bmad-module-skill-forge 0.6.0 → 0.7.0

package/src/workflows/analyze-source/validation-report.md

@@ -1,657 +0,0 @@
----
-validationDate: 2026-02-27
-workflowName: analyze-source
-workflowPath: _bmad-output/bmb-creations/workflows/analyze-source
-validationStatus: COMPLETE
-completionDate: 2026-02-27
----
-
-# Validation Report: analyze-source
-
-**Validation Started:** 2026-02-27
-**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System
-**Standards Version:** BMAD Workflow Standards
-
----
-
-## File Structure & Size
-
-### Folder Structure
-
-```
-analyze-source/
-├── workflow.md                          ✅ Entry point present
-├── workflow-plan-analyze-source.md      ✅ Plan file present
-├── data/
-│   ├── skill-brief-schema.md            ✅ Schema reference
-│   └── unit-detection-heuristics.md     ✅ Detection rules
-├── templates/
-│   └── analysis-report-template.md      ✅ Output template
-└── steps-c/
-    ├── step-01-init.md                  ✅
-    ├── step-01b-continue.md             ✅
-    ├── step-02-scan-project.md          ✅
-    ├── step-03-identify-units.md        ✅
-    ├── step-04-map-and-detect.md        ✅
-    ├── step-05-recommend.md             ✅
-    └── step-06-generate-briefs.md       ✅
-```
-
-**Assessment:** Structure is clean and well-organized. All required folders present (steps-c/, data/, templates/). Non-step reference files properly organized.
-
-### File Size Analysis
-
-| File | Lines | Status |
-|------|-------|--------|
-| step-01-init.md | 191 | ✅ Good |
-| step-01b-continue.md | 144 | ✅ Good |
-| step-02-scan-project.md | 208 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
-| step-03-identify-units.md | 199 | ✅ Good |
-| step-04-map-and-detect.md | 222 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
-| step-05-recommend.md | 236 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
-| step-06-generate-briefs.md | 239 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
-| workflow.md | 61 | ✅ Good |
-| data/skill-brief-schema.md | 75 | ✅ Good |
-| data/unit-detection-heuristics.md | 88 | ✅ Good |
-| templates/analysis-report-template.md | 41 | ✅ Good |
-
-**Size Issues:**
-- 4 step files are in the 200-250 warning zone (step-02: 208, step-04: 222, step-05: 236, step-06: 239)
-- None exceed the 250-line absolute maximum
-- Recommendation: Consider extracting presentation templates or table structures to data/ files to reduce step-05 and step-06 below 200 lines
-
-### Step Presence Verification
-
-From workflow plan design, expected 7 step files:
-
-| Expected | File | Status |
-|----------|------|--------|
-| step-01-init | step-01-init.md | ✅ Present |
-| step-01b-continue | step-01b-continue.md | ✅ Present |
-| step-02-scan-project | step-02-scan-project.md | ✅ Present |
-| step-03-identify-units | step-03-identify-units.md | ✅ Present |
-| step-04-map-and-detect | step-04-map-and-detect.md | ✅ Present |
-| step-05-recommend | step-05-recommend.md | ✅ Present |
-| step-06-generate-briefs | step-06-generate-briefs.md | ✅ Present |
-
-- Sequential numbering: ✅ No gaps (01, 01b, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06)
-- Final step exists: ✅ step-06-generate-briefs.md
-- All design steps have files: ✅ 7/7
-
-**Overall: PASS (with warnings)**
-- All files present and correctly structured
-- 4 files approaching size limit but none exceeding it
-
----
-
-## Frontmatter Validation
-
-### Per-File Analysis
-
-| File | name | description | Variables | All Used | Paths | Forbidden | Status |
-|------|------|-------------|-----------|----------|-------|-----------|--------|
-| step-01-init.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, continueFile, outputFile, templateFile | ✅ 4/4 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
-| step-01b-continue.md | ✅ | ✅ | outputFile, nextStepOptions | ✅ 2/2 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
-| step-02-scan-project.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, heuristicsFile | ✅ 3/3 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
-| step-03-identify-units.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, heuristicsFile | ✅ 3/3 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
-| step-04-map-and-detect.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, heuristicsFile | ✅ 3/3 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
-| step-05-recommend.md | ✅ | ✅ | nextStepFile, outputFile, schemaFile, advancedElicitationTask, partyModeWorkflow | ✅ 5/5 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
-| step-06-generate-briefs.md | ✅ | ✅ | outputFile, schemaFile | ✅ 2/2 used | ✅ All correct | ✅ None | PASS |
-
-### Path Format Verification
-
-| Pattern | Expected | Found | Status |
-|---------|----------|-------|--------|
-| Step-to-step (same folder) | `./step-XX.md` | All nextStepFile use `./step-XX.md` | ✅ |
-| Parent folder references | `../folder/file.md` | templateFile, heuristicsFile, schemaFile use `../` | ✅ |
-| Output file paths | `{variable}/...` | All outputFile use `{output_folder}/...` | ✅ |
-| External references | `{project-root}/...` | advancedElicitationTask, partyModeWorkflow | ✅ |
-
-### Forbidden Pattern Check
-
-| Pattern | Found | Status |
-|---------|-------|--------|
-| `workflow_path` variable | Not found | ✅ |
-| `thisStepFile` variable | Not found | ✅ |
-| `workflowFile` variable | Not found | ✅ |
-| `{workflow_path}/templates/...` | Not found | ✅ |
-| `{workflow_path}/data/...` | Not found | ✅ |
-
-### Violations Found: 0
-
-**Overall: PASS**
-- All 7 step files have correct frontmatter
-- Every frontmatter variable is used in its step body
-- All paths follow correct format conventions
-- No forbidden patterns detected
-
-## Critical Path Violations
-
-### Config Variables (Exceptions)
-
-From workflow.md Configuration Loading section:
-`project_name`, `output_folder`, `user_name`, `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `forge_data_folder`, `skills_output_folder`
-
-### Content Path Violations
-
-Checked all 7 step files for hardcoded `{project-root}/` paths in body content (after frontmatter):
-- Only occurrences found are in step-05-recommend.md **frontmatter** (lines 8-9) — these are properly declared as `advancedElicitationTask` and `partyModeWorkflow` variables using `{project-root}` for external references. ✅ Valid.
-- **No hardcoded paths in body content.**
-
-### Dead Links
-
-| Reference | Source | Target | Status |
-|-----------|--------|--------|--------|
-| nextStepFile | step-01-init | ./step-02-scan-project.md | ✅ Exists |
-| continueFile | step-01-init | ./step-01b-continue.md | ✅ Exists |
-| templateFile | step-01-init | ../templates/analysis-report-template.md | ✅ Exists |
-| nextStepOptions | step-01b | ./step-02 through ./step-06 | ✅ All exist |
-| nextStepFile | step-02 | ./step-03-identify-units.md | ✅ Exists |
-| heuristicsFile | steps 02-04 | ../data/unit-detection-heuristics.md | ✅ Exists |
-| nextStepFile | step-03 | ./step-04-map-and-detect.md | ✅ Exists |
-| nextStepFile | step-04 | ./step-05-recommend.md | ✅ Exists |
-| nextStepFile | step-05 | ./step-06-generate-briefs.md | ✅ Exists |
-| schemaFile | steps 05-06 | ../data/skill-brief-schema.md | ✅ Exists |
-| advancedElicitationTask | step-05 | {project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml | ✅ Exists |
-| partyModeWorkflow | step-05 | {project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md | ✅ Exists |
-
-Output file paths using `{output_folder}` and `{forge_data_folder}` correctly skipped (runtime config variables).
-
-### Module Awareness
-
-- Workflow targets SKF module (`_bmad/skf/workflows/analyze-source/`)
-- No BMB-specific path assumptions found (`{project-root}/_bmad/bmb/` not referenced)
-- ✅ Module-aware
-
-### Summary
-
-- **CRITICAL:** 0 violations
-- **HIGH:** 0 violations
-- **MEDIUM:** 0 violations
-
-**Status: ✅ PASS — No violations**
-
-## Menu Handling Validation
-
-### Per-File Menu Analysis
-
-| File | Menu Type | Handler | Exec Rules | Halt/Wait | Redisplay | C Sequence | A/P Appropriate | Status |
-|------|-----------|---------|------------|-----------|-----------|------------|-----------------|--------|
-| step-01-init | Auto-proceed | ✅ | ✅ | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ Auto-loads next | ✅ No A/P (init) | PASS |
-| step-01b-continue | Auto-proceed | ✅ | ✅ | N/A (auto) | N/A | ✅ Routes to step | ✅ No A/P (continuation) | PASS |
-| step-02-scan-project | C-only | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ "Redisplay Menu" | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ No A/P (simple) | PASS |
-| step-03-identify-units | C-only | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ "Redisplay Menu" | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ No A/P (simple) | PASS |
-| step-04-map-and-detect | C-only | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ "Redisplay Menu" | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ No A/P (simple) | PASS |
-| step-05-recommend | A/P/C | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ "halt and wait" | ✅ A/P/other redisplay | ✅ save→frontmatter→load | ✅ A/P at gate (correct) | PASS |
-| step-06-generate-briefs | None (Final) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A (final step) | PASS |
-
-### Detailed Findings
-
-**step-05-recommend (A/P/C menu):**
-- A option: Executes `{advancedElicitationTask}`, then redisplays menu ✅
-- P option: Executes `{partyModeWorkflow}`, then redisplays menu ✅
-- C option: Save → update frontmatter → load → execute next step ✅
-- Other input: Help user → redisplay menu ✅
-- A/P placement justified: This is the primary collaborative gate where user confirms/rejects units — quality improvement tools appropriate here
-
-**step-06-generate-briefs (Final step):**
-- No menu section — correct for final step
-- Has Y/N/M confirmation for file writing (section 4) which is appropriate interactive gate, not a step-transition menu
-
-### Violations Found: 0
-
-**Overall: PASS**
-- All menu types match their step types (Auto-proceed for init/continue, C-only for simple middle, A/P/C for standard gate, None for final)
-- All handler sections present and correctly structured
-- All execution rules include appropriate halt/proceed instructions
-- Reserved letters used correctly: A (Advanced Elicitation), P (Party Mode), C (Continue)
-
-## Step Type Validation
-
-### Per-File Type Analysis
-
-| File | Expected Type | Actual Type | Pattern Match | Key Checks | Status |
-|------|--------------|-------------|---------------|------------|--------|
-| step-01-init | Init (Continuable) | Init (Continuable) | ✅ | continueFile ref ✅, template creation ✅, continuation detection ✅, no A/P ✅ | PASS |
-| step-01b-continue | Continuation | Continuation | ✅ | nextStepOptions ✅, reads stepsCompleted ✅, routes to step ✅ | PASS |
-| step-02-scan-project | Middle (Simple) | Middle (Simple) | ✅ | C-only menu ✅, no A/P ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅ | PASS |
-| step-03-identify-units | Middle (Simple) | Middle (Simple) | ✅ | C-only menu ✅, no A/P ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅ | PASS |
-| step-04-map-and-detect | Middle (Simple) | Middle (Simple) | ✅ | C-only menu ✅, no A/P ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅ | PASS |
-| step-05-recommend | Middle (Standard) | Middle (Standard) | ✅ | A/P/C menu ✅, mandatory rules ✅, appends to doc ✅, collaborative gate ✅ | PASS |
-| step-06-generate-briefs | Final | Final | ✅ | No nextStepFile ✅, completion message ✅, no next step ✅ | PASS |
-
-### Type-Specific Validation Details
-
-**Init (Continuable) — step-01-init:**
-- Has `continueFile` reference to `./step-01b-continue.md` ✅
-- Section 1 checks for existing report (continuation detection) ✅
-- Creates output document from template (section 6) ✅
-- Auto-proceed menu (no user choice at init) ✅
-
-**Continuation — step-01b-continue:**
-- `nextStepOptions` in frontmatter maps all 5 resume targets ✅
-- Reads `stepsCompleted` array from report (section 2) ✅
-- Mapping table routes to correct next step (section 4) ✅
-- Presents progress summary before routing (section 3) ✅
-
-**Final — step-06-generate-briefs:**
-- No `nextStepFile` in frontmatter ✅
-- Completion summary with "This analysis is complete" message ✅
-- Marks workflow complete in frontmatter (`stepsCompleted` fully populated) ✅
-
-### Violations Found: 0
-
-**Overall: PASS**
-- All 7 step files match their designated type patterns from the workflow design
-- Every type-specific requirement satisfied
-
-## Output Format Validation
-
-### Document Production
-
-- **Produces documents:** Yes — two types
-  1. Analysis summary report (Structured template) → `{output_folder}/analyze-source-report-{project_name}.md`
-  2. skill-brief.yaml files (Strict format) → `{forge_data_folder}/{unit-name}/skill-brief.yaml`
-
-### Template Assessment
-
-**analysis-report-template.md (Structured):**
-- Frontmatter: ✅ `stepsCompleted: []`, `lastStep: ''`, `date: ''`, `user_name: ''`, plus workflow-specific tracking (`confirmed_units`, `stack_skill_candidates`, `existing_skills`)
-- Section headers: ✅ 6 clear sections (Project Scan, Identified Units, Export Map, Integration Points, Recommendations, Generation Results)
-- Section placeholders: ✅ `[Appended by step-XX]` for each section
-- Progressive append pattern: ✅ Each step replaces its placeholder
-
-**skill-brief-schema.md (Strict):**
-- 9 required fields defined ✅
-- Validation rules specified (6 rules) ✅
-- YAML template provided ✅
-- Scope object structure documented ✅
-
-### Final Polish Evaluation
-
-- Template type: Structured (not free-form)
-- Final polish step: Not required for structured templates ✅
-- Step-06 serves as final step with completion summary, not polish
-
-### Step-to-Output Mapping
-
-| Step | Output Action | Saves Before Next | Section Created | Status |
-|------|--------------|-------------------|-----------------|--------|
-| step-01 | Creates report from template | ✅ Auto-proceed after create | Title + frontmatter | PASS |
-| step-02 | Appends "## Project Scan" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Project Scan | PASS |
-| step-03 | Appends "## Identified Units" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Identified Units | PASS |
-| step-04 | Appends "## Export Map" + "## Integration Points" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Export Map + ## Integration Points | PASS |
-| step-05 | Appends "## Recommendations" | ✅ C menu saves first | ## Recommendations | PASS |
-| step-06 | Appends "## Generation Results" + writes YAML files | ✅ Final step completes | ## Generation Results + N x skill-brief.yaml | PASS |
-
-**Section order matches template:** ✅ Steps produce sections in exact template order
-
-### Issues Found: 0
-
-**Overall: PASS**
-- Template types match design (Structured report + Strict YAML)
-- No final polish needed (structured template)
-- All steps save output before proceeding
-- Section order matches template exactly
-
-## Validation Design Check
-
-### Validation Requirement Assessment
-
-- **Workflow type:** Code analysis and skill decomposition (brownfield onboarding)
-- **Lifecycle support:** Create-only (no edit or validate modes)
-- **Domain:** Developer tooling — not compliance, safety, or regulatory
-- **User gate:** Step 05 provides explicit confirmation gate before generation
-- **Output validation:** Step 06 validates each brief against schema before writing
-
-**Determination: Validation NOT critical**
-
-This is a code analysis workflow where:
-- Output quality is ensured by evidence-based recommendations (step 05 collaborative gate)
-- Schema validation is built into step 06 (pre-write validation)
-- User explicitly confirms each unit before brief generation
-- No compliance, safety, or regulatory requirements
-
-### Validation Steps Found: 0 (by design)
-
-- No `steps-v/` folder — correct for create-only lifecycle
-- Inline quality gates exist at step 05 (user confirmation) and step 06 (schema validation)
-- These inline gates are appropriate for non-critical workflows
-
-### Validation Data Files
-
-Data files in `data/` support the workflow's inline validation:
-- `skill-brief-schema.md` — used by step 06 for brief validation (9 required fields, 6 validation rules) ✅
-- `unit-detection-heuristics.md` — used by steps 02-04 for systematic detection ✅
-
-**Overall: N/A (validation not required) — inline quality gates appropriate**
-
-## Instruction Style Check
-
-### Workflow Domain Assessment
-
-- **Domain:** Technical code analysis and decomposition
-- **Agent:** Ferris in Architect mode — prescriptive precision
-- **Appropriate style:** Prescriptive (by design choice)
-- **Justification:** Zero-hallucination requirement, evidence-based claims with file:line citations, schema compliance for output, systematic detection heuristic application
-
-### Per-Step Instruction Style
-
-| File | Style | Appropriate | Key Language | Status |
-|------|-------|-------------|--------------|--------|
-| step-01-init | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Check forge-tier.yaml", "HARD HALT", "Validate the path", checks `preferences.yaml` for `tier_override` | PASS |
-| step-01b-continue | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Read frontmatter", "Map last completed step to next step" | PASS |
-| step-02-scan-project | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Map top-level directory tree", "Identify workspace configs", "Detect service boundaries" | PASS |
-| step-03-identify-units | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Count detection signals", "Classify boundary type", "Check disqualification rules" | PASS |
-| step-04-map-and-detect | Prescriptive | ✅ | "Scan unit's directory for export files", "Count and categorize exports", "Build cross-reference matrix" | PASS |
-| step-05-recommend | Mixed (Prescriptive + Collaborative) | ✅ | Prescriptive card format + collaborative Y/N/M gate | PASS |
-| step-06-generate-briefs | Prescriptive | ✅ | Exact field mapping table, "Validate each brief", "Check against schema" | PASS |
-
-### Style Consistency Assessment
-
-- **Consistent across steps:** ✅ All steps maintain prescriptive evidence-based style
-- **Appropriate for domain:** ✅ Code analysis requires systematic precision
-- **Collaborative elements where needed:** ✅ Step 05 adds collaborative discussion on top of prescriptive presentation
-- **Zero-hallucination principle maintained:** ✅ "Only report what is found" language throughout
-
-### Issues Found: 0
-
-**Overall: PASS**
-- Prescriptive style appropriate for technical analysis workflow
-- Consistent application of Ferris Architect mode across all steps
-- Collaborative gate at step 05 adds user agency without breaking prescriptive precision
-
-## Collaborative Experience Check
-
-**Overall Facilitation Quality:** Good
-
-**Design Intent:** Mixed — mostly autonomous discovery (steps 02-04) with collaborative gates (step 05) and confirmation gates (step 06)
-
-### Step-by-Step Analysis
-
-| Step | Question Style | Conversation Flow | Role Clarity | Error Handling | Status |
-|------|---------------|-------------------|--------------|----------------|--------|
-| step-01-init | Progressive (path, then scope) | ✅ Natural welcome | ✅ Ferris Architect | ✅ Path validation, hard halt | PASS |
-| step-01b-continue | N/A (auto-route) | ✅ Progress summary | ✅ | ✅ All-complete case | PASS |
-| step-02-scan-project | Single open-ended question | ✅ Present → confirm | ✅ | ✅ User can request rescans | PASS |
-| step-03-identify-units | Single open-ended question | ✅ Present → confirm | ✅ | ✅ Adjustments accepted | PASS |
-| step-04-map-and-detect | Single open-ended question | ✅ Present → confirm | ✅ | ✅ Further investigation offered | PASS |
-| step-05-recommend | Y/N/M per unit + "why?" | ✅ Evidence-based discussion | ✅ | ✅ Modifications supported | PASS |
-| step-06-generate-briefs | Y/N/M confirmation | ✅ Preview before writing | ✅ | ✅ Empty units guard clause | PASS |
-
-### Collaborative Strengths
-
-- **step-05-recommend:** Excellent collaborative gate — presents evidence-based recommendation cards, user can confirm (Y), reject (N), modify (M), or ask "why?" with file citation explanations
-- **Progressive interaction:** Steps 02-04 do autonomous analysis then present single open-ended questions, not laundry lists
-- **step-01-init:** Collects inputs progressively (path first, scope hints second) not all at once
-- **All discovery steps:** "Wait for user feedback. Adjust based on user input." — genuine back-and-forth
-
-### Collaborative Issues Found
-
-- **None critical.** The prescriptive style is appropriate for code analysis where evidence-based precision matters more than open-ended facilitation
-
-### Progression and Arc
-
-- ✅ Clear 3-phase progression: Discovery (02-04) → Decision (05) → Generation (06)
-- ✅ Each step builds on previous: scan → classify → map → recommend → generate
-- ✅ User knows location: step presentations include completion headers ("Project Scan Complete", etc.)
-- ✅ Satisfying completion: final summary with file paths, results, and next workflow recommendations
-
-### User Experience Assessment
-
-- [x] A collaborative partner working WITH the user
-- [ ] A form collecting data FROM the user
-- [ ] An interrogation extracting information
-- [ ] A mix - depends on step
-
-**Overall Collaborative Rating:** 4/5
-
-**Status: PASS**
-- Autonomous phases present findings naturally, not interrogation
-- Collaborative gate at step 05 is genuinely collaborative with Y/N/M + "why?" support
-- Minor deduction: steps 02-04 are heavily autonomous with minimal user input (by design for code analysis)
-
-## Subprocess Optimization Opportunities
-
-**Total Opportunities:** 5 | **Already Designed:** 2 | **Additional:** 3
-
-### Already Designed Subprocess Optimizations
-
-**step-02-scan-project — Pattern 1 (Grep/Regex):**
-- Scans directory structure for manifests, entry points, service configs across entire project
-- Fallback: Sequential file reads in main thread
-- ✅ Well-designed, appropriate pattern
-
-**step-04-map-and-detect — Pattern 2 (Per-file analysis):**
-- Per-unit export mapping and integration detection
-- Fallback: Analyze units sequentially in main thread
-- ✅ Well-designed, appropriate pattern
-
-### Additional Optimization Opportunities
-
-**step-01-init — Pattern 1 (Grep/Regex):**
-- **Current:** Scans forge_data_folder for existing skill-brief.yaml files
-- **Suggested:** Single grep subprocess to find all skill-brief.yaml files recursively
-- **Impact:** Low — one-time init scan, small file set
-- **Priority:** LOW
-
-**step-03-identify-units — Pattern 2 (Per-file analysis):**
-- **Current:** Applies detection heuristics to each boundary sequentially
-- **Suggested:** Per-boundary subprocess for parallel classification
-- **Impact:** Medium — reduces context for large monorepos with many boundaries
-- **Priority:** MEDIUM
-
-**step-06-generate-briefs — Pattern 2 + Pattern 4 (Per-file + Parallel):**
-- **Current:** Generates N skill-brief.yaml files sequentially
-- **Suggested:** Per-unit subprocess for brief generation and validation, optionally parallel
-- **Impact:** Medium — independent units can generate in parallel
-- **Priority:** MEDIUM
-
-### Subprocess Fallback Rule
-
-All steps include: "TOOL/SUBPROCESS FALLBACK: If any instruction references a subprocess, subagent, or tool you do not have access to, you MUST still achieve the outcome in your main context thread" ✅
-
-### Summary by Pattern
-
-- **Pattern 1 (grep/regex):** 2 opportunities (step-01 LOW, step-02 designed ✅)
-- **Pattern 2 (per-file):** 3 opportunities (step-03 MEDIUM, step-04 designed ✅, step-06 MEDIUM)
-- **Pattern 3 (data ops):** 0 opportunities
-- **Pattern 4 (parallel):** 1 opportunity (step-06 MEDIUM — parallel brief generation)
-
-### Implementation Recommendations
-
-- **Quick Wins:** None needed — the 2 designed optimizations cover the highest-impact steps
-- **Strategic:** step-03 per-boundary analysis for large monorepo projects
-- **Future:** step-06 parallel brief generation if batch sizes are large
-
-**Status: ✅ Complete — well-optimized for v1**
-
-## Cohesive Review
-
-### Overall Assessment: GOOD — Ready for Use
-
-### Quality Evaluation
-
-| Dimension | Rating | Notes |
-|-----------|--------|-------|
-| Goal Clarity | 5/5 | "Analyze repo, identify skillable units, produce skill-brief.yaml files" — crystal clear |
-| Logical Flow | 5/5 | scan → classify → map → recommend → generate — perfect progression |
-| Facilitation Quality | 4/5 | Autonomous phases efficient, collaborative gate well-placed |
-| User Experience | 4/5 | Clear progression, good error handling, satisfying completion |
-| Goal Achievement | 5/5 | Produces validated, actionable briefs ready for downstream workflows |
-
-### Cohesiveness Analysis
-
-**Flow:** Each step's output directly feeds the next step's input through the analysis report (progressive append). The 3-phase structure (Discovery → Decision → Generation) creates a natural arc.
-
-**Progression:** Perfect data flow:
-1. step-01: Creates empty report with config
-2. step-02: Populates boundaries, manifests, entry points
-3. step-03: Classifies boundaries into skillable units
-4. step-04: Maps exports and integration points per unit
-5. step-05: Presents evidence-based recommendations, user confirms
-6. step-06: Generates validated YAML files for confirmed units
-
-**Voice and Tone:** Consistent Ferris Architect mode throughout — prescriptive precision with zero-hallucination principle. Collaborative tone at step 05 gate adds warmth without breaking analytical rigor.
-
-### Strengths
-
-- **Evidence-based approach** — every recommendation backed by specific file citations
-- **Well-placed collaborative gate** (step 05) — user has agency without slowing autonomous analysis
-- **Complete data flow** — no orphaned data, every piece feeds forward
-- **Tier-aware analysis depth** — adapts to Quick/Forge/Forge+/Deep
-- **Continuation support** — large repo analysis can resume across sessions
-- **Stack skill candidate detection** — value beyond individual skills
-- **Schema validation before writing** — prevents downstream workflow failures
-- **Next workflow recommendations** — clear path forward after analysis
-- **Existing skill detection** — avoids duplicates, suggests update-skill
-
-### Weaknesses / Improvement Opportunities
-
-- **File sizes approaching limits** — 4 steps in 200-250 warning zone; extracting presentation templates to data/ would help
-- **Steps 02-04 heavily autonomous** — by design for code analysis, but some users might want additional checkpoints on large repos
-- **No Party Mode in discovery phase** — excluded by design (evidence-based analysis), but could optionally allow at step 04 for architectural discussion
-
-### Critical Issues: 0
-
-No show-stopper problems. The workflow would function correctly end-to-end.
-
-### User Experience Forecast
-
-A developer onboarding a brownfield project would experience:
-1. Quick setup with clear prerequisites
-2. Automated deep analysis without manual work
-3. Clear, evidence-based findings presented for review
-4. Genuine collaborative decision-making on which units to skill
-5. Validated, downstream-ready output files
-6. Clear next steps for continuing the skill creation pipeline
-
-**Recommendation:** Workflow is solid and ready for use. Minor file size optimization recommended for longevity.
-
-## Plan Quality Validation
-
-**Plan file:** workflow-plan-analyze-source.md ✅ Found
-**Total requirements extracted:** 28
-
-### Implementation Coverage
-
-#### Discovery/Vision Validation
-
-| Requirement | Implemented | Quality | Status |
-|-------------|------------|---------|--------|
-| Decomposition engine goal | ✅ workflow.md goal statement | High | ✅ |
-| Brownfield entry point positioning | ✅ workflow.md meta-context | High | ✅ |
-| Output: N x skill-brief.yaml + analysis report | ✅ schema + template defined | High | ✅ |
-
-#### Classification Validation
-
-| Attribute | Specified | Implemented | Status |
-|-----------|----------|-------------|--------|
-| Document Output: true | ✅ Template + schema | ✅ |
-| Module Affiliation: SKF | ✅ workflow.md loads `_bmad/skf/config.yaml` | ✅ |
-| Continuable | ✅ step-01 continuation detection + step-01b resume | ✅ |
-| Create-only | ✅ Only steps-c/ folder exists | ✅ |
-
-#### Requirements Validation
-
-| Requirement | Specified | Implemented | Quality | Status |
-|-------------|----------|-------------|---------|--------|
-| Linear flow + strategic gate | 3 phases | ✅ Discovery → Decision → Generation | High | ✅ |
-| Mixed interaction | Autonomous + collaborative | ✅ Steps 02-04 autonomous, step 05 gate | High | ✅ |
-| Project root input | Required | ✅ step-01 section 3 | High | ✅ |
-| SKF config loading | Required | ✅ workflow.md init sequence | High | ✅ |
-| Forge-tier check | Required | ✅ step-01 section 2 (hard halt) | High | ✅ |
-| Scope hints | Optional | ✅ step-01 section 4 | High | ✅ |
-| Existing skill detection | Required | ✅ step-01 section 5 | High | ✅ |
-| Structured report output | Plan-then-Build | ✅ Progressive append template | High | ✅ |
-| Strict YAML output | Per schema | ✅ skill-brief-schema.md (9 fields, 6 rules) | High | ✅ |
-| Prescriptive style | Ferris Architect | ✅ All steps maintain prescriptive mode | High | ✅ |
-
-#### Design Validation
-
-| Element | Planned | Implemented | Status |
-|---------|---------|-------------|--------|
-| 7 step files (5 + 01b + 01) | ✅ | 7 files in steps-c/ | ✅ |
-| Step sequence matches design table | ✅ | All steps match | ✅ |
-| Data flow: scan→classify→map→recommend→generate | ✅ | Sections appended in order | ✅ |
-| File structure: workflow.md, data/, templates/, steps-c/ | ✅ | All folders present | ✅ |
-| Subprocess Pattern 1 (step-02) | ✅ | Documented in step-02 | ✅ |
-| Subprocess Pattern 2 (step-04) | ✅ | Documented in step-04 | ✅ |
-| Workflow chaining | ✅ | step-06 recommends next workflows | ✅ |
-| Error handling (5 scenarios) | ✅ | Handled across steps | ✅ |
-
-#### Tools Validation
-
-| Tool | Specified | Implemented | Status |
-|------|----------|-------------|--------|
-| Advanced Elicitation at step 05 | ✅ | ✅ step-05 has A option | ✅ |
-| Party Mode excluded | Excluded in tools config | ⚠️ step-05 includes P option | MINOR |
-| Brainstorming excluded | ✅ | ✅ Not referenced | ✅ |
-| File I/O included | ✅ | ✅ All steps use file operations | ✅ |
-| Continuable memory | stepsCompleted tracking | ✅ Template + all steps update | ✅ |
-| No external integrations | ✅ | ✅ No external refs | ✅ |
-
-### Implementation Gaps: 0 critical
-
-### Quality Issues
-
-**Minor Plan Inconsistency:**
-- Tools section specifies "Party Mode: excluded" but step-05 design (approved later) uses standard A/P/C menu pattern which includes Party Mode. The design decision overrides the earlier tools configuration. Including Party Mode at the recommendation gate is reasonable — users may want to consult agents about unit boundary decisions.
-
-### Plan-Reality Alignment
-
-- **28/28 requirements implemented** (100% coverage)
-- **1 minor inconsistency** (Party Mode — tools config vs design spec)
-- **0 critical gaps**
-
-### Overall Assessment
-
-- **Plan Implementation Score:** 100% (all requirements present, 1 minor inconsistency)
-- **Quality Rating:** High across all requirement areas
-- **Status: Fully Implemented**
-
-## Summary
-
-**Validation Completed:** 2026-02-27
-**Overall Status: PASS (with minor warnings)**
-
-### Validation Results
-
-| # | Validation Step | Result | Issues |
-|---|----------------|--------|--------|
-| 1 | File Structure & Size | ✅ PASS (warnings) | 4 files in 200-250 warning zone |
-| 2 | Frontmatter Validation | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
-| 2b | Critical Path Violations | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
-| 3 | Menu Handling | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
-| 4 | Step Type Validation | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
-| 5 | Output Format | ✅ PASS | 0 violations |
-| 6 | Validation Design Check | N/A | Create-only, inline gates appropriate |
-| 7 | Instruction Style | ✅ PASS | Prescriptive style appropriate |
-| 8 | Collaborative Experience | ✅ PASS | 4/5 rating |
-| 8b | Subprocess Optimization | ✅ PASS | 2 designed, 3 additional opportunities |
-| 9 | Cohesive Review | ✅ GOOD | Ready for use |
-| 11 | Plan Quality | ✅ Fully Implemented | 28/28 requirements, 1 minor inconsistency |
-
-### Critical Issues: 0
-
-### Warnings: 5
-
-1. **step-02-scan-project.md** — 208 lines (approaching 250 limit)
-2. **step-04-map-and-detect.md** — 222 lines (approaching 250 limit)
-3. **step-05-recommend.md** — 236 lines (approaching 250 limit)
-4. **step-06-generate-briefs.md** — 239 lines (approaching 250 limit)
-5. **Party Mode inclusion** — step-05 includes P option despite tools config specifying "excluded" (design override, reasonable)
-
-### Key Strengths
-
-- Complete evidence-based analysis pipeline with zero-hallucination principle
-- Well-placed collaborative gate at step 05 with Y/N/M + "why?" support
-- Perfect data flow — every step builds on previous work
-- Tier-aware analysis depth (Quick/Forge/Forge+/Deep)
-- Continuation support for interrupted sessions
-- Schema validation before file writing
-- Clear downstream workflow recommendations
-
-### Recommendation
-
-**Ready for use.** The workflow is well-designed, fully implements the plan, and would provide a good user experience for brownfield onboarding. Minor file size optimization recommended for steps approaching the 250-line limit — consider extracting presentation templates or table structures to data/ files.