bmad-studio 0.1.0 → 0.2.0

package/_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md

@@ -1,174 +0,0 @@
----
-name: 'step-v-03-density-validation'
-description: 'Information Density Check - Scan for anti-patterns that violate information density principles'
-
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 3: Information Density Validation
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Validate PRD meets BMAD information density standards by scanning for conversational filler, wordy phrases, and redundant expressions that violate conciseness principles.
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
-
-### Universal Rules:
-
-- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
-- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
-- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
-- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-
-### Role Reinforcement:
-
-- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
-- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
-- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
-- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and attention to detail
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on information density anti-patterns
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
-- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning and categorization
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Scan PRD for density anti-patterns systematically
-- 💾 Append density findings to validation report
-- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
-
-- Available context: PRD file, validation report with format findings
-- Focus: Information density validation only
-- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
-- Dependencies: Step 2 completed - format classification done
-
-## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
-
-**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
-
-### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
-
-**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
-
-"Perform information density validation on this PRD:
-
-1. Load the PRD file
-2. Scan for the following anti-patterns:
-   - Conversational filler phrases (examples: 'The system will allow users to...', 'It is important to note that...', 'In order to')
-   - Wordy phrases (examples: 'Due to the fact that', 'In the event of', 'For the purpose of')
-   - Redundant phrases (examples: 'Future plans', 'Absolutely essential', 'Past history')
-3. Count violations by category with line numbers
-4. Classify severity: Critical (>10 violations), Warning (5-10), Pass (<5)
-
-Return structured findings with counts and examples."
-
-### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
-
-If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
-
-**Scan for conversational filler patterns:**
-- "The system will allow users to..."
-- "It is important to note that..."
-- "In order to"
-- "For the purpose of"
-- "With regard to"
-- Count occurrences and note line numbers
-
-**Scan for wordy phrases:**
-- "Due to the fact that" (use "because")
-- "In the event of" (use "if")
-- "At this point in time" (use "now")
-- "In a manner that" (use "how")
-- Count occurrences and note line numbers
-
-**Scan for redundant phrases:**
-- "Future plans" (just "plans")
-- "Past history" (just "history")
-- "Absolutely essential" (just "essential")
-- "Completely finish" (just "finish")
-- Count occurrences and note line numbers
-
-### 3. Classify Severity
-
-**Calculate total violations:**
-- Conversational filler count
-- Wordy phrases count
-- Redundant phrases count
-- Total = sum of all categories
-
-**Determine severity:**
-- **Critical:** Total > 10 violations
-- **Warning:** Total 5-10 violations
-- **Pass:** Total < 5 violations
-
-### 4. Report Density Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Information Density Validation
-
-**Anti-Pattern Violations:**
-
-**Conversational Filler:** {count} occurrences
-[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Wordy Phrases:** {count} occurrences
-[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Redundant Phrases:** {count} occurrences
-[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Total Violations:** {total}
-
-**Severity Assessment:** [Critical/Warning/Pass]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-[If Critical] "PRD requires significant revision to improve information density. Every sentence should carry weight without filler."
-[If Warning] "PRD would benefit from reducing wordiness and eliminating filler phrases."
-[If Pass] "PRD demonstrates good information density with minimal violations."
-```
-
-### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**Information Density Validation Complete**
-
-Severity: {Critical/Warning/Pass}
-
-**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- PRD scanned for all three anti-pattern categories
-- Violations counted with line numbers
-- Severity classified correctly
-- Findings reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not scanning all anti-pattern categories
-- Missing severity classification
-- Not reporting findings to validation report
-- Pausing for user input (should auto-proceed)
-- Not attempting subprocess architecture
-
-**Master Rule:** Information density validation runs autonomously. Scan, classify, report, auto-proceed. No user interaction needed.

package/_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md

@@ -1,214 +0,0 @@
----
-name: 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation'
-description: 'Product Brief Coverage Check - Validate PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if used as input)'
-
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-05-measurability-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-productBrief: '{product_brief_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 4: Product Brief Coverage Validation
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Validate that PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if brief was used as input), mapping brief content to PRD sections and identifying gaps.
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
-
-### Universal Rules:
-
-- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
-- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
-- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
-- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-
-### Role Reinforcement:
-
-- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
-- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
-- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
-- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and traceability expertise
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on Product Brief coverage (conditional on brief existence)
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
-- 💬 Approach: Systematic mapping and gap analysis
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Check if Product Brief exists in input documents
-- 💬 If no brief: Skip this check and report "N/A - No Product Brief"
-- 🎯 If brief exists: Map brief content to PRD sections
-- 💾 Append coverage findings to validation report
-- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
-
-- Available context: PRD file, input documents from step 1, validation report
-- Focus: Product Brief coverage only (conditional)
-- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, conditional execution
-- Dependencies: Step 1 completed - input documents loaded
-
-## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
-
-**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
-
-### 1. Check for Product Brief
-
-Check if Product Brief was loaded in step 1's inputDocuments:
-
-**IF no Product Brief found:**
-Append to validation report:
-```markdown
-## Product Brief Coverage
-
-**Status:** N/A - No Product Brief was provided as input
-```
-
-Display: "**Product Brief Coverage: Skipped** (No Product Brief provided)
-
-**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile}
-
-**IF Product Brief exists:** Continue to step 2 below
-
-### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
-
-**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
-
-"Perform Product Brief coverage validation:
-
-1. Load the Product Brief
-2. Extract key content:
-   - Vision statement
-   - Target users/personas
-   - Problem statement
-   - Key features
-   - Goals/objectives
-   - Differentiators
-   - Constraints
-3. For each item, search PRD for corresponding coverage
-4. Classify coverage: Fully Covered / Partially Covered / Not Found / Intentionally Excluded
-5. Note any gaps with severity: Critical / Moderate / Informational
-
-Return structured coverage map with classifications."
-
-### 3. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
-
-If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
-
-**Extract from Product Brief:**
-- Vision: What is this product?
-- Users: Who is it for?
-- Problem: What problem does it solve?
-- Features: What are the key capabilities?
-- Goals: What are the success criteria?
-- Differentiators: What makes it unique?
-
-**For each item, search PRD:**
-- Scan Executive Summary for vision
-- Check User Journeys or user personas
-- Look for problem statement
-- Review Functional Requirements for features
-- Check Success Criteria section
-- Search for differentiators
-
-**Classify coverage:**
-- **Fully Covered:** Content present and complete
-- **Partially Covered:** Content present but incomplete
-- **Not Found:** Content missing from PRD
-- **Intentionally Excluded:** Content explicitly out of scope
-
-### 4. Assess Coverage and Severity
-
-**For each gap (Partially Covered or Not Found):**
-- Is this Critical? (Core vision, primary users, main features)
-- Is this Moderate? (Secondary features, some goals)
-- Is this Informational? (Nice-to-have features, minor details)
-
-**Note:** Some exclusions may be intentional (valid scoping decisions)
-
-### 5. Report Coverage Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Product Brief Coverage
-
-**Product Brief:** {brief_file_name}
-
-### Coverage Map
-
-**Vision Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
-[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
-
-**Target Users:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
-[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
-
-**Problem Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
-[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
-
-**Key Features:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
-[If gap: List specific features with severity]
-
-**Goals/Objectives:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
-[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
-
-**Differentiators:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
-[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
-
-### Coverage Summary
-
-**Overall Coverage:** [percentage or qualitative assessment]
-**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
-**Moderate Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
-**Informational Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-[If critical gaps exist] "PRD should be revised to cover critical Product Brief content."
-[If moderate gaps] "Consider addressing moderate gaps for complete coverage."
-[If minimal gaps] "PRD provides good coverage of Product Brief content."
-```
-
-### 6. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**Product Brief Coverage Validation Complete**
-
-Overall Coverage: {assessment}
-
-**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-05-measurability-validation.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- Checked for Product Brief existence correctly
-- If no brief: Reported "N/A" and skipped gracefully
-- If brief exists: Mapped all key brief content to PRD sections
-- Coverage classified appropriately (Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded)
-- Severity assessed for gaps (Critical/Moderate/Informational)
-- Findings reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not checking for brief existence before attempting validation
-- If brief exists: not mapping all key content areas
-- Missing coverage classifications
-- Not reporting findings to validation report
-- Not auto-proceeding
-
-**Master Rule:** Product Brief coverage is conditional - skip if no brief, validate thoroughly if brief exists. Always auto-proceed.

package/_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md

@@ -1,228 +0,0 @@
----
-name: 'step-v-05-measurability-validation'
-description: 'Measurability Validation - Validate that all requirements (FRs and NFRs) are measurable and testable'
-
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-06-traceability-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 5: Measurability Validation
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Validate that all Functional Requirements (FRs) and Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) are measurable, testable, and follow proper format without implementation details.
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
-
-### Universal Rules:
-
-- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
-- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
-- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
-- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
-- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-
-### Role Reinforcement:
-
-- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
-- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
-- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
-- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and requirements engineering expertise
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR and NFR measurability
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
-- 💬 Approach: Systematic requirement-by-requirement analysis
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Extract all FRs and NFRs from PRD
-- 💾 Validate each for measurability and format
-- 📖 Append findings to validation report
-- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
-
-- Available context: PRD file, validation report
-- Focus: FR and NFR measurability only
-- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
-- Dependencies: Steps 2-4 completed - initial validation checks done
-
-## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
-
-**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
-
-### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
-
-**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
-
-"Perform measurability validation on this PRD:
-
-**Functional Requirements (FRs):**
-1. Extract all FRs from Functional Requirements section
-2. Check each FR for:
-   - '[Actor] can [capability]' format compliance
-   - No subjective adjectives (easy, fast, simple, intuitive, etc.)
-   - No vague quantifiers (multiple, several, some, many, etc.)
-   - No implementation details (technology names, library names, data structures unless capability-relevant)
-3. Document violations with line numbers
-
-**Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs):**
-1. Extract all NFRs from Non-Functional Requirements section
-2. Check each NFR for:
-   - Specific metrics with measurement methods
-   - Template compliance (criterion, metric, measurement method, context)
-   - Context included (why this matters, who it affects)
-3. Document violations with line numbers
-
-Return structured findings with violation counts and examples."
-
-### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
-
-If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
-
-**Functional Requirements Analysis:**
-
-Extract all FRs and check each for:
-
-**Format compliance:**
-- Does it follow "[Actor] can [capability]" pattern?
-- Is actor clearly defined?
-- Is capability actionable and testable?
-
-**No subjective adjectives:**
-- Scan for: easy, fast, simple, intuitive, user-friendly, responsive, quick, efficient (without metrics)
-- Note line numbers
-
-**No vague quantifiers:**
-- Scan for: multiple, several, some, many, few, various, number of
-- Note line numbers
-
-**No implementation details:**
-- Scan for: React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, Docker, Kubernetes, Redux, etc.
-- Unless capability-relevant (e.g., "API consumers can access...")
-- Note line numbers
-
-**Non-Functional Requirements Analysis:**
-
-Extract all NFRs and check each for:
-
-**Specific metrics:**
-- Is there a measurable criterion? (e.g., "response time < 200ms", not "fast response")
-- Can this be measured or tested?
-
-**Template compliance:**
-- Criterion defined?
-- Metric specified?
-- Measurement method included?
-- Context provided?
-
-### 3. Tally Violations
-
-**FR Violations:**
-- Format violations: count
-- Subjective adjectives: count
-- Vague quantifiers: count
-- Implementation leakage: count
-- Total FR violations: sum
-
-**NFR Violations:**
-- Missing metrics: count
-- Incomplete template: count
-- Missing context: count
-- Total NFR violations: sum
-
-**Total violations:** FR violations + NFR violations
-
-### 4. Report Measurability Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Measurability Validation
-
-### Functional Requirements
-
-**Total FRs Analyzed:** {count}
-
-**Format Violations:** {count}
-[If violations exist, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Subjective Adjectives Found:** {count}
-[If found, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Vague Quantifiers Found:** {count}
-[If found, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Implementation Leakage:** {count}
-[If found, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**FR Violations Total:** {total}
-
-### Non-Functional Requirements
-
-**Total NFRs Analyzed:** {count}
-
-**Missing Metrics:** {count}
-[If missing, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Incomplete Template:** {count}
-[If incomplete, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**Missing Context:** {count}
-[If missing, list examples with line numbers]
-
-**NFR Violations Total:** {total}
-
-### Overall Assessment
-
-**Total Requirements:** {FRs + NFRs}
-**Total Violations:** {FR violations + NFR violations}
-
-**Severity:** [Critical if >10 violations, Warning if 5-10, Pass if <5]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-[If Critical] "Many requirements are not measurable or testable. Requirements must be revised to be testable for downstream work."
-[If Warning] "Some requirements need refinement for measurability. Focus on violating requirements above."
-[If Pass] "Requirements demonstrate good measurability with minimal issues."
-```
-
-### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**Measurability Validation Complete**
-
-Total Violations: {count} ({severity})
-
-**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-06-traceability-validation.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- All FRs extracted and analyzed for measurability
-- All NFRs extracted and analyzed for measurability
-- Violations documented with line numbers
-- Severity assessed correctly
-- Findings reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not analyzing all FRs and NFRs
-- Missing line numbers for violations
-- Not reporting findings to validation report
-- Not assessing severity
-- Not auto-proceeding
-
-**Master Rule:** Requirements must be testable to be useful. Validate every requirement for measurability, document violations, auto-proceed.