substrate-ai 0.1.23 → 0.1.24

package/dist/cli/index.js

@@ -12438,7 +12438,8 @@ const ProductBriefSchema = z.object({
 	target_users: z.array(z.string().min(1)).min(1),
 	core_features: z.array(z.string().min(1)).min(1),
 	success_metrics: z.array(z.string().min(1)).min(1),
-	constraints: z.array(z.string()).default([])
+	constraints: z.array(z.string()).default([]),
+	technology_constraints: z.array(z.string()).optional().default([])
 });
 /**
 * Zod schema for the full YAML output emitted by the analysis agent.
@@ -12465,7 +12466,8 @@ const AnalysisScopeOutputSchema = z.object({
 	result: z.enum(["success", "failed"]),
 	core_features: z.array(z.string().min(1)).min(1).optional(),
 	success_metrics: z.array(z.string().min(1)).min(1).optional(),
-	constraints: z.array(z.string()).default([])
+	constraints: z.array(z.string()).default([]),
+	technology_constraints: z.array(z.string()).optional().default([])
 });
 /**
 * Zod schema for a single functional requirement.
@@ -13118,7 +13120,8 @@ const BRIEF_FIELDS$1 = [
 	"target_users",
 	"core_features",
 	"success_metrics",
-	"constraints"
+	"constraints",
+	"technology_constraints"
 ];
 /**
 * Build step definitions for 2-step analysis decomposition.
@@ -13167,6 +13170,11 @@ function buildAnalysisSteps() {
 				field: "constraints",
 				category: "product-brief",
 				key: "constraints"
+			},
+			{
+				field: "technology_constraints",
+				category: "technology-constraints",
+				key: "technology_constraints"
 			}
 		],
 		registerArtifact: {
@@ -13188,10 +13196,8 @@ async function runAnalysisMultiStep(deps, params) {
 		output: 0
 	};
 	try {
-		let effectiveConcept = params.concept;
-		if (params.concept.length > MAX_CONCEPT_CHARS) effectiveConcept = params.concept.slice(0, MAX_CONCEPT_CHARS) + "...";
 		const steps = buildAnalysisSteps();
-		const result = await runSteps(steps, deps, params.runId, "analysis", { concept: effectiveConcept });
+		const result = await runSteps(steps, deps, params.runId, "analysis", { concept: params.concept });
 		if (!result.success) return {
 			result: "failed",
 			error: result.error ?? "multi_step_failed",
@@ -13211,7 +13217,8 @@ async function runAnalysisMultiStep(deps, params) {
 			target_users: visionOutput.target_users,
 			core_features: scopeOutput.core_features,
 			success_metrics: scopeOutput.success_metrics,
-			constraints: scopeOutput.constraints ?? []
+			constraints: scopeOutput.constraints ?? [],
+			technology_constraints: scopeOutput.technology_constraints ?? []
 		};
 		const analysisResult = {
 			result: "success",
@@ -13360,7 +13367,8 @@ const BRIEF_FIELDS = [
 	"target_users",
 	"core_features",
 	"success_metrics",
-	"constraints"
+	"constraints",
+	"technology_constraints"
 ];
 /**
 * Format product brief decisions from the analysis phase into markdown-like text
@@ -13456,6 +13464,10 @@ function buildPlanningSteps() {
 				{
 					placeholder: "functional_requirements",
 					source: "step:planning-step-2-frs"
+				},
+				{
+					placeholder: "technology_constraints",
+					source: "decision:analysis.technology-constraints"
 				}
 			],
 			persist: [

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "substrate-ai",
-  "version": "0.1.23",
+  "version": "0.1.24",
   "description": "Substrate — multi-agent orchestration daemon for AI coding agents",
   "type": "module",
   "license": "MIT",

package/packs/bmad/manifest.yaml

@@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ phases:
             source: "step:planning-step-1-classification"
           - placeholder: functional_requirements
             source: "step:planning-step-2-frs"
+          - placeholder: technology_constraints
+            source: "decision:analysis.technology-constraints"
         critique: true
   - name: ux-design
     description: UX discovery, design system, and user journey mapping (optional — runs when uxDesign is true)

package/packs/bmad/prompts/analysis-step-1-vision.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Analyze the project concept above and produce a focused **vision analysis**: a c
 
 2. **Generate a research-grade problem statement:**
    - A clear, specific articulation of the problem (minimum 2-3 sentences)
-   - Ground it in user pain, not technology
+   - Ground the problem statement in user pain, not technology choices
    - Include the impact of the problem remaining unsolved
 
 3. **Identify target users:**

package/packs/bmad/prompts/analysis-step-2-scope.md

@@ -26,12 +26,20 @@ Building on the vision analysis above, define the **scope**: core features, succ
    - Include both leading indicators (engagement, adoption) and lagging indicators (retention, revenue)
    - Be specific enough to measure
 
-3. **Identify constraints:**
-   - Technical limitations, regulatory requirements, budget boundaries
-   - Timeline pressures, platform restrictions, or integration requirements
+3. **Identify constraints** (business, regulatory, and operational — NOT technology choices):
+   - Regulatory requirements, budget boundaries, compliance mandates
+   - Timeline pressures, integration requirements, market restrictions
+   - Do NOT include cloud platform, language, or framework choices here — those go in `technology_constraints`
    - Omit if genuinely none exist
 
-4. **Quality bar**: A product manager should be able to write a PRD from the combined vision + scope output.
+4. **Identify technology constraints** (technology choices and restrictions ONLY):
+   - Extract explicit technology preferences or exclusions stated in the concept
+   - Cloud platform choices (e.g., "GCP", "AWS"), programming language mandates (e.g., "Kotlin/JVM", "Node.js excluded"), framework preferences, infrastructure choices
+   - If the concept has a "Technology Constraints" section, extract ALL items from it into this field
+   - Include ONLY preferences explicitly stated by the user — do not infer or add your own
+   - If none are stated in the concept, emit an empty array
+
+5. **Quality bar**: A product manager should be able to write a PRD from the combined vision + scope output.
 
 ## Output Contract
 
@@ -50,6 +58,8 @@ success_metrics:
 constraints:
   - "CLI-only interface limits audience to terminal-comfortable users"
   - "Must work offline with local storage, no cloud dependency"
+technology_constraints:
+  - "Must use PostgreSQL for primary data store"
 ```
 
 If you cannot produce valid output:

package/packs/bmad/prompts/planning-step-3-nfrs.md

@@ -11,6 +11,9 @@
 ### Functional Requirements (from Step 2)
 {{functional_requirements}}
 
+### Technology Constraints (from Analysis Phase)
+{{technology_constraints}}
+
 ---
 
 ## Mission
@@ -29,7 +32,8 @@ Complete the PRD by defining **non-functional requirements**, **tech stack**, **
    - Key-value pairs mapping technology concerns to specific choices
    - Use real, current technologies — do not fabricate frameworks
    - Cover at minimum: language, framework, database, testing
-   - Choices should align with the product brief constraints
+   - **MUST honor stated technology constraints** — if the analysis specifies a cloud platform, language, or framework preference, use it. Do not substitute alternatives unless the constraint is technically impossible for the requirements.
+   - If you must deviate from a stated constraint, explicitly note the deviation and rationale
 
 3. **Build the domain model:**
    - Key entities and their relationships

package/packs/bmad/prompts/readiness-check.md

@@ -61,7 +61,14 @@ For EVERY story:
 3. Does the story have a clear definition of done?
    - Missing or ambiguous DoD = **minor** finding
 
-### Step 4: UX Alignment (Conditional)
+### Step 4: Constraint Adherence
+
+1. Does the architecture honor all technology constraints from the product brief?
+2. If any technology constraint was overridden, is there an explicit rationale?
+3. Flag any silent deviations (constraint ignored without explanation) as **blocker** findings
+4. Flag deviations with rationale as **major** findings
+
+### Step 5: UX Alignment (Conditional)
 
 **Only if UX decisions are provided above:**
 
@@ -73,7 +80,7 @@ For EVERY story that involves user-facing functionality:
 
 **If no UX decisions were provided, skip this step entirely.**
 
-### Step 5: Dependency Validity
+### Step 6: Dependency Validity
 
 For EVERY story with dependencies on other stories:
 1. Do the referenced stories actually exist (check story keys)?
@@ -81,7 +88,7 @@ For EVERY story with dependencies on other stories:
 3. Flag invalid references as **blocker** findings
 4. Flag potentially circular dependencies as **major** findings
 
-### Step 6: Final Verdict
+### Step 7: Final Verdict
 
 Determine your verdict:
 - **NOT_READY**: Any of these conditions are true:
@@ -123,7 +130,7 @@ findings:
 ```
 
 Valid verdict values: READY, NEEDS_WORK, NOT_READY
-Valid category values: fr_coverage, architecture_compliance, story_quality, ux_alignment, dependency_validity
+Valid category values: fr_coverage, architecture_compliance, story_quality, constraint_adherence, ux_alignment, dependency_validity
 Valid severity values: blocker, major, minor
 
 If you cannot perform the review: