siesa-agents 2.1.78 → 2.1.79

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/steps/step-07-commit-push.md

@@ -1,174 +0,0 @@
----
-name: 'step-07-commit-push'
-description: 'Safely commit and push verified code following centralized GitFlow guidelines'
-
-# Path Definitions
-workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review'
-
-# File References
-thisStepFile: '{workflow_path}/steps/step-07-commit-push.md'
-workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
-outputFile: '{output_folder}/review-{story_key}.md'
-
-# Data References
-sprint_status_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml'
-
-# Centralized GitFlow Guidelines
-gitFlowGuide: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/data/git-flow-siesa.md'
----
-
-# Step 7: Commit & Push
-
-## STEP GOAL:
-
-To securely persist the verified and approved code changes to the repository following the **centralized GitFlow guidelines** defined in `{gitFlowGuide}`.
-
-## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES:
-
-- 📖 **LOAD AND READ** `{gitFlowGuide}` before any Git operation
-- 🛑 ONLY execute if the story status is explicitly 'done' or 'completed'
-- 🌳 Ensure development branch follows the naming convention from the centralized guide
-- 📝 Commit messages must follow the standard from `{gitFlowGuide}` (Conventional Commits)
-
-## Sequence of Instructions
-
-### 1. Load GitFlow Guidelines
-
-<action>
-1. Load and read the entire file at `{gitFlowGuide}`.
-2. Extract and apply:
-   - **Commit Message Format**: From Section 3 (Conventional Commits)
-   - **Governance Rules**: From Section 4 (lowercase, protected branches)
-</action>
-
-### 2. Verification of Status
-
-**Goal**: Ensure we are authorized to push code.
-
-<action>
-1. Load `{sprint_status_file}`.
-2. Find the entry for `{{story_key}}` under `development_status`.
-3. Check if the value is `done` (or `completed`).
-</action>
-
-<check if="status != 'done' AND status != 'completed'">
-  <output>
-  ⚠️ **COMMIT ABORTED**: Story status is '{{status}}'.
-  Changes are only committed and pushed when the story is marked as 'done'.
-  </output>
-  <action>STOP execution. Do NOT run git commands.</action>
-</check>
-
-### 3. Branch Validation
-
-**Goal**: Ensure code is committed to the correct branch per GitFlow guidelines.
-
-<check if="status == 'done' OR status == 'completed'">
-
-  <action>
-  1. Run `git branch --show-current` to get `current_branch`.
-  2. Validate the branch follows the naming convention from `{gitFlowGuide}`:
-     - Pattern: `{parent}-{team}-{owner}-{rq}-{description}`
-     - Must be lowercase
-     - Must NOT be `main` or `develop` (protected branches)
-  </action>
-
-  <check if="current_branch == 'main' OR current_branch == 'develop'">
-      <output>
-      🛑 **COMMIT BLOCKED**: Cannot commit directly to protected branch '{{current_branch}}'.
-      Per GitFlow guidelines, please switch to your feature branch first.
-      </output>
-      <action>STOP execution.</action>
-  </check>
-
-  <check if="branch naming is valid">
-      <output>✅ Branch '{{current_branch}}' follows GitFlow naming convention.</output>
-  </check>
-
-</check>
-
-### 4. Git Operations
-
-**Goal**: Persist changes following commit standards from `{gitFlowGuide}`.
-
-<check if="status == 'done' OR status == 'completed'">
-
-  1. **Stage Changes**:
-     <action>Run command `git add .`</action>
-
-  2. **Construct Commit Message**:
-     <action>
-     Per Section 3 of `{gitFlowGuide}`, use Conventional Commits format:
-     - For features: `feat: {description}`
-     - For fixes: `fix: {description}`
-
-     Derive type from story context and construct message.
-     </action>
-
-  3. **User Confirmation**:
-     <output>
-     READY TO COMMIT:
-     - Branch: {{current_branch}}
-     - Message: "feat: implementation for story {{story_key}}"
-
-     Do you want to proceed with the commit and push?
-     </output>
-
-     <menu>
-        <item cmd="C" action="continue">Yes, Commit & Push</item>
-        <item cmd="M" action="exit">No, Cancel (Manual Handling)</item>
-     </menu>
-
-     <logic>
-       <if selection="M">
-          <output>🚫 Commit cancelled by user.</output>
-          <output>Changes are staged. You can now commit manually.</output>
-          <action>Update frontmatter of `{outputFile}`: `stepsCompleted: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]`</action>
-          <action>EXIT</action>
-       </if>
-     </logic>
-
-  4. **Commit Changes**:
-     <action>Run command `git commit -m "feat: implementation for story {{story_key}}"`</action>
-     <check if="Commit failed (no changes?)">
-        <output>ℹ️ No changes to commit.</output>
-     </check>
-
-  5. **Push to Remote**:
-     <action>
-     1. Get current branch: `git branch --show-current`
-     2. Push: `git push origin {{current_branch}}`
-     </action>
-
-     <check if="Push failed">
-        <output>❌ **Push Failed**. Please check your network or permissions and try pushing manually.</output>
-     </check>
-     <check if="Push success">
-        <output>✅ **Success**: Code pushed to origin/{{current_branch}}.</output>
-     </check>
-
-</check>
-
-### 5. Final Logging
-
-<action>Append to `{outputFile}`:</action>
-<template-output>
-## Repository Sync
-- **Branch**: {{current_branch}}
-- **Commit**: [Performed/Skipped]
-- **Push**: [Performed/Skipped]
-- **GitFlow Compliance**: ✅ Verified against `{gitFlowGuide}`
-- **Status**: Workflow Completed Successfully
-</template-output>
-
-### 6. Workflow Completion
-
-<output>
-🎉 **Workflow Completed**
-The code review cycle for **{{story_key}}** is finished.
-All Git operations followed the centralized GitFlow guidelines.
-</output>
-
-<action>Update frontmatter of `{outputFile}`: `stepsCompleted: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]`</action>
-
-<action>EXIT workflow.</action>

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

@@ -1,57 +0,0 @@
----
-name: code-review
-description: "Adversarial Senior Developer Code Review. Validates stories, checks git changes, enforces strict quality, and syncs status with Jira."
-web_bundle: true
----
-
-# Code Review
-
-**Goal:** Perform an adversarial code review to validate implementation against story requirements, finding at least 3-10 specific issues, and synchronize status with project tracking.
-
-**Your Role:** In addition to your name, communication_style, and persona, you are an **Adversarial Senior Developer**. You verify claims against reality. You doubt everything until proven. You bring deep code quality expertise, while the user brings the implementation to be reviewed. Work together to perfect the code.
-
-## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
-
-### 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. Module Configuration Loading
-
-Load and read full config from `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` and resolve:
-
-- `project_name`, `output_folder`, `user_name`, `communication_language`, `document_output_language`
-- `user_skill_level`, `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`
-
-### 2. First Step EXECUTION
-
-Load, read the full file and then execute `{workflow_root}/steps/step-01-load-story.md` to begin the workflow.
-
-*(Note: `workflow_root` is `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review`)*

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

@@ -1,50 +0,0 @@
-# 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

@@ -1,279 +0,0 @@
-# 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>