mirror of
https://github.com/bmadcode/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00
feat: implement granular step-file workflow architecture with multi-menu support
## Major Features Added - **Step-file workflow architecture**: Transform monolithic workflows into granular step files for improved LLM adherence and consistency - **Multi-menu handler system**: New `handler-multi.xml` enables grouped menu items with fuzzy matching - **Workflow compliance checker**: Added automated compliance validation for all workflows - **Create/edit agent workflows**: New structured workflows for agent creation and editing ## Workflow Enhancements - **Create-workflow**: Expanded from 6 to 14 detailed steps covering tools, design, compliance - **Granular step execution**: Each workflow step now has dedicated files for focused execution - **New documentation**: Added CSV data standards, intent vs prescriptive spectrum, and common tools reference ## Complete Migration Status - **4 workflows fully migrated**: `create-agent`, `edit-agent`, `create-workflow`, and `edit-workflow` now use the new granular step-file architecture - **Legacy transformation**: `edit-workflow` includes built-in capability to transform legacy single-file workflows into the new improved granular format - **Future cleanup**: Legacy versions will be removed in a future commit after validation ## Schema Updates - **Multi-menu support**: Updated agent schema to support `triggers` array for grouped menu items - **Legacy compatibility**: Maintains backward compatibility with single `trigger` field - **Discussion enhancements**: Added conversational_knowledge recommendation for discussion agents ## File Structure Changes - Added: `create-agent/`, `edit-agent/`, `edit-workflow/`, `workflow-compliance-check/` workflows - Added: Documentation standards and CSV reference files - Refactored: `create-workflow/steps/` with detailed granular step files ## Handler Improvements - Enhanced `handler-exec.xml` with clearer execution instructions - Improved data passing context for executed files - Better error handling and user guidance This architectural change significantly improves workflow execution consistency across all LLM models by breaking complex processes into manageable, focused steps. The edit-workflow transformation tool ensures smooth migration of existing workflows to the new format.
This commit is contained in:
Brian Madison
@@ -0,0 +1,264 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: 'step-05-intent-spectrum-validation'
|
||||
description: 'Dedicated analysis and validation of intent vs prescriptive spectrum positioning'
|
||||
|
||||
# Path Definitions
|
||||
workflow_path: '{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmb/workflows/workflow-compliance-check'
|
||||
|
||||
# File References
|
||||
thisStepFile: '{workflow_path}/steps/step-05-intent-spectrum-validation.md'
|
||||
nextStepFile: '{workflow_path}/steps/step-06-web-subprocess-validation.md'
|
||||
workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
|
||||
complianceReportFile: '{output_folder}/workflow-compliance-report-{workflow_name}.md'
|
||||
targetWorkflowPath: '{target_workflow_path}'
|
||||
|
||||
# Template References
|
||||
complianceReportTemplate: '{workflow_path}/templates/compliance-report.md'
|
||||
|
||||
# Documentation References
|
||||
stepTemplate: '{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmb/docs/workflows/step-template.md'
|
||||
workflowTemplate: '{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmb/docs/workflows/workflow-template.md'
|
||||
intentSpectrum: '{project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmb/docs/workflows/intent-vs-prescriptive-spectrum.md'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Step 5: Intent vs Prescriptive Spectrum Validation
|
||||
|
||||
## STEP GOAL:
|
||||
|
||||
Analyze the workflow's position on the intent vs prescriptive spectrum, provide expert assessment, and confirm with user whether the current positioning is appropriate or needs adjustment.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
|
||||
### Role Reinforcement:
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ You are a compliance validator and design philosophy specialist
|
||||
- ✅ If you already have been given a name, communication_style, and persona, continue to use those while playing this new role
|
||||
- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
|
||||
- ✅ You bring expertise in intent vs prescriptive design principles
|
||||
- ✅ User brings their workflow and needs guidance on spectrum positioning
|
||||
|
||||
### Step-Specific Rules:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🎯 Focus only on spectrum analysis and user confirmation
|
||||
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to make spectrum decisions without user input
|
||||
- 💬 Approach: Educational, analytical, and collaborative
|
||||
- 📋 Ensure user understands spectrum implications before confirming
|
||||
|
||||
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🎯 Analyze workflow's current spectrum position based on all previous findings
|
||||
- 💾 Provide expert assessment with specific examples and reasoning
|
||||
- 📖 Educate user on spectrum implications for their workflow type
|
||||
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user confirmation of spectrum position
|
||||
|
||||
## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
|
||||
|
||||
- Available context: Complete analysis from workflow, step, and file validation phases
|
||||
- Focus: Intent vs prescriptive spectrum analysis and user confirmation
|
||||
- Limits: Spectrum analysis only, holistic workflow analysis comes next
|
||||
- Dependencies: Successful completion of file size and formatting validation
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequence of Instructions (Do not deviate, skip, or optimize)
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Initialize Spectrum Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
"Beginning **Intent vs Prescriptive Spectrum Validation**
|
||||
Target: `{target_workflow_name}`
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference Standard:** Analysis based on `{intentSpectrum}`
|
||||
|
||||
This step will help ensure your workflow's approach to LLM guidance is intentional and appropriate for its purpose..."
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Spectrum Position Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**A. Current Position Assessment:**
|
||||
Based on analysis of workflow.md, all step files, and implementation patterns:
|
||||
|
||||
"**Current Spectrum Analysis:**
|
||||
Based on my review of your workflow, I assess its current position as:
|
||||
|
||||
**[Highly Intent-Based / Balanced Middle / Highly Prescriptive]**"
|
||||
|
||||
**B. Evidence-Based Reasoning:**
|
||||
Provide specific evidence from the workflow analysis:
|
||||
|
||||
"**Assessment Evidence:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Instruction Style:** [Examples of intent-based vs prescriptive instructions found]
|
||||
- **User Interaction:** [How user conversations are structured]
|
||||
- **LLM Freedom:** [Level of creative adaptation allowed]
|
||||
- **Consistency Needs:** [Workflow requirements for consistency vs creativity]
|
||||
- **Risk Factors:** [Any compliance, safety, or regulatory considerations]"
|
||||
|
||||
**C. Workflow Type Analysis:**
|
||||
"**Workflow Type Analysis:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Primary Purpose:** {workflow's main goal}
|
||||
- **User Expectations:** {What users likely expect from this workflow}
|
||||
- **Success Factors:** {What makes this workflow successful}
|
||||
- **Risk Level:** {Compliance, safety, or risk considerations}"
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Recommended Spectrum Position
|
||||
|
||||
**A. Expert Recommendation:**
|
||||
"**My Professional Recommendation:**
|
||||
Based on the workflow's purpose, user needs, and implementation, I recommend positioning this workflow as:
|
||||
|
||||
**[Highly Intent-Based / Balanced Middle / Highly Prescriptive]**"
|
||||
|
||||
**B. Recommendation Rationale:**
|
||||
"**Reasoning for Recommendation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Purpose Alignment:** {Why this position best serves the workflow's goals}
|
||||
- **User Experience:** {How this positioning enhances user interaction}
|
||||
- **Risk Management:** {How this position addresses any compliance or safety needs}
|
||||
- **Success Optimization:** {Why this approach will lead to better outcomes}"
|
||||
|
||||
**C. Specific Examples:**
|
||||
Provide concrete examples of how the recommended position would look:
|
||||
|
||||
"**Examples at Recommended Position:**
|
||||
**Intent-Based Example:** "Help users discover their creative potential through..."
|
||||
**Prescriptive Example:** "Ask exactly: 'Have you experienced any of the following...'"
|
||||
|
||||
**Current State Comparison:**
|
||||
**Current Instructions Found:** [Examples from actual workflow]
|
||||
**Recommended Instructions:** [How they could be improved]"
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Spectrum Education and Implications
|
||||
|
||||
**A. Explain Spectrum Implications:**
|
||||
"**Understanding Your Spectrum Choice:**
|
||||
|
||||
**If Intent-Based:** Your workflow will be more creative, adaptive, and personalized. Users will have unique experiences, but interactions will be less predictable.
|
||||
|
||||
**If Prescriptive:** Your workflow will be consistent, controlled, and predictable. Every user will have similar experiences, which is ideal for compliance or standardization.
|
||||
|
||||
**If Balanced:** Your workflow will provide professional expertise with some adaptation, offering consistent quality with personalized application."
|
||||
|
||||
**B. Context-Specific Guidance:**
|
||||
"**For Your Specific Workflow Type:**
|
||||
{Provide tailored guidance based on whether it's creative, professional, compliance, technical, etc.}"
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. User Confirmation and Decision
|
||||
|
||||
**A. Present Findings and Recommendation:**
|
||||
"**Spectrum Analysis Summary:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Current Assessment:** [Current position with confidence level]
|
||||
**Expert Recommendation:** [Recommended position with reasoning]
|
||||
**Key Considerations:** [Main factors to consider]
|
||||
|
||||
**My Analysis Indicates:** [Brief summary of why I recommend this position]
|
||||
|
||||
**The Decision is Yours:** While I provide expert guidance, the final spectrum position should reflect your vision for the workflow."
|
||||
|
||||
**B. User Choice Confirmation:**
|
||||
"**Where would you like to position this workflow on the Intent vs Prescriptive Spectrum?**
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Keep Current Position** - [Current position] - Stay with current approach
|
||||
2. **Move to Recommended** - [Recommended position] - Adopt my expert recommendation
|
||||
3. **Move Toward Intent-Based** - Increase creative freedom and adaptation
|
||||
4. **Move Toward Prescriptive** - Increase consistency and control
|
||||
5. **Custom Position** - Specify your preferred approach
|
||||
|
||||
**Please select your preferred spectrum position (1-5):**"
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Document Spectrum Decision
|
||||
|
||||
**A. Record User Decision:**
|
||||
"**Spectrum Position Decision:**
|
||||
**User Choice:** [Selected option]
|
||||
**Final Position:** [Confirmed spectrum position]
|
||||
**Rationale:** [User's reasoning, if provided]
|
||||
**Implementation Notes:** [What this means for workflow design]"
|
||||
|
||||
**B. Update Compliance Report:**
|
||||
Append to {complianceReportFile}:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Intent vs Prescriptive Spectrum Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Current Position Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
**Analyzed Position:** [Current spectrum position]
|
||||
**Evidence:** [Specific examples from workflow analysis]
|
||||
**Confidence Level:** [High/Medium/Low based on clarity of patterns]
|
||||
|
||||
### Expert Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Position:** [Professional recommendation]
|
||||
**Reasoning:** [Detailed rationale for recommendation]
|
||||
**Workflow Type Considerations:** [Specific to this workflow's purpose]
|
||||
|
||||
### User Decision
|
||||
|
||||
**Selected Position:** [User's confirmed choice]
|
||||
**Rationale:** [User's reasoning or preferences]
|
||||
**Implementation Guidance:** [What this means for workflow]
|
||||
|
||||
### Spectrum Validation Results
|
||||
|
||||
✅ Spectrum position is intentional and understood
|
||||
✅ User educated on implications of their choice
|
||||
✅ Implementation guidance provided for final position
|
||||
✅ Decision documented for future reference
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Continuation Confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
"**Spectrum Validation Complete:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Final Position:** [Confirmed spectrum position]
|
||||
- **User Understanding:** Confirmed implications and benefits
|
||||
- **Implementation Ready:** Guidance provided for maintaining position
|
||||
|
||||
**Ready for Phase 6:** Holistic workflow analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- Flow validation and completion paths
|
||||
- Goal alignment and optimization assessment
|
||||
- Meta-workflow failure analysis and improvement recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
**Select an Option:** [C] Continue to Holistic Analysis [X] Exit"
|
||||
|
||||
## Menu Handling Logic:
|
||||
|
||||
- IF C: Save spectrum decision to report, update frontmatter, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
|
||||
- IF X: Save current spectrum findings and end with guidance for resuming
|
||||
- IF Any other comments or queries: respond and redisplay menu
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
|
||||
|
||||
ONLY WHEN [C continue option] is selected and [spectrum position confirmed with user understanding], will you then load and read fully `{nextStepFile}` to execute and begin holistic analysis phase.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ SUCCESS:
|
||||
|
||||
- Comprehensive spectrum position analysis with evidence-based reasoning
|
||||
- Expert recommendation provided with specific rationale and examples
|
||||
- User educated on spectrum implications for their workflow type
|
||||
- User makes informed decision about spectrum positioning
|
||||
- Spectrum decision documented with implementation guidance
|
||||
- User understands benefits and trade-offs of their choice
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
|
||||
|
||||
- Making spectrum recommendations without analyzing actual workflow content
|
||||
- Not providing evidence-based reasoning for assessment
|
||||
- Failing to educate user on spectrum implications
|
||||
- Proceeding without user confirmation of spectrum position
|
||||
- Not documenting user decision for future reference
|
||||
|
||||
**Master Rule:** Skipping steps, optimizing sequences, or not following exact instructions is FORBIDDEN and constitutes SYSTEM FAILURE.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user