse, switch to evidence-light mode (Outcome 1 branch).
-- **Challenge the premise.** The user's description is a hypothesis, not a fact. Verify independently; if evidence
-  contradicts, say so.
-- **Follow the evidence, not the narrative.** When evidence contradicts the working theory, update the theory — never
-  the other way around. Resist confirmation bias even when the user is convinced.
-- **Hypotheses are never deleted.** Update Status (Open / Confirmed / Refuted) and add a Resolution. Wrong turns are
-  part of the deliverable.
-- **Missing evidence is itself a finding.** Document the gap, what it would resolve, and how to obtain it.
-- **Write it down early.** Initialize the case file as soon as the slug is agreed; it is the persistent state across
-  interruptions.
-- **Path:line citations** use CWD-relative format, no leading `/`, so they're clickable in IDE-embedded terminals.
-- **Delegation discipline.** When a step requires reading 5+ files or any file >10K tokens, delegate to a subagent
-  that returns structured JSON only. Cite `path:line` from the result; don't re-read in the parent.
-- **Issue independent operations in parallel** (multi-grep, multi-read, parallel inventories) — one message, multiple
-  tool calls.
-- **Communication.** Evidence-first language ("the evidence shows", "unconfirmed, requires X to verify"). No hedging,
-  no narrative.
-
-## On Activation
-
-### Step 1: Resolve the workflow block
-
-Run: `python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow`
-
-If the script fails, stop and surface the error.
-
-### Step 2: Execute prepend steps
-
-Run each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_prepend}` in order.
-
-### Step 3: Load persistent facts
-
-Treat each entry in `{workflow.persistent_facts}` as foundational context. `file:` prefixes are paths or globs under
-`{project-root}` (load contents); other entries are facts verbatim.
-
-### Step 4: Load config
-
-Load `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` and resolve `{user_name}`, `{communication_language}`,
-`{document_output_language}`, `{implementation_artifacts}`, `{project_knowledge}`. If `{implementation_artifacts}` is
-unresolved, fall back to `./investigations/` and surface the fallback before initializing.
-
-### Step 5: Greet
-
-Greet `{user_name}` in `{communication_language}`.
-
-### Step 6: Execute append steps
-
-Run each entry in `{workflow.activation_steps_append}` in order.
-
-Activation is complete. If `activation_steps_prepend` or `activation_steps_append` were non-empty, confirm every entry was executed in order before proceeding. Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed.
-
-### Step 7: Acknowledge and route
-
-Acknowledge the input as a reference (record paths and IDs; don't read raw content). Path to an existing case file →
-Outcome 0. Otherwise → Outcome 1.
-
-## Procedure
-
-### Outcome 0: Existing case is loaded and surfaced
-
-Read the case file. Surface, in order: open hypotheses (Status = Open) with their confirm/refute criteria; open
-backlog (Status ≠ Done); missing-evidence rows; last Conclusion with confidence. Ask which thread to pull. New
-evidence opens a new `## Follow-up: {YYYY-MM-DD}` block (append `#2`, `#3` on same-day reentry). Pause for user with the recap above; wait for direction.
-
-### Outcome 1: Scope and stronghold are established
-
-Acknowledge each input shape — record location, scope, time window only; bulk reads happen in Outcome 2.
-
-- **Issue tracker ticket.** Fetch full details via available MCP tools.
-- **Diagnostic archive.** Record path, file count, time window.
-- **Log file or stack trace.** Record path and time window; only the stack frame already in the user's message is in
-  scope here.
-- **Free-text description.** Capture verbatim; treat as hypothesis.
-- **Code area name** (no symptom). Record entry point.
-- **Recent commit area.** Record commit range.
-
-If the user arrived with a hypothesis, register it as Hypothesis #1. Find the stronghold *independently*; the user's
-hypothesis is one of the things the stronghold validates or refutes.
-
-Find a stronghold: a Confirmed piece of evidence (error message, function name, HTTP route, config parameter, test
-case). Anchor here.
-
-**Initialize `{case_file}` before branching.** The path is
-`{implementation_artifacts}/{workflow.case_file_subdir}/{workflow.case_file_filename}` with `{slug}` substituted (slug
-and collision rules in Overview). Create the file from `{workflow.case_file_template}` and fill Hand-off Brief
-(rough), Case Info, Problem Statement, initial Evidence Inventory.
-
-**Evidence-light branch.** When no Confirmed evidence is reachable: mark the case evidence-light in the Hand-off
-Brief; populate the Investigation Backlog with prioritized data-collection items; record "to make progress, I need one
-of: …"; pause for the user to provide evidence or authorize Outcome 2 to scan more broadly.
-
-Otherwise present scope, stronghold, file path, proposed approach. Pause for user with the recap above; wait for direction.
-
-### Outcome 2: Evidence perimeter is mapped
-
-Survey the scene: inventory available evidence in parallel across these independent categories: diagnostic archives;
-issue tracker; version control; test results; static analysis; source code. For any category exceeding ~10K tokens,
-delegate to a subagent that returns a JSON manifest (paths, sizes, time windows, key fragments cited as `path:line`).
-
-Classify each Available, Partial, or Missing — Missing is itself a finding. Update Evidence Inventory and Investigation
-Backlog. Pause for user with the recap above; wait for direction.
-
-### Outcome 3: Cause is reasoned about with discipline
-
-- **Trace causality.** Symptom-driven: trace backward from the symptom to producing conditions and the state that
-  emerged. Exploration: trace backward from outputs (returns, side effects, messages sent) to producing conditions.
-  Same technique, different anchor.
-- **Reconstruct the timeline** by cross-referencing logs, system events, version control, user observations.
-- **Form and test hypotheses.** State, identify confirming/refuting evidence, search, grade
-  (Confirmed / Refuted / Open). Update Status. Never delete.
-- **Refutation pass.** Each time a hypothesis transitions toward Confirmed, actively look for refuting evidence first.
-  Record the attempt in Resolution.
-- **Verify the user's premise.** If evidence contradicts, say so explicitly.
-- **Add discovered paths to the backlog.** Stay focused on the current thread.
-
-Update Confirmed Findings, Deduced Conclusions, Hypothesized Paths, Backlog, Timeline. Highlight contradictions to the
-original premise. Pause for user with the recap above; wait for direction.
-
-### Outcome 4: Source has been traced where it matters
-
-Issue these first-pass scans as parallel tool calls in one message: grep for exact error strings; glob the affected
-directory for parallel implementations; `git log` for recent changes.
-
-Then sequentially: read the surrounding code; follow the caller chain; watch for language and process boundary
-crossings (compiled→scripts, IPC, host→device, configuration flow).
-
-Lean by case type:
-
-- **Exploration:** I/O mapping (triggers, outputs, dependencies); frequent-terms scan; control-flow filtering
-  (branches, loops, error handling, state-machine transitions).
-- **Symptom-driven:** depth assessment — is the root cause reachable from local context, or is a broader area model
-  required? Surface escalations; never silently expand scope. Trivial-fix assessment — off-by-one, missing null check,
-  swapped argument → one-line code suggestion or draft diff in the report; non-trivial → stop at the root cause area.
-
-Investigation stops at the diagnosis; implementation is out of scope. Update Source Code Trace (Error origin, Trigger,
-Condition, Related files; area model when broader). Pause for user with the recap above; wait for direction.
-
-### Outcome 5: Report is finalized and the hand-off is clean
-
-Update `{case_file}`:
-
-- **Hand-off Brief** rewritten to final form (3 sentences, 15-second read).
-- **Final Conclusion** with confidence: **High** (Confirmed root cause, deterministic repro), **Medium** (Deduced;
-  minor uncertainty), **Low** (Hypothesized; clear data gap).
-- **Fix direction** when applicable (categorize by mechanism if multiple combine).
-- **Diagnostic steps** if uncertainty remains.
-- **Reproduction Plan** when applicable, or a verification plan for exploration cases.
-- **Status:** Active / Concluded / Blocked on evidence.
-
-Present the conclusion, then a concrete next-steps menu: trivial fix → `bmad-quick-dev`; scope/plan adjustment →
-`bmad-correct-course`; tracked story → `bmad-create-story`; fresh review → `bmad-code-review`. Recommend the
-highest-value action. Mitigations and workarounds are generated only on explicit request — investigation stops at the
-diagnosis. Execute `{workflow.on_complete}` if non-empty. Pause for user with the recap above; wait for direction.
-
-## Follow-up Iterations
-
-Continue work by appending to `{case_file}` under a new `## Follow-up: {YYYY-MM-DD}` block (`#2`, `#3` on same-day
-reentry). The investigation is complete when:
-
-- Root cause is Confirmed.
-- Root cause is Hypothesized with a clear data gap.
-- The mental model is sufficient for the user's stated goal (exploration cases).
-- The backlog contains only items requiring unavailable evidence.
-- The user explicitly concludes.

package/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-investigate/customize.toml

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-# DO NOT EDIT -- overwritten on every update.
-#
-# Workflow customization surface for bmad-investigate. Mirrors the
-# agent customization shape under the [workflow] namespace.
-
-[workflow]
-
-# --- Configurable below. Overrides merge per BMad structural rules: ---
-#   scalars: override wins • arrays (persistent_facts, activation_steps_*): append
-#   arrays-of-tables with `code`/`id`: replace matching items, append new ones.
-
-# Steps to run before the standard activation (config load, greet).
-# Overrides append. Use for pre-flight loads, compliance checks, etc.
-
-activation_steps_prepend = []
-
-# Steps to run after greet but before the workflow begins.
-# Overrides append. Use for context-heavy setup that should happen
-# once the user has been acknowledged.
-
-activation_steps_append = []
-
-# Persistent facts the workflow keeps in mind for the whole run.
-# Use for citation conventions (path:line vs path#L42), grading-scale
-# overrides (ITIL severity 1-5 instead of High/Medium/Low), tone
-# directives (engineering vs exec-facing), or compliance constraints
-# the case file must respect.
-# Distinct from the runtime memory sidecar — these are static context
-# loaded on activation. Overrides append.
-#
-# Each entry is either:
-#   - a literal sentence, e.g. "Use ITIL severity 1-5 instead of High/Medium/Low for confidence."
-#   - a file reference prefixed with `file:`, e.g. "file:{project-root}/docs/standards.md"
-#     (glob patterns are supported; the file's contents are loaded and treated as facts).
-
-persistent_facts = [
-  "file:{project-root}/**/project-context.md",
-]
-
-# Scalar: path to the case-file template, resolved from the skill root.
-# Override to point at an org-shaped template (compliance sections,
-# SLA fields, post-mortem hooks, ITIL fields).
-
-case_file_template = "references/case-file-template.md"
-
-# Scalar: subdirectory under {implementation_artifacts} where case files land.
-# Override for org taxonomies (forensics/, cases/, incidents/, bug-bash/).
-
-case_file_subdir = "investigations"
-
-# Scalar: filename pattern for new case files. {slug} expands to the
-# ticket ID or a short user-agreed name.
-
-case_file_filename = "{slug}-investigation.md"
-
-# Scalar: executed when the workflow finalizes the case file at Outcome 5,
-# after the conclusion is presented. Override wins. Use for post-case
-# automation: post the case to Slack/Teams, push fields back to ticketing,
-# link the case to a sprint, trigger a follow-up retro.
-# Leave empty for no custom post-completion behavior.
-
-on_complete = ""

package/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-investigate/references/case-file-template.md

@@ -1,127 +0,0 @@
-# Investigation: {title}
-
-## Hand-off Brief
-
-1. **What happened.** {one-sentence problem statement, evidence-graded}
-2. **Where the case stands.** {status, last finding, what would unblock progress}
-3. **What's needed next.** {single recommended action with rationale}
-
-## Case Info
-
-| Field            | Value                                                                      |
-| ---------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| Ticket           | {ticket-id or "N/A"}                                                       |
-| Date opened      | {date}                                                                     |
-| Status           | Active                                                                     |
-| System           | {OS, version, relevant environment details}                                |
-| Evidence sources | {diagnostic archive, logs, crash dump, code, version control, etc.}        |
-
-## Problem Statement
-
-{User-reported description; the initial claim. May be refined or contradicted by evidence.}
-
-## Evidence Inventory
-
-| Source   | Status                          | Notes     |
-| -------- | ------------------------------- | --------- |
-| {source} | {Available / Partial / Missing} | {details} |
-
-## Investigation Backlog
-
-| # | Path to Explore | Priority              | Status                                | Notes     |
-| - | --------------- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------- | --------- |
-| 1 | {description}   | {High / Medium / Low} | {Open / In Progress / Done / Blocked} | {context} |
-
-## Timeline of Events
-
-| Time        | Event               | Source                | Confidence            |
-| ----------- | ------------------- | --------------------- | --------------------- |
-| {timestamp} | {event description} | {log file, commit, …} | {Confirmed / Deduced} |
-
-## Confirmed Findings
-
-### Finding 1: {title}
-
-**Evidence:** {citation — `path:line`, log timestamp, or commit hash}
-
-**Detail:** {description}
-
-## Deduced Conclusions
-
-### Deduction 1: {title}
-
-**Based on:** {which Confirmed Findings}
-
-**Reasoning:** {logical chain}
-
-**Conclusion:** {what follows}
-
-## Hypothesized Paths
-
-### Hypothesis 1: {title}
-
-**Status:** {Open / Confirmed / Refuted}
-
-**Theory:** {description}
-
-**Supporting indicators:** {what makes this plausible}
-
-**Would confirm:** {specific evidence that would prove this}
-
-**Would refute:** {specific evidence that would disprove this}
-
-**Resolution:** {when Status changes from Open, what evidence settled it}
-
-## Missing Evidence
-
-| Gap              | Impact                               | How to Obtain   |
-| ---------------- | ------------------------------------ | --------------- |
-| {what's missing} | {what it would confirm or eliminate} | {how to get it} |
-
-## Source Code Trace
-
-| Element       | Detail                                      |
-| ------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
-| Error origin  | {file:line, function name}                  |
-| Trigger       | {what causes this code to execute}          |
-| Condition     | {what state produces the observed behavior} |
-| Related files | {other files in the same code path}         |
-
-## Conclusion
-
-**Confidence:** {High / Medium / Low}
-
-{Summary stating what is Confirmed vs. what remains Hypothesized. If a root cause is identified, state it; otherwise
-name the most promising hypothesized paths and what would resolve the remaining uncertainty.}
-
-## Recommended Next Steps
-
-### Fix direction
-
-{What needs to change and why. Categorize by mechanism when multiple issues combine.}
-
-### Diagnostic
-
-{Steps to confirm the root cause: additional logging, targeted tests, data to collect.}
-
-## Reproduction Plan
-
-{Setup, trigger, expected results. Scale from isolated proof to full system reproduction.}
-
-## Side Findings
-
-Tangential observations surfaced during the investigation, evidence-graded, with citation when applicable.
-
-- {observation}
-
-## Follow-up: {date}
-
-### New Evidence
-
-### Additional Findings
-
-### Updated Hypotheses
-
-### Backlog Changes
-
-### Updated Conclusion