bmad-plus 0.7.4 → 0.8.0

package/src/bmad-plus/packs/pack-dev-studio/categories/implementation/investigate.md

@@ -1,194 +1,194 @@
----
-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
-
-<!-- Adapted for BMAD+: original script dependency removed -->
-
-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}/project config` 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.
-
-### 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.
+---
+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
+
+<!-- Adapted for BMAD+: original script dependency removed -->
+
+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}/project config` 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.
+
+### 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.