ma-agents 3.4.9 → 3.5.1

package/.opencode/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md

@@ -1,206 +0,0 @@
----
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-03-density-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 2B: Document Parity Check
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity, presenting user with options for how to proceed.
-
-## 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 collaborative dialogue, not command-response
-- ✅ You bring BMAD PRD standards expertise and gap analysis
-- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on analyzing gaps and estimating parity effort
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step
-- 💬 Approach: Systematic gap analysis with clear recommendations
-- 🚪 This is an optional branch step - user chooses next action
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Analyze each BMAD PRD section for gaps
-- 💾 Append parity analysis to validation report
-- 📖 Present options and await user decision
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection
-
-## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
-
-- Available context: Non-standard PRD from step 2, validation report in progress
-- Focus: Parity analysis only - what's missing, what's needed
-- Limits: Don't perform validation checks, don't auto-proceed
-- Dependencies: Step 2 classified PRD as non-standard and user chose parity check
-
-## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
-
-**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
-
-### 1. Analyze Each BMAD PRD Section
-
-For each of the 6 BMAD PRD core sections, analyze:
-
-**Executive Summary:**
-- Does PRD have vision/overview?
-- Is problem statement clear?
-- Are target users identified?
-- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
-
-**Success Criteria:**
-- Are measurable goals defined?
-- Is success clearly defined?
-- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
-
-**Product Scope:**
-- Is scope clearly defined?
-- Are in-scope items listed?
-- Are out-of-scope items listed?
-- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
-
-**User Journeys:**
-- Are user types/personas identified?
-- Are user flows documented?
-- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
-
-**Functional Requirements:**
-- Are features/capabilities listed?
-- Are requirements structured?
-- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
-
-**Non-Functional Requirements:**
-- Are quality attributes defined?
-- Are performance/security/etc. requirements documented?
-- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
-
-### 2. Estimate Effort to Reach Parity
-
-For each missing or incomplete section, estimate:
-
-**Effort Level:**
-- Minimal - Section exists but needs minor enhancements
-- Moderate - Section missing but content exists elsewhere in PRD
-- Significant - Section missing, requires new content creation
-
-**Total Parity Effort:**
-- Based on individual section estimates
-- Classify overall: Quick / Moderate / Substantial effort
-
-### 3. Report Parity Analysis to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Parity Analysis (Non-Standard PRD)
-
-### Section-by-Section Gap Analysis
-
-**Executive Summary:**
-- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
-- Gap: [specific gap description]
-- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
-
-**Success Criteria:**
-- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
-- Gap: [specific gap description]
-- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
-
-**Product Scope:**
-- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
-- Gap: [specific gap description]
-- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
-
-**User Journeys:**
-- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
-- Gap: [specific gap description]
-- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
-
-**Functional Requirements:**
-- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
-- Gap: [specific gap description]
-- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
-
-**Non-Functional Requirements:**
-- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
-- Gap: [specific gap description]
-- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
-
-### Overall Parity Assessment
-
-**Overall Effort to Reach BMAD Standard:** [Quick/Moderate/Substantial]
-**Recommendation:** [Brief recommendation based on analysis]
-```
-
-### 4. Present Parity Analysis and Options
-
-Display:
-
-"**Parity Analysis Complete**
-
-Your PRD is missing {count} of 6 core BMAD PRD sections. The overall effort to reach BMAD standard is: **{effort level}**
-
-**Quick Summary:**
-[2-3 sentence summary of key gaps]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-{recommendation from analysis}
-
-**How would you like to proceed?**"
-
-### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS
-
-**[C] Continue Validation** - Proceed with validation using current structure
-**[E] Exit & Review** - Exit validation and review parity report
-**[S] Save & Exit** - Save parity report and exit
-
-#### EXECUTION RULES:
-
-- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
-- Only proceed based on user selection
-
-#### Menu Handling Logic:
-
-- IF C (Continue): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then read fully and follow: {nextStepFile}
-- IF E (Exit): Display parity summary and exit validation
-- IF S (Save): Confirm saved, display summary, exit
-- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- All 6 BMAD PRD sections analyzed for gaps
-- Effort estimates provided for each gap
-- Overall parity effort assessed correctly
-- Parity analysis reported to validation report
-- Clear summary presented to user
-- User can choose to continue validation, exit, or save report
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not analyzing all 6 sections systematically
-- Missing effort estimates
-- Not reporting parity analysis to validation report
-- Auto-proceeding without user decision
-- Unclear recommendations
-
-**Master Rule:** Parity check informs user of gaps and effort, but user decides whether to proceed with validation or address gaps first.

package/.opencode/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md

@@ -1,171 +0,0 @@
----
-# 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/.opencode/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md

@@ -1,211 +0,0 @@
----
-# 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.