2025-11-02 21:18:33 -06:00
# Implementation Ready Check - Workflow Instructions
< critical > The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml< / critical >
< critical > You MUST have already loaded and processed: {project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/workflow.yaml< / critical >
< critical > Communicate all findings and analysis in {communication_language} throughout the assessment< / critical >
2025-11-04 21:16:52 -06:00
< critical > Input documents specified in workflow.yaml input_file_patterns - workflow engine handles fuzzy matching, whole vs sharded document discovery automatically< / critical >
2025-11-02 21:18:33 -06:00
< workflow >
< step n = "0" goal = "Validate workflow readiness" tag = "workflow-status" >
< action > Check if {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml exists< / action >
< check if = "status file not found" >
< output > No workflow status file found. Implementation Ready Check can run standalone or as part of BMM workflow path.< / output >
< output > **Recommended:** Run `workflow-init` first for project context tracking and workflow sequencing.</ output >
< ask > Continue in standalone mode or exit to run workflow-init? (continue/exit)< / ask >
< check if = "continue" >
< action > Set standalone_mode = true< / action >
< / check >
< check if = "exit" >
< action > Exit workflow< / action >
< / check >
< / check >
< check if = "status file found" >
< action > Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml< / action >
< action > Parse workflow_status section< / action >
< action > Check status of "solutioning-gate-check" workflow< / action >
< action > Get project_level from YAML metadata< / action >
< action > Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)< / action >
< action > Based on the project_level, understand what artifacts should exist: - Level 0-1: Tech spec and simple stories only (no PRD, minimal solutioning) - Level 2: PRD, tech spec, epics/stories (no separate architecture doc) - Level 3-4: Full suite - PRD, architecture document, epics/stories, possible UX artifacts
< / action >
< check if = "solutioning-gate-check status is file path (already completed)" >
< output > ⚠️ Gate check already completed: {{solutioning-gate-check status}}< / output >
< ask > Re-running will create a new validation report. Continue? (y/n)< / ask >
< check if = "n" >
< output > Exiting. Use workflow-status to see your next step.< / output >
< action > Exit workflow< / action >
< / check >
< / check >
< check if = "solutioning-gate-check is not the next expected workflow" >
< output > ⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Gate check is out of sequence.< / output >
< ask > Continue with gate check anyway? (y/n)< / ask >
< check if = "n" >
< output > Exiting. Run {{next_workflow}} instead.< / output >
< action > Exit workflow< / action >
< / check >
< / check >
< action > Set standalone_mode = false< / action >
< / check >
< critical > The validation approach must adapt to the project level - don't look for documents that shouldn't exist at lower levels< / critical >
< template-output > project_context< / template-output >
< / step >
< step n = "1" goal = "Discover and inventory project artifacts" >
< action > Search the {output_folder} for relevant planning and solutioning documents based on project level identified in Step 0< / action >
< action > For Level 0-1 projects, locate:
- Technical specification document(s)
- Story/task lists or simple epic breakdowns
- Any API or interface definitions
< / action >
< action > For Level 2-4 projects, locate:
- Product Requirements Document (PRD)
- Architecture document (architecture.md) (Level 3-4 only)
- Technical Specification (Level 2 includes architecture within)
- Epic and story breakdowns
- UX artifacts if the active path includes UX workflow
- Any supplementary planning documents
< / action >
< action > Create an inventory of found documents with:
- Document type and purpose
- File path and last modified date
- Brief description of what each contains
- Any missing expected documents flagged as potential issues
< / action >
< template-output > document_inventory< / template-output >
< / step >
< step n = "2" goal = "Deep analysis of core planning documents" >
< action > Load and thoroughly analyze each discovered document to extract:
- Core requirements and success criteria
- Architectural decisions and constraints
- Technical implementation approaches
- User stories and acceptance criteria
- Dependencies and sequencing requirements
- Any assumptions or risks documented
< / action >
< action > For PRD analysis (Level 2-4), focus on:
- User requirements and use cases
- Functional and non-functional requirements
- Success metrics and acceptance criteria
- Scope boundaries and explicitly excluded items
- Priority levels for different features
< / action >
< action > For Architecture/Tech Spec analysis, focus on:
- System design decisions and rationale
- Technology stack and framework choices
- Integration points and APIs
- Data models and storage decisions
- Security and performance considerations
- Any architectural constraints that might affect story implementation
< / action >
< action > For Epic/Story analysis, focus on:
- Coverage of PRD requirements
- Story sequencing and dependencies
- Acceptance criteria completeness
- Technical tasks within stories
- Estimated complexity and effort indicators
< / action >
< template-output > document_analysis< / template-output >
< / step >
< step n = "3" goal = "Cross-reference validation and alignment check" >
< action > Systematically validate alignment between all artifacts, adapting validation based on project level< / action >
< action > PRD ↔ Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4):
- Verify every PRD requirement has corresponding architectural support
- Check that architectural decisions don't contradict PRD constraints
- Identify any architectural additions beyond PRD scope (potential gold-plating)
- Ensure non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture document
- If using new architecture workflow: verify implementation patterns are defined
< / action >
< action > PRD ↔ Stories Coverage (Level 2-4):
- Map each PRD requirement to implementing stories
- Identify any PRD requirements without story coverage
- Find stories that don't trace back to PRD requirements
- Validate that story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
< / action >
< action > Architecture ↔ Stories Implementation Check:
- Verify architectural decisions are reflected in relevant stories
- Check that story technical tasks align with architectural approach
- Identify any stories that might violate architectural constraints
- Ensure infrastructure and setup stories exist for architectural components
< / action >
< action > For Level 0-1 projects (Tech Spec only):
- Validate internal consistency within tech spec
- Check that all specified features have corresponding stories
- Verify story sequencing matches technical dependencies
< / action >
< template-output > alignment_validation< / template-output >
< / step >
< step n = "4" goal = "Gap and risk analysis" >
< action > Identify and categorize all gaps, risks, and potential issues discovered during validation< / action >
< action > Check for Critical Gaps:
- Missing stories for core requirements
- Unaddressed architectural concerns
- Absent infrastructure or setup stories for greenfield projects
- Missing error handling or edge case coverage
- Security or compliance requirements not addressed
< / action >
< action > Identify Sequencing Issues:
- Dependencies not properly ordered
- Stories that assume components not yet built
- Parallel work that should be sequential
- Missing prerequisite technical tasks
< / action >
< action > Detect Potential Contradictions:
- Conflicts between PRD and architecture approaches
- Stories with conflicting technical approaches
- Acceptance criteria that contradict requirements
- Resource or technology conflicts
< / action >
< action > Find Gold-Plating and Scope Creep:
- Features in architecture not required by PRD
- Stories implementing beyond requirements
- Technical complexity beyond project needs
- Over-engineering indicators
< / action >
< template-output > gap_risk_analysis< / template-output >
< / step >
< step n = "5" goal = "UX and special concerns validation" optional = "true" >
< check if = "UX artifacts exist or UX workflow in active path" >
< action > Review UX artifacts and validate integration:
- Check that UX requirements are reflected in PRD
- Verify stories include UX implementation tasks
- Ensure architecture supports UX requirements (performance, responsiveness)
- Identify any UX concerns not addressed in stories
< / action >
< action > Validate accessibility and usability coverage:
- Check for accessibility requirement coverage in stories
- Verify responsive design considerations if applicable
- Ensure user flow completeness across stories
< / action >
< / check >
< template-output > ux_validation< / template-output >
< / step >
< step n = "6" goal = "Generate comprehensive readiness assessment" >
< action > Compile all findings into a structured readiness report with:
- Executive summary of readiness status
- Project context and validation scope
- Document inventory and coverage assessment
- Detailed findings organized by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
- Specific recommendations for each issue
- Overall readiness recommendation (Ready, Ready with Conditions, Not Ready)
< / action >
< action > Provide actionable next steps:
- List any critical issues that must be resolved
- Suggest specific document updates needed
- Recommend additional stories or tasks required
- Propose sequencing adjustments if needed
< / action >
< action > Include positive findings:
- Highlight well-aligned areas
- Note particularly thorough documentation
- Recognize good architectural decisions
- Commend comprehensive story coverage where found
< / action >
< template-output > readiness_assessment< / template-output >
< / step >
< step n = "7" goal = "Update status and complete" tag = "workflow-status" >
< check if = "standalone_mode != true" >
< action > Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml< / action >
< action > Find workflow_status key "solutioning-gate-check"< / action >
< critical > ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata< / critical >
< action > Update workflow_status["solutioning-gate-check"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-readiness-assessment-{{date}}.md"< / action >
< action > Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS< / action >
< action > Find first non-completed workflow in workflow_status (next workflow to do)< / action >
< action > Determine next agent from path file based on next workflow< / action >
< / check >
< output > **✅ Implementation Ready Check Complete!**
**Assessment Report:**
- Readiness assessment saved to: {output_folder}/bmm-readiness-assessment-{{date}}.md
{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
**Status Updated:**
- Progress tracking updated: solutioning-gate-check marked complete
- Next workflow: {{next_workflow}}
{{else}}
**Note:** Running in standalone mode (no progress tracking)
{{/if}}
**Next Steps:**
{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
- **Next workflow:** {{next_workflow}} ({{next_agent}} agent)
- Review the assessment report and address any critical issues before proceeding
Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
{{else}}
Since no workflow is in progress:
- Refer to the BMM workflow guide if unsure what to do next
- Or run `workflow-init` to create a workflow path and get guided next steps
{{/if}}
< / output >
< template-output > status_update_result< / template-output >
< / step >
< / workflow >