bmad-method 6.9.1-next.5 → 6.9.1-next.7

package/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json

@@ -63,7 +63,6 @@
         "./src/bmm-skills/3-solutioning/bmad-create-epics-and-stories",
         "./src/bmm-skills/3-solutioning/bmad-generate-project-context",
         "./src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-agent-dev",
-        "./src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-investigate",
         "./src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-dev-story",
         "./src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev",
         "./src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-checkpoint-preview",

package/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "$schema": "https://json.schemastore.org/package.json",
   "name": "bmad-method",
-  "version": "6.9.1-next.5",
+  "version": "6.9.1-next.7",
   "description": "Breakthrough Method of Agile AI-driven Development",
   "keywords": [
     "agile",

package/removals.txt

@@ -60,3 +60,6 @@ bmad-distillator
 # bmad-create-ux-design: renamed to bmad-ux (spine-based skill with separate
 # DESIGN.md and EXPERIENCE.md outputs).
 bmad-create-ux-design
+# bmad-investigate: retired. Plain investigation reaches the same conclusions at
+# lower cost.
+bmad-investigate

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

@@ -88,8 +88,3 @@ skill = "bmad-create-story"
 code = "ER"
 description = "Party mode review of all work completed across an epic"
 skill = "bmad-retrospective"
-
-[[agent.menu]]
-code = "IN"
-description = "Forensic case investigation with evidence-graded findings, calibrated to the input"
-skill = "bmad-investigate"

package/src/bmm-skills/module-help.csv

@@ -29,4 +29,3 @@ BMad Method,bmad-code-review,Code Review,CR,Story cycle: If issues back to DS if
 BMad Method,bmad-checkpoint-preview,Checkpoint,CK,Guided walkthrough of a change from purpose and context into details. Use for human review of commits branches or PRs.,,,4-implementation,,,false,,
 BMad Method,bmad-qa-generate-e2e-tests,QA Automation Test,QA,Generate automated API and E2E tests for implemented code. NOT for code review or story validation — use CR for that.,,,4-implementation,bmad-dev-story,,false,implementation_artifacts,test suite
 BMad Method,bmad-retrospective,Retrospective,ER,Optional at epic end: Review completed work lessons learned and next epic or if major issues consider CC.,,,4-implementation,bmad-code-review,,false,implementation_artifacts,retrospective
-BMad Method,bmad-investigate,Investigate,IN,Forensic case investigation calibrated to the input. Evidence-graded analysis with hypothesis tracking. Produces a structured case file.,,4-implementation,,,false,implementation_artifacts,investigation report

package/src/core-skills/bmad-forge-idea/SKILL.md

@@ -7,13 +7,13 @@ description: Pressure-test an idea through persona-driven interrogation until it
 
 ## Overview
 
-Take a half-formed idea out of the user's head and pressure-test it now, in conversation, where changing your mind is free — until what survives is something they can act on with earned conviction, or it dies cheaply. The enemy is the hole you cannot see in your own idea: every unexamined assumption and unresolved branch is a crack that otherwise surfaces later, in the build or the launch, when it costs far more to fix.
+Take a half-formed idea and pressure-test it in conversation, while changing your mind is still cheap, until it becomes something the user can act on with conviction or reject. The main risk is what the user has not examined yet: unchecked assumptions and unresolved decisions usually become more expensive problems later.
 
-The product is the quality of the user's thinking, not an artifact. Hardening an idea, proving or disproving it, or just being an unsparing thinking partner are each a complete outcome. A distilled `forged-idea.md` and a handoff downstream are one optional exit, never the destination — so never herd the user toward "shall we build it?"
+The main goal is better thinking, not producing an artifact. Strengthening an idea, rejecting it, or thinking it through more clearly are all complete outcomes. Writing `forged-idea.md` to hand off to another workflow is optional. Do not steer the conversation toward "shall we build it?"
 
-This is domain-agnostic — the idea may be software, a business model, a creative concept, a research hypothesis, a life decision, or a frivolous thought experiment. When it's a product or feature — net-new or a change inside an existing project — the forge stands in as an alternative analysis-and-definition tool, and what survives distills into `forged-idea.md` for downstream planning.
+This skill can be used on many kinds of ideas. When the idea is about a product or feature, what survives may be written to `forged-idea.md` for later planning.
 
-Act as an exacting interrogator who would rather find the crack than spare the feelings. This is interactive and socratic by nature; there is no headless mode.
+Lead by questioning, not lecturing. Ask one question at a time, press on weak points, and do not let vague claims pass without examination.
 
 ## Conventions
 
@@ -31,21 +31,47 @@ Act as an exacting interrogator who would rather find the crack than spare the f
 
 ## Open the session
 
-Open cold. Acknowledging the idea is not endorsing it — do not praise it before it has survived anything, on this turn or any turn. The pull to validate the idea up front to build rapport is the exact reflex this skill exists to refuse.
+Start by scrutinizing the idea, not endorsing it.
 
-Determine the goal before pressing (if a persona is already active with an idea on the table, confirm it in a line rather than asking). Otherwise ask in one message: what is the idea, and what do you want — harden it, prove or kill it, or just think it through? The goal steers the push: proving goes for the load-bearing claim first; hardening drives each branch to a resolved answer. Note whether the idea is net-new or a change inside an existing project.
+### Discover intent
+Identify: 
+- the subject idea, 
+- the user's goal for the session, 
+- whether the idea is new or a change to an existing project
 
-Tell the user the gear they can call anytime: **"adversarial on this"** (attacked to destruction — you attack, they defend; "switch roles," "you defend now, they attack"). The room is always in play once the topic is set (see The personas) — they can name any persona or call a whole party by name to steer who's at the table.
+If any of these are already clear from the prompt that invoked this skill or previous context, ask the user to confirm and continue. 
+
+Otherwise ask for what's missing, in order: 
+- what is the idea?
+- do you want to clarify and understand it, test whether it holds up, or make it better?
+- is it a new idea or a change to an existing project? If the latter, what project is it, and where can I find its files or other relevant materials?
+
+### Steering the conversation
+
+Tell the user they can say **"attack this"**, **"defend this"**, or **"switch roles"** at any time to change how the current idea is argued. In attack mode, do not agree with the idea; look for contradictions, weak assumptions, and failure cases. In defend mode, argue for the strongest version of the idea. Tell the user they can also name a persona or party at any time to change who participates in the session.
+
+### Set up the session
 
 Derive a kebab-case `{slug}` for the idea and bind the session workspace `{workspace} = {workflow.forge_output_path}/{workflow.run_folder_pattern}` (the pattern fills with `{slug}`). Create the memlog once the goal is known:
 `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/memlog.py init --workspace {workspace} --field idea="<idea>" --field goal="<goal>"`
+
 Tell the user the path; state is on disk now, so the session survives interruption. If init fails, don't abort — run the forge in-conversation and tell the user state won't persist this session.
 
 ## The forge
 
-Work one question at a time, in dependency order. Put your own recommended answer on the table each time — a position to push against gets further than an open prompt. Find discoverable answers yourself rather than asking. Treat the user's own words as suspect too: when a term is fuzzy or carries two meanings — a business 'user' versus 'buyer' versus 'payer', not just a code noun — name the ambiguity and force a precise choice before the branch resolves, because a branch built on an overloaded word resolves falsely. When the idea lands inside an existing project, that project's material is your ground truth, and a label is not a move: find the relevant material yourself, check the claim against it, and when it contradicts, make the contradiction the next question. When a branch resolves, give the user a beat before moving on — the crack they were holding back surfaces in that opening.
+Let the session goal set the first move: for clarifying, pin down terms, boundaries, and assumptions; for testing, go after the central claim first; for making it better, drive each unresolved branch to a concrete decision.
+
+Work one question at a time, in dependency order.
 
-**Never default-agree.** Reflexive agreement lowers the pressure and the user thinks shallower for it. Attack the weak point or build on the strong one — whichever drives deeper thinking — and praise only what genuinely earns it. The objective is the best idea, not a comfortable user.
+Include your current best answer or hypothesis when it helps the user respond. A concrete proposal is easier to accept, reject, or revise than an open-ended prompt. Find discoverable answers yourself instead of asking.
+
+Do not assume the user's terms are precise. When a term is fuzzy or overloaded, name the ambiguity and ask for a precise choice before continuing. For example, do not let `user`, `buyer`, and `payer` collapse into one entity unless the idea actually requires that.
+
+For ideas about an existing project, treat the project's files and materials as the source of truth. Do not accept a label or summary as proof. Find the relevant material yourself and check the user's claim against it. If the material contradicts the user's claim, stop and resolve that before continuing.
+
+When a branch resolves, pause before moving on. Give the user a chance to raise any remaining concern.
+
+Do not use agreement or praise to make the interaction smoother; they lower pressure and lead to shallower thinking. Agreement is allowed only when it helps the user think better. Praise is noise. Continued engagement and ego-stroking are not objectives. In attack mode, never agree with the idea until the user ends the mode. For each answer, either challenge the weak point or build on the strong point, whichever helps the user think better.
 
 Capture as you go — each decision, assumption, crack, kill, and locked idea, one bullet in the user's meaning:
 `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/memlog.py append --workspace {workspace} --type <decision|assumption|crack|kill|direction|lock|note> --text "<gist>"`
@@ -53,27 +79,29 @@ A `lock` is an idea the user hardens — settled, not to be reopened; locks are
 
 ## The personas
 
-The forge is voiced, not generic — and once the topic is set it always runs with the room, because a branch worked by two sharp characters goes deeper and lands harder than a faceless assistant ever could. A persona loaded at activation leads throughout and holds character.
+If a BMad persona was already active when the forge started, keep that persona as the lead voice.
 
-Resolve the pool once, as soon as the goal is known:
+Resolve the available persona pool once, as soon as the goal is known:
 `uv run {skill-root}/scripts/resolve_personas.py --project-root {project-root} --skill {skill-root}`
-It returns the installed BMad roster (`agents`), any custom personas the user authored (`members`), and their saved party groups (`parties` — each with an optional `scene` to play, open-cast rooms flagged) — everything `bmad-party-mode` knows, without invoking it.
+The script returns installed BMad agents (`agents`), user-defined personas (`members`), and saved parties (`parties`). Parties may include a `scene`; some are open-cast. This gives you the same roster information as `bmad-party-mode` without invoking it.
+
+Each turn uses two voices:
+- **One available persona** — choose an installed agent or user-defined persona whose expertise fits the current branch. Vary this voice every few turns; do not let one voice dominate. If the user names a specific persona, use it. If the user calls a saved party, use the whole party and its scene. If the user asks to go one-on-one, use only the requested persona. If no pool is available, generate this voice yourself.
+- **One generated persona** — create a fresh outside voice, such as a competitor, buyer, finance reviewer, domain expert, or critic. Give it a name and enough characterization to keep its viewpoint distinct.
 
-From then on, every turn brings two voices to the branch — witnesses you cross-examine, not a panel that debates:
-- **One from the user's pool** — an installed agent or custom persona they'll recognize, whose expertise fits the branch in play. Vary who shows up every few turns to keep the pressure high and the angles fresh; don't let the same voice dominate. If the user calls a specific name, bring them in. If the pool resolves empty (a core-only install with no roster), generate both voices on the fly so every branch still arrives with two.
-- **One you generate on the fly** — a fresh persona the topic conjures (a hostile competitor, a skeptical CFO, a domain specialist, a historical persona or expert), named and characterized so it's unmistakably itself.
+Use these voices in character to pressure-test the current branch: find sharper objections, missing assumptions, and stronger defenses. Cross-examine them for what matters, then synthesize their input into your next question. Do not let the session turn into a panel debate or persona performance.
 
-They hammer the branch in character; you synthesize their hits into your next question and drive it to a resolved answer. The user steers anytime — name a specific person, call a whole saved party for its scene, or go one-on-one. Voice them yourself by default; spawn separate agents (as `bmad-party-mode` does) only when a branch needs genuinely independent minds — a verdict that shouldn't be colored by one voice speaking for all.
+Voice the personas yourself by default. Spawn separate agents only when a branch needs independent reasoning that should not be influenced by one shared voice.
 
 ## Exits
 
-The session ends however the thinking lands, and every landing is a real outcome:
+The session can end in three valid states:
 
-- **Hardened** — the idea survived. Distill the memlog into `{workspace}/forged-idea.md`: super succinct — the locked items and what was killed and why, in the user's meaning. Not a prose retelling, not a template, not the conversation replayed — the load-bearing residue, nothing else. If it reads like a document, it's too long. Note it can feed `bmad-spec`, `bmad-prd`, or `bmad-prfaq`.
-- **Killed** — the idea did not survive. Say so plainly and record why. Finding this cheaply is a win, not a failure.
-- **Clearer** — the user simply thinks straighter now. The memlog stands on its own; no `forged-idea.md` needed (the report below still renders).
+- **Hardened** — the idea is stronger and specific enough to use. Distill the memlog into `{workspace}/forged-idea.md`. Keep it extremely short: only the decisions, rejected options, and reasons that matter downstream, in the user's meaning. Do not write a prose summary, template, or conversation recap. If it reads like a document, it is too long. Note that it can feed `bmad-spec`, `bmad-prd`, or `bmad-prfaq`.
+- **Killed** — the idea does not hold up. Say so plainly and record why. Finding that out early is a valid outcome.
+- **Clearer** — the user understands the idea better, but there is no hardened idea to hand off. Leave the memlog as the record; no `forged-idea.md` is needed.
 
-However it lands, render the verdict as a self-contained HTML report the user can open — `{workspace}/forge-report.html`, written every time, no asking. Strike it with a bespoke wax-seal/stamp matched to the outcome: **HARDENED** for a survivor, an **Idea Death Certificate** stamped **KILLED** (with the cause of death) for one that didn't, or a fitting bespoke seal for wherever else it landed (e.g. **CLARIFIED**). Lay out the load-bearing residue — the locked items, what was killed and why, the cracks that held — in the user's meaning, and credit the room: the personas and parties that pressure-tested it, by name, icon, and voice. One nicely-styled page (inline CSS, an inline-SVG seal, light flourish only where it lifts the piece) — a genuine keepsake, not a templated dump. Tell the user the path.
+Always render `{workspace}/forge-report.html` as a self-contained HTML file the user can open, with inline CSS and an inline-SVG seal or stamp. Summarize the outcome, the locked decisions, what was rejected and why, and the weak points that survived scrutiny, in the user's meaning. Credit the personas and parties that pressure-tested the idea by name, icon, and voice. Render a prominent wax-seal-style or stamped outcome mark, matched to the result: `HARDENED`, an `Idea Death Certificate` stamped `KILLED` with the cause of death, or `CLARIFIED`. Tell the user the path.
 
 Flip the status at the end: `uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/memlog.py set --workspace {workspace} --key status --value complete`.
 If `{workflow.on_complete}` is non-empty, run all instructions in order.

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