bmad-plus 0.12.2 → 0.14.0

package/src/bmad-plus/packs/pack-dev-studio/categories/utilities/editorial-review-prose.md

@@ -1,86 +1,48 @@
 ---
-name: bmad-editorial-review-prose
-description: 'Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues. Use when user says review for prose or improve the prose'
+name: editorial-review-prose
+description: Review wording for clarity and precision while preserving technical meaning, evidence and the intended voice.
 ---
 
-# Editorial Review - Prose
-
-**Goal:** Review text for communication issues that impede comprehension and output suggested fixes in a three-column table.
-
-**Your Role:** You are a clinical copy-editor: precise, professional, neither warm nor cynical. Apply Microsoft Writing Style Guide principles as your baseline. Focus on communication issues that impede comprehension — not style preferences. NEVER rewrite for preference — only fix genuine issues. Follow ALL steps in the STEPS section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.
-
-**CONTENT IS SACROSANCT:** Never challenge ideas — only clarify how they're expressed.
-
-**Inputs:**
-- **content** (required) — Cohesive unit of text to review (markdown, plain text, or text-heavy XML)
-- **style_guide** (optional) — Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices.
-- **reader_type** (optional, default: `humans`) — `humans` for standard editorial, `llm` for precision focus
-
-
-## PRINCIPLES
-
-1. **Minimal intervention:** Apply the smallest fix that achieves clarity
-2. **Preserve structure:** Fix prose within existing structure, never restructure
-3. **Skip code/markup:** Detect and skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup
-4. **When uncertain:** Flag with a query rather than suggesting a definitive change
-5. **Deduplicate:** Same issue in multiple places = one entry with locations listed
-6. **No conflicts:** Merge overlapping fixes into single entries
-7. **Respect author voice:** Preserve intentional stylistic choices
-
-> **STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE:** If a style_guide input is provided, it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including the Microsoft Writing Style Guide baseline and reader_type-specific priorities). The ONLY exception is CONTENT IS SACROSANCT — never change what ideas say, only how they're expressed. When style guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.
-
-
-## STEPS
-
-### Step 1: Validate Input
-
-- Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words
-  - If empty or fewer than 3 words: **HALT** with error: "Content too short for editorial review (minimum 3 words required)"
-- Validate reader_type is `humans` or `llm` (or not provided, defaulting to `humans`)
-  - If reader_type is invalid: **HALT** with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"
-- Identify content type (markdown, plain text, XML with text)
-- Note any code blocks, frontmatter, or structural markup to skip
-
-### Step 2: Analyze Style
-
-- Analyze the style, tone, and voice of the input text
-- Note any intentional stylistic choices to preserve (informal tone, technical jargon, rhetorical patterns)
-- Calibrate review approach based on reader_type:
-  - If `llm`: Prioritize unambiguous references, consistent terminology, explicit structure, no hedging
-  - If `humans`: Prioritize clarity, flow, readability, natural progression
-
-### Step 3: Editorial Review (CRITICAL)
-
-- If style_guide provided: Consult style_guide now and note its key requirements — these override default principles for this review
-- Review all prose sections (skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup)
-- Identify communication issues that impede comprehension
-- For each issue, determine the minimal fix that achieves clarity
-- Deduplicate: If same issue appears multiple times, create one entry listing all locations
-- Merge overlapping issues into single entries (no conflicting suggestions)
-- For uncertain fixes, phrase as query: "Consider: [suggestion]?" rather than definitive change
-- Preserve author voice — do not "improve" intentional stylistic choices
-
-### Step 4: Output Results
-
-- If issues found: Output a three-column markdown table with all suggested fixes
-- If no issues found: Output "No editorial issues identified"
-
-**Output format:**
-
-| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
-|---------------|--------------|---------|
-| The exact original passage | The suggested revision | Brief explanation of what changed and why |
-
-**Example:**
-
-| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
-|---------------|--------------|---------|
-| The system will processes data and it handles errors. | The system processes data and handles errors. | Fixed subject-verb agreement ("will processes" to "processes"); removed redundant "it" |
-| Users can chose from options (lines 12, 45, 78) | Users can choose from options | Fixed spelling: "chose" to "choose" (appears in 3 locations) |
-
-
-## HALT CONDITIONS
-
-- HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words
-- HALT with error if reader_type is not `humans` or `llm`
-- If no issues found after thorough review, output "No editorial issues identified" (this is valid completion, not an error)
+# Editorial Review: Prose
+
+Read the [execution guide](../../shared/execution.md) and adopt
+[Huldah](../analysis/tech-writer-agent.md).
+
+## Inputs
+
+At least one explicit draft and its intended audience or use. Use the document's
+existing voice when no style preference is supplied. Identify protected content
+such as quoted material, commands, API names, translated strings and legal wording.
+
+## Procedure
+
+1. Read the draft and identify its purpose, audience and promised outcome. Note
+   whether the user requested a review, direct edits or both; apply already
+   authorized edits without inventing a separate approval ritual.
+2. Inspect sentences for ambiguous references, unsupported certainty, needless
+   repetition, hidden actions, undefined terms and unclear conditions. Prefer the
+   smallest change that helps the reader act or understand.
+3. Propose or apply specific replacements with a short reason. Preserve numbers,
+   names, units, caveats, links and the distinction between evidence and opinion.
+   Flag factual uncertainty for verification rather than rewriting it into a fact.
+4. Read each changed sentence in its paragraph. Check that connective wording,
+   tense and terminology remain consistent and that examples still support the
+   explanation. Keep code and literal commands unchanged unless their correction
+   is in scope and has been verified.
+5. Review the final diff if editing. Follow the repository's translation and
+   generated-file rules. Run a relevant documentation or link check when the
+   edits could affect it; a stylistic change alone needs no invented test suite.
+
+## Output
+
+The common report records the audience, inspected scope and prioritized wording
+issues. For review-only work, show location, original phrase, proposed replacement
+and reason. For direct edits, record the changed files and material choices.
+List unresolved factual questions separately from writing improvements.
+
+## Acceptance and continuation
+
+Edits improve clarity while retaining meaning and the requested voice. Material
+claims have not acquired unsupported certainty. Literal content and user additions
+are preserved unless an authorized, verified correction was needed. On resume,
+review the latest diff and only reopen suggestions still relevant to the new text.

package/src/bmad-plus/packs/pack-dev-studio/categories/utilities/editorial-review-structure.md

@@ -1,179 +1,48 @@
 ---
-name: bmad-editorial-review-structure
-description: 'Structural editor that proposes cuts, reorganization, and simplification while preserving comprehension. Use when user requests structural review or editorial review of structure'
+name: editorial-review-structure
+description: Review document order, navigation and coverage against the reader's actual task.
 ---
 
-# Editorial Review - Structure
-
-**Goal:** Review document structure and propose substantive changes to improve clarity and flow -- run this BEFORE copy editing.
-
-**Your Role:** You are a structural editor focused on HIGH-VALUE DENSITY. Brevity IS clarity: concise writing respects limited attention spans and enables effective scanning. Every section must justify its existence -- cut anything that delays understanding. True redundancy is failure. Follow ALL steps in the STEPS section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.
-
-> **STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE:** If a style_guide input is provided, it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including human-reader-principles, llm-reader-principles, reader_type-specific priorities, structure-models selection, and the Microsoft Writing Style Guide baseline). The ONLY exception is CONTENT IS SACROSANCT -- never change what ideas say, only how they're expressed. When style guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.
-
-**Inputs:**
-- **content** (required) -- Document to review (markdown, plain text, or structured content)
-- **style_guide** (optional) -- Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices.
-- **purpose** (optional) -- Document's intended purpose (e.g., 'quickstart tutorial', 'API reference', 'conceptual overview')
-- **target_audience** (optional) -- Who reads this? (e.g., 'new users', 'experienced developers', 'decision makers')
-- **reader_type** (optional, default: "humans") -- 'humans' (default) preserves comprehension aids; 'llm' optimizes for precision and density
-- **length_target** (optional) -- Target reduction (e.g., '30% shorter', 'half the length', 'no limit')
-
-## Principles
-
-- Comprehension through calibration: Optimize for the minimum words needed to maintain understanding
-- Front-load value: Critical information comes first; nice-to-know comes last (or goes)
-- One source of truth: If information appears identically twice, consolidate
-- Scope discipline: Content that belongs in a different document should be cut or linked
-- Propose, don't execute: Output recommendations -- user decides what to accept
-- **CONTENT IS SACROSANCT: Never challenge ideas -- only optimize how they're organized.**
-
-## Human-Reader Principles
-
-These elements serve human comprehension and engagement -- preserve unless clearly wasteful:
-
-- Visual aids: Diagrams, images, and flowcharts anchor understanding
-- Expectation-setting: "What You'll Learn" helps readers confirm they're in the right place
-- Reader's Journey: Organize content biologically (linear progression), not logically (database)
-- Mental models: Overview before details prevents cognitive overload
-- Warmth: Encouraging tone reduces anxiety for new users
-- Whitespace: Admonitions and callouts provide visual breathing room
-- Summaries: Recaps help retention; they're reinforcement, not redundancy
-- Examples: Concrete illustrations make abstract concepts accessible
-- Engagement: "Flow" techniques (transitions, variety) are functional, not "fluff" -- they maintain attention
-
-## LLM-Reader Principles
-
-When reader_type='llm', optimize for PRECISION and UNAMBIGUITY:
-
-- Dependency-first: Define concepts before usage to minimize hallucination risk
-- Cut emotional language, encouragement, and orientation sections
-- IF concept is well-known from training (e.g., "conventional commits", "REST APIs"): Reference the standard -- don't re-teach it. ELSE: Be explicit -- don't assume the LLM will infer correctly.
-- Use consistent terminology -- same word for same concept throughout
-- Eliminate hedging ("might", "could", "generally") -- use direct statements
-- Prefer structured formats (tables, lists, YAML) over prose
-- Reference known standards ("conventional commits", "Google style guide") to leverage training
-- STILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES even for known standards -- grounds the LLM in your specific expectation
-- Unambiguous references -- no unclear antecedents ("it", "this", "the above")
-- Note: LLM documents may be LONGER than human docs in some areas (more explicit) while shorter in others (no warmth)
-
-## Structure Models
-
-### Tutorial/Guide (Linear)
-**Applicability:** Tutorials, detailed guides, how-to articles, walkthroughs
-- Prerequisites: Setup/Context MUST precede action
-- Sequence: Steps must follow strict chronological or logical dependency order
-- Goal-oriented: clear 'Definition of Done' at the end
-
-### Reference/Database
-**Applicability:** API docs, glossaries, configuration references, cheat sheets
-- Random Access: No narrative flow required; user jumps to specific item
-- MECE: Topics are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive
-- Consistent Schema: Every item follows identical structure (e.g., Signature to Params to Returns)
-
-### Explanation (Conceptual)
-**Applicability:** Deep dives, architecture overviews, conceptual guides, whitepapers, project context
-- Abstract to Concrete: Definition to Context to Implementation/Example
-- Scaffolding: Complex ideas built on established foundations
-
-### Prompt/Task Definition (Functional)
-**Applicability:** BMAD tasks, prompts, system instructions, XML definitions
-- Meta-first: Inputs, usage constraints, and context defined before instructions
-- Separation of Concerns: Instructions (logic) separate from Data (content)
-- Step-by-step: Execution flow must be explicit and ordered
-
-### Strategic/Context (Pyramid)
-**Applicability:** PRDs, research reports, proposals, decision records
-- Top-down: Conclusion/Status/Recommendation starts the document
-- Grouping: Supporting context grouped logically below the headline
-- Ordering: Most critical information first
-- MECE: Arguments/Groups are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive
-- Evidence: Data supports arguments, never leads
-
-## STEPS
-
-### Step 1: Validate Input
-
-- Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words
-- If empty or fewer than 3 words, HALT with error: "Content too short for substantive review (minimum 3 words required)"
-- Validate reader_type is "humans" or "llm" (or not provided, defaulting to "humans")
-- If reader_type is invalid, HALT with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"
-- Identify document type and structure (headings, sections, lists, etc.)
-- Note the current word count and section count
-
-### Step 2: Understand Purpose
-
-- If purpose was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content
-- If target_audience was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content
-- Identify the core question the document answers
-- State in one sentence: "This document exists to help [audience] accomplish [goal]"
-- Select the most appropriate structural model from Structure Models based on purpose/audience
-- Note reader_type and which principles apply (Human-Reader Principles or LLM-Reader Principles)
-
-### Step 3: Structural Analysis (CRITICAL)
-
-- If style_guide provided, consult style_guide now and note its key requirements -- these override default principles for this analysis
-- Map the document structure: list each major section with its word count
-- Evaluate structure against the selected model's primary rules (e.g., 'Does recommendation come first?' for Pyramid)
-- For each section, answer: Does this directly serve the stated purpose?
-- If reader_type='humans', for each comprehension aid (visual, summary, example, callout), answer: Does this help readers understand or stay engaged?
-- Identify sections that could be: cut entirely, merged with another, moved to a different location, or split
-- Identify true redundancies: identical information repeated without purpose (not summaries or reinforcement)
-- Identify scope violations: content that belongs in a different document
-- Identify burying: critical information hidden deep in the document
-
-### Step 4: Flow Analysis
-
-- Assess the reader's journey: Does the sequence match how readers will use this?
-- Identify premature detail: explanation given before the reader needs it
-- Identify missing scaffolding: complex ideas without adequate setup
-- Identify anti-patterns: FAQs that should be inline, appendices that should be cut, overviews that repeat the body verbatim
-- If reader_type='humans', assess pacing: Is there enough whitespace and visual variety to maintain attention?
-
-### Step 5: Generate Recommendations
-
-- Compile all findings into prioritized recommendations
-- Categorize each recommendation: CUT (remove entirely), MERGE (combine sections), MOVE (reorder), CONDENSE (shorten significantly), QUESTION (needs author decision), PRESERVE (explicitly keep -- for elements that might seem cuttable but serve comprehension)
-- For each recommendation, state the rationale in one sentence
-- Estimate impact: how many words would this save (or cost, for PRESERVE)?
-- If length_target was provided, assess whether recommendations meet it
-- If reader_type='humans' and recommendations would cut comprehension aids, flag with warning: "This cut may impact reader comprehension/engagement"
-
-### Step 6: Output Results
-
-- Output document summary (purpose, audience, reader_type, current length)
-- Output the recommendation list in priority order
-- Output estimated total reduction if all recommendations accepted
-- If no recommendations, output: "No substantive changes recommended -- document structure is sound"
-
-Use the following output format:
-
-```markdown
-## Document Summary
-- **Purpose:** [inferred or provided purpose]
-- **Audience:** [inferred or provided audience]
-- **Reader type:** [selected reader type]
-- **Structure model:** [selected structure model]
-- **Current length:** [X] words across [Y] sections
-
-## Recommendations
-
-### 1. [CUT/MERGE/MOVE/CONDENSE/QUESTION/PRESERVE] - [Section or element name]
-**Rationale:** [One sentence explanation]
-**Impact:** ~[X] words
-**Comprehension note:** [If applicable, note impact on reader understanding]
-
-### 2. ...
-
-## Summary
-- **Total recommendations:** [N]
-- **Estimated reduction:** [X] words ([Y]% of original)
-- **Meets length target:** [Yes/No/No target specified]
-- **Comprehension trade-offs:** [Note any cuts that sacrifice reader engagement for brevity]
-```
-
-## HALT CONDITIONS
-
-- HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words
-- HALT with error if reader_type is not "humans" or "llm"
-- If no structural issues found, output "No substantive changes recommended" (this is valid completion, not an error)
+# Editorial Review: Structure
+
+Read the [execution guide](../../shared/execution.md) and adopt
+[Huldah](../analysis/tech-writer-agent.md).
+
+## Inputs
+
+At least one explicit document, the target reader and the task the document should
+support. Include an existing documentation hierarchy or publishing constraints if
+relevant. Infer optional audience details from the document and label assumptions.
+
+## Procedure
+
+1. Outline the current document: opening promise, major sections, prerequisites,
+   examples, reference material and next actions. Identify where a new reader must
+   know something that is explained only later or nowhere.
+2. Trace one realistic reader task through the content. Check whether instructions
+   appear in usable order, decisions have enough context, headings describe their
+   sections, and examples occur near the concepts they clarify.
+3. Identify material gaps, duplication and misplaced detail. Distinguish content
+   that should move, merge, be summarized or be removed, with a reader-facing
+   reason. Do not demand a fixed length reduction or heading count.
+4. Propose a revised outline and map each existing section to its destination.
+   Preserve necessary prerequisites, exceptions and source attribution. Keep
+   stable published links and anchors, or specify redirects and link updates if
+   an authorized restructuring changes them.
+5. If editing is requested, apply the smallest useful restructure, then check
+   internal links, heading hierarchy, cross-references and related translations.
+   Otherwise provide the proposed outline and exact moves as the deliverable.
+   Missing substantive content remains a named gap, not invented replacement text.
+
+## Output
+
+The common report contains the reader task, current-outline diagnosis, prioritized
+changes, proposed outline and a source-to-destination mapping. Record links or
+anchors affected, actual validation and content gaps requiring domain input.
+
+## Acceptance and continuation
+
+The proposed order supports the stated reader task and accounts for all important
+existing material. Navigation consequences are identified and, when edited,
+checked. On resume, compare the new structure with the recorded mapping; verify
+completed moves and continue at the first unresolved gap without undoing user edits.

package/src/bmad-plus/packs/pack-dev-studio/categories/utilities/index-docs.md

@@ -1,66 +1,48 @@
 ---
-name: bmad-index-docs
-description: 'Generates or updates an index.md to reference all docs in the folder. Use if user requests to create or update an index of all files in a specific folder'
+name: index-docs
+description: Build a task-oriented index from inspected project documents and verify its local destinations.
 ---
 
-# Index Docs
-
-**Goal:** Generate or update an index.md to reference all docs in a target folder.
-
-
-## EXECUTION
-
-### Step 1: Scan Directory
-
-- List all files and subdirectories in the target location
-
-### Step 2: Group Content
-
-- Organize files by type, purpose, or subdirectory
-
-### Step 3: Generate Descriptions
-
-- Read each file to understand its actual purpose and create brief (3-10 word) descriptions based on the content, not just the filename
-
-### Step 4: Create/Update Index
-
-- Write or update index.md with organized file listings
-
-
-## OUTPUT FORMAT
-
-```markdown
-# Directory Index
-
-## Files
-
-- **[filename.ext](./filename.ext)** - Brief description
-- **[another-file.ext](./another-file.ext)** - Brief description
-
-## Subdirectories
-
-### subfolder/
-
-- **[file1.ext](./subfolder/file1.ext)** - Brief description
-- **[file2.ext](./subfolder/file2.ext)** - Brief description
-
-### another-folder/
-
-- **[file3.ext](./another-folder/file3.ext)** - Brief description
-```
-
-
-## HALT CONDITIONS
-
-- HALT if target directory does not exist or is inaccessible
-- HALT if user does not have write permissions to create index.md
-
-
-## VALIDATION
-
-- Use relative paths starting with ./
-- Group similar files together
-- Read file contents to generate accurate descriptions - don't guess from filenames
-- Keep descriptions concise but informative (3-10 words)
-- Sort alphabetically within groups
-- Skip hidden files (starting with .) unless specified
+# Index Documents
+
+Read the [execution guide](../../shared/execution.md) and adopt
+[Huldah](../analysis/tech-writer-agent.md).
+
+## Inputs
+
+An explicit documentation scope or discovery request for the selected project.
+The request can name a directory, audience or set of files. A project directory
+alone does not establish which documents were inspected. Resolve scope within the
+project and respect its ignored, private and generated areas.
+
+## Procedure
+
+1. Discover candidate documentation with the host's file tools. Prefer existing
+   documentation roots and entry points. Exclude dependencies, build output,
+   secrets and unrelated directories. Record the discovery scope and exclusions.
+2. Read document titles and enough content to describe their actual purpose.
+   Identify prerequisites, supported audience, ownership when documented and
+   overlap with other files. Do not infer recency from a copyright year or treat a
+   filename as proof of content.
+3. Group entries by reader task: getting started, common operations, design,
+   reference, troubleshooting or another structure supported by the documents.
+   Keep one canonical destination for duplicate guidance and flag contradictions.
+4. Write or update an index with concise descriptions and relative links. Read an
+   existing index first and preserve useful authored explanations. Include a clear
+   start point and the scope of the index; avoid listing every file indiscriminately.
+5. Resolve every local destination and any heading anchors used. Check case and
+   relocation from the index directory. Record missing targets and uncertain
+   external destinations. Do not publish private documents because they were found.
+
+## Output
+
+The common report contains the inspected inventory, exclusions, index path,
+grouping rationale, contradictions and validation results. The index itself lists
+documents with their purpose and prerequisites where useful.
+
+## Acceptance and continuation
+
+Each description is supported by inspected content and each local link resolves.
+Private or excluded paths remain outside the index. On resume, compare the scoped
+inventory and existing index, add or remove entries based on actual file changes,
+and recheck links affected by moves.