siesa-agents 2.1.39 → 2.1.41

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+name: create-epics-and-stories
+description: 'Transform PRD requirements and Architecture decisions into comprehensive stories organized by user value. This workflow requires completed PRD + Architecture documents (UX recommended if UI exists) and breaks down requirements into implementation-ready epics and user stories that incorporate all available technical and design context. Creates detailed, actionable stories with complete acceptance criteria for development teams.'
+web_bundle: true
+---
+
+# Create Epics and Stories
+
+**Goal:** Transform PRD requirements and Architecture decisions into comprehensive stories organized by user value, creating detailed, actionable stories with complete acceptance criteria for development teams.
+
+**Your Role:** In addition to your name, communication_style, and persona, you are also a product strategist and technical specifications writer collaborating with a product owner. This is a partnership, not a client-vendor relationship. You bring expertise in requirements decomposition, technical implementation context, and acceptance criteria writing, while the user brings their product vision, user needs, and business requirements. Work together as equals.
+
+---
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:
+
+### Core Principles
+
+- **Micro-file Design**: Each step of the overall goal is a self contained instruction file that you will adhere too 1 file as directed at a time
+- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only 1 current step file will be loaded, read, and executed to completion - never load future step files until told to do so
+- **Sequential Enforcement**: Sequence within the step files must be completed in order, no skipping or optimization allowed
+- **State Tracking**: Document progress in output file frontmatter using `stepsCompleted` array when a workflow produces a document
+- **Append-Only Building**: Build documents by appending content as directed to the output file
+
+### Step Processing Rules
+
+1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Always read the entire step file before taking any action
+2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute all numbered sections in order, never deviate
+3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: If a menu is presented, halt and wait for user selection
+4. **CHECK CONTINUATION**: If the step has a menu with Continue as an option, only proceed to next step when user selects 'C' (Continue)
+5. **SAVE STATE**: Update `stepsCompleted` in frontmatter before loading next step
+6. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, load, read entire file, then execute the next step file
+
+### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS)
+
+- 🛑 **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously
+- 📖 **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution
+- 🚫 **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence
+- 💾 **ALWAYS** update frontmatter of output files when writing the final output for a specific step
+- 🎯 **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file
+- ⏸️ **ALWAYS** halt at menus and wait for user input
+- 📋 **NEVER** create mental todo lists from future steps
+
+---
+
+## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
+
+### 1. Configuration Loading
+
+Load and read full config from {project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `output_folder`, `planning_artifacts`, `user_name`, `communication_language`, `document_output_language`
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### 2. First Step EXECUTION
+
+Load, read the full file and then execute `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/steps/step-01-validate-prerequisites.md` to begin the workflow.

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Senior Developer Review - Validation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Story file loaded from `{{story_path}}`
+- [ ] Story Status verified as reviewable (review)
+- [ ] Epic and Story IDs resolved ({{epic_num}}.{{story_num}})
+- [ ] Story Context located or warning recorded
+- [ ] Epic Tech Spec located or warning recorded
+- [ ] Architecture/standards docs loaded (as available)
+- [ ] Tech stack detected and documented
+- [ ] MCP doc search performed (or web fallback) and references captured
+- [ ] Acceptance Criteria cross-checked against implementation
+- [ ] File List reviewed and validated for completeness
+- [ ] Tests identified and mapped to ACs; gaps noted
+- [ ] Code quality review performed on changed files
+- [ ] Security review performed on changed files and dependencies
+- [ ] Outcome decided (Approve/Changes Requested/Blocked)
+- [ ] Review notes appended under "Senior Developer Review (AI)"
+- [ ] Change Log updated with review entry
+- [ ] Status updated according to settings (if enabled)
+- [ ] Sprint status synced (if sprint tracking enabled)
+- [ ] Story saved successfully
+
+_Reviewer: {{user_name}} on {{date}}_

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+<workflow>
+  <critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
+  <critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+  <critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+  <critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+
+  <critical>🔥 YOU ARE AN ADVERSARIAL CODE REVIEWER - Find what's wrong or missing! 🔥</critical>
+  <critical>Your purpose: Validate story file claims against actual implementation</critical>
+  <critical>Challenge everything: Are tasks marked [x] actually done? Are ACs really implemented?</critical>
+  <critical>Find 3-10 specific issues in every review minimum - no lazy "looks good" reviews - YOU are so much better than the dev agent
+    that wrote this slop</critical>
+  <critical>Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation against story requirements</critical>
+  <critical>Tasks marked complete but not done = CRITICAL finding</critical>
+  <critical>Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity finding</critical>
+
+  <step n="1" goal="Load story and discover changes">
+    <action>Use provided {{story_path}} or ask user which story file to review</action>
+    <action>Read COMPLETE story file</action>
+    <action>Set {{story_key}} = extracted key from filename (e.g., "1-2-user-authentication.md" → "1-2-user-authentication") or story
+      metadata</action>
+    <action>Parse sections: Story, Acceptance Criteria, Tasks/Subtasks, Dev Agent Record → File List, Change Log</action>
+
+    <!-- Discover actual changes via git -->
+    <action>Check if git repository detected in current directory</action>
+    <check if="git repository exists">
+      <action>Run `git status --porcelain` to find uncommitted changes</action>
+      <action>Run `git diff --name-only` to see modified files</action>
+      <action>Run `git diff --cached --name-only` to see staged files</action>
+      <action>Compile list of actually changed files from git output</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <!-- Cross-reference story File List vs git reality -->
+    <action>Compare story's Dev Agent Record → File List with actual git changes</action>
+    <action>Note discrepancies:
+      - Files in git but not in story File List
+      - Files in story File List but no git changes
+      - Missing documentation of what was actually changed
+    </action>
+
+    <invoke-protocol name="discover_inputs" />
+    <action>Load {project_context} for coding standards (if exists)</action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="2" goal="Build review attack plan">
+    <action>Extract ALL Acceptance Criteria from story</action>
+    <action>Extract ALL Tasks/Subtasks with completion status ([x] vs [ ])</action>
+    <action>From Dev Agent Record → File List, compile list of claimed changes</action>
+
+    <action>Create review plan:
+      1. **AC Validation**: Verify each AC is actually implemented
+      2. **Task Audit**: Verify each [x] task is really done
+      3. **Code Quality**: Security, performance, maintainability
+      4. **Test Quality**: Real tests vs placeholder bullshit
+    </action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="3" goal="Execute adversarial review">
+    <critical>VALIDATE EVERY CLAIM - Check git reality vs story claims</critical>
+
+    <!-- Git vs Story Discrepancies -->
+    <action>Review git vs story File List discrepancies:
+      1. **Files changed but not in story File List** → MEDIUM finding (incomplete documentation)
+      2. **Story lists files but no git changes** → HIGH finding (false claims)
+      3. **Uncommitted changes not documented** → MEDIUM finding (transparency issue)
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Use combined file list: story File List + git discovered files -->
+    <action>Create comprehensive review file list from story File List and git changes</action>
+
+    <!-- AC Validation -->
+    <action>For EACH Acceptance Criterion:
+      1. Read the AC requirement
+      2. Search implementation files for evidence
+      3. Determine: IMPLEMENTED, PARTIAL, or MISSING
+      4. If MISSING/PARTIAL → HIGH SEVERITY finding
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Task Completion Audit -->
+    <action>For EACH task marked [x]:
+      1. Read the task description
+      2. Search files for evidence it was actually done
+      3. **CRITICAL**: If marked [x] but NOT DONE → CRITICAL finding
+      4. Record specific proof (file:line)
+    </action>
+
+    <!-- Code Quality Deep Dive -->
+    <action>For EACH file in comprehensive review list:
+      1. **Security**: Look for injection risks, missing validation, auth issues
+      2. **Performance**: N+1 queries, inefficient loops, missing caching
+      3. **Error Handling**: Missing try/catch, poor error messages
+      4. **Code Quality**: Complex functions, magic numbers, poor naming
+      5. **Test Quality**: Are tests real assertions or placeholders?
+    </action>
+
+    <check if="total_issues_found lt 3">
+      <critical>NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH - Find more problems!</critical>
+      <action>Re-examine code for:
+        - Edge cases and null handling
+        - Architecture violations
+        - Documentation gaps
+        - Integration issues
+        - Dependency problems
+        - Git commit message quality (if applicable)
+      </action>
+      <action>Find at least 3 more specific, actionable issues</action>
+    </check>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="4" goal="Present findings and fix them">
+    <action>Categorize findings: HIGH (must fix), MEDIUM (should fix), LOW (nice to fix)</action>
+    <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = 0</action>
+    <action>Set {{action_count}} = 0</action>
+
+    <output>**🔥 CODE REVIEW FINDINGS, {user_name}!**
+
+      **Story:** {{story_file}}
+      **Git vs Story Discrepancies:** {{git_discrepancy_count}} found
+      **Issues Found:** {{high_count}} High, {{medium_count}} Medium, {{low_count}} Low
+
+      ## 🔴 CRITICAL ISSUES
+      - Tasks marked [x] but not actually implemented
+      - Acceptance Criteria not implemented
+      - Story claims files changed but no git evidence
+      - Security vulnerabilities
+
+      ## 🟡 MEDIUM ISSUES
+      - Files changed but not documented in story File List
+      - Uncommitted changes not tracked
+      - Performance problems
+      - Poor test coverage/quality
+      - Code maintainability issues
+
+      ## 🟢 LOW ISSUES
+      - Code style improvements
+      - Documentation gaps
+      - Git commit message quality
+    </output>
+
+    <ask>What should I do with these issues?
+
+      1. **Fix them automatically** - I'll update the code and tests
+      2. **Create action items** - Add to story Tasks/Subtasks for later
+      3. **Show me details** - Deep dive into specific issues
+
+      Choose [1], [2], or specify which issue to examine:</ask>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 1">
+      <action>Fix all HIGH and MEDIUM issues in the code</action>
+      <action>Add/update tests as needed</action>
+      <action>Update File List in story if files changed</action>
+      <action>Update story Dev Agent Record with fixes applied</action>
+      <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = number of HIGH and MEDIUM issues fixed</action>
+      <action>Set {{action_count}} = 0</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 2">
+      <action>Add "Review Follow-ups (AI)" subsection to Tasks/Subtasks</action>
+      <action>For each issue: `- [ ] [AI-Review][Severity] Description [file:line]`</action>
+      <action>Set {{action_count}} = number of action items created</action>
+      <action>Set {{fixed_count}} = 0</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="user chooses 3">
+      <action>Show detailed explanation with code examples</action>
+      <action>Return to fix decision</action>
+    </check>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="5" goal="Update story status and sync sprint tracking">
+    <!-- Determine new status based on review outcome -->
+    <check if="all HIGH and MEDIUM issues fixed AND all ACs implemented">
+      <action>Set {{new_status}} = "done"</action>
+      <action>Update story Status field to "done"</action>
+    </check>
+    <check if="HIGH or MEDIUM issues remain OR ACs not fully implemented">
+      <action>Set {{new_status}} = "in-progress"</action>
+      <action>Update story Status field to "in-progress"</action>
+    </check>
+    <action>Save story file</action>
+
+    <!-- Determine sprint tracking status -->
+    <check if="{sprint_status} file exists">
+      <action>Set {{current_sprint_status}} = "enabled"</action>
+    </check>
+    <check if="{sprint_status} file does NOT exist">
+      <action>Set {{current_sprint_status}} = "no-sprint-tracking"</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <!-- Sync sprint-status.yaml when story status changes (only if sprint tracking enabled) -->
+    <check if="{{current_sprint_status}} != 'no-sprint-tracking'">
+      <action>Load the FULL file: {sprint_status}</action>
+      <action>Find development_status key matching {{story_key}}</action>
+
+      <check if="{{new_status}} == 'done'">
+        <action>Update development_status[{{story_key}}] = "done"</action>
+        <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure</action>
+        <output>✅ Sprint status synced: {{story_key}} → done</output>
+      </check>
+
+      <check if="{{new_status}} == 'in-progress'">
+        <action>Update development_status[{{story_key}}] = "in-progress"</action>
+        <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure</action>
+        <output>🔄 Sprint status synced: {{story_key}} → in-progress</output>
+      </check>
+
+      <check if="story key not found in sprint status">
+        <output>⚠️ Story file updated, but sprint-status sync failed: {{story_key}} not found in sprint-status.yaml</output>
+      </check>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="{{current_sprint_status}} == 'no-sprint-tracking'">
+      <output>ℹ️ Story status updated (no sprint tracking configured)</output>
+    </check>
+
+    <output>**✅ Review Complete!**
+
+      **Story Status:** {{new_status}}
+      **Issues Fixed:** {{fixed_count}}
+      **Action Items Created:** {{action_count}}
+
+      {{#if new_status == "done"}}Code review complete!{{else}}Address the action items and continue development.{{/if}}
+    </output>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Review Story Workflow
+name: code-review
+description: "Perform an ADVERSARIAL Senior Developer code review that finds 3-10 specific problems in every story. Challenges everything: code quality, test coverage, architecture compliance, security, performance. NEVER accepts `looks good` - must find minimum issues and can auto-fix with user approval."
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+date: system-generated
+planning_artifacts: "{config_source}:planning_artifacts"
+implementation_artifacts: "{config_source}:implementation_artifacts"
+output_folder: "{implementation_artifacts}"
+sprint_status: "{implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml"
+
+# Workflow components
+installed_path: "{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.xml"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+template: false
+
+variables:
+  # Project context
+  project_context: "**/project-context.md"
+  story_dir: "{implementation_artifacts}"
+
+# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
+# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
+# Strategy: SELECTIVE LOAD - only load the specific epic needed for this story review
+input_file_patterns:
+  architecture:
+    description: "System architecture for review context"
+    whole: "{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*.md"
+    sharded: "{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*/*.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  ux_design:
+    description: "UX design specification (if UI review)"
+    whole: "{planning_artifacts}/*ux*.md"
+    sharded: "{planning_artifacts}/*ux*/*.md"
+    load_strategy: "FULL_LOAD"
+  epics:
+    description: "Epic containing story being reviewed"
+    whole: "{planning_artifacts}/*epic*.md"
+    sharded_index: "{planning_artifacts}/*epic*/index.md"
+    sharded_single: "{planning_artifacts}/*epic*/epic-{{epic_num}}.md"
+    load_strategy: "SELECTIVE_LOAD"
+
+standalone: true

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/correct-course/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,279 @@
+# Change Navigation Checklist
+
+<critical>This checklist is executed as part of: {project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/correct-course/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>Work through each section systematically with the user, recording findings and impacts</critical>
+
+<checklist>
+
+<section n="1" title="Understand the Trigger and Context">
+
+<check-item id="1.1">
+<prompt>Identify the triggering story that revealed this issue</prompt>
+<action>Document story ID and brief description</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="1.2">
+<prompt>Define the core problem precisely</prompt>
+<action>Categorize issue type:</action>
+  - Technical limitation discovered during implementation
+  - New requirement emerged from stakeholders
+  - Misunderstanding of original requirements
+  - Strategic pivot or market change
+  - Failed approach requiring different solution
+<action>Write clear problem statement</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="1.3">
+<prompt>Assess initial impact and gather supporting evidence</prompt>
+<action>Collect concrete examples, error messages, stakeholder feedback, or technical constraints</action>
+<action>Document evidence for later reference</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<halt-condition>
+<action if="trigger is unclear">HALT: "Cannot proceed without understanding what caused the need for change"</action>
+<action if="no evidence provided">HALT: "Need concrete evidence or examples of the issue before analyzing impact"</action>
+</halt-condition>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="2" title="Epic Impact Assessment">
+
+<check-item id="2.1">
+<prompt>Evaluate current epic containing the trigger story</prompt>
+<action>Can this epic still be completed as originally planned?</action>
+<action>If no, what modifications are needed?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.2">
+<prompt>Determine required epic-level changes</prompt>
+<action>Check each scenario:</action>
+  - Modify existing epic scope or acceptance criteria
+  - Add new epic to address the issue
+  - Remove or defer epic that's no longer viable
+  - Completely redefine epic based on new understanding
+<action>Document specific epic changes needed</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.3">
+<prompt>Review all remaining planned epics for required changes</prompt>
+<action>Check each future epic for impact</action>
+<action>Identify dependencies that may be affected</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.4">
+<prompt>Check if issue invalidates future epics or necessitates new ones</prompt>
+<action>Does this change make any planned epics obsolete?</action>
+<action>Are new epics needed to address gaps created by this change?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="2.5">
+<prompt>Consider if epic order or priority should change</prompt>
+<action>Should epics be resequenced based on this issue?</action>
+<action>Do priorities need adjustment?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="3" title="Artifact Conflict and Impact Analysis">
+
+<check-item id="3.1">
+<prompt>Check PRD for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Does issue conflict with core PRD goals or objectives?</action>
+<action>Do requirements need modification, addition, or removal?</action>
+<action>Is the defined MVP still achievable or does scope need adjustment?</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.2">
+<prompt>Review Architecture document for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Check each area for impact:</action>
+  - System components and their interactions
+  - Architectural patterns and design decisions
+  - Technology stack choices
+  - Data models and schemas
+  - API designs and contracts
+  - Integration points
+<action>Document specific architecture sections requiring updates</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.3">
+<prompt>Examine UI/UX specifications for conflicts</prompt>
+<action>Check for impact on:</action>
+  - User interface components
+  - User flows and journeys
+  - Wireframes or mockups
+  - Interaction patterns
+  - Accessibility considerations
+<action>Note specific UI/UX sections needing revision</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="3.4">
+<prompt>Consider impact on other artifacts</prompt>
+<action>Review additional artifacts for impact:</action>
+  - Deployment scripts
+  - Infrastructure as Code (IaC)
+  - Monitoring and observability setup
+  - Testing strategies
+  - Documentation
+  - CI/CD pipelines
+<action>Document any secondary artifacts requiring updates</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="4" title="Path Forward Evaluation">
+
+<check-item id="4.1">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 1: Direct Adjustment</prompt>
+<action>Can the issue be addressed by modifying existing stories?</action>
+<action>Can new stories be added within the current epic structure?</action>
+<action>Would this approach maintain project timeline and scope?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.2">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 2: Potential Rollback</prompt>
+<action>Would reverting recently completed stories simplify addressing this issue?</action>
+<action>Which stories would need to be rolled back?</action>
+<action>Is the rollback effort justified by the simplification gained?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.3">
+<prompt>Evaluate Option 3: PRD MVP Review</prompt>
+<action>Is the original PRD MVP still achievable with this issue?</action>
+<action>Does MVP scope need to be reduced or redefined?</action>
+<action>Do core goals need modification based on new constraints?</action>
+<action>What would be deferred to post-MVP if scope is reduced?</action>
+<action>Effort estimate: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<action>Risk level: [High/Medium/Low]</action>
+<status>[ ] Viable / [ ] Not viable</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="4.4">
+<prompt>Select recommended path forward</prompt>
+<action>Based on analysis of all options, choose the best path</action>
+<action>Provide clear rationale considering:</action>
+  - Implementation effort and timeline impact
+  - Technical risk and complexity
+  - Impact on team morale and momentum
+  - Long-term sustainability and maintainability
+  - Stakeholder expectations and business value
+<action>Selected approach: [Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 3 / Hybrid]</action>
+<action>Justification: [Document reasoning]</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="5" title="Sprint Change Proposal Components">
+
+<check-item id="5.1">
+<prompt>Create identified issue summary</prompt>
+<action>Write clear, concise problem statement</action>
+<action>Include context about discovery and impact</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.2">
+<prompt>Document epic impact and artifact adjustment needs</prompt>
+<action>Summarize findings from Epic Impact Assessment (Section 2)</action>
+<action>Summarize findings from Artifact Conflict Analysis (Section 3)</action>
+<action>Be specific about what changes are needed and why</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.3">
+<prompt>Present recommended path forward with rationale</prompt>
+<action>Include selected approach from Section 4</action>
+<action>Provide complete justification for recommendation</action>
+<action>Address trade-offs and alternatives considered</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.4">
+<prompt>Define PRD MVP impact and high-level action plan</prompt>
+<action>State clearly if MVP is affected</action>
+<action>Outline major action items needed for implementation</action>
+<action>Identify dependencies and sequencing</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="5.5">
+<prompt>Establish agent handoff plan</prompt>
+<action>Identify which roles/agents will execute the changes:</action>
+  - Development team (for implementation)
+  - Product Owner / Scrum Master (for backlog changes)
+  - Product Manager / Architect (for strategic changes)
+<action>Define responsibilities for each role</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+</section>
+
+<section n="6" title="Final Review and Handoff">
+
+<check-item id="6.1">
+<prompt>Review checklist completion</prompt>
+<action>Verify all applicable sections have been addressed</action>
+<action>Confirm all [Action-needed] items have been documented</action>
+<action>Ensure analysis is comprehensive and actionable</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.2">
+<prompt>Verify Sprint Change Proposal accuracy</prompt>
+<action>Review complete proposal for consistency and clarity</action>
+<action>Ensure all recommendations are well-supported by analysis</action>
+<action>Check that proposal is actionable and specific</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.3">
+<prompt>Obtain explicit user approval</prompt>
+<action>Present complete proposal to user</action>
+<action>Get clear yes/no approval for proceeding</action>
+<action>Document approval and any conditions</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<check-item id="6.4">
+<prompt>Confirm next steps and handoff plan</prompt>
+<action>Review handoff responsibilities with user</action>
+<action>Ensure all stakeholders understand their roles</action>
+<action>Confirm timeline and success criteria</action>
+<status>[ ] Done / [ ] N/A / [ ] Action-needed</status>
+</check-item>
+
+<halt-condition>
+<action if="any critical section cannot be completed">HALT: "Cannot proceed to proposal without complete impact analysis"</action>
+<action if="user approval not obtained">HALT: "Must have explicit approval before implementing changes"</action>
+<action if="handoff responsibilities unclear">HALT: "Must clearly define who will execute the proposed changes"</action>
+</halt-condition>
+
+</section>
+
+</checklist>
+
+<execution-notes>
+<note>This checklist is for SIGNIFICANT changes affecting project direction</note>
+<note>Work interactively with user - they make final decisions</note>
+<note>Be factual, not blame-oriented when analyzing issues</note>
+<note>Handle changes professionally as opportunities to improve the project</note>
+<note>Maintain conversation context throughout - this is collaborative work</note>
+</execution-notes>