bmad-module-skill-forge 0.6.0 → 0.7.0

package/src/workflows/setup-forge/validation-report.md

@@ -1,504 +0,0 @@
----
-validationDate: 2026-02-26
-workflowName: setup-forge
-workflowPath: _bmad-output/bmb-creations/workflows/setup-forge
-validationStatus: COMPLETE
-completionDate: 2026-02-26
----
-
-# Validation Report: setup-forge
-
-**Validation Started:** 2026-02-26
-**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System
-**Standards Version:** BMAD Workflow Standards
-
----
-
-## File Structure & Size
-
-### Folder Structure
-
-```
-setup-forge/
-├── workflow.md                          (50 lines)
-├── workflow-plan-setup-forge.md         (plan file)
-├── validation-report.md                 (this file)
-├── data/
-│   └── tier-rules.md                    (51 lines)
-└── steps-c/
-    ├── step-01-detect-and-tier.md       (141 lines)
-    ├── step-02-write-config.md          (142 lines)
-    ├── step-03-auto-index.md            (117 lines)
-    └── step-04-report.md               (132 lines)
-```
-
-### Structure Assessment
-
-- workflow.md exists
-- Step files in well-organized `steps-c/` folder
-- Reference data in `data/` folder
-- No `templates/` directory — correct (non-document workflow)
-- Folder names make sense
-
-### File Size Analysis
-
-| File | Lines | Status |
-|------|-------|--------|
-| workflow.md | 50 | Good |
-| data/tier-rules.md | 51 | Good |
-| steps-c/step-01-detect-and-tier.md | 141 | Good |
-| steps-c/step-02-write-config.md | 142 | Good |
-| steps-c/step-03-auto-index.md | 117 | Good |
-| steps-c/step-04-report.md | 132 | Good |
-
-All files well under 200-line recommended limit. No size concerns.
-
-### File Presence Verification
-
-From design plan: 4 step files + workflow.md + data/tier-rules.md
-- Every step from design has a corresponding file
-- Steps numbered sequentially (01, 02, 03, 04)
-- No gaps in numbering
-- Final step (04) exists
-
-**Status:** PASS
-
----
-
-## Frontmatter Validation
-
-### workflow.md
-
-| Variable | Value | Used in Body | Status |
-|----------|-------|-------------|--------|
-| name | setup-forge | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| description | Initialize forge... | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| web_bundle | true | Workflow config flag | PASS |
-
-No forbidden patterns. No unused body-reference variables.
-
-### step-01-detect-and-tier.md
-
-| Variable | Value | Used in Body | Status |
-|----------|-------|-------------|--------|
-| name | step-01-detect-and-tier | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| description | Detect available tools... | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| nextStepFile | ./step-02-write-config.md | Line 108: `{nextStepFile}` | PASS |
-| tierRulesData | ../data/tier-rules.md | Line 56: `{tierRulesData}` | PASS |
-
-Paths: All relative. No forbidden patterns.
-
-### step-02-write-config.md
-
-| Variable | Value | Used in Body | Status |
-|----------|-------|-------------|--------|
-| name | step-02-write-config | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| description | Write forge-tier.yaml... | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| nextStepFile | ./step-03-auto-index.md | Lines 111, 120: `{nextStepFile}` | PASS |
-
-Paths: All relative. No forbidden patterns.
-
-### step-03-auto-index.md
-
-| Variable | Value | Used in Body | Status |
-|----------|-------|-------------|--------|
-| name | step-03-auto-index | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| description | Index current project... | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| nextStepFile | ./step-04-report.md | Lines 87, 96: `{nextStepFile}` | PASS |
-
-Paths: All relative. No forbidden patterns.
-
-### step-04-report.md
-
-| Variable | Value | Used in Body | Status |
-|----------|-------|-------------|--------|
-| name | step-04-report | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| description | Display forge status... | Standard metadata | PASS |
-| tierRulesData | ../data/tier-rules.md | Line 55: `{tierRulesData}` | PASS |
-
-Paths: All relative. No `nextStepFile` — correct for final step. No forbidden patterns.
-
-### Violations
-
-None found. All frontmatter variables are used in their step bodies. All paths are relative. No `workflow_path`, `thisStepFile`, or `workflowFile` forbidden patterns detected.
-
-**Status:** PASS
-
----
-
-## Critical Path Violations
-
-### Config Variables (Exceptions)
-
-From workflow.md Configuration Loading section, the following config variables are available at runtime:
-- `{project-root}` — project root path
-- `project_name`, `output_folder`, `user_name`, `communication_language`, `document_output_language`
-
-Paths using `{project-root}` are valid runtime references, not violations.
-
-### Content Path Analysis
-
-`{project-root}/` paths found in step content:
-
-| File | Line | Path | Assessment |
-|------|------|------|-----------|
-| step-01 | 60 | `{project-root}/_bmad/_memory/forger-sidecar/forge-tier.yaml` | VALID — runtime output path |
-| step-01 | 64 | `{project-root}/_bmad/_memory/forger-sidecar/preferences.yaml` | VALID — runtime output path |
-| step-02 | 55 | `{project-root}/_bmad/_memory/forger-sidecar/forge-tier.yaml` | VALID — runtime output path |
-| step-02 | 79 | `{project-root}/_bmad/_memory/forger-sidecar/preferences.yaml` | VALID — runtime output path |
-| step-02 | 100 | `{project-root}/forge-data/` | VALID — runtime output directory |
-| step-04 | 96 | `{project-root}/forge-data/agentskills-spec.json` | VALID — runtime output path |
-
-All `{project-root}/` paths reference OUTPUT locations that the workflow WRITES to at runtime. These are not workflow-internal file references and correctly use the `{project-root}` config variable. No violations.
-
-### Dead Links
-
-All frontmatter file references verified:
-
-| Source File | Reference | Target | Exists |
-|-------------|-----------|--------|--------|
-| step-01 | nextStepFile | ./step-02-write-config.md | YES |
-| step-01 | tierRulesData | ../data/tier-rules.md | YES |
-| step-02 | nextStepFile | ./step-03-auto-index.md | YES |
-| step-03 | nextStepFile | ./step-04-report.md | YES |
-| step-04 | tierRulesData | ../data/tier-rules.md | YES |
-
-No dead links found.
-
-### Module Awareness
-
-Workflow is in `_bmad-output/bmb-creations/workflows/` (BMB output). No cross-module path assumptions detected.
-
-**Status:** PASS — No violations
-
----
-
-## Menu Handling Validation
-
-### Assessment
-
-Setup-forge uses **Auto-Proceed (Menu Pattern 3)** for ALL steps. This is a fully autonomous workflow with zero user interaction during execution.
-
-| Step | Menu Type | Has Handler | Has Execution Rules | A/P Present | Status |
-|------|-----------|-------------|--------------------|----|--------|
-| step-01 | Auto-proceed | Auto-proceed logic | Yes (auto-proceed rules) | No | PASS |
-| step-02 | Auto-proceed | Auto-proceed logic | Yes (auto-proceed rules) | No | PASS |
-| step-03 | Auto-proceed | Auto-proceed logic | Yes (auto-proceed rules) | No | PASS |
-| step-04 | None (final) | N/A | N/A | No | PASS |
-
-### Compliance Details
-
-- All steps correctly implement auto-proceed pattern:
-  - "Menu Handling Logic" section present with auto-proceed instruction
-  - "EXECUTION RULES" section states "auto-proceed step with no user choices"
-  - Load, read entire file, then execute `{nextStepFile}` instruction present
-- No A/P options in any step — correct for autonomous workflow
-- No "halt and wait" — correct (auto-proceed should NOT halt)
-- Step-04 correctly has no menu (final step, workflow ends)
-
-**Status:** PASS
-
----
-
-## Step Type Validation
-
-| Step File | Designed Type | Actual Type | Pattern Match | Status |
-|-----------|--------------|-------------|---------------|--------|
-| step-01 | Init (Non-Continuable) | Init (Non-Continuable) | Auto-proceed, no continuation logic, no A/P, has nextStepFile | PASS |
-| step-02 | Middle (Simple) | Middle (Simple, Auto-proceed) | Auto-proceed, no A/P, has nextStepFile | PASS |
-| step-03 | Middle (Simple + Conditional) | Middle (Simple + Conditional) | Auto-proceed, conditional Deep tier check, has nextStepFile | PASS |
-| step-04 | Final | Final | No nextStepFile, completion message present, no next step | PASS |
-
-### Detail
-
-- **step-01**: Correctly bootstraps with no prior context. Loads tier rules, checks existing config, verifies 3 tools, calculates tier. FORBIDDEN to write files (correctly deferred to step-02). Auto-proceeds.
-- **step-02**: Correctly consumes step-01 context. Writes config files with precise overwrite/preserve semantics. FORBIDDEN to re-detect tools. Auto-proceeds.
-- **step-03**: Correctly implements conditional branch within step (Deep → index, other → skip silently). Not a full branch step — conditional logic stays within the step. Auto-proceeds.
-- **step-04**: Correctly ends the workflow. No nextStepFile. Clear completion message.
-
-**Status:** PASS
-
----
-
-## Output Format Validation
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Document Output:** No — this is an action-based workflow producing config files, not a progressive document.
-
-From plan: "Document Output: false — action-based workflow producing config files as side effects, not a progressively-built document"
-
-- No `templates/` directory — correct
-- No `outputFile` variables in any step frontmatter — correct
-- No document template — correct
-- No final polish step needed — correct (non-document workflows don't need polish)
-- Steps write to EXTERNAL paths (`{project-root}/_bmad/_memory/...`) not to a workflow output document
-
-**Status:** PASS (N/A — non-document workflow, correctly implemented)
-
----
-
-## Validation Design Check
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Does this workflow need validation steps?**
-
-No. This is a:
-- Create-only lifecycle workflow
-- System operations domain (tool detection, config writing)
-- No compliance/regulatory requirements
-- No safety-critical outputs
-- Output is config files that can be re-generated by re-running
-
-The plan explicitly states: "Lifecycle Support: create-only — idempotent re-run replaces the need for edit/validate modes"
-
-No `steps-v/` directory present — correct for create-only workflow.
-
-**Status:** PASS (N/A — validation not required for this workflow type)
-
----
-
-## Instruction Style Check
-
-### Domain Assessment
-
-**Domain:** System operations (tool detection, environment setup, config file generation)
-**Appropriate Style:** Prescriptive — exact operations with specific commands, paths, and conditional logic
-
-### Per-Step Analysis
-
-| Step | Classification | Appropriate | Status |
-|------|---------------|-------------|--------|
-| step-01 | Prescriptive | Yes — exact shell commands, specific verification steps | PASS |
-| step-02 | Prescriptive | Yes — exact YAML templates, specific file paths, precise conditional behavior | PASS |
-| step-03 | Prescriptive | Yes — exact conditional logic, specific QMD commands, defined error handling | PASS |
-| step-04 | Prescriptive | Yes — exact report format, specific display rules, defined framing constraints | PASS |
-
-### Indicators Observed
-
-- Exact commands specified: `ast-grep --version`, `gh --version`, `qmd status`
-- Specific file content templates with YAML structure
-- Precise conditional logic: "If tier IS Deep... If tier is NOT Deep..."
-- Defined error handling categories: "Tool command failures are NOT errors"
-- Exact output format with ASCII art borders
-- Forbidden actions clearly stated: "FORBIDDEN to write files", "FORBIDDEN to re-detect tools"
-
-### Assessment
-
-Prescriptive style is the correct choice for this fully autonomous system workflow. There is no creative content generation, no user facilitation, and no collaborative dialogue. Every operation is deterministic and should follow exact instructions.
-
-**Status:** PASS
-
----
-
-## Collaborative Experience Check
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Workflow Type:** Fully autonomous — zero user interaction during execution.
-
-This check evaluates collaborative facilitation quality. Since setup-forge is designed as an autonomous system executor with no user dialogue, the standard collaborative criteria (progressive questions, back-and-forth, facilitation vs interrogation) do not apply.
-
-**However, the user-facing output (step-04 report) was evaluated:**
-
-- Positive capability framing: Describes what each tier GIVES, never what's missing
-- Tier descriptions from tier-rules.md are warm and encouraging
-- Re-run messaging is clear and informative (upgrade/downgrade/same)
-- Report format is clean and structured
-- Completion message is satisfying: "Forge ready. {tier} tier active."
-
-**User Experience Forecast:** The user runs the workflow and receives a clear, positive status report. The experience is efficient and confidence-building rather than anxiety-inducing.
-
-**Overall Facilitation Quality:** N/A (autonomous) — but user-facing output is Excellent
-
-**Status:** PASS (N/A for collaborative criteria; user-facing output quality verified)
-
----
-
-## Subprocess Optimization Opportunities
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Total Opportunities:** 0 High Priority | 1 Low Priority
-
-The plan explicitly excluded sub-agents and sub-processes:
-- "Sub-Agents: Excluded — simple linear flow, no parallel specialization"
-- "Sub-Processes: Excluded — no parallel processing needed"
-
-This is a correct design decision. The workflow is 4 sequential steps with clear data dependencies (step-01 → step-02 → step-03 → step-04). No step can run without the previous step's results.
-
-### Low-Priority Opportunity
-
-**step-01: Parallel Tool Verification**
-- **Current:** Sequential verification of ast-grep, gh, qmd (3 shell commands)
-- **Suggested:** Could run all 3 verification commands in parallel
-- **Impact:** Minimal — each command completes in milliseconds
-- **Priority:** LOW — complexity not justified for sub-second operations
-
-### Summary
-
-No subprocess optimization needed. The workflow is appropriately simple and sequential.
-
-**Status:** PASS — No action required
-
----
-
-## Cohesive Review
-
-### Overall Assessment: Excellent
-
-### Walkthrough
-
-1. **workflow.md** → Clear goal, role definition, auto-proceed architecture. Loads SKF config and routes to step-01.
-2. **step-01** → Clean tool detection with empirical verification (commands, not existence checks). Re-run awareness. Tier calculation with override support.
-3. **step-02** → Precise file I/O with correct semantics: forge-tier.yaml always overwritten, preferences.yaml never overwritten, forge-data/ created idempotently.
-4. **step-03** → Clean conditional: Deep tier indexes, others skip silently. Excellent graceful degradation — QMD failures never fail the workflow.
-5. **step-04** → Positive capability framing. Handles re-run tier changes. Optional --update-spec.
-
-### Cohesiveness Indicators
-
-- Each step builds on previous work with clean data flow
-- Clear logical progression: detect → write → index → report
-- Consistent voice throughout (system executor)
-- Error handling philosophy consistent across all steps
-- Positive framing maintained from step-03 (silent skip) through step-04 (capability report)
-- Re-run behavior well-defined across all steps
-
-### Strengths
-
-- **Error categorization**: Tool unavailability is correctly separated from real errors (file write failures)
-- **Positive framing**: Consistently enforced — no negative language about missing tools
-- **Re-run design**: Clean comparison of previous_tier to calculated_tier with appropriate messaging
-- **Config consolidation**: forge-config.yaml eliminated, forge-tier.yaml as single source of truth
-- **tier_override**: User escape hatch without compromising auto-detection
-- **Idempotent operations**: Safe to re-run at any time
-
-### Minor Notes
-
-- `{project-root}/` paths in content are all valid output paths (not workflow-internal references)
-- data/tier-rules.md is referenced by both step-01 and step-04 — good reuse of shared data
-
-### Recommendation
-
-**Ready to use.** This workflow exemplifies best practices for an autonomous, prescriptive, non-document BMAD workflow. It is tightly cohesive, well-structured, and follows BMAD standards appropriately adapted for system operations.
-
-**Status:** PASS — Excellent quality
-
----
-
-## Plan Quality Validation
-
-### Plan Information
-
-- **Plan file:** workflow-plan-setup-forge.md
-- **Status:** CONFIRMED (all 10 build steps completed)
-- **Total requirements extracted:** 25+
-
-### Implementation Coverage
-
-#### Discovery/Vision
-
-| Requirement | Implemented | Quality |
-|-------------|------------|---------|
-| Initialize forge environment | Yes — all 4 steps address this | High |
-| Detect tools (ast-grep, gh, qmd) | Yes — step-01 verifies all 3 | High |
-| Set tier (Quick/Forge/Forge+/Deep) | Yes — step-01 calculates, step-02 writes | High |
-| Auto-index project | Yes — step-03 (Deep tier only) | High |
-
-#### Classification Attributes
-
-| Attribute | Specified | Implemented | Status |
-|-----------|----------|-------------|--------|
-| Document Output | false | No templates, no outputFile | MATCH |
-| Module Affiliation | SKF | Loads from _bmad/skf/config.yaml | MATCH |
-| Session Type | single-session | All auto-proceed, no continuation | MATCH |
-| Lifecycle | create-only | Only steps-c/, no steps-e/ or steps-v/ | MATCH |
-
-#### Requirements Specifications
-
-| Requirement | Specified | Implemented | Status |
-|-------------|----------|-------------|--------|
-| Flow | Linear + conditional branch | Steps 1→2→3(conditional)→4 | MATCH |
-| Interaction | Fully autonomous | All auto-proceed, zero input | MATCH |
-| Inputs | Project root (implicit) | Used via {project-root} | MATCH |
-| forge-tier.yaml output | Single source of truth | Step-02 writes with tools + tier + timestamp | MATCH |
-| preferences.yaml output | Create if missing, never overwrite | Step-02 implements exactly | MATCH |
-| forge-data/ output | Create if missing | Step-02 implements exactly | MATCH |
-| forge-config.yaml | Eliminated (consolidated) | Not present — correct | MATCH |
-
-#### Design Elements
-
-| Element | Specified | Implemented | Status |
-|---------|----------|-------------|--------|
-| step-01: detect-and-tier | Verify tools, check override, calc tier | Present, all operations included | MATCH |
-| step-02: write-config | Write forge-tier.yaml, handle prefs, ensure dir | Present, all operations included | MATCH |
-| step-03: auto-index | Deep-only QMD index, graceful skip | Present, conditional logic correct | MATCH |
-| step-04: report | Positive framing, tier changes, --update-spec | Present, all features included | MATCH |
-| data/tier-rules.md | Tier calc rules + capability descriptions | Present, comprehensive content | MATCH |
-
-#### Tools Configuration
-
-| Tool/Feature | Specified | Implemented | Status |
-|-------------|----------|-------------|--------|
-| File I/O | Included | Steps read/write files | MATCH |
-| QMD MCP | Deep tier only, manual install | Step-03 references QMD | MATCH |
-| Creative tools | Excluded | No A/P, no brainstorming | MATCH |
-| Sub-agents | Excluded | None used | MATCH |
-| Sub-processes | Excluded | None used | MATCH |
-
-### Implementation Gaps
-
-None found. All plan requirements are fully implemented.
-
-### Quality Assessment
-
-**Plan implementation score:** 100%
-**Quality rating:** High — all requirements implemented following best practices
-
-**Status:** PASS — Fully Implemented
-
----
-
-## Summary
-
-**Validation Completed:** 2026-02-26
-**Overall Status:** PASS — All checks passed
-
-### Results Overview
-
-| Validation Check | Result |
-|-----------------|--------|
-| File Structure & Size | PASS — All files present, all under 200 lines |
-| Frontmatter Validation | PASS — All variables used, all paths relative |
-| Critical Path Violations | PASS — No violations (all {project-root} paths are valid output paths) |
-| Menu Handling Validation | PASS — Auto-proceed correctly implemented in all steps |
-| Step Type Validation | PASS — All steps match their designed types |
-| Output Format Validation | PASS (N/A — non-document workflow, correctly implemented) |
-| Validation Design Check | PASS (N/A — create-only workflow, validation not required) |
-| Instruction Style Check | PASS — Prescriptive style appropriate for system operations |
-| Collaborative Experience Check | PASS (N/A — autonomous workflow; user-facing output excellent) |
-| Subprocess Optimization | PASS — No optimization needed for simple sequential workflow |
-| Cohesive Review | PASS — Excellent quality, tightly cohesive |
-| Plan Quality Validation | PASS — 100% plan implementation |
-
-### Critical Issues
-
-None.
-
-### Warnings
-
-None.
-
-### Key Strengths
-
-- Clean error categorization (tool unavailability vs real errors)
-- Positive capability framing consistently enforced
-- Re-run detection with tier change reporting
-- Config consolidation eliminates drift risk
-- Idempotent design — safe to re-run at any time
-- Well-structured data flow between steps
-
-### Recommendation
-
-**Ready to use.** The setup-forge workflow is well-designed, fully BMAD-compliant, and implements all planned requirements at high quality. No changes needed.