ma-agents 3.4.9 → 3.5.1

package/.opencode/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md

@@ -1,225 +0,0 @@
----
-# 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.

package/.opencode/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-06-traceability-validation.md

@@ -1,214 +0,0 @@
----
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 6: Traceability Validation
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Validate the traceability chain from Executive Summary → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements is intact, ensuring every requirement traces back to a user need or business objective.
-
-## 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 matrix expertise
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on traceability chain validation
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
-- 💬 Approach: Systematic chain validation and orphan detection
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Build and validate traceability matrix
-- 💾 Identify broken chains and orphan requirements
-- 📖 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: Traceability chain validation only
-- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
-- Dependencies: Steps 2-5 completed - initial validations 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 traceability validation on this PRD:
-
-1. Extract content from Executive Summary (vision, goals)
-2. Extract Success Criteria
-3. Extract User Journeys (user types, flows, outcomes)
-4. Extract Functional Requirements (FRs)
-5. Extract Product Scope (in-scope items)
-
-**Validate chains:**
-- Executive Summary → Success Criteria: Does vision align with defined success?
-- Success Criteria → User Journeys: Are success criteria supported by user journeys?
-- User Journeys → Functional Requirements: Does each FR trace back to a user journey?
-- Scope → FRs: Do MVP scope FRs align with in-scope items?
-
-**Identify orphans:**
-- FRs not traceable to any user journey or business objective
-- Success criteria not supported by user journeys
-- User journeys without supporting FRs
-
-Build traceability matrix and identify broken chains and orphan FRs.
-
-Return structured findings with chain status and orphan list."
-
-### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
-
-If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
-
-**Step 1: Extract key elements**
-- Executive Summary: Note vision, goals, objectives
-- Success Criteria: List all criteria
-- User Journeys: List user types and their flows
-- Functional Requirements: List all FRs
-- Product Scope: List in-scope items
-
-**Step 2: Validate Executive Summary → Success Criteria**
-- Does Executive Summary mention the success dimensions?
-- Are Success Criteria aligned with vision?
-- Note any misalignment
-
-**Step 3: Validate Success Criteria → User Journeys**
-- For each success criterion, is there a user journey that achieves it?
-- Note success criteria without supporting journeys
-
-**Step 4: Validate User Journeys → FRs**
-- For each user journey/flow, are there FRs that enable it?
-- List FRs with no clear user journey origin
-- Note orphan FRs (requirements without traceable source)
-
-**Step 5: Validate Scope → FR Alignment**
-- Does MVP scope align with essential FRs?
-- Are in-scope items supported by FRs?
-- Note misalignments
-
-**Step 6: Build traceability matrix**
-- Map each FR to its source (journey or business objective)
-- Note orphan FRs
-- Identify broken chains
-
-### 3. Tally Traceability Issues
-
-**Broken chains:**
-- Executive Summary → Success Criteria gaps: count
-- Success Criteria → User Journeys gaps: count
-- User Journeys → FRs gaps: count
-- Scope → FR misalignments: count
-
-**Orphan elements:**
-- Orphan FRs (no traceable source): count
-- Unsupported success criteria: count
-- User journeys without FRs: count
-
-**Total issues:** Sum of all broken chains and orphans
-
-### 4. Report Traceability Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Traceability Validation
-
-### Chain Validation
-
-**Executive Summary → Success Criteria:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
-{If gaps: List specific misalignments}
-
-**Success Criteria → User Journeys:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
-{If gaps: List unsupported success criteria}
-
-**User Journeys → Functional Requirements:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
-{If gaps: List journeys without supporting FRs}
-
-**Scope → FR Alignment:** [Intact/Misaligned]
-{If misaligned: List specific issues}
-
-### Orphan Elements
-
-**Orphan Functional Requirements:** {count}
-{List orphan FRs with numbers}
-
-**Unsupported Success Criteria:** {count}
-{List unsupported criteria}
-
-**User Journeys Without FRs:** {count}
-{List journeys without FRs}
-
-### Traceability Matrix
-
-{Summary table showing traceability coverage}
-
-**Total Traceability Issues:** {total}
-
-**Severity:** [Critical if orphan FRs exist, Warning if gaps, Pass if intact]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-[If Critical] "Orphan requirements exist - every FR must trace back to a user need or business objective."
-[If Warning] "Traceability gaps identified - strengthen chains to ensure all requirements are justified."
-[If Pass] "Traceability chain is intact - all requirements trace to user needs or business objectives."
-```
-
-### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**Traceability Validation Complete**
-
-Total Issues: {count} ({severity})
-
-**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- All traceability chains validated systematically
-- Orphan FRs identified with numbers
-- Broken chains documented
-- Traceability matrix built
-- Severity assessed correctly
-- Findings reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not validating all traceability chains
-- Missing orphan FR detection
-- Not building traceability matrix
-- Not reporting findings to validation report
-- Not auto-proceeding
-
-**Master Rule:** Every requirement should trace to a user need or business objective. Orphan FRs indicate broken traceability that must be fixed.

package/.opencode/skills/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md

@@ -1,202 +0,0 @@
----
-# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
-nextStepFile: './step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md'
-prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
-validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
----
-
-# Step 7: Implementation Leakage Validation
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-Ensure Functional Requirements and Non-Functional Requirements don't include implementation details - they should specify WHAT, not HOW.
-
-## 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 separation of concerns expertise
-- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
-
-### Step-Specific Rules:
-
-- 🎯 Focus ONLY on implementation leakage detection
-- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
-- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning for technology and implementation terms
-- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
-
-## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
-
-- 🎯 Scan FRs and NFRs for implementation terms
-- 💾 Distinguish capability-relevant vs leakage
-- 📖 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: Implementation leakage detection only
-- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
-- Dependencies: Steps 2-6 completed - initial validations 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 implementation leakage validation on this PRD:
-
-**Scan for:**
-1. Technology names (React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, GCP, Azure, Docker, Kubernetes, etc.)
-2. Library names (Redux, axios, lodash, Express, Django, Rails, Spring, etc.)
-3. Data structures (JSON, XML, CSV) unless relevant to capability
-4. Architecture patterns (MVC, microservices, serverless) unless business requirement
-5. Protocol names (HTTP, REST, GraphQL, WebSockets) - check if capability-relevant
-
-**For each term found:**
-- Is this capability-relevant? (e.g., 'API consumers can access...' - API is capability)
-- Or is this implementation detail? (e.g., 'React component for...' - implementation)
-
-Document violations with line numbers and explanation.
-
-Return structured findings with leakage counts and examples."
-
-### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
-
-If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
-
-**Implementation leakage terms to scan for:**
-
-**Frontend Frameworks:**
-React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Solid, Next.js, Nuxt, etc.
-
-**Backend Frameworks:**
-Express, Django, Rails, Spring, Laravel, FastAPI, etc.
-
-**Databases:**
-PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Redis, DynamoDB, Cassandra, etc.
-
-**Cloud Platforms:**
-AWS, GCP, Azure, Cloudflare, Vercel, Netlify, etc.
-
-**Infrastructure:**
-Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, etc.
-
-**Libraries:**
-Redux, Zustand, axios, fetch, lodash, jQuery, etc.
-
-**Data Formats:**
-JSON, XML, YAML, CSV (unless capability-relevant)
-
-**For each term found in FRs/NFRs:**
-- Determine if it's capability-relevant or implementation leakage
-- Example: "API consumers can access data via REST endpoints" - API/REST is capability
-- Example: "React components fetch data using Redux" - implementation leakage
-
-**Count violations and note line numbers**
-
-### 3. Tally Implementation Leakage
-
-**By category:**
-- Frontend framework leakage: count
-- Backend framework leakage: count
-- Database leakage: count
-- Cloud platform leakage: count
-- Infrastructure leakage: count
-- Library leakage: count
-- Other implementation details: count
-
-**Total implementation leakage violations:** sum
-
-### 4. Report Implementation Leakage Findings to Validation Report
-
-Append to validation report:
-
-```markdown
-## Implementation Leakage Validation
-
-### Leakage by Category
-
-**Frontend Frameworks:** {count} violations
-{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
-
-**Backend Frameworks:** {count} violations
-{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
-
-**Databases:** {count} violations
-{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
-
-**Cloud Platforms:** {count} violations
-{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
-
-**Infrastructure:** {count} violations
-{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
-
-**Libraries:** {count} violations
-{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
-
-**Other Implementation Details:** {count} violations
-{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
-
-### Summary
-
-**Total Implementation Leakage Violations:** {total}
-
-**Severity:** [Critical if >5 violations, Warning if 2-5, Pass if <2]
-
-**Recommendation:**
-[If Critical] "Extensive implementation leakage found. Requirements specify HOW instead of WHAT. Remove all implementation details - these belong in architecture, not PRD."
-[If Warning] "Some implementation leakage detected. Review violations and remove implementation details from requirements."
-[If Pass] "No significant implementation leakage found. Requirements properly specify WHAT without HOW."
-
-**Note:** API consumers, GraphQL (when required), and other capability-relevant terms are acceptable when they describe WHAT the system must do, not HOW to build it.
-```
-
-### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
-
-Display: "**Implementation Leakage Validation Complete**
-
-Total Violations: {count} ({severity})
-
-**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
-
-Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md)
-
----
-
-## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
-
-### ✅ SUCCESS:
-
-- Scanned FRs and NFRs for all implementation term categories
-- Distinguished capability-relevant from implementation leakage
-- Violations documented with line numbers and explanations
-- Severity assessed correctly
-- Findings reported to validation report
-- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
-- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
-
-### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
-
-- Not scanning all implementation term categories
-- Not distinguishing capability-relevant from leakage
-- Missing line numbers for violations
-- Not reporting findings to validation report
-- Not auto-proceeding
-
-**Master Rule:** Requirements specify WHAT, not HOW. Implementation details belong in architecture documents, not PRDs.