Major Enhancements:

- Installation path is now fully configurable, allowing users to specify custom installation directories during setup
  - Default installation location changed to .bmad (hidden directory) for cleaner project root organization

    Web Bundle Improvements:

    - All web bundles (single agent and team) now include party mode support for multi-agent collaboration!
    - Advanced elicitation capabilities integrated into standalone agents
    - All bundles enhanced with party mode agent manifests
    - Added default-party.csv files to bmm, bmgd, and cis module teams
    - The default party file is what will be used with single agent bundles. teams can customize for different party configurations before web bundling through a setting in the team yaml file
    - New web bundle outputs for all agents (analyst, architect, dev, pm, sm, tea, tech-writer, ux-designer, game-*, creative-squad)

    Phase 4 Workflow Updates (In Progress):

    - Initiated shift to separate phase 4 implementation artifacts from documentation
        - Phase 4 implementation artifacts (stories, code review, sprint plan, context files) will move to dedicated location outside docs folder
        - Installer questions and configuration added for artifact path selection
        - Updated workflow.yaml files for code-review, sprint-planning, story-context, epic-tech-context, and retrospective workflows to support this, but still might require some udpates

    Additional Changes:

    - New agent and action command header models for standardization
    - Enhanced web-bundle-activation-steps fragment
    - Updated web-bundler.js to support new structure
    - VS Code settings updated for new .bmad directory
    - Party mode instructions and workflow enhanced for better orchestration

   IDE Installer Updates:

    - Show version number of installer in cli
    - improved Installer UX
    - Gemini TOML Improved to have clear loading instructions with @ commands
    - All tools agent launcher mds improved to use a central file template critical indication isntead of hardcoding in 2 different locations.

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/brainstorm-project/instructions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Brainstorm Project - Workflow Instructions
+
+```xml
+<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}</critical>
+<critical>This is a meta-workflow that orchestrates the CIS brainstorming workflow with project-specific context</critical>
+
+<workflow>
+
+  <step n="1" 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. Brainstorming is optional - you can continue without status tracking.</output>
+      <action>Set standalone_mode = true</action>
+    </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 "brainstorm-project" workflow</action>
+      <action>Get project_level from YAML metadata</action>
+      <action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
+
+      <check if="brainstorm-project status is file path (already completed)">
+        <output>⚠️ Brainstorming session already completed: {{brainstorm-project status}}</output>
+        <ask>Re-running will create a new session. 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="brainstorm-project is not the next expected workflow (anything after brainstorm-project is completed already)">
+        <output>⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Brainstorming is out of sequence.</output>
+        <ask>Continue with brainstorming 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>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="2" goal="Load project brainstorming context">
+    <action>Read the project context document from: {project_context}</action>
+    <action>This context provides project-specific guidance including:
+      - Focus areas for project ideation
+      - Key considerations for software/product projects
+      - Recommended techniques for project brainstorming
+      - Output structure guidance
+    </action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="3" goal="Invoke core brainstorming with project context">
+    <action>Execute the CIS brainstorming workflow with project context</action>
+    <invoke-workflow path="{core_brainstorming}" data="{project_context}">
+      The CIS brainstorming workflow will:
+      - Present interactive brainstorming techniques menu
+      - Guide the user through selected ideation methods
+      - Generate and capture brainstorming session results
+      - Save output to: {output_folder}/brainstorming-session-results-{{date}}.md
+    </invoke-workflow>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="4" 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 "brainstorm-project"</action>
+      <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
+      <action>Update workflow_status["brainstorm-project"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-brainstorming-session-{{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>**✅ Brainstorming Session Complete, {user_name}!**
+
+**Session Results:**
+
+- Brainstorming results saved to: {output_folder}/bmm-brainstorming-session-{{date}}.md
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+**Status Updated:**
+
+- Progress tracking updated
+
+**Next Steps:**
+
+- **Next required:** {{next_workflow}} ({{next_agent}} agent)
+- **Optional:** You can run other analysis workflows (research, product-brief) before proceeding
+
+Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
+{{else}}
+**Next Steps:**
+
+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>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>
+```

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/brainstorm-project/project-context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Project Brainstorming Context
+
+This context guide provides project-specific considerations for brainstorming sessions focused on software and product development.
+
+## Session Focus Areas
+
+When brainstorming for projects, consider exploring:
+
+- **User Problems and Pain Points** - What challenges do users face?
+- **Feature Ideas and Capabilities** - What could the product do?
+- **Technical Approaches** - How might we build it?
+- **User Experience** - How will users interact with it?
+- **Business Model and Value** - How does it create value?
+- **Market Differentiation** - What makes it unique?
+- **Technical Risks and Challenges** - What could go wrong?
+- **Success Metrics** - How will we measure success?
+
+## Integration with Project Workflow
+
+Brainstorming sessions typically feed into:
+
+- **Product Briefs** - Initial product vision and strategy
+- **PRDs** - Detailed requirements documents
+- **Technical Specifications** - Architecture and implementation plans
+- **Research Activities** - Areas requiring further investigation

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/brainstorm-project/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Brainstorm Project Workflow Configuration
+name: "brainstorm-project"
+description: "Facilitate project brainstorming sessions by orchestrating the CIS brainstorming workflow with project-specific context and guidance."
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Module path and component files
+installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/brainstorm-project"
+template: false
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+
+# Context document for project brainstorming
+project_context: "{installed_path}/project-context.md"
+
+# CORE brainstorming workflow to invoke
+core_brainstorming: "{project-root}/.bmad/core/workflows/brainstorming/workflow.yaml"
+
+standalone: true

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/domain-research/instructions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+# Domain Research - Collaborative Domain Exploration
+
+<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>This is COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH - engage the user as a partner, not just a data source</critical>
+<critical>The goal is PRACTICAL UNDERSTANDING that directly informs requirements and architecture</critical>
+<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and adapt deeply to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+<critical>LIVING DOCUMENT: Write to domain-brief.md continuously as you discover - never wait until the end</critical>
+
+<workflow>
+
+<step n="0" goal="Set research context">
+<action>Welcome {user_name} to collaborative domain research
+
+Check for context:
+
+- Was this triggered from PRD workflow?
+- Is there a workflow-status.yaml with project context?
+- Did user provide initial domain/project description?
+
+If context exists, reflect it back:
+"I understand you're building [description]. Let's explore the [domain] aspects together to ensure we capture all critical requirements."
+
+If no context:
+"Let's explore your project's domain together. Tell me about what you're building and what makes it unique or complex."</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Domain detection and scoping">
+<action>Through conversation, identify the domain and its complexity
+
+Listen for domain signals and explore:
+
+- "Is this in a regulated industry?"
+- "Are there safety or compliance concerns?"
+- "What could go wrong if this fails?"
+- "Who are the stakeholders beyond direct users?"
+- "Are there industry standards we need to follow?"
+
+Based on responses, identify primary domain(s):
+
+- Healthcare/Medical
+- Financial Services
+- Government/Public Sector
+- Education
+- Aerospace/Defense
+- Automotive
+- Energy/Utilities
+- Legal
+- Insurance
+- Scientific/Research
+- Other specialized domain
+
+Share your understanding:
+"Based on our discussion, this appears to be a [domain] project with [key characteristics]. The main areas we should research are:
+
+- [Area 1]
+- [Area 2]
+- [Area 3]
+
+What concerns you most about building in this space?"</action>
+
+<template-output>domain_overview</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Collaborative concern mapping">
+<action>Work WITH the user to identify critical concerns
+
+"Let's map out the important considerations together. I'll share what I typically see in [domain], and you tell me what applies to your case."
+
+For detected domain, explore relevant areas:
+
+HEALTHCARE:
+"In healthcare software, teams often worry about:
+
+- FDA approval pathways (510k, De Novo, PMA)
+- HIPAA compliance for patient data
+- Clinical validation requirements
+- Integration with hospital systems (HL7, FHIR, DICOM)
+- Patient safety and liability
+
+Which of these apply to you? What else concerns you?"
+
+FINTECH:
+"Financial software typically deals with:
+
+- KYC/AML requirements
+- Payment processing regulations (PCI DSS)
+- Regional compliance (US, EU, specific countries?)
+- Fraud prevention
+- Audit trails and reporting
+
+What's your situation with these? Any specific regions?"
+
+AEROSPACE:
+"Aerospace software often requires:
+
+- DO-178C certification levels
+- Safety analysis (FMEA, FTA)
+- Simulation validation
+- Real-time performance guarantees
+- Export control (ITAR)
+
+Which are relevant for your project?"
+
+[Continue for other domains...]
+
+Document concerns as the user shares them
+Ask follow-up questions to understand depth:
+
+- "How critical is this requirement?"
+- "Is this a must-have for launch or can it come later?"
+- "Do you have expertise here or need guidance?"</action>
+
+<template-output>concern_mapping</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Research key requirements together">
+<action>Conduct research WITH the user watching and contributing
+
+"Let me research the current requirements for [specific concern]. You can guide me toward what's most relevant."
+
+<WebSearch>{specific_requirement} requirements {date}</WebSearch>
+
+Share findings immediately:
+"Here's what I found about [requirement]:
+
+- [Key point 1]
+- [Key point 2]
+- [Key point 3]
+
+Does this match your understanding? Anything surprising or concerning?"
+
+For each major concern:
+
+1. Research current standards/regulations
+2. Share findings with user
+3. Get their interpretation
+4. Note practical implications
+
+If user has expertise:
+"You seem knowledgeable about [area]. What should I know that might not be in public documentation?"
+
+If user is learning:
+"This might be new territory. Let me explain what this means practically for your development..."</action>
+
+<template-output>regulatory_requirements</template-output>
+<template-output>industry_standards</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="4" goal="Identify practical implications">
+<action>Translate research into practical development impacts
+
+"Based on what we've learned, here's what this means for your project:
+
+ARCHITECTURE IMPLICATIONS:
+
+- [How this affects system design]
+- [Required components or patterns]
+- [Performance or security needs]
+
+DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS:
+
+- [Additional development effort]
+- [Special expertise needed]
+- [Testing requirements]
+
+TIMELINE IMPLICATIONS:
+
+- [Certification/approval timelines]
+- [Validation requirements]
+- [Documentation needs]
+
+COST IMPLICATIONS:
+
+- [Compliance costs]
+- [Required tools or services]
+- [Ongoing maintenance]
+
+Does this align with your expectations? Any surprises we should dig into?"</action>
+
+<template-output>practical_implications</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="5" goal="Discover domain-specific patterns">
+<action>Explore how others solve similar problems
+
+"Let's look at how successful [domain] products handle these challenges."
+
+<WebSearch>best {domain} software architecture patterns {date}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{domain} software case studies {date}</WebSearch>
+
+Discuss patterns:
+"I found these common approaches in [domain]:
+
+Pattern 1: [Description]
+
+- Pros: [Benefits]
+- Cons: [Tradeoffs]
+- When to use: [Conditions]
+
+Pattern 2: [Description]
+
+- Pros: [Benefits]
+- Cons: [Tradeoffs]
+- When to use: [Conditions]
+
+Which resonates with your vision? Or are you thinking something different?"
+
+If user proposes novel approach:
+"That's interesting and different from the standard patterns. Let's explore:
+
+- What makes your approach unique?
+- What problem does it solve that existing patterns don't?
+- What are the risks?
+- How do we validate it?"</action>
+
+<template-output>domain_patterns</template-output>
+<template-output if="novel approach">innovation_notes</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="6" goal="Risk assessment and mitigation">
+<action>Collaboratively identify and address risks
+
+"Every [domain] project has risks. Let's think through yours:
+
+REGULATORY RISKS:
+
+- What if regulations change during development?
+- What if approval/certification takes longer?
+- What if we misinterpret requirements?
+
+TECHNICAL RISKS:
+
+- What if the domain requirements conflict with user experience?
+- What if performance requirements are harder than expected?
+- What if integrations are more complex?
+
+MARKET RISKS:
+
+- What if competitors move faster?
+- What if domain experts are hard to find?
+- What if users resist domain-mandated workflows?
+
+For each risk you're concerned about, let's identify:
+
+1. How likely is it?
+2. What's the impact if it happens?
+3. How can we mitigate it?
+4. What's our plan B?"</action>
+
+<template-output>risk_assessment</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="7" goal="Create validation strategy">
+<action>Plan how to ensure domain requirements are met
+
+"Let's plan how to validate that we're meeting [domain] requirements:
+
+COMPLIANCE VALIDATION:
+
+- How do we verify regulatory compliance?
+- Who needs to review/approve?
+- What documentation is required?
+
+TECHNICAL VALIDATION:
+
+- How do we prove the system works correctly?
+- What metrics matter?
+- What testing is required?
+
+DOMAIN EXPERT VALIDATION:
+
+- Who are the domain experts to involve?
+- When should they review?
+- What are their success criteria?
+
+USER VALIDATION:
+
+- How do we ensure it's still usable despite constraints?
+- What user testing is needed?
+- How do we balance domain requirements with UX?
+
+What validation is most critical for your confidence?"</action>
+
+<template-output>validation_strategy</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="8" goal="Document decision points">
+<action>Capture key decisions and rationale
+
+"Let's document the important decisions we've made:
+
+DOMAIN APPROACH:
+
+- We're choosing [approach] because [rationale]
+- We're prioritizing [requirement] over [requirement] because [reason]
+- We're deferring [requirement] to Phase 2 because [justification]
+
+COMPLIANCE STRATEGY:
+
+- We'll pursue [pathway] for regulatory approval
+- We'll implement [standard] for industry compliance
+- We'll handle [requirement] by [approach]
+
+RISK DECISIONS:
+
+- We accept [risk] because [reason]
+- We'll mitigate [risk] through [approach]
+- We'll monitor [risk] by [method]
+
+Any decisions you want to revisit or rationale to add?"</action>
+
+<template-output>key_decisions</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="9" goal="Create actionable recommendations">
+<action>Synthesize research into specific recommendations
+
+"Based on our research, here are my recommendations for your PRD and development:
+
+MUST HAVE (Domain Critical):
+
+1. [Specific requirement with why it's critical]
+2. [Specific requirement with why it's critical]
+3. [Specific requirement with why it's critical]
+
+SHOULD HAVE (Domain Important):
+
+1. [Requirement that's important but not blocking]
+2. [Requirement that's important but not blocking]
+
+CONSIDER (Domain Nice-to-Have):
+
+1. [Enhancement that would differentiate]
+2. [Enhancement that would differentiate]
+
+DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE:
+
+1. First: [What to build first and why]
+2. Then: [What comes next and why]
+3. Later: [What can wait and why]
+
+EXPERTISE NEEDED:
+
+- [Domain expert role]: For [specific areas]
+- [Technical expert role]: For [specific requirements]
+
+TIMELINE CONSIDERATIONS:
+
+- Allow [time] for [process/approval]
+- Start [requirement] early because [reason]
+- [Requirement] can be parallel with development
+
+Do these recommendations feel right? What would you adjust?"</action>
+
+<template-output>recommendations</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="10" goal="Package for PRD integration">
+<action>Create clear handoff to PRD workflow
+
+"I've captured everything in domain-brief.md. Here's the summary for your PRD:
+
+DOMAIN: {identified_domain}
+COMPLEXITY: {high|medium}
+
+KEY REQUIREMENTS TO INCORPORATE:
+
+- [Requirement 1 - critical for domain]
+- [Requirement 2 - critical for domain]
+- [Requirement 3 - important consideration]
+
+IMPACTS ON:
+
+- Functional Requirements: [How domain affects features]
+- Non-Functional Requirements: [Performance, security, etc.]
+- Architecture: [System design considerations]
+- Development: [Process and timeline impacts]
+
+REFERENCE DOCS:
+
+- Full domain analysis: domain-brief.md
+- Regulations researched: [List with links]
+- Standards referenced: [List with links]
+
+When you return to PRD, reference this brief for domain context.
+
+Any final questions before we wrap up the domain research?"</action>
+
+<template-output>summary_for_prd</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="11" goal="Close with next steps">
+<output>**✅ Domain Research Complete, {user_name}!**
+
+We've explored the {domain} aspects of your project together and documented critical requirements.
+
+**Created:**
+
+- **domain-brief.md** - Complete domain analysis with requirements and recommendations
+
+**Key Findings:**
+
+- Primary domain: {domain}
+- Complexity level: {complexity}
+- Critical requirements: {count} identified
+- Risks identified: {count} with mitigation strategies
+
+**Next Steps:**
+
+1. Return to PRD workflow with this domain context
+2. Domain requirements will shape your functional requirements
+3. Reference domain-brief.md for detailed requirements
+
+**Remember:**
+{most_important_finding}
+
+The domain research will ensure your PRD captures not just what to build, but HOW to build it correctly for {domain}.
+</output>
+</step>
+
+</workflow>

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/domain-research/template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+# Domain Brief - {project_name}
+
+Generated: {date}
+Domain: {primary_domain}
+Complexity: {complexity_level}
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+{brief_overview_of_domain_research_findings}
+
+## Domain Overview
+
+### Industry Context
+
+{domain_overview}
+
+### Regulatory Landscape
+
+{regulatory_environment}
+
+### Key Stakeholders
+
+{stakeholder_analysis}
+
+## Critical Concerns
+
+### Compliance Requirements
+
+{concern_mapping}
+
+### Technical Constraints
+
+{technical_limitations_from_domain}
+
+### Safety/Risk Considerations
+
+{safety_risk_factors}
+
+## Regulatory Requirements
+
+{regulatory_requirements}
+
+## Industry Standards
+
+{industry_standards}
+
+## Practical Implications
+
+### Architecture Impact
+
+{architecture_implications}
+
+### Development Impact
+
+{development_implications}
+
+### Timeline Impact
+
+{timeline_implications}
+
+### Cost Impact
+
+{cost_implications}
+
+## Domain Patterns
+
+### Established Patterns
+
+{domain_patterns}
+
+### Innovation Opportunities
+
+{innovation_notes}
+
+## Risk Assessment
+
+### Identified Risks
+
+{risk_assessment}
+
+### Mitigation Strategies
+
+{mitigation_approaches}
+
+## Validation Strategy
+
+### Compliance Validation
+
+{compliance_validation_approach}
+
+### Technical Validation
+
+{technical_validation_approach}
+
+### Domain Expert Validation
+
+{expert_validation_approach}
+
+## Key Decisions
+
+{key_decisions}
+
+## Recommendations
+
+### Must Have (Critical)
+
+{critical_requirements}
+
+### Should Have (Important)
+
+{important_requirements}
+
+### Consider (Nice-to-Have)
+
+{optional_enhancements}
+
+### Development Sequence
+
+{recommended_sequence}
+
+### Required Expertise
+
+{expertise_needed}
+
+## PRD Integration Guide
+
+### Summary for PRD
+
+{summary_for_prd}
+
+### Requirements to Incorporate
+
+- {requirement_1}
+- {requirement_2}
+- {requirement_3}
+
+### Architecture Considerations
+
+- {architecture_consideration_1}
+- {architecture_consideration_2}
+
+### Development Considerations
+
+- {development_consideration_1}
+- {development_consideration_2}
+
+## References
+
+### Regulations Researched
+
+- {regulation_1_with_link}
+- {regulation_2_with_link}
+
+### Standards Referenced
+
+- {standard_1_with_link}
+- {standard_2_with_link}
+
+### Additional Resources
+
+- {resource_1}
+- {resource_2}
+
+## Appendix
+
+### Research Notes
+
+{detailed_research_notes}
+
+### Conversation Highlights
+
+{key_discussion_points_with_user}
+
+### Open Questions
+
+{questions_requiring_further_research}
+
+---
+
+_This domain brief was created through collaborative research between {user_name} and the AI facilitator. It should be referenced during PRD creation and updated as new domain insights emerge._

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/domain-research/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# Domain Research Workflow Configuration
+name: domain-research
+description: "Collaborative exploration of domain-specific requirements, regulations, and patterns for complex projects"
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Module path and component files
+installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/domain-research"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+template: "{installed_path}/template.md"
+
+# Optional knowledge base (if exists)
+domain_knowledge_base: "{installed_path}/domain-knowledge-base.md"
+
+# Output configuration
+default_output_file: "{output_folder}/domain-brief.md"
+
+# Workflow metadata
+version: "6.0.0-alpha"
+category: "analysis"
+complexity: "medium"
+execution_time: "30-45 minutes"
+prerequisites:
+  - "Basic project understanding"
+when_to_use:
+  - "Complex regulated domains (healthcare, finance, aerospace)"
+  - "Novel technical domains requiring deep understanding"
+  - "Before PRD when domain expertise needed"
+  - "When compliance and regulations matter"
+
+standalone: true
+# Web bundle configuration for standalone deployment

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+# Product Brief Validation Checklist
+
+## Document Structure
+
+- [ ] All required sections are present (Executive Summary through Appendices)
+- [ ] No placeholder text remains (e.g., [TODO], [NEEDS CONFIRMATION], {{variable}})
+- [ ] Document follows the standard brief template format
+- [ ] Sections are properly numbered and formatted with headers
+- [ ] Cross-references between sections are accurate
+
+## Executive Summary Quality
+
+- [ ] Product concept is explained in 1-2 clear sentences
+- [ ] Primary problem is clearly identified
+- [ ] Target market is specifically named (not generic)
+- [ ] Value proposition is compelling and differentiated
+- [ ] Summary accurately reflects the full document content
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+- [ ] Current state pain points are specific and measurable
+- [ ] Impact is quantified where possible (time, money, opportunities)
+- [ ] Explanation of why existing solutions fall short is provided
+- [ ] Urgency for solving the problem now is justified
+- [ ] Problem is validated with evidence or data points
+
+## Solution Definition
+
+- [ ] Core approach is clearly explained without implementation details
+- [ ] Key differentiators from existing solutions are identified
+- [ ] Explanation of why this will succeed is compelling
+- [ ] Solution aligns directly with stated problems
+- [ ] Vision paints a clear picture of the user experience
+
+## Target Users
+
+- [ ] Primary user segment has specific demographic/firmographic profile
+- [ ] User behaviors and current workflows are documented
+- [ ] Specific pain points are tied to user segments
+- [ ] User goals are clearly articulated
+- [ ] Secondary segment (if applicable) is equally detailed
+- [ ] Avoids generic personas like "busy professionals"
+
+## Goals and Metrics
+
+- [ ] Business objectives include measurable outcomes with targets
+- [ ] User success metrics focus on behaviors, not features
+- [ ] 3-5 KPIs are defined with clear definitions
+- [ ] All goals follow SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound)
+- [ ] Success metrics align with problem statement
+
+## MVP Scope
+
+- [ ] Core features list contains only true must-haves
+- [ ] Each core feature includes rationale for why it's essential
+- [ ] Out of scope section explicitly lists deferred features
+- [ ] MVP success criteria are specific and measurable
+- [ ] Scope is genuinely minimal and viable
+- [ ] No feature creep evident in "must-have" list
+
+## Technical Considerations
+
+- [ ] Target platforms are specified (web/mobile/desktop)
+- [ ] Browser/OS support requirements are documented
+- [ ] Performance requirements are defined if applicable
+- [ ] Accessibility requirements are noted
+- [ ] Technology preferences are marked as preferences, not decisions
+- [ ] Integration requirements with existing systems are identified
+
+## Constraints and Assumptions
+
+- [ ] Budget constraints are documented if known
+- [ ] Timeline or deadline pressures are specified
+- [ ] Team/resource limitations are acknowledged
+- [ ] Technical constraints are clearly stated
+- [ ] Key assumptions are listed and testable
+- [ ] Assumptions will be validated during development
+
+## Risk Assessment (if included)
+
+- [ ] Key risks include potential impact descriptions
+- [ ] Open questions are specific and answerable
+- [ ] Research areas are identified with clear objectives
+- [ ] Risk mitigation strategies are suggested where applicable
+
+## Overall Quality
+
+- [ ] Language is clear and free of jargon
+- [ ] Terminology is used consistently throughout
+- [ ] Document is ready for handoff to Product Manager
+- [ ] All [PM-TODO] items are clearly marked if present
+- [ ] References and source documents are properly cited
+
+## Completeness Check
+
+- [ ] Document provides sufficient detail for PRD creation
+- [ ] All user inputs have been incorporated
+- [ ] Market research findings are reflected if provided
+- [ ] Competitive analysis insights are included if available
+- [ ] Brief aligns with overall product strategy
+
+## Final Validation
+
+### Critical Issues Found:
+
+- [ ] None identified
+
+### Minor Issues to Address:
+
+- [ ] List any minor issues here
+
+### Ready for PM Handoff:
+
+- [ ] Yes, brief is complete and validated
+- [ ] No, requires additional work (specify above)

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/instructions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,524 @@
+# Product Brief - Context-Adaptive Discovery 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: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>This workflow uses INTENT-DRIVEN FACILITATION - adapt organically to what emerges</critical>
+<critical>The goal is DISCOVERING WHAT MATTERS through natural conversation, not filling a template</critical>
+<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and adapt deeply to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+<critical>LIVING DOCUMENT: Write to the document continuously as you discover - never wait until the end</critical>
+
+## Input Document Discovery
+
+This workflow may reference: market research, brainstorming documents, user specified other inputs, or brownfield project documentation.
+
+**Discovery Process** (execute for each referenced document):
+
+1. **Search for whole document first** - Use fuzzy file matching to find the complete document
+2. **Check for sharded version** - If whole document not found, look for `{doc-name}/index.md`
+3. **If sharded version found**:
+   - Read `index.md` to understand the document structure
+   - Read ALL section files listed in the index
+   - Treat the combined content as if it were a single document
+4. **Brownfield projects**: The `document-project` workflow always creates `{output_folder}/docs/index.md`
+
+**Priority**: If both whole and sharded versions exist, use the whole document.
+
+**Fuzzy matching**: Be flexible with document names - users may use variations in naming conventions.
+
+<workflow>
+
+<step n="0" goal="Validate workflow readiness" tag="workflow-status">
+<action>Check if {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml exists</action>
+
+<action if="status file not found">Set standalone_mode = true</action>
+
+<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 "product-brief" workflow</action>
+  <action>Get project_level from YAML metadata</action>
+  <action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
+
+  <check if="project_level < 2">
+    <output>**Note: Level {{project_level}} Project**
+
+Product Brief is most valuable for Level 2+ projects, but can help clarify vision for any project.</output>
+</check>
+
+  <check if="product-brief status is file path (already completed)">
+    <output>⚠️ Product Brief already completed: {{product-brief status}}</output>
+    <ask>Re-running will overwrite the existing brief. 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="product-brief is not the next expected workflow">
+    <output>⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Product Brief is out of sequence.</output>
+    <ask>Continue with Product Brief 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>
+</step>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Begin the journey and understand context">
+<action>Welcome {user_name} warmly in {communication_language}
+
+Adapt your tone to {user_skill_level}:
+
+- Expert: "Let's define your product vision. What are you building?"
+- Intermediate: "I'm here to help shape your product vision. Tell me about your idea."
+- Beginner: "Hi! I'm going to help you figure out exactly what you want to build. Let's start with your idea - what got you excited about this?"
+
+Start with open exploration:
+
+- What sparked this idea?
+- What are you hoping to build?
+- Who is this for - yourself, a business, users you know?
+
+CRITICAL: Listen for context clues that reveal their situation:
+
+- Personal/hobby project (fun, learning, small audience)
+- Startup/solopreneur (market opportunity, competition matters)
+- Enterprise/corporate (stakeholders, compliance, strategic alignment)
+- Technical enthusiasm (implementation focused)
+- Business opportunity (market/revenue focused)
+- Problem frustration (solution focused)
+
+Based on their initial response, sense:
+
+- How formal/casual they want to be
+- Whether they think in business or technical terms
+- If they have existing materials to share
+- Their confidence level with the domain</action>
+
+<ask>What's the project name, and what got you excited about building this?</ask>
+
+<action>From even this first exchange, create initial document sections</action>
+<template-output>project_name</template-output>
+<template-output>executive_summary</template-output>
+
+<action>If they mentioned existing documents (research, brainstorming, etc.):
+
+- Load and analyze these materials
+- Extract key themes and insights
+- Reference these naturally in conversation: "I see from your research that..."
+- Use these to accelerate discovery, not repeat questions</action>
+
+<template-output>initial_vision</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Discover the problem worth solving">
+<action>Guide problem discovery through natural conversation
+
+DON'T ask: "What problem does this solve?"
+
+DO explore conversationally based on their context:
+
+For hobby projects:
+
+- "What's annoying you that this would fix?"
+- "What would this make easier or more fun?"
+- "Show me what the experience is like today without this"
+
+For business ventures:
+
+- "Walk me through the frustration your users face today"
+- "What's the cost of this problem - time, money, opportunities?"
+- "Who's suffering most from this? Tell me about them"
+- "What solutions have people tried? Why aren't they working?"
+
+For enterprise:
+
+- "What's driving the need for this internally?"
+- "Which teams/processes are most affected?"
+- "What's the business impact of not solving this?"
+- "Are there compliance or strategic drivers?"
+
+Listen for depth cues:
+
+- Brief answers → dig deeper with follow-ups
+- Detailed passion → let them flow, capture everything
+- Uncertainty → help them explore with examples
+- Multiple problems → help prioritize the core issue
+
+Adapt your response:
+
+- If they struggle: offer analogies, examples, frameworks
+- If they're clear: validate and push for specifics
+- If they're technical: explore implementation challenges
+- If they're business-focused: quantify impact</action>
+
+<action>Immediately capture what emerges - even if preliminary</action>
+<template-output>problem_statement</template-output>
+
+<check if="user mentioned metrics, costs, or business impact">
+  <action>Explore the measurable impact of the problem</action>
+  <template-output>problem_impact</template-output>
+</check>
+
+<check if="user mentioned current solutions or competitors">
+  <action>Understand why existing solutions fall short</action>
+  <template-output>existing_solutions_gaps</template-output>
+</check>
+
+<action>Reflect understanding: "So the core issue is {{problem_summary}}, and {{impact_if_mentioned}}. Let me capture that..."</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Shape the solution vision">
+<action>Transition naturally from problem to solution
+
+Based on their energy and context, explore:
+
+For builders/makers:
+
+- "How do you envision this working?"
+- "Walk me through the experience you want to create"
+- "What's the 'magic moment' when someone uses this?"
+
+For business minds:
+
+- "What's your unique approach to solving this?"
+- "How is this different from what exists today?"
+- "What makes this the RIGHT solution now?"
+
+For enterprise:
+
+- "What would success look like for the organization?"
+- "How does this fit with existing systems/processes?"
+- "What's the transformation you're enabling?"
+
+Go deeper based on responses:
+
+- If innovative → explore the unique angle
+- If standard → focus on execution excellence
+- If technical → discuss key capabilities
+- If user-focused → paint the journey
+
+Web research when relevant:
+
+- If they mention competitors → research current solutions
+- If they claim innovation → verify uniqueness
+- If they reference trends → get current data</action>
+
+<action if="competitor or market mentioned">
+  <WebSearch>{{competitor/market}} latest features 2024</WebSearch>
+  <action>Use findings to sharpen differentiation discussion</action>
+</action>
+
+<template-output>proposed_solution</template-output>
+
+<check if="unique differentiation discussed">
+  <template-output>key_differentiators</template-output>
+</check>
+
+<action>Continue building the living document</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="4" goal="Understand the people who need this">
+<action>Discover target users through storytelling, not demographics
+
+Facilitate based on project type:
+
+Personal/hobby:
+
+- "Who else would love this besides you?"
+- "Tell me about someone who would use this"
+- Keep it light and informal
+
+Startup/business:
+
+- "Describe your ideal first customer - not demographics, but their situation"
+- "What are they doing today without your solution?"
+- "What would make them say 'finally, someone gets it!'?"
+- "Are there different types of users with different needs?"
+
+Enterprise:
+
+- "Which roles/departments will use this?"
+- "Walk me through their current workflow"
+- "Who are the champions vs skeptics?"
+- "What about indirect stakeholders?"
+
+Push beyond generic personas:
+
+- Not: "busy professionals" → "Sales reps who waste 2 hours/day on data entry"
+- Not: "tech-savvy users" → "Developers who know Docker but hate configuring it"
+- Not: "small businesses" → "Shopify stores doing $10-50k/month wanting to scale"
+
+For each user type that emerges:
+
+- Current behavior/workflow
+- Specific frustrations
+- What they'd value most
+- Their technical comfort level</action>
+
+<template-output>primary_user_segment</template-output>
+
+<check if="multiple user types mentioned">
+  <action>Explore secondary users only if truly different needs</action>
+  <template-output>secondary_user_segment</template-output>
+</check>
+
+<check if="user journey or workflow discussed">
+  <template-output>user_journey</template-output>
+</check>
+</step>
+
+<step n="5" goal="Define what success looks like" repeat="adapt-to-context">
+<action>Explore success measures that match their context
+
+For personal projects:
+
+- "How will you know this is working well?"
+- "What would make you proud of this?"
+- Keep metrics simple and meaningful
+
+For startups:
+
+- "What metrics would convince you this is taking off?"
+- "What user behaviors show they love it?"
+- "What business metrics matter most - users, revenue, retention?"
+- Push for specific targets: "100 users" not "lots of users"
+
+For enterprise:
+
+- "How will the organization measure success?"
+- "What KPIs will stakeholders care about?"
+- "What are the must-hit metrics vs nice-to-haves?"
+
+Only dive deep into metrics if they show interest
+Skip entirely for pure hobby projects
+Focus on what THEY care about measuring</action>
+
+<check if="metrics or goals discussed">
+  <template-output>success_metrics</template-output>
+
+  <check if="business objectives mentioned">
+    <template-output>business_objectives</template-output>
+  </check>
+
+  <check if="KPIs matter to them">
+    <template-output>key_performance_indicators</template-output>
+  </check>
+</check>
+
+<action>Keep the document growing with each discovery</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="6" goal="Discover the MVP scope">
+<critical>Focus on FEATURES not epics - that comes in Phase 2</critical>
+
+<action>Guide MVP scoping based on their maturity
+
+For experimental/hobby:
+
+- "What's the ONE thing this must do to be useful?"
+- "What would make a fun first version?"
+- Embrace simplicity
+
+For business ventures:
+
+- "What's the smallest version that proves your hypothesis?"
+- "What features would make early adopters say 'good enough'?"
+- "What's tempting to add but would slow you down?"
+- Be ruthless about scope creep
+
+For enterprise:
+
+- "What's the pilot scope that demonstrates value?"
+- "Which capabilities are must-have for initial rollout?"
+- "What can we defer to Phase 2?"
+
+Use this framing:
+
+- Core features: "Without this, the product doesn't work"
+- Nice-to-have: "This would be great, but we can launch without it"
+- Future vision: "This is where we're headed eventually"
+
+Challenge feature creep:
+
+- "Do we need that for launch, or could it come later?"
+- "What if we started without that - what breaks?"
+- "Is this core to proving the concept?"</action>
+
+<template-output>core_features</template-output>
+
+<check if="scope creep discussed">
+  <template-output>out_of_scope</template-output>
+</check>
+
+<check if="future features mentioned">
+  <template-output>future_vision_features</template-output>
+</check>
+
+<check if="success criteria for MVP mentioned">
+  <template-output>mvp_success_criteria</template-output>
+</check>
+</step>
+
+<step n="7" goal="Explore relevant context dimensions" repeat="until-natural-end">
+<critical>Only explore what emerges naturally - skip what doesn't matter</critical>
+
+<action>Based on the conversation so far, selectively explore:
+
+IF financial aspects emerged:
+
+- Development investment needed
+- Revenue potential or cost savings
+- ROI timeline
+- Budget constraints
+  <check if="discussed">
+  <template-output>financial_considerations</template-output>
+  </check>
+
+IF market competition mentioned:
+
+- Competitive landscape
+- Market opportunity size
+- Differentiation strategy
+- Market timing
+  <check if="discussed">
+  <WebSearch>{{market}} size trends 2024</WebSearch>
+  <template-output>market_analysis</template-output>
+  </check>
+
+IF technical preferences surfaced:
+
+- Platform choices (web/mobile/desktop)
+- Technology stack preferences
+- Integration needs
+- Performance requirements
+  <check if="discussed">
+  <template-output>technical_preferences</template-output>
+  </check>
+
+IF organizational context emerged:
+
+- Strategic alignment
+- Stakeholder buy-in needs
+- Change management considerations
+- Compliance requirements
+  <check if="discussed">
+  <template-output>organizational_context</template-output>
+  </check>
+
+IF risks or concerns raised:
+
+- Key risks and mitigation
+- Critical assumptions
+- Open questions needing research
+  <check if="discussed">
+  <template-output>risks_and_assumptions</template-output>
+  </check>
+
+IF timeline pressures mentioned:
+
+- Launch timeline
+- Critical milestones
+- Dependencies
+  <check if="discussed">
+  <template-output>timeline_constraints</template-output>
+  </check>
+
+Skip anything that hasn't naturally emerged
+Don't force sections that don't fit their context</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="8" goal="Refine and complete the living document">
+<action>Review what's been captured with the user
+
+"Let me show you what we've built together..."
+
+Present the actual document sections created so far
+
+- Not a summary, but the real content
+- Shows the document has been growing throughout
+
+Ask:
+"Looking at this, what stands out as most important to you?"
+"Is there anything critical we haven't explored?"
+"Does this capture your vision?"
+
+Based on their response:
+
+- Refine sections that need more depth
+- Add any missing critical elements
+- Remove or simplify sections that don't matter
+- Ensure the document fits THEIR needs, not a template</action>
+
+<action>Make final refinements based on feedback</action>
+<template-output>final_refinements</template-output>
+
+<action>Create executive summary that captures the essence</action>
+<template-output>executive_summary</template-output>
+</step>
+<step n="9" goal="Complete and save the product brief">
+<action>The document has been building throughout our conversation
+Now ensure it's complete and well-organized</action>
+
+<check if="research documents were provided">
+  <action>Append summary of incorporated research</action>
+  <template-output>supporting_materials</template-output>
+</check>
+
+<action>Ensure the document structure makes sense for what was discovered:
+
+- Hobbyist projects might be 2-3 pages focused on problem/solution/features
+- Startup ventures might be 5-7 pages with market analysis and metrics
+- Enterprise briefs might be 10+ pages with full strategic context
+
+The document should reflect their world, not force their world into a template</action>
+
+<ask>Your product brief is ready! Would you like to:
+
+1. Review specific sections together
+2. Make any final adjustments
+3. Save and move forward
+
+What feels right?</ask>
+
+<action>Make any requested refinements</action>
+<template-output>final_document</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<check if="standalone_mode != true">
+  <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
+  <action>Find workflow_status key "product-brief"</action>
+  <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
+  <action>Update workflow_status["product-brief"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-product-brief-{{project_name}}-{{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>**✅ Product Brief Complete, {user_name}!**
+
+Your product vision has been captured in a document that reflects what matters most for your {{context_type}} project.
+
+**Document saved:** {output_folder}/bmm-product-brief-{{project_name}}-{{date}}.md
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+**What's next:** {{next_workflow}} ({{next_agent}} agent)
+
+The next phase will take your brief and create the detailed planning artifacts needed for implementation.
+{{else}}
+**Next steps:**
+
+- Run `workflow-init` to set up guided workflow tracking
+- Or proceed directly to the PRD workflow if you know your path
+  {{/if}}
+
+Remember: This brief captures YOUR vision. It grew from our conversation, not from a rigid template. It's ready to guide the next phase of bringing your idea to life.
+</output>
+</step>
+
+</workflow>

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+# Product Brief: {{project_name}}
+
+**Date:** {{date}}
+**Author:** {{user_name}}
+**Context:** {{context_type}}
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+{{executive_summary}}
+
+---
+
+## Core Vision
+
+### Problem Statement
+
+{{problem_statement}}
+
+{{#if problem_impact}}
+
+### Problem Impact
+
+{{problem_impact}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if existing_solutions_gaps}}
+
+### Why Existing Solutions Fall Short
+
+{{existing_solutions_gaps}}
+{{/if}}
+
+### Proposed Solution
+
+{{proposed_solution}}
+
+{{#if key_differentiators}}
+
+### Key Differentiators
+
+{{key_differentiators}}
+{{/if}}
+
+---
+
+## Target Users
+
+### Primary Users
+
+{{primary_user_segment}}
+
+{{#if secondary_user_segment}}
+
+### Secondary Users
+
+{{secondary_user_segment}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if user_journey}}
+
+### User Journey
+
+{{user_journey}}
+{{/if}}
+
+---
+
+{{#if success_metrics}}
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+{{success_metrics}}
+
+{{#if business_objectives}}
+
+### Business Objectives
+
+{{business_objectives}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if key_performance_indicators}}
+
+### Key Performance Indicators
+
+{{key_performance_indicators}}
+{{/if}}
+{{/if}}
+
+---
+
+## MVP Scope
+
+### Core Features
+
+{{core_features}}
+
+{{#if out_of_scope}}
+
+### Out of Scope for MVP
+
+{{out_of_scope}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if mvp_success_criteria}}
+
+### MVP Success Criteria
+
+{{mvp_success_criteria}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if future_vision_features}}
+
+### Future Vision
+
+{{future_vision_features}}
+{{/if}}
+
+---
+
+{{#if market_analysis}}
+
+## Market Context
+
+{{market_analysis}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if financial_considerations}}
+
+## Financial Considerations
+
+{{financial_considerations}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if technical_preferences}}
+
+## Technical Preferences
+
+{{technical_preferences}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if organizational_context}}
+
+## Organizational Context
+
+{{organizational_context}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if risks_and_assumptions}}
+
+## Risks and Assumptions
+
+{{risks_and_assumptions}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if timeline_constraints}}
+
+## Timeline
+
+{{timeline_constraints}}
+{{/if}}
+
+{{#if supporting_materials}}
+
+## Supporting Materials
+
+{{supporting_materials}}
+{{/if}}
+
+---
+
+_This Product Brief captures the vision and requirements for {{project_name}}._
+
+_It was created through collaborative discovery and reflects the unique needs of this {{context_type}} project._
+
+{{#if next_workflow}}
+_Next: {{next_workflow}} will transform this brief into detailed planning artifacts._
+{{else}}
+_Next: Use the PRD workflow to create detailed product requirements from this brief._
+{{/if}}

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Product Brief - Interactive Workflow Configuration
+name: product-brief
+description: "Interactive product brief creation workflow that guides users through defining their product vision with multiple input sources and conversational collaboration"
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Optional input documents
+recommended_inputs:
+  - market_research: "Market research document (optional)"
+  - brainstorming_results: "Brainstorming session outputs (optional)"
+  - competitive_analysis: "Competitive analysis (optional)"
+  - initial_ideas: "Initial product ideas or notes (optional)"
+
+# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
+# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
+input_file_patterns:
+  research:
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*research*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*research*/index.md"
+
+  brainstorming:
+    whole: "{output_folder}/*brainstorm*.md"
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/*brainstorm*/index.md"
+
+  document_project:
+    sharded: "{output_folder}/docs/index.md"
+
+# Module path and component files
+installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/product-brief"
+template: "{installed_path}/template.md"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+
+# Output configuration
+default_output_file: "{output_folder}/product-brief-{{project_name}}-{{date}}.md"
+
+standalone: true

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist-deep-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# Deep Research Prompt Validation Checklist
+
+## 🚨 CRITICAL: Anti-Hallucination Instructions (PRIORITY)
+
+### Citation Requirements Built Into Prompt
+
+- [ ] Prompt EXPLICITLY instructs: "Cite sources with URLs for ALL factual claims"
+- [ ] Prompt requires: "Include source name, date, and URL for every statistic"
+- [ ] Prompt mandates: "If you cannot find reliable data, state 'No verified data found for [X]'"
+- [ ] Prompt specifies inline citation format (e.g., "[Source: Company, Year, URL]")
+- [ ] Prompt requires References section at end with all sources listed
+
+### Multi-Source Verification Requirements
+
+- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Cross-reference critical claims with at least 2 independent sources"
+- [ ] Prompt requires: "Note when sources conflict and present all viewpoints"
+- [ ] Prompt specifies: "Verify version numbers and dates from official sources"
+- [ ] Prompt mandates: "Mark confidence levels: [Verified], [Single source], [Uncertain]"
+
+### Fact vs Analysis Distinction
+
+- [ ] Prompt requires clear labeling: "Distinguish FACTS (sourced), ANALYSIS (your interpretation), SPECULATION (projections)"
+- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Do not present assumptions or analysis as verified facts"
+- [ ] Prompt requires: "Label projections and forecasts clearly as such"
+- [ ] Prompt warns: "Avoid vague attributions like 'experts say' - name the expert/source"
+
+### Source Quality Guidance
+
+- [ ] Prompt specifies preferred sources (e.g., "Official docs > analyst reports > blog posts")
+- [ ] Prompt prioritizes recency: "Prioritize {{current_year}} sources for time-sensitive data"
+- [ ] Prompt requires credibility assessment: "Note source credibility for each citation"
+- [ ] Prompt warns against: "Do not rely on single blog posts for critical claims"
+
+### Anti-Hallucination Safeguards
+
+- [ ] Prompt warns: "If data seems convenient or too round, verify with additional sources"
+- [ ] Prompt instructs: "Flag suspicious claims that need third-party verification"
+- [ ] Prompt requires: "Provide date accessed for all web sources"
+- [ ] Prompt mandates: "Do NOT invent statistics - only use verified data"
+
+## Prompt Foundation
+
+### Topic and Scope
+
+- [ ] Research topic is specific and focused (not too broad)
+- [ ] Target platform is specified (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Claude)
+- [ ] Temporal scope defined and includes "current {{current_year}}" requirement
+- [ ] Source recency requirement specified (e.g., "prioritize 2024-2025 sources")
+
+## Content Requirements
+
+### Information Specifications
+
+- [ ] Types of information needed are listed (quantitative, qualitative, trends, case studies, etc.)
+- [ ] Preferred sources are specified (academic, industry reports, news, etc.)
+- [ ] Recency requirements are stated (e.g., "prioritize {{current_year}} sources")
+- [ ] Keywords and technical terms are included for search optimization
+- [ ] Validation criteria are defined (how to verify findings)
+
+### Output Structure
+
+- [ ] Desired format is clear (executive summary, comparison table, timeline, SWOT, etc.)
+- [ ] Key sections or questions are outlined
+- [ ] Depth level is specified (overview, standard, comprehensive, exhaustive)
+- [ ] Citation requirements are stated
+- [ ] Any special formatting needs are mentioned
+
+## Platform Optimization
+
+### Platform-Specific Elements
+
+- [ ] Prompt is optimized for chosen platform's capabilities
+- [ ] Platform-specific tips are included
+- [ ] Query limit considerations are noted (if applicable)
+- [ ] Platform strengths are leveraged (e.g., ChatGPT's multi-step search, Gemini's plan modification)
+
+### Execution Guidance
+
+- [ ] Research persona/perspective is specified (if applicable)
+- [ ] Special requirements are stated (bias considerations, recency, etc.)
+- [ ] Follow-up strategy is outlined
+- [ ] Validation approach is defined
+
+## Quality and Usability
+
+### Clarity and Completeness
+
+- [ ] Prompt language is clear and unambiguous
+- [ ] All placeholders and variables are replaced with actual values
+- [ ] Prompt can be copy-pasted directly into platform
+- [ ] No contradictory instructions exist
+- [ ] Prompt is self-contained (doesn't assume unstated context)
+
+### Practical Utility
+
+- [ ] Execution checklist is provided (before, during, after research)
+- [ ] Platform usage tips are included
+- [ ] Follow-up questions are anticipated
+- [ ] Success criteria are defined
+- [ ] Output file format is specified
+
+## Research Depth
+
+### Scope Appropriateness
+
+- [ ] Scope matches user's available time and resources
+- [ ] Depth is appropriate for decision at hand
+- [ ] Key questions that MUST be answered are identified
+- [ ] Nice-to-have vs. critical information is distinguished
+
+## Validation Criteria
+
+### Quality Standards
+
+- [ ] Method for cross-referencing sources is specified
+- [ ] Approach to handling conflicting information is defined
+- [ ] Confidence level indicators are requested
+- [ ] Gap identification is included
+- [ ] Fact vs. opinion distinction is required
+
+---
+
+## Issues Found
+
+### Critical Issues
+
+_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+### Minor Improvements
+
+_List minor improvements that would enhance the prompt:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+---
+
+**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Ready to Execute:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Reviewer:** \***\*\_\*\***
+**Date:** \***\*\_\*\***

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist-technical.md

@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
+# Technical/Architecture Research Validation Checklist
+
+## 🚨 CRITICAL: Source Verification and Fact-Checking (PRIORITY)
+
+### Version Number Verification (MANDATORY)
+
+- [ ] **EVERY** technology version number has cited source with URL
+- [ ] Version numbers verified via WebSearch from {{current_year}} (NOT from training data!)
+- [ ] Official documentation/release pages cited for each version
+- [ ] Release dates included with version numbers
+- [ ] LTS status verified from official sources (with URL)
+- [ ] No "assumed" or "remembered" version numbers - ALL must be verified
+
+### Technical Claim Source Verification
+
+- [ ] **EVERY** feature claim has source (official docs, release notes, website)
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks cite source (official benchmarks, third-party tests with URLs)
+- [ ] Compatibility claims verified (official compatibility matrix, documentation)
+- [ ] Community size/popularity backed by sources (GitHub stars, npm downloads, official stats)
+- [ ] "Supports X" claims verified via official documentation with URL
+- [ ] No invented capabilities or features
+
+### Source Quality for Technical Data
+
+- [ ] Official documentation prioritized (docs.technology.com > blog posts)
+- [ ] Version info from official release pages (highest credibility)
+- [ ] Benchmarks from official sources or reputable third-parties (not random blogs)
+- [ ] Community data from verified sources (GitHub, npm, official registries)
+- [ ] Pricing from official pricing pages (with URL and date verified)
+
+### Multi-Source Verification (Critical Technical Claims)
+
+- [ ] Major technical claims (performance, scalability) verified by 2+ sources
+- [ ] Technology comparisons cite multiple independent sources
+- [ ] "Best for X" claims backed by comparative analysis with sources
+- [ ] Production experience claims cite real case studies or articles with URLs
+- [ ] No single-source critical decisions without flagging need for verification
+
+### Anti-Hallucination for Technical Data
+
+- [ ] No invented version numbers or release dates
+- [ ] No assumed feature availability without verification
+- [ ] If current data not found, explicitly states "Could not verify {{current_year}} information"
+- [ ] Speculation clearly labeled (e.g., "Based on trends, technology may...")
+- [ ] No "probably supports" or "likely compatible" without verification
+
+## Technology Evaluation
+
+### Comprehensive Profiling
+
+For each evaluated technology:
+
+- [ ] Core capabilities and features are documented
+- [ ] Architecture and design philosophy are explained
+- [ ] Maturity level is assessed (experimental, stable, mature, legacy)
+- [ ] Community size and activity are measured
+- [ ] Maintenance status is verified (active, maintenance mode, abandoned)
+
+### Practical Considerations
+
+- [ ] Learning curve is evaluated
+- [ ] Documentation quality is assessed
+- [ ] Developer experience is considered
+- [ ] Tooling ecosystem is reviewed
+- [ ] Testing and debugging capabilities are examined
+
+### Operational Assessment
+
+- [ ] Deployment complexity is understood
+- [ ] Monitoring and observability options are evaluated
+- [ ] Operational overhead is estimated
+- [ ] Cloud provider support is verified
+- [ ] Container/Kubernetes compatibility is checked (if relevant)
+
+## Comparative Analysis
+
+### Multi-Dimensional Comparison
+
+- [ ] Technologies are compared across relevant dimensions
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks are included (if available)
+- [ ] Scalability characteristics are compared
+- [ ] Complexity trade-offs are analyzed
+- [ ] Total cost of ownership is estimated for each option
+
+### Trade-off Analysis
+
+- [ ] Key trade-offs between options are identified
+- [ ] Decision factors are prioritized based on user needs
+- [ ] Conditions favoring each option are specified
+- [ ] Weighted analysis reflects user's priorities
+
+## Real-World Evidence
+
+### Production Experience
+
+- [ ] Real-world production experiences are researched
+- [ ] Known issues and gotchas are documented
+- [ ] Performance data from actual deployments is included
+- [ ] Migration experiences are considered (if replacing existing tech)
+- [ ] Community discussions and war stories are referenced
+
+### Source Quality
+
+- [ ] Multiple independent sources validate key claims
+- [ ] Recent sources from {{current_year}} are prioritized
+- [ ] Practitioner experiences are included (blog posts, conference talks, forums)
+- [ ] Both proponent and critic perspectives are considered
+
+## Decision Support
+
+### Recommendations
+
+- [ ] Primary recommendation is clearly stated with rationale
+- [ ] Alternative options are explained with use cases
+- [ ] Fit for user's specific context is explained
+- [ ] Decision is justified by requirements and constraints
+
+### Implementation Guidance
+
+- [ ] Proof-of-concept approach is outlined
+- [ ] Key implementation decisions are identified
+- [ ] Migration path is described (if applicable)
+- [ ] Success criteria are defined
+- [ ] Validation approach is recommended
+
+### Risk Management
+
+- [ ] Technical risks are identified
+- [ ] Mitigation strategies are provided
+- [ ] Contingency options are outlined (if primary choice doesn't work)
+- [ ] Exit strategy considerations are discussed
+
+## Architecture Decision Record
+
+### ADR Completeness
+
+- [ ] Status is specified (Proposed, Accepted, Superseded)
+- [ ] Context and problem statement are clear
+- [ ] Decision drivers are documented
+- [ ] All considered options are listed
+- [ ] Chosen option and rationale are explained
+- [ ] Consequences (positive, negative, neutral) are identified
+- [ ] Implementation notes are included
+- [ ] References to research sources are provided
+
+## References and Source Documentation (CRITICAL)
+
+### References Section Completeness
+
+- [ ] Report includes comprehensive "References and Sources" section
+- [ ] Sources organized by category (official docs, benchmarks, community, architecture)
+- [ ] Every source includes: Title, Publisher/Site, Date Accessed, Full URL
+- [ ] URLs are clickable and functional (documentation links, release pages, GitHub)
+- [ ] Version verification sources clearly listed
+- [ ] Inline citations throughout report reference the sources section
+
+### Technology Source Documentation
+
+- [ ] For each technology evaluated, sources documented:
+  - Official documentation URL
+  - Release notes/changelog URL for version
+  - Pricing page URL (if applicable)
+  - Community/GitHub URL
+  - Benchmark source URLs
+- [ ] Comparison data cites source for each claim
+- [ ] Architecture pattern sources cited (articles, books, official guides)
+
+### Source Quality Metrics
+
+- [ ] Report documents total sources cited
+- [ ] Official sources count (highest credibility)
+- [ ] Third-party sources count (benchmarks, articles)
+- [ ] Version verification count (all technologies verified {{current_year}})
+- [ ] Outdated sources flagged (if any used)
+
+### Citation Format Standards
+
+- [ ] Inline citations format: [Source: Docs URL] or [Version: 1.2.3, Source: Release Page URL]
+- [ ] Consistent citation style throughout
+- [ ] No vague citations like "according to the community" without specifics
+- [ ] GitHub links include star count and last update date
+- [ ] Documentation links point to current stable version docs
+
+## Document Quality
+
+### Anti-Hallucination Final Check
+
+- [ ] Spot-check 5 random version numbers - can you find the cited source?
+- [ ] Verify feature claims against official documentation
+- [ ] Check any performance numbers have benchmark sources
+- [ ] Ensure no "cutting edge" or "latest" without specific version number
+- [ ] Cross-check technology comparisons with cited sources
+
+### Structure and Completeness
+
+- [ ] Executive summary captures key findings
+- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
+- [ ] References section is complete and properly formatted
+- [ ] Version verification audit trail included
+- [ ] Document ready for technical fact-checking by third party
+
+## Research Completeness
+
+### Coverage
+
+- [ ] All user requirements were addressed
+- [ ] All constraints were considered
+- [ ] Sufficient depth for the decision at hand
+- [ ] Optional analyses were considered and included/excluded appropriately
+- [ ] Web research was conducted for current market data
+
+### Data Freshness
+
+- [ ] Current {{current_year}} data was used throughout
+- [ ] Version information is up-to-date
+- [ ] Recent developments and trends are included
+- [ ] Outdated or deprecated information is flagged or excluded
+
+---
+
+## Issues Found
+
+### Critical Issues
+
+_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+### Minor Improvements
+
+_List minor improvements that would enhance the report:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+### Additional Research Needed
+
+_List areas requiring further investigation:_
+
+- [ ] Topic 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Topic 2: [Description]
+
+---
+
+**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Ready for Decision:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Reviewer:** \***\*\_\*\***
+**Date:** \***\*\_\*\***

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+# Market Research Report Validation Checklist
+
+## 🚨 CRITICAL: Source Verification and Fact-Checking (PRIORITY)
+
+### Source Citation Completeness
+
+- [ ] **EVERY** market size claim has at least 2 cited sources with URLs
+- [ ] **EVERY** growth rate/CAGR has cited sources with URLs
+- [ ] **EVERY** competitive data point (pricing, features, funding) has sources with URLs
+- [ ] **EVERY** customer statistic or insight has cited sources
+- [ ] **EVERY** industry trend claim has sources from {{current_year}} or recent years
+- [ ] All sources include: Name, Date, URL (clickable links)
+- [ ] No claims exist without verifiable sources
+
+### Source Quality and Credibility
+
+- [ ] Market size sources are HIGH credibility (Gartner, Forrester, IDC, government data, industry associations)
+- [ ] NOT relying on single blog posts or unverified sources for critical data
+- [ ] Sources are recent ({{current_year}} or within 1-2 years for time-sensitive data)
+- [ ] Primary sources prioritized over secondary/tertiary sources
+- [ ] Paywalled reports are cited with proper attribution (e.g., "Gartner Market Report 2025")
+
+### Multi-Source Verification (Critical Claims)
+
+- [ ] TAM calculation verified by at least 2 independent sources
+- [ ] SAM calculation methodology is transparent and sourced
+- [ ] SOM estimates are conservative and based on comparable benchmarks
+- [ ] Market growth rates corroborated by multiple analyst reports
+- [ ] Competitive market share data verified across sources
+
+### Conflicting Data Resolution
+
+- [ ] Where sources conflict, ALL conflicting estimates are presented
+- [ ] Variance between sources is explained (methodology, scope differences)
+- [ ] No arbitrary selection of "convenient" numbers without noting alternatives
+- [ ] Conflicting data is flagged with confidence levels
+- [ ] User is made aware of uncertainty in conflicting claims
+
+### Confidence Level Marking
+
+- [ ] Every major claim is marked with confidence level:
+  - **[Verified - 2+ sources]** = High confidence, multiple independent sources agree
+  - **[Single source - verify]** = Medium confidence, only one source found
+  - **[Estimated - low confidence]** = Low confidence, calculated/projected without strong sources
+- [ ] Low confidence claims are clearly flagged for user to verify independently
+- [ ] Speculative/projected data is labeled as PROJECTION or FORECAST, not presented as fact
+
+### Fact vs Analysis vs Speculation
+
+- [ ] Clear distinction between:
+  - **FACT:** Sourced data with citations (e.g., "Market is $5.2B [Source: Gartner 2025]")
+  - **ANALYSIS:** Interpretation of facts (e.g., "This suggests strong growth momentum")
+  - **SPECULATION:** Educated guesses (e.g., "This trend may continue if...")
+- [ ] Analysis and speculation are NOT presented as verified facts
+- [ ] Recommendations are based on sourced facts, not unsupported assumptions
+
+### Anti-Hallucination Verification
+
+- [ ] No invented statistics or "made up" market sizes
+- [ ] All percentages, dollar amounts, and growth rates are traceable to sources
+- [ ] If data couldn't be found, report explicitly states "No verified data available for [X]"
+- [ ] No use of vague sources like "industry experts say" without naming the expert/source
+- [ ] Version numbers, dates, and specific figures match source material exactly
+
+## Market Sizing Analysis (Source-Verified)
+
+### TAM Calculation Sources
+
+- [ ] TAM figure has at least 2 independent source citations
+- [ ] Calculation methodology is sourced (not invented)
+- [ ] Industry benchmarks used for sanity-check are cited
+- [ ] Growth rate assumptions are backed by sourced projections
+- [ ] Any adjustments or filters applied are justified and documented
+
+### SAM and SOM Source Verification
+
+- [ ] SAM constraints are based on sourced data (addressable market scope)
+- [ ] SOM competitive assumptions cite actual competitor data
+- [ ] Market share benchmarks reference comparable companies with sources
+- [ ] Scenarios (conservative/realistic/optimistic) are justified with sourced reasoning
+
+## Competitive Analysis (Source-Verified)
+
+### Competitor Data Source Verification
+
+- [ ] **EVERY** competitor mentioned has source for basic company info
+- [ ] Competitor pricing data has sources (website URLs, pricing pages, reviews)
+- [ ] Funding amounts cite sources (Crunchbase, press releases, SEC filings)
+- [ ] Product features verified through sources (official website, documentation, reviews)
+- [ ] Market positioning claims are backed by sources (analyst reports, company statements)
+- [ ] Customer count/user numbers cite sources (company announcements, verified reports)
+- [ ] Recent news and developments cite article URLs with dates from {{current_year}}
+
+### Competitive Data Credibility
+
+- [ ] Company websites/official sources used for product info (highest credibility)
+- [ ] Financial data from Crunchbase, PitchBook, or SEC filings (not rumors)
+- [ ] Review sites cited for customer sentiment (G2, Capterra, TrustPilot with URLs)
+- [ ] Pricing verified from official pricing pages (with URL and date checked)
+- [ ] No assumptions about competitors without sourced evidence
+
+### Competitive Claims Verification
+
+- [ ] Market share claims cite analyst reports or verified data
+- [ ] "Leading" or "dominant" claims backed by sourced market data
+- [ ] Competitor weaknesses cited from reviews, articles, or public statements (not speculation)
+- [ ] Product comparison claims verified (feature lists from official sources)
+
+## Customer Intelligence (Source-Verified)
+
+### Customer Data Sources
+
+- [ ] Customer segment data cites research sources (reports, surveys, studies)
+- [ ] Demographics/firmographics backed by census data, industry reports, or studies
+- [ ] Pain points sourced from customer research, reviews, surveys (not assumed)
+- [ ] Willingness to pay backed by pricing studies, surveys, or comparable market data
+- [ ] Buying behavior sourced from research studies or industry data
+- [ ] Jobs-to-be-Done insights cite customer research or validated frameworks
+
+### Customer Insight Credibility
+
+- [ ] Primary research (if conducted) documents sample size and methodology
+- [ ] Secondary research cites the original study/report with full attribution
+- [ ] Customer quotes or testimonials cite the source (interview, review site, case study)
+- [ ] Persona data based on real research findings (not fictional archetypes)
+- [ ] No invented customer statistics or behaviors without source backing
+
+### Positioning Analysis
+
+- [ ] Market positioning map uses relevant dimensions for the industry
+- [ ] White space opportunities are clearly identified
+- [ ] Differentiation strategy is supported by competitive gaps
+- [ ] Switching costs and barriers are quantified
+- [ ] Network effects and moats are assessed
+
+## Industry Analysis
+
+### Porter's Five Forces
+
+- [ ] Each force has a clear rating (Low/Medium/High) with justification
+- [ ] Specific examples and evidence support each assessment
+- [ ] Industry-specific factors are considered (not generic template)
+- [ ] Implications for strategy are drawn from each force
+- [ ] Overall industry attractiveness conclusion is provided
+
+### Trends and Dynamics
+
+- [ ] At least 5 major trends are identified with evidence
+- [ ] Technology disruptions are assessed for probability and timeline
+- [ ] Regulatory changes and their impacts are documented
+- [ ] Social/cultural shifts relevant to adoption are included
+- [ ] Market maturity stage is identified with supporting indicators
+
+## Strategic Recommendations
+
+### Go-to-Market Strategy
+
+- [ ] Target segment prioritization has clear rationale
+- [ ] Positioning statement is specific and differentiated
+- [ ] Channel strategy aligns with customer buying behavior
+- [ ] Partnership opportunities are identified with specific targets
+- [ ] Pricing strategy is justified by willingness-to-pay analysis
+
+### Opportunity Assessment
+
+- [ ] Each opportunity is sized quantitatively
+- [ ] Resource requirements are estimated (time, money, people)
+- [ ] Success criteria are measurable and time-bound
+- [ ] Dependencies and prerequisites are identified
+- [ ] Quick wins vs. long-term plays are distinguished
+
+### Risk Analysis
+
+- [ ] All major risk categories are covered (market, competitive, execution, regulatory)
+- [ ] Each risk has probability and impact assessment
+- [ ] Mitigation strategies are specific and actionable
+- [ ] Early warning indicators are defined
+- [ ] Contingency plans are outlined for high-impact risks
+
+## References and Source Documentation (CRITICAL)
+
+### References Section Completeness
+
+- [ ] Report includes comprehensive "References and Sources" section
+- [ ] Sources organized by category (market size, competitive, customer, trends)
+- [ ] Every source includes: Title/Name, Publisher, Date, Full URL
+- [ ] URLs are clickable and functional (not broken links)
+- [ ] Sources are numbered or organized for easy reference
+- [ ] Inline citations throughout report reference the sources section
+
+### Source Quality Metrics
+
+- [ ] Report documents total sources cited count
+- [ ] High confidence claims (2+ sources) count is reported
+- [ ] Single source claims are identified and counted
+- [ ] Low confidence/speculative claims are flagged
+- [ ] Web searches conducted count is included (for transparency)
+
+### Source Audit Trail
+
+- [ ] For each major section, sources are listed
+- [ ] TAM/SAM/SOM calculations show source for each number
+- [ ] Competitive data shows source for each competitor profile
+- [ ] Customer insights show research sources
+- [ ] Industry trends show article/report sources with dates
+
+### Citation Format Standards
+
+- [ ] Inline citations format: [Source: Company/Publication, Year, URL] or similar
+- [ ] Consistent citation style throughout document
+- [ ] No vague citations like "according to sources" without specifics
+- [ ] URLs are complete (not truncated)
+- [ ] Accessed/verified dates included for web sources
+
+## Document Quality
+
+### Anti-Hallucination Final Check
+
+- [ ] Read through entire report - does anything "feel" invented or too convenient?
+- [ ] Spot-check 5-10 random claims - can you find the cited source?
+- [ ] Check suspicious round numbers - are they actually from sources?
+- [ ] Verify any "shocking" statistics have strong sources
+- [ ] Cross-check key market size claims against multiple cited sources
+
+### Structure and Completeness
+
+- [ ] Executive summary captures all key insights
+- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
+- [ ] References section is complete and properly formatted
+- [ ] Source quality assessment included
+- [ ] Document ready for fact-checking by third party
+
+## Research Completeness
+
+### Coverage Check
+
+- [ ] All workflow steps were completed (none skipped without justification)
+- [ ] Optional analyses were considered and included where valuable
+- [ ] Web research was conducted for current market intelligence
+- [ ] Financial projections align with market size analysis
+- [ ] Implementation roadmap provides clear next steps
+
+### Validation
+
+- [ ] Key findings are triangulated across multiple sources
+- [ ] Surprising insights are double-checked for accuracy
+- [ ] Calculations are verified for mathematical accuracy
+- [ ] Conclusions logically follow from the analysis
+- [ ] Recommendations are actionable and specific
+
+## Final Quality Assurance
+
+### Ready for Decision-Making
+
+- [ ] Research answers all initial objectives
+- [ ] Sufficient detail for investment decisions
+- [ ] Clear go/no-go recommendation provided
+- [ ] Success metrics are defined
+- [ ] Follow-up research needs are identified
+
+### Document Meta
+
+- [ ] Research date is current
+- [ ] Confidence levels are indicated for key assertions
+- [ ] Next review date is set
+- [ ] Distribution list is appropriate
+- [ ] Confidentiality classification is marked
+
+---
+
+## Issues Found
+
+### Critical Issues
+
+_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+### Minor Issues
+
+_List minor improvements that would enhance the report:_
+
+- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
+
+### Additional Research Needed
+
+_List areas requiring further investigation:_
+
+- [ ] Topic 1: [Description]
+- [ ] Topic 2: [Description]
+
+---
+
+**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Ready for Distribution:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
+**Reviewer:** **\*\***\_\_\_\_**\*\***
+**Date:** **\*\***\_\_\_\_**\*\***

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/claude-code/injections.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# Market Research Workflow - Claude Code Integration Configuration
+# This file configures how subagents are installed and integrated
+
+subagents:
+  # List of subagent files to be installed
+  files:
+    - bmm-market-researcher.md
+    - bmm-trend-spotter.md
+    - bmm-data-analyst.md
+    - bmm-competitor-analyzer.md
+    - bmm-user-researcher.md
+
+  # Installation configuration
+  installation:
+    prompt: "The Market Research workflow includes specialized AI subagents for enhanced research capabilities. Would you like to install them?"
+    location_options:
+      - project # Install to .claude/agents/ in project
+      - user # Install to ~/.claude/agents/ for all projects
+    default_location: project
+
+# Content injections for the workflow
+injections:
+  - injection_point: "market-research-subagents"
+    description: "Injects subagent activation instructions into the workflow"
+    content: |
+      <critical>
+      Claude Code Enhanced Mode: The following specialized subagents are available to enhance your market research:
+
+      - **bmm-market-researcher**: Comprehensive market intelligence gathering and analysis
+      - **bmm-trend-spotter**: Identifies emerging trends and weak signals
+      - **bmm-data-analyst**: Quantitative analysis and market sizing calculations
+      - **bmm-competitor-analyzer**: Deep competitive intelligence and positioning
+      - **bmm-user-researcher**: User research, personas, and journey mapping
+
+      These subagents will be automatically invoked when their expertise is relevant to the current research task.
+      Use them PROACTIVELY throughout the workflow for enhanced insights.
+      </critical>
+
+  - injection_point: "market-tam-calculations"
+    description: "Enhanced TAM calculation with data analyst"
+    content: |
+      <invoke-subagent name="bmm-data-analyst">
+      Calculate TAM using multiple methodologies and provide confidence intervals.
+      Use all available market data from previous research steps.
+      Show detailed calculations and assumptions.
+      </invoke-subagent>
+
+  - injection_point: "market-trends-analysis"
+    description: "Enhanced trend analysis with trend spotter"
+    content: |
+      <invoke-subagent name="bmm-trend-spotter">
+      Identify emerging trends, weak signals, and future disruptions.
+      Look for cross-industry patterns and second-order effects.
+      Provide timeline estimates for mainstream adoption.
+      </invoke-subagent>
+
+  - injection_point: "market-customer-segments"
+    description: "Enhanced customer research"
+    content: |
+      <invoke-subagent name="bmm-user-researcher">
+      Develop detailed user personas with jobs-to-be-done analysis.
+      Map the complete customer journey with pain points and opportunities.
+      Provide behavioral and psychographic insights.
+      </invoke-subagent>
+
+  - injection_point: "market-executive-summary"
+    description: "Enhanced executive summary synthesis"
+    content: |
+      <invoke-subagent name="bmm-market-researcher">
+      Synthesize all research findings into a compelling executive summary.
+      Highlight the most critical insights and strategic implications.
+      Ensure all key metrics and recommendations are captured.
+      </invoke-subagent>
+
+# Configuration for subagent behavior
+configuration:
+  auto_invoke: true # Automatically invoke subagents when relevant
+  parallel_execution: true # Allow parallel subagent execution
+  cache_results: true # Cache subagent outputs for reuse
+
+  # Subagent-specific configurations
+  subagent_config:
+    bmm-market-researcher:
+      priority: high
+      max_execution_time: 300 # seconds
+      retry_on_failure: true
+
+    bmm-trend-spotter:
+      priority: medium
+      max_execution_time: 180
+      retry_on_failure: false
+
+    bmm-data-analyst:
+      priority: high
+      max_execution_time: 240
+      retry_on_failure: true
+
+    bmm-competitor-analyzer:
+      priority: high
+      max_execution_time: 300
+      retry_on_failure: true
+
+    bmm-user-researcher:
+      priority: medium
+      max_execution_time: 240
+      retry_on_failure: false
+
+# Metadata
+metadata:
+  compatible_with: "claude-code-1.0+"
+  workflow: "market-research"
+  module: "bmm"
+  author: "BMad Builder"
+  description: "Claude Code enhancements for comprehensive market research"

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/instructions-deep-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
+# Deep Research Prompt Generator 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: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>This workflow uses ADAPTIVE FACILITATION - adjust your communication style based on {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>This workflow generates structured research prompts optimized for AI platforms</critical>
+<critical>Based on {{current_year}} best practices from ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude</critical>
+<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and tailor to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+
+<critical>🚨 BUILD ANTI-HALLUCINATION INTO PROMPTS 🚨</critical>
+<critical>Generated prompts MUST instruct AI to cite sources with URLs for all factual claims</critical>
+<critical>Include validation requirements: "Cross-reference claims with at least 2 independent sources"</critical>
+<critical>Add explicit instructions: "If you cannot find reliable data, state 'No verified data found for [X]'"</critical>
+<critical>Require confidence indicators in prompts: "Mark each claim with confidence level and source quality"</critical>
+<critical>Include fact-checking instructions: "Distinguish between verified facts, analysis, and speculation"</critical>
+
+<workflow>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Discover what research prompt they need">
+
+<action>Engage conversationally to understand their needs:
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'expert'">
+  "Let's craft a research prompt optimized for AI deep research tools.
+
+What topic or question do you want to investigate, and which platform are you planning to use? (ChatGPT Deep Research, Gemini, Grok, Claude Projects)"
+</check>
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'intermediate'">
+  "I'll help you create a structured research prompt for AI platforms like ChatGPT Deep Research, Gemini, or Grok.
+
+These tools work best with well-structured prompts that define scope, sources, and output format.
+
+What do you want to research?"
+</check>
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'beginner'">
+  "Think of this as creating a detailed brief for an AI research assistant.
+
+Tools like ChatGPT Deep Research can spend hours searching the web and synthesizing information - but they work best when you give them clear instructions about what to look for and how to present it.
+
+What topic are you curious about?"
+</check>
+</action>
+
+<action>Through conversation, discover:
+
+- **The research topic** - What they want to explore
+- **Their purpose** - Why they need this (decision-making, learning, writing, etc.)
+- **Target platform** - Which AI tool they'll use (affects prompt structure)
+- **Existing knowledge** - What they already know vs. what's uncertain
+
+Adapt your questions based on their clarity:
+
+- If they're vague → Help them sharpen the focus
+- If they're specific → Capture the details
+- If they're unsure about platform → Guide them to the best fit
+
+Don't make them fill out a form - have a real conversation.
+</action>
+
+<template-output>research_topic</template-output>
+<template-output>research_goal</template-output>
+<template-output>target_platform</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Define Research Scope and Boundaries">
+<action>Help user define clear boundaries for focused research</action>
+
+**Let's define the scope to ensure focused, actionable results:**
+
+<ask>**Temporal Scope** - What time period should the research cover?
+
+- Current state only (last 6-12 months)
+- Recent trends (last 2-3 years)
+- Historical context (5-10 years)
+- Future outlook (projections 3-5 years)
+- Custom date range (specify)</ask>
+
+<template-output>temporal_scope</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Geographic Scope** - What geographic focus?
+
+- Global
+- Regional (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, etc.)
+- Specific countries
+- US-focused
+- Other (specify)</ask>
+
+<template-output>geographic_scope</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Thematic Boundaries** - Are there specific aspects to focus on or exclude?
+
+Examples:
+
+- Focus: technological innovation, regulatory changes, market dynamics
+- Exclude: historical background, unrelated adjacent markets</ask>
+
+<template-output>thematic_boundaries</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Specify Information Types and Sources">
+<action>Determine what types of information and sources are needed</action>
+
+**What types of information do you need?**
+
+<ask>Select all that apply:
+
+- [ ] Quantitative data and statistics
+- [ ] Qualitative insights and expert opinions
+- [ ] Trends and patterns
+- [ ] Case studies and examples
+- [ ] Comparative analysis
+- [ ] Technical specifications
+- [ ] Regulatory and compliance information
+- [ ] Financial data
+- [ ] Academic research
+- [ ] Industry reports
+- [ ] News and current events</ask>
+
+<template-output>information_types</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Preferred Sources** - Any specific source types or credibility requirements?
+
+Examples:
+
+- Peer-reviewed academic journals
+- Industry analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester, IDC)
+- Government/regulatory sources
+- Financial reports and SEC filings
+- Technical documentation
+- News from major publications
+- Expert blogs and thought leadership
+- Social media and forums (with caveats)</ask>
+
+<template-output>preferred_sources</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="4" goal="Define Output Structure and Format">
+<action>Specify desired output format for the research</action>
+
+<ask>**Output Format** - How should the research be structured?
+
+1. Executive Summary + Detailed Sections
+2. Comparative Analysis Table
+3. Chronological Timeline
+4. SWOT Analysis Framework
+5. Problem-Solution-Impact Format
+6. Question-Answer Format
+7. Custom structure (describe)</ask>
+
+<template-output>output_format</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Key Sections** - What specific sections or questions should the research address?
+
+Examples for market research:
+
+- Market size and growth
+- Key players and competitive landscape
+- Trends and drivers
+- Challenges and barriers
+- Future outlook
+
+Examples for technical research:
+
+- Current state of technology
+- Alternative approaches and trade-offs
+- Best practices and patterns
+- Implementation considerations
+- Tool/framework comparison</ask>
+
+<template-output>key_sections</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Depth Level** - How detailed should each section be?
+
+- High-level overview (2-3 paragraphs per section)
+- Standard depth (1-2 pages per section)
+- Comprehensive (3-5 pages per section with examples)
+- Exhaustive (deep dive with all available data)</ask>
+
+<template-output>depth_level</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="5" goal="Add Context and Constraints">
+<action>Gather additional context to make the prompt more effective</action>
+
+<ask>**Persona/Perspective** - Should the research take a specific viewpoint?
+
+Examples:
+
+- "Act as a venture capital analyst evaluating investment opportunities"
+- "Act as a CTO evaluating technology choices for a fintech startup"
+- "Act as an academic researcher reviewing literature"
+- "Act as a product manager assessing market opportunities"
+- No specific persona needed</ask>
+
+<template-output>research_persona</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Special Requirements or Constraints:**
+
+- Citation requirements (e.g., "Include source URLs for all claims")
+- Bias considerations (e.g., "Consider perspectives from both proponents and critics")
+- Recency requirements (e.g., "Prioritize sources from 2024-2025")
+- Specific keywords or technical terms to focus on
+- Any topics or angles to avoid</ask>
+
+<template-output>special_requirements</template-output>
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="6" goal="Define Validation and Follow-up Strategy">
+<action>Establish how to validate findings and what follow-ups might be needed</action>
+
+<ask>**Validation Criteria** - How should the research be validated?
+
+- Cross-reference multiple sources for key claims
+- Identify conflicting viewpoints and resolve them
+- Distinguish between facts, expert opinions, and speculation
+- Note confidence levels for different findings
+- Highlight gaps or areas needing more research</ask>
+
+<template-output>validation_criteria</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Follow-up Questions** - What potential follow-up questions should be anticipated?
+
+Examples:
+
+- "If cost data is unclear, drill deeper into pricing models"
+- "If regulatory landscape is complex, create separate analysis"
+- "If multiple technical approaches exist, create comparison matrix"</ask>
+
+<template-output>follow_up_strategy</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="7" goal="Generate Optimized Research Prompt">
+<action>Synthesize all inputs into platform-optimized research prompt</action>
+
+<critical>Generate the deep research prompt using best practices for the target platform</critical>
+
+**Prompt Structure Best Practices:**
+
+1. **Clear Title/Question** (specific, focused)
+2. **Context and Goal** (why this research matters)
+3. **Scope Definition** (boundaries and constraints)
+4. **Information Requirements** (what types of data/insights)
+5. **Output Structure** (format and sections)
+6. **Source Guidance** (preferred sources and credibility)
+7. **Validation Requirements** (how to verify findings)
+8. **Keywords** (precise technical terms, brand names)
+
+<action>Generate prompt following this structure</action>
+
+<template-output file="deep-research-prompt.md">deep_research_prompt</template-output>
+
+<ask>Review the generated prompt:
+
+- [a] Accept and save
+- [e] Edit sections
+- [r] Refine with additional context
+- [o] Optimize for different platform</ask>
+
+<check if="edit or refine">
+  <ask>What would you like to adjust?</ask>
+  <goto step="7">Regenerate with modifications</goto>
+</check>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="8" goal="Generate Platform-Specific Tips">
+<action>Provide platform-specific usage tips based on target platform</action>
+
+<check if="target_platform includes ChatGPT">
+  **ChatGPT Deep Research Tips:**
+
+- Use clear verbs: "compare," "analyze," "synthesize," "recommend"
+- Specify keywords explicitly to guide search
+- Answer clarifying questions thoroughly (requests are more expensive)
+- You have 25-250 queries/month depending on tier
+- Review the research plan before it starts searching
+  </check>
+
+<check if="target_platform includes Gemini">
+  **Gemini Deep Research Tips:**
+
+- Keep initial prompt simple - you can adjust the research plan
+- Be specific and clear - vagueness is the enemy
+- Review and modify the multi-point research plan before it runs
+- Use follow-up questions to drill deeper or add sections
+- Available in 45+ languages globally
+  </check>
+
+<check if="target_platform includes Grok">
+  **Grok DeepSearch Tips:**
+
+- Include date windows: "from Jan-Jun 2025"
+- Specify output format: "bullet list + citations"
+- Pair with Think Mode for reasoning
+- Use follow-up commands: "Expand on [topic]" to deepen sections
+- Verify facts when obscure sources cited
+- Free tier: 5 queries/24hrs, Premium: 30/2hrs
+  </check>
+
+<check if="target_platform includes Claude">
+  **Claude Projects Tips:**
+
+- Use Chain of Thought prompting for complex reasoning
+- Break into sub-prompts for multi-step research (prompt chaining)
+- Add relevant documents to Project for context
+- Provide explicit instructions and examples
+- Test iteratively and refine prompts
+  </check>
+
+<template-output>platform_tips</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="9" goal="Generate Research Execution Checklist">
+<action>Create a checklist for executing and evaluating the research</action>
+
+Generate execution checklist with:
+
+**Before Running Research:**
+
+- [ ] Prompt clearly states the research question
+- [ ] Scope and boundaries are well-defined
+- [ ] Output format and structure specified
+- [ ] Keywords and technical terms included
+- [ ] Source guidance provided
+- [ ] Validation criteria clear
+
+**During Research:**
+
+- [ ] Review research plan before execution (if platform provides)
+- [ ] Answer any clarifying questions thoroughly
+- [ ] Monitor progress if platform shows reasoning process
+- [ ] Take notes on unexpected findings or gaps
+
+**After Research Completion:**
+
+- [ ] Verify key facts from multiple sources
+- [ ] Check citation credibility
+- [ ] Identify conflicting information and resolve
+- [ ] Note confidence levels for findings
+- [ ] Identify gaps requiring follow-up
+- [ ] Ask clarifying follow-up questions
+- [ ] Export/save research before query limit resets
+
+<template-output>execution_checklist</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="10" goal="Finalize and Export">
+<action>Save complete research prompt package</action>
+
+**Your Deep Research Prompt Package is ready!**
+
+The output includes:
+
+1. **Optimized Research Prompt** - Ready to paste into AI platform
+2. **Platform-Specific Tips** - How to get the best results
+3. **Execution Checklist** - Ensure thorough research process
+4. **Follow-up Strategy** - Questions to deepen findings
+
+<action>Save all outputs to {default_output_file}</action>
+
+<ask>Would you like to:
+
+1. Generate a variation for a different platform
+2. Create a follow-up prompt based on hypothetical findings
+3. Generate a related research prompt
+4. Exit workflow
+
+Select option (1-4):</ask>
+
+<check if="option 1">
+  <goto step="1">Start with different platform selection</goto>
+</check>
+
+<check if="option 2 or 3">
+  <goto step="1">Start new prompt with context from previous</goto>
+</check>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="FINAL" goal="Update status file on completion" 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 "research"</action>
+  <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
+  <action>Update workflow_status["research"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-research-deep-prompt-{{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>**✅ Deep Research Prompt Generated**
+
+**Research Prompt:**
+
+- Structured research prompt generated and saved to {output_folder}/bmm-research-deep-prompt-{{date}}.md
+- Ready to execute with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Grok
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+**Status Updated:**
+
+- Progress tracking updated: research 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)
+- **Optional:** Execute the research prompt with AI platform, gather findings, or run additional research workflows
+
+Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
+{{else}}
+Since no workflow is in progress:
+
+- Execute the research prompt with AI platform and gather findings
+- 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>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/instructions-market.md

@@ -0,0 +1,679 @@
+# Market Research 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: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>This workflow uses ADAPTIVE FACILITATION - adjust your communication style based on {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>This is a HIGHLY INTERACTIVE workflow - collaborate with user throughout, don't just gather info and disappear</critical>
+<critical>Web research is MANDATORY - use WebSearch tool with {{current_year}} for all market intelligence gathering</critical>
+<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and tailor to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+
+<critical>🚨 ANTI-HALLUCINATION PROTOCOL - MANDATORY 🚨</critical>
+<critical>NEVER invent market data - if you cannot find reliable data, explicitly state: "I could not find verified data for [X]"</critical>
+<critical>EVERY statistic, market size, growth rate, or competitive claim MUST have a cited source with URL</critical>
+<critical>For CRITICAL claims (TAM/SAM/SOM, market size, growth rates), require 2+ independent sources that agree</critical>
+<critical>When data sources conflict (e.g., different market size estimates), present ALL estimates with sources and explain variance</critical>
+<critical>Mark data confidence: [Verified - 2+ sources], [Single source - verify], [Estimated - low confidence]</critical>
+<critical>Clearly label: FACT (sourced data), ANALYSIS (your interpretation), PROJECTION (forecast/speculation)</critical>
+<critical>After each WebSearch, extract and store source URLs - include them in the report</critical>
+<critical>If a claim seems suspicious or too convenient, STOP and cross-verify with additional searches</critical>
+
+<!-- IDE-INJECT-POINT: market-research-subagents -->
+
+<workflow>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Discover research needs and scope collaboratively">
+
+<action>Welcome {user_name} warmly. Position yourself as their collaborative research partner who will:
+
+- Gather live {{current_year}} market data
+- Share findings progressively throughout
+- Help make sense of what we discover together
+
+Ask what they're building and what market questions they need answered.
+</action>
+
+<action>Through natural conversation, discover:
+
+- The product/service and current stage
+- Their burning questions (what they REALLY need to know)
+- Context and urgency (fundraising? launch decision? pivot?)
+- Existing knowledge vs. uncertainties
+- Desired depth (gauge from their needs, don't ask them to choose)
+
+Adapt your approach: If uncertain → help them think it through. If detailed → dig deeper.
+
+Collaboratively define scope:
+
+- Markets/segments to focus on
+- Geographic boundaries
+- Critical questions vs. nice-to-have
+  </action>
+
+<action>Reflect understanding back to confirm you're aligned on what matters.</action>
+
+<template-output>product_name</template-output>
+<template-output>product_description</template-output>
+<template-output>research_objectives</template-output>
+<template-output>research_scope</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Market Definition and Boundaries">
+<action>Help the user precisely define the market scope</action>
+
+Work with the user to establish:
+
+1. **Market Category Definition**
+   - Primary category/industry
+   - Adjacent or overlapping markets
+   - Where this fits in the value chain
+
+2. **Geographic Scope**
+   - Global, regional, or country-specific?
+   - Primary markets vs. expansion markets
+   - Regulatory considerations by region
+
+3. **Customer Segment Boundaries**
+   - B2B, B2C, or B2B2C?
+   - Primary vs. secondary segments
+   - Segment size estimates
+
+<ask>Should we include adjacent markets in the TAM calculation? This could significantly increase market size but may be less immediately addressable.</ask>
+
+<template-output>market_definition</template-output>
+<template-output>geographic_scope</template-output>
+<template-output>segment_boundaries</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Gather live market intelligence collaboratively">
+
+<critical>This step REQUIRES WebSearch tool usage - gather CURRENT data from {{current_year}}</critical>
+<critical>Share findings as you go - make this collaborative, not a black box</critical>
+
+<action>Let {user_name} know you're searching for current {{market_category}} market data: size, growth, analyst reports, recent trends. Tell them you'll share what you find in a few minutes and review it together.</action>
+
+<step n="3a" title="Search for market size and industry data">
+<action>Conduct systematic web searches using WebSearch tool:
+
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} market size {{geographic_scope}} {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} industry report Gartner Forrester IDC {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} market growth rate CAGR forecast {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} market trends {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} TAM SAM market opportunity {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+</action>
+
+<action>Share findings WITH SOURCES including URLs and dates. Ask if it aligns with their expectations.</action>
+
+<action>CRITICAL - Validate data before proceeding:
+
+- Multiple sources with similar figures?
+- Recent sources ({{current_year}} or within 1-2 years)?
+- Credible sources (Gartner, Forrester, govt data, reputable pubs)?
+- Conflicts? Note explicitly, search for more sources, mark [Low Confidence]
+  </action>
+
+<action if="user_has_questions">Explore surprising data points together</action>
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+
+<template-output>sources_market_size</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3b" title="Search for recent news and developments" optional="true">
+<action>Search for recent market developments:
+
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} news {{current_year}} funding acquisitions</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} recent developments {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} regulatory changes {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+</action>
+
+<action>Share noteworthy findings:
+
+"I found some interesting recent developments:
+
+{{key_news_highlights}}
+
+Anything here surprise you or confirm what you suspected?"
+</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3c" title="Optional: Government and academic sources" optional="true">
+<action if="research needs high credibility">Search for authoritative sources:
+
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} government statistics census data {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{market_category}} academic research white papers {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+</action>
+</step>
+
+<template-output>market_intelligence_raw</template-output>
+<template-output>key_data_points</template-output>
+<template-output>source_credibility_notes</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="4" goal="TAM, SAM, SOM Calculations">
+<action>Calculate market sizes using multiple methodologies for triangulation</action>
+
+<critical>Use actual data gathered in previous steps, not hypothetical numbers</critical>
+
+<step n="4a" title="TAM Calculation">
+**Method 1: Top-Down Approach**
+- Start with total industry size from research
+- Apply relevant filters and segments
+- Show calculation: Industry Size × Relevant Percentage
+
+**Method 2: Bottom-Up Approach**
+
+- Number of potential customers × Average revenue per customer
+- Build from unit economics
+
+**Method 3: Value Theory Approach**
+
+- Value created × Capturable percentage
+- Based on problem severity and alternative costs
+
+<ask>Which TAM calculation method seems most credible given our data? Should we use multiple methods and triangulate?</ask>
+
+<template-output>tam_calculation</template-output>
+<template-output>tam_methodology</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="4b" title="SAM Calculation">
+<action>Calculate Serviceable Addressable Market</action>
+
+Apply constraints to TAM:
+
+- Geographic limitations (markets you can serve)
+- Regulatory restrictions
+- Technical requirements (e.g., internet penetration)
+- Language/cultural barriers
+- Current business model limitations
+
+SAM = TAM × Serviceable Percentage
+Show the calculation with clear assumptions.
+
+<template-output>sam_calculation</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="4c" title="SOM Calculation">
+<action>Calculate realistic market capture</action>
+
+Consider competitive dynamics:
+
+- Current market share of competitors
+- Your competitive advantages
+- Resource constraints
+- Time to market considerations
+- Customer acquisition capabilities
+
+Create 3 scenarios:
+
+1. Conservative (1-2% market share)
+2. Realistic (3-5% market share)
+3. Optimistic (5-10% market share)
+
+<template-output>som_scenarios</template-output>
+</step>
+</step>
+
+<step n="5" goal="Customer Segment Deep Dive">
+<action>Develop detailed understanding of target customers</action>
+
+<step n="5a" title="Segment Identification" repeat="for-each-segment">
+For each major segment, research and define:
+
+**Demographics/Firmographics:**
+
+- Size and scale characteristics
+- Geographic distribution
+- Industry/vertical (for B2B)
+
+**Psychographics:**
+
+- Values and priorities
+- Decision-making process
+- Technology adoption patterns
+
+**Behavioral Patterns:**
+
+- Current solutions used
+- Purchasing frequency
+- Budget allocation
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+<template-output>segment*profile*{{segment_number}}</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="5b" title="Jobs-to-be-Done Framework">
+<action>Apply JTBD framework to understand customer needs</action>
+
+For primary segment, identify:
+
+**Functional Jobs:**
+
+- Main tasks to accomplish
+- Problems to solve
+- Goals to achieve
+
+**Emotional Jobs:**
+
+- Feelings sought
+- Anxieties to avoid
+- Status desires
+
+**Social Jobs:**
+
+- How they want to be perceived
+- Group dynamics
+- Peer influences
+
+<ask>Would you like to conduct actual customer interviews or surveys to validate these jobs? (We can create an interview guide)</ask>
+
+<template-output>jobs_to_be_done</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="5c" title="Willingness to Pay Analysis">
+<action>Research and estimate pricing sensitivity</action>
+
+Analyze:
+
+- Current spending on alternatives
+- Budget allocation for this category
+- Value perception indicators
+- Price points of substitutes
+
+<template-output>pricing_analysis</template-output>
+</step>
+</step>
+
+<step n="6" goal="Understand the competitive landscape">
+<action>Ask if they know their main competitors or if you should search for them.</action>
+
+<step n="6a" title="Discover competitors together">
+<action if="user doesn't know competitors">Search for competitors:
+
+<WebSearch>{{product_category}} competitors {{geographic_scope}} {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{product_category}} alternatives comparison {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>top {{product_category}} companies {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+</action>
+
+<action>Present findings. Ask them to pick the 3-5 that matter most (most concerned about or curious to understand).</action>
+</step>
+
+<step n="6b" title="Research each competitor together" repeat="for-each-selected-competitor">
+<action>For each competitor, search for:
+- Company overview, product features
+- Pricing model
+- Funding and recent news
+- Customer reviews and ratings
+
+Use {{current_year}} in all searches.
+</action>
+
+<action>Share findings with sources. Ask what jumps out and if it matches expectations.</action>
+
+<action if="user has follow-up questions">Dig deeper based on their interests</action>
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+<template-output>competitor*analysis*{{competitor_name}}</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="6c" title="Competitive Positioning Map">
+<action>Create positioning analysis</action>
+
+Map competitors on key dimensions:
+
+- Price vs. Value
+- Feature completeness vs. Ease of use
+- Market segment focus
+- Technology approach
+- Business model
+
+Identify:
+
+- Gaps in the market
+- Over-served areas
+- Differentiation opportunities
+
+<template-output>competitive_positioning</template-output>
+</step>
+</step>
+
+<step n="7" goal="Industry Forces Analysis">
+<action>Apply Porter's Five Forces framework</action>
+
+<critical>Use specific evidence from research, not generic assessments</critical>
+
+Analyze each force with concrete examples:
+
+<step n="7a" title="Supplier Power">
+Rate: [Low/Medium/High]
+- Key suppliers and dependencies
+- Switching costs
+- Concentration of suppliers
+- Forward integration threat
+</step>
+
+<step n="7b" title="Buyer Power">
+Rate: [Low/Medium/High]
+- Customer concentration
+- Price sensitivity
+- Switching costs for customers
+- Backward integration threat
+</step>
+
+<step n="7c" title="Competitive Rivalry">
+Rate: [Low/Medium/High]
+- Number and strength of competitors
+- Industry growth rate
+- Exit barriers
+- Differentiation levels
+</step>
+
+<step n="7d" title="Threat of New Entry">
+Rate: [Low/Medium/High]
+- Capital requirements
+- Regulatory barriers
+- Network effects
+- Brand loyalty
+</step>
+
+<step n="7e" title="Threat of Substitutes">
+Rate: [Low/Medium/High]
+- Alternative solutions
+- Switching costs to substitutes
+- Price-performance trade-offs
+</step>
+
+<template-output>porters_five_forces</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="8" goal="Market Trends and Future Outlook">
+<action>Identify trends and future market dynamics</action>
+
+Research and analyze:
+
+**Technology Trends:**
+
+- Emerging technologies impacting market
+- Digital transformation effects
+- Automation possibilities
+
+**Social/Cultural Trends:**
+
+- Changing customer behaviors
+- Generational shifts
+- Social movements impact
+
+**Economic Trends:**
+
+- Macroeconomic factors
+- Industry-specific economics
+- Investment trends
+
+**Regulatory Trends:**
+
+- Upcoming regulations
+- Compliance requirements
+- Policy direction
+
+<ask>Should we explore any specific emerging technologies or disruptions that could reshape this market?</ask>
+
+<template-output>market_trends</template-output>
+<template-output>future_outlook</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="9" goal="Opportunity Assessment and Strategy">
+<action>Synthesize research into strategic opportunities</action>
+
+<step n="9a" title="Opportunity Identification">
+Based on all research, identify top 3-5 opportunities:
+
+For each opportunity:
+
+- Description and rationale
+- Size estimate (from SOM)
+- Resource requirements
+- Time to market
+- Risk assessment
+- Success criteria
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+<template-output>market_opportunities</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="9b" title="Go-to-Market Recommendations">
+Develop GTM strategy based on research:
+
+**Positioning Strategy:**
+
+- Value proposition refinement
+- Differentiation approach
+- Messaging framework
+
+**Target Segment Sequencing:**
+
+- Beachhead market selection
+- Expansion sequence
+- Segment-specific approaches
+
+**Channel Strategy:**
+
+- Distribution channels
+- Partnership opportunities
+- Marketing channels
+
+**Pricing Strategy:**
+
+- Model recommendation
+- Price points
+- Value metrics
+
+<template-output>gtm_strategy</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="9c" title="Risk Analysis">
+Identify and assess key risks:
+
+**Market Risks:**
+
+- Demand uncertainty
+- Market timing
+- Economic sensitivity
+
+**Competitive Risks:**
+
+- Competitor responses
+- New entrants
+- Technology disruption
+
+**Execution Risks:**
+
+- Resource requirements
+- Capability gaps
+- Scaling challenges
+
+For each risk: Impact (H/M/L) × Probability (H/M/L) = Risk Score
+Provide mitigation strategies.
+
+<template-output>risk_assessment</template-output>
+</step>
+</step>
+
+<step n="10" goal="Financial Projections" optional="true" if="enable_financial_modeling == true">
+<action>Create financial model based on market research</action>
+
+<ask>Would you like to create a financial model with revenue projections based on the market analysis?</ask>
+
+<check if="yes">
+  Build 3-year projections:
+
+- Revenue model based on SOM scenarios
+- Customer acquisition projections
+- Unit economics
+- Break-even analysis
+- Funding requirements
+
+<template-output>financial_projections</template-output>
+</check>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="11" goal="Synthesize findings together into executive summary">
+
+<critical>This is the last major content section - make it collaborative</critical>
+
+<action>Review the research journey together. Share high-level summaries of market size, competitive dynamics, customer insights. Ask what stands out most - what surprised them or confirmed their thinking.</action>
+
+<action>Collaboratively craft the narrative:
+
+- What's the headline? (The ONE thing someone should know)
+- What are the 3-5 critical insights?
+- Recommended path forward?
+- Key risks?
+
+This should read like a strategic brief, not a data dump.
+</action>
+
+<action>Draft executive summary and share. Ask if it captures the essence and if anything is missing or overemphasized.</action>
+
+<template-output>executive_summary</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="12" goal="Validate sources and compile report">
+
+<critical>MANDATORY SOURCE VALIDATION - Do NOT skip this step!</critical>
+
+<action>Before finalizing, conduct source audit:
+
+Review every major claim in the report and verify:
+
+**For Market Size Claims:**
+
+- [ ] At least 2 independent sources cited with URLs
+- [ ] Sources are from {{current_year}} or within 2 years
+- [ ] Sources are credible (Gartner, Forrester, govt data, reputable pubs)
+- [ ] Conflicting estimates are noted with all sources
+
+**For Competitive Data:**
+
+- [ ] Competitor information has source URLs
+- [ ] Pricing data is current and sourced
+- [ ] Funding data is verified with dates
+- [ ] Customer reviews/ratings have source links
+
+**For Growth Rates and Projections:**
+
+- [ ] CAGR and forecast data are sourced
+- [ ] Methodology is explained or linked
+- [ ] Multiple analyst estimates are compared if available
+
+**For Customer Insights:**
+
+- [ ] Persona data is based on real research (cited)
+- [ ] Survey/interview data has sample size and source
+- [ ] Behavioral claims are backed by studies/data
+      </action>
+
+<action>Count and document source quality:
+
+- Total sources cited: {{count_all_sources}}
+- High confidence (2+ sources): {{high_confidence_claims}}
+- Single source (needs verification): {{single_source_claims}}
+- Uncertain/speculative: {{low_confidence_claims}}
+
+If {{single_source_claims}} or {{low_confidence_claims}} is high, consider additional research.
+</action>
+
+<action>Compile full report with ALL sources properly referenced:
+
+Generate the complete market research report using the template:
+
+- Ensure every statistic has inline citation: [Source: Company, Year, URL]
+- Populate all {{sources_*}} template variables
+- Include confidence levels for major claims
+- Add References section with full source list
+  </action>
+
+<action>Present source quality summary to user:
+
+"I've completed the research with {{count_all_sources}} total sources:
+
+- {{high_confidence_claims}} claims verified with multiple sources
+- {{single_source_claims}} claims from single sources (marked for verification)
+- {{low_confidence_claims}} claims with low confidence or speculation
+
+Would you like me to strengthen any areas with additional research?"
+</action>
+
+<ask>Would you like to review any specific sections before finalizing? Are there any additional analyses you'd like to include?</ask>
+
+<goto step="9a" if="user requests changes">Return to refine opportunities</goto>
+
+<template-output>final_report_ready</template-output>
+<template-output>source_audit_complete</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="13" goal="Appendices and Supporting Materials" optional="true">
+<ask>Would you like to include detailed appendices with calculations, full competitor profiles, or raw research data?</ask>
+
+<check if="yes">
+  Create appendices with:
+
+- Detailed TAM/SAM/SOM calculations
+- Full competitor profiles
+- Customer interview notes
+- Data sources and methodology
+- Financial model details
+- Glossary of terms
+
+<template-output>appendices</template-output>
+</check>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="14" goal="Update status file on completion" 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 "research"</action>
+  <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
+  <action>Update workflow_status["research"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-research-{{research_mode}}-{{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>**✅ Research Complete ({{research_mode}} mode)**
+
+**Research Report:**
+
+- Research report generated and saved to {output_folder}/bmm-research-{{research_mode}}-{{date}}.md
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+**Status Updated:**
+
+- Progress tracking updated: research 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)
+- **Optional:** Review findings with stakeholders, or run additional analysis workflows (product-brief for software, or install BMGD module for game-brief)
+
+Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
+{{else}}
+Since no workflow is in progress:
+
+- Review research findings
+- 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>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/instructions-router.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Research Workflow Router 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: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>Communicate in {communication_language}, generate documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+<critical>Web research is ENABLED - always use current {{current_year}} data</critical>
+
+<critical>🚨 ANTI-HALLUCINATION PROTOCOL - MANDATORY 🚨</critical>
+<critical>NEVER present information without a verified source - if you cannot find a source, say "I could not find reliable data on this"</critical>
+<critical>ALWAYS cite sources with URLs when presenting data, statistics, or factual claims</critical>
+<critical>REQUIRE at least 2 independent sources for critical claims (market size, growth rates, competitive data)</critical>
+<critical>When sources conflict, PRESENT BOTH views and note the discrepancy - do NOT pick one arbitrarily</critical>
+<critical>Flag any data you are uncertain about with confidence levels: [High Confidence], [Medium Confidence], [Low Confidence - verify]</critical>
+<critical>Distinguish clearly between: FACTS (from sources), ANALYSIS (your interpretation), and SPECULATION (educated guesses)</critical>
+<critical>When using WebSearch results, ALWAYS extract and include the source URL for every claim</critical>
+
+<!-- IDE-INJECT-POINT: research-subagents -->
+
+<workflow>
+
+<critical>This is a ROUTER that directs to specialized research instruction sets</critical>
+
+<step n="1" 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. Research is optional - you can continue without status tracking.</output>
+  <action>Set standalone_mode = true</action>
+</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 "research" workflow</action>
+  <action>Get project_level from YAML metadata</action>
+  <action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
+  <action>Pass status context to loaded instruction set for final update</action>
+
+  <check if="research status is file path (already completed)">
+    <output>⚠️ Research already completed: {{research status}}</output>
+    <ask>Re-running will create a new research 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="research is not the next expected workflow (latter items are completed already in the list)">
+    <output>⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Research is out of sequence.</output>
+    <output>Note: Research can provide valuable insights at any project stage.</output>
+    <ask>Continue with Research 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>
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Discover research needs through conversation">
+
+<action>Welcome {user_name} warmly. Position yourself as their research partner who uses live {{current_year}} web data. Ask what they're looking to understand or research.</action>
+
+<action>Listen and collaboratively identify the research type based on what they describe:
+
+- Market/Business questions → Market Research
+- Competitor questions → Competitive Intelligence
+- Customer questions → User Research
+- Technology questions → Technical Research
+- Industry questions → Domain Research
+- Creating research prompts for AI platforms → Deep Research Prompt Generator
+
+Confirm your understanding of what type would be most helpful and what it will produce.
+</action>
+
+<action>Capture {{research_type}} and {{research_mode}}</action>
+
+<template-output>research_type_discovery</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Route to Appropriate Research Instructions">
+
+<critical>Based on user selection, load the appropriate instruction set</critical>
+
+<check if="research_type == 1 OR fuzzy match market research">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "market"</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Continue with market research workflow</action>
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 2 or prompt or fuzzy match deep research prompt">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "deep-prompt"</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-deep-prompt.md</action>
+  <action>Continue with deep research prompt generation</action>
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 3 technical or architecture or fuzzy match indicates technical type of research">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "technical"</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-technical.md</action>
+  <action>Continue with technical research workflow</action>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 4 or fuzzy match competitive">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "competitive"</action>
+  <action>This will use market research workflow with competitive focus</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Pass mode="competitive" to focus on competitive intelligence</action>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 5 or fuzzy match user research">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "user"</action>
+  <action>This will use market research workflow with user research focus</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Pass mode="user" to focus on customer insights</action>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 6 or fuzzy match domain or industry or category">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "domain"</action>
+  <action>This will use market research workflow with domain focus</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Pass mode="domain" to focus on industry/domain analysis</action>
+</check>
+
+<critical>The loaded instruction set will continue from here with full context of the {research_type}</critical>
+
+</step>
+
+</workflow>

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/instructions-technical.md

@@ -0,0 +1,538 @@
+# Technical/Architecture Research 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: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>This workflow uses ADAPTIVE FACILITATION - adjust your communication style based on {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>This is a HIGHLY INTERACTIVE workflow - make technical decisions WITH user, not FOR them</critical>
+<critical>Web research is MANDATORY - use WebSearch tool with {{current_year}} for current version info and trends</critical>
+<critical>ALWAYS verify current versions - NEVER use hardcoded or outdated version numbers</critical>
+<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and tailor to {user_skill_level}</critical>
+<critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+
+<critical>🚨 ANTI-HALLUCINATION PROTOCOL - MANDATORY 🚨</critical>
+<critical>NEVER invent version numbers, features, or technical details - ALWAYS verify with current {{current_year}} sources</critical>
+<critical>Every technical claim (version, feature, performance, compatibility) MUST have a cited source with URL</critical>
+<critical>Version numbers MUST be verified via WebSearch - do NOT rely on training data (it's outdated!)</critical>
+<critical>When comparing technologies, cite sources for each claim (performance benchmarks, community size, etc.)</critical>
+<critical>Mark confidence levels: [Verified {{current_year}} source], [Older source - verify], [Uncertain - needs verification]</critical>
+<critical>Distinguish: FACT (from official docs/sources), OPINION (from community/reviews), SPECULATION (your analysis)</critical>
+<critical>If you cannot find current information about a technology, state: "I could not find recent {{current_year}} data on [X]"</critical>
+<critical>Extract and include source URLs in all technology profiles and comparisons</critical>
+
+<workflow>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Discover technical research needs through conversation">
+
+<action>Engage conversationally based on skill level:
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'expert'">
+  "Let's research the technical options for your decision.
+
+I'll gather current data from {{current_year}}, compare approaches, and help you think through trade-offs.
+
+What technical question are you wrestling with?"
+</check>
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'intermediate'">
+  "I'll help you research and evaluate your technical options.
+
+We'll look at current technologies (using {{current_year}} data), understand the trade-offs, and figure out what fits your needs best.
+
+What technical decision are you trying to make?"
+</check>
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'beginner'">
+  "Think of this as having a technical advisor help you research your options.
+
+I'll explain what different technologies do, why you might choose one over another, and help you make an informed decision.
+
+What technical challenge brought you here?"
+</check>
+</action>
+
+<action>Through conversation, understand:
+
+- **The technical question** - What they need to decide or understand
+- **The context** - Greenfield? Brownfield? Learning? Production?
+- **Current constraints** - Languages, platforms, team skills, budget
+- **What they already know** - Do they have candidates in mind?
+
+Don't interrogate - explore together. If they're unsure, help them articulate the problem.
+</action>
+
+<template-output>technical_question</template-output>
+<template-output>project_context</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Define Technical Requirements and Constraints">
+<action>Gather requirements and constraints that will guide the research</action>
+
+**Let's define your technical requirements:**
+
+<ask>**Functional Requirements** - What must the technology do?
+
+Examples:
+
+- Handle 1M requests per day
+- Support real-time data processing
+- Provide full-text search capabilities
+- Enable offline-first mobile app
+- Support multi-tenancy</ask>
+
+<template-output>functional_requirements</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Non-Functional Requirements** - Performance, scalability, security needs?
+
+Consider:
+
+- Performance targets (latency, throughput)
+- Scalability requirements (users, data volume)
+- Reliability and availability needs
+- Security and compliance requirements
+- Maintainability and developer experience</ask>
+
+<template-output>non_functional_requirements</template-output>
+
+<ask>**Constraints** - What limitations or requirements exist?
+
+- Programming language preferences or requirements
+- Cloud platform (AWS, Azure, GCP, on-prem)
+- Budget constraints
+- Team expertise and skills
+- Timeline and urgency
+- Existing technology stack (if brownfield)
+- Open source vs commercial requirements
+- Licensing considerations</ask>
+
+<template-output>technical_constraints</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Discover and evaluate technology options together">
+
+<critical>MUST use WebSearch to find current options from {{current_year}}</critical>
+
+<action>Ask if they have candidates in mind:
+
+"Do you already have specific technologies you want to compare, or should I search for the current options?"
+</action>
+
+<action if="user has candidates">Great! Let's research: {{user_candidates}}</action>
+
+<action if="discovering options">Search for current leading technologies:
+
+<WebSearch>{{technical_category}} best tools {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{technical_category}} comparison {{use_case}} {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{technical_category}} popular frameworks {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>state of {{technical_category}} {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+</action>
+
+<action>Share findings conversationally:
+
+"Based on current {{current_year}} data, here are the main options:
+
+{{discovered_options}}
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'expert'">
+These are the leaders right now. Which ones make sense to evaluate for your use case?"
+</check>
+
+<check if="{user_skill_level} == 'beginner'">
+Each of these is popular for different reasons. Let me know if you want me to explain what makes each one different."
+</check>
+</action>
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+
+<template-output>technology_options</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="4" goal="Research each technology together in depth">
+
+<critical>For each option, use WebSearch to gather CURRENT {{current_year}} information</critical>
+
+<step n="4a" title="Deep dive on each technology" repeat="for-each-option">
+
+<action>For {{technology_name}}, conduct comprehensive research:
+
+<WebSearch>{{technology_name}} overview what is {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{technology_name}} latest version release notes {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{technology_name}} pros cons trade-offs {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{technology_name}} production experience real world {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+<WebSearch>{{technology_name}} vs alternatives comparison {{current_year}}</WebSearch>
+</action>
+
+<action>Share findings conversationally and collaboratively:
+
+"Here's what I found about {{technology_name}}:
+
+**Overview:**
+{{what_it_is_and_solves}}
+
+**Current Status ({{current_year}}):**
+{{maturity_community_release_cadence}}
+
+**Technical Characteristics:**
+
+- Architecture and design philosophy
+- Core features and capabilities
+- Performance characteristics
+- Scalability approach
+- Integration capabilities
+
+**Developer Experience:**
+
+- Learning curve
+- Documentation quality
+- Tooling ecosystem
+- Testing support
+- Debugging capabilities
+
+**Operations:**
+
+- Deployment complexity
+- Monitoring and observability
+- Operational overhead
+- Cloud provider support
+- Container/K8s compatibility
+
+**Ecosystem:**
+
+- Available libraries and plugins
+- Third-party integrations
+- Commercial support options
+- Training and educational resources
+
+**Community and Adoption:**
+
+- GitHub stars/contributors (if applicable)
+- Production usage examples
+- Case studies from similar use cases
+- Community support channels
+- Job market demand
+
+**Costs:**
+
+- Licensing model
+- Hosting/infrastructure costs
+- Support costs
+- Training costs
+- Total cost of ownership estimate
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+<template-output>tech*profile*{{option_number}}</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="5" goal="Comparative Analysis">
+<action>Create structured comparison across all options</action>
+
+**Create comparison matrices:**
+
+<action>Generate comparison table with key dimensions:</action>
+
+**Comparison Dimensions:**
+
+1. **Meets Requirements** - How well does each meet functional requirements?
+2. **Performance** - Speed, latency, throughput benchmarks
+3. **Scalability** - Horizontal/vertical scaling capabilities
+4. **Complexity** - Learning curve and operational complexity
+5. **Ecosystem** - Maturity, community, libraries, tools
+6. **Cost** - Total cost of ownership
+7. **Risk** - Maturity, vendor lock-in, abandonment risk
+8. **Developer Experience** - Productivity, debugging, testing
+9. **Operations** - Deployment, monitoring, maintenance
+10. **Future-Proofing** - Roadmap, innovation, sustainability
+
+<action>Rate each option on relevant dimensions (High/Medium/Low or 1-5 scale)</action>
+
+<template-output>comparative_analysis</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="6" goal="Trade-offs and Decision Factors">
+<action>Analyze trade-offs between options</action>
+
+**Identify key trade-offs:**
+
+For each pair of leading options, identify trade-offs:
+
+- What do you gain by choosing Option A over Option B?
+- What do you sacrifice?
+- Under what conditions would you choose one vs the other?
+
+**Decision factors by priority:**
+
+<ask>What are your top 3 decision factors?
+
+Examples:
+
+- Time to market
+- Performance
+- Developer productivity
+- Operational simplicity
+- Cost efficiency
+- Future flexibility
+- Team expertise match
+- Community and support</ask>
+
+<template-output>decision_priorities</template-output>
+
+<action>Weight the comparison analysis by decision priorities</action>
+
+<template-output>weighted_analysis</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="7" goal="Use Case Fit Analysis">
+<action>Evaluate fit for specific use case</action>
+
+**Match technologies to your specific use case:**
+
+Based on:
+
+- Your functional and non-functional requirements
+- Your constraints (team, budget, timeline)
+- Your context (greenfield vs brownfield)
+- Your decision priorities
+
+Analyze which option(s) best fit your specific scenario.
+
+<ask>Are there any specific concerns or "must-haves" that would immediately eliminate any options?</ask>
+
+<template-output>use_case_fit</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="8" goal="Real-World Evidence">
+<action>Gather production experience evidence</action>
+
+**Search for real-world experiences:**
+
+For top 2-3 candidates:
+
+- Production war stories and lessons learned
+- Known issues and gotchas
+- Migration experiences (if replacing existing tech)
+- Performance benchmarks from real deployments
+- Team scaling experiences
+- Reddit/HackerNews discussions
+- Conference talks and blog posts from practitioners
+
+<template-output>real_world_evidence</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="9" goal="Architecture Pattern Research" optional="true">
+<action>If researching architecture patterns, provide pattern analysis</action>
+
+<ask>Are you researching architecture patterns (microservices, event-driven, etc.)?</ask>
+
+<check if="yes">
+
+Research and document:
+
+**Pattern Overview:**
+
+- Core principles and concepts
+- When to use vs when not to use
+- Prerequisites and foundations
+
+**Implementation Considerations:**
+
+- Technology choices for the pattern
+- Reference architectures
+- Common pitfalls and anti-patterns
+- Migration path from current state
+
+**Trade-offs:**
+
+- Benefits and drawbacks
+- Complexity vs benefits analysis
+- Team skill requirements
+- Operational overhead
+
+<template-output>architecture_pattern_analysis</template-output>
+</check>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="10" goal="Recommendations and Decision Framework">
+<action>Synthesize research into clear recommendations</action>
+
+**Generate recommendations:**
+
+**Top Recommendation:**
+
+- Primary technology choice with rationale
+- Why it best fits your requirements and constraints
+- Key benefits for your use case
+- Risks and mitigation strategies
+
+**Alternative Options:**
+
+- Second and third choices
+- When you might choose them instead
+- Scenarios where they would be better
+
+**Implementation Roadmap:**
+
+- Proof of concept approach
+- Key decisions to make during implementation
+- Migration path (if applicable)
+- Success criteria and validation approach
+
+**Risk Mitigation:**
+
+- Identified risks and mitigation plans
+- Contingency options if primary choice doesn't work
+- Exit strategy considerations
+
+<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
+
+<template-output>recommendations</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="11" goal="Decision Documentation">
+<action>Create architecture decision record (ADR) template</action>
+
+**Generate Architecture Decision Record:**
+
+Create ADR format documentation:
+
+```markdown
+# ADR-XXX: [Decision Title]
+
+## Status
+
+[Proposed | Accepted | Superseded]
+
+## Context
+
+[Technical context and problem statement]
+
+## Decision Drivers
+
+[Key factors influencing the decision]
+
+## Considered Options
+
+[Technologies/approaches evaluated]
+
+## Decision
+
+[Chosen option and rationale]
+
+## Consequences
+
+**Positive:**
+
+- [Benefits of this choice]
+
+**Negative:**
+
+- [Drawbacks and risks]
+
+**Neutral:**
+
+- [Other impacts]
+
+## Implementation Notes
+
+[Key considerations for implementation]
+
+## References
+
+[Links to research, benchmarks, case studies]
+```
+
+<template-output>architecture_decision_record</template-output>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="12" goal="Finalize Technical Research Report">
+<action>Compile complete technical research report</action>
+
+**Your Technical Research Report includes:**
+
+1. **Executive Summary** - Key findings and recommendation
+2. **Requirements and Constraints** - What guided the research
+3. **Technology Options** - All candidates evaluated
+4. **Detailed Profiles** - Deep dive on each option
+5. **Comparative Analysis** - Side-by-side comparison
+6. **Trade-off Analysis** - Key decision factors
+7. **Real-World Evidence** - Production experiences
+8. **Recommendations** - Detailed recommendation with rationale
+9. **Architecture Decision Record** - Formal decision documentation
+10. **Next Steps** - Implementation roadmap
+
+<action>Save complete report to {default_output_file}</action>
+
+<ask>Would you like to:
+
+1. Deep dive into specific technology
+2. Research implementation patterns for chosen technology
+3. Generate proof-of-concept plan
+4. Create deep research prompt for ongoing investigation
+5. Exit workflow
+
+Select option (1-5):</ask>
+
+<check if="option 4">
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-deep-prompt.md</action>
+  <action>Pre-populate with technical research context</action>
+</check>
+
+</step>
+
+<step n="FINAL" goal="Update status file on completion" 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 "research"</action>
+  <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
+  <action>Update workflow_status["research"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-research-technical-{{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>**✅ Technical Research Complete**
+
+**Research Report:**
+
+- Technical research report generated and saved to {output_folder}/bmm-research-technical-{{date}}.md
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+**Status Updated:**
+
+- Progress tracking updated: research 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)
+- **Optional:** Review findings with architecture team, or run additional analysis workflows
+
+Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
+{{else}}
+Since no workflow is in progress:
+
+- Review technical research findings
+- 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>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/template-deep-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Deep Research Prompt
+
+**Generated:** {{date}}
+**Created by:** {{user_name}}
+**Target Platform:** {{target_platform}}
+
+---
+
+## Research Prompt (Ready to Use)
+
+### Research Question
+
+{{research_topic}}
+
+### Research Goal and Context
+
+**Objective:** {{research_goal}}
+
+**Context:**
+{{research_persona}}
+
+### Scope and Boundaries
+
+**Temporal Scope:** {{temporal_scope}}
+
+**Geographic Scope:** {{geographic_scope}}
+
+**Thematic Focus:**
+{{thematic_boundaries}}
+
+### Information Requirements
+
+**Types of Information Needed:**
+{{information_types}}
+
+**Preferred Sources:**
+{{preferred_sources}}
+
+### Output Structure
+
+**Format:** {{output_format}}
+
+**Required Sections:**
+{{key_sections}}
+
+**Depth Level:** {{depth_level}}
+
+### Research Methodology
+
+**Keywords and Technical Terms:**
+{{research_keywords}}
+
+**Special Requirements:**
+{{special_requirements}}
+
+**Validation Criteria:**
+{{validation_criteria}}
+
+### Follow-up Strategy
+
+{{follow_up_strategy}}
+
+---
+
+## Complete Research Prompt (Copy and Paste)
+
+```
+{{deep_research_prompt}}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Platform-Specific Usage Tips
+
+{{platform_tips}}
+
+---
+
+## Research Execution Checklist
+
+{{execution_checklist}}
+
+---
+
+## Metadata
+
+**Workflow:** BMad Research Workflow - Deep Research Prompt Generator v2.0
+**Generated:** {{date}}
+**Research Type:** Deep Research Prompt
+**Platform:** {{target_platform}}
+
+---
+
+_This research prompt was generated using the BMad Method Research Workflow, incorporating best practices from ChatGPT Deep Research, Gemini Deep Research, Grok DeepSearch, and Claude Projects (2025)._

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/template-market.md

@@ -0,0 +1,347 @@
+# Market Research Report: {{product_name}}
+
+**Date:** {{date}}
+**Prepared by:** {{user_name}}
+**Research Depth:** {{research_depth}}
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+{{executive_summary}}
+
+### Key Market Metrics
+
+- **Total Addressable Market (TAM):** {{tam_calculation}}
+- **Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM):** {{sam_calculation}}
+- **Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM):** {{som_scenarios}}
+
+### Critical Success Factors
+
+{{key_success_factors}}
+
+---
+
+## 1. Research Objectives and Methodology
+
+### Research Objectives
+
+{{research_objectives}}
+
+### Scope and Boundaries
+
+- **Product/Service:** {{product_description}}
+- **Market Definition:** {{market_definition}}
+- **Geographic Scope:** {{geographic_scope}}
+- **Customer Segments:** {{segment_boundaries}}
+
+### Research Methodology
+
+{{research_methodology}}
+
+### Data Sources
+
+{{source_credibility_notes}}
+
+---
+
+## 2. Market Overview
+
+### Market Definition
+
+{{market_definition}}
+
+### Market Size and Growth
+
+#### Total Addressable Market (TAM)
+
+**Methodology:** {{tam_methodology}}
+
+{{tam_calculation}}
+
+#### Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM)
+
+{{sam_calculation}}
+
+#### Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM)
+
+{{som_scenarios}}
+
+### Market Intelligence Summary
+
+{{market_intelligence_raw}}
+
+### Key Data Points
+
+{{key_data_points}}
+
+---
+
+## 3. Market Trends and Drivers
+
+### Key Market Trends
+
+{{market_trends}}
+
+### Growth Drivers
+
+{{growth_drivers}}
+
+### Market Inhibitors
+
+{{market_inhibitors}}
+
+### Future Outlook
+
+{{future_outlook}}
+
+---
+
+## 4. Customer Analysis
+
+### Target Customer Segments
+
+{{#segment_profile_1}}
+
+#### Segment 1
+
+{{segment_profile_1}}
+{{/segment_profile_1}}
+
+{{#segment_profile_2}}
+
+#### Segment 2
+
+{{segment_profile_2}}
+{{/segment_profile_2}}
+
+{{#segment_profile_3}}
+
+#### Segment 3
+
+{{segment_profile_3}}
+{{/segment_profile_3}}
+
+{{#segment_profile_4}}
+
+#### Segment 4
+
+{{segment_profile_4}}
+{{/segment_profile_4}}
+
+{{#segment_profile_5}}
+
+#### Segment 5
+
+{{segment_profile_5}}
+{{/segment_profile_5}}
+
+### Jobs-to-be-Done Analysis
+
+{{jobs_to_be_done}}
+
+### Pricing Analysis and Willingness to Pay
+
+{{pricing_analysis}}
+
+---
+
+## 5. Competitive Landscape
+
+### Market Structure
+
+{{market_structure}}
+
+### Competitor Analysis
+
+{{#competitor_analysis_1}}
+
+#### Competitor 1
+
+{{competitor_analysis_1}}
+{{/competitor_analysis_1}}
+
+{{#competitor_analysis_2}}
+
+#### Competitor 2
+
+{{competitor_analysis_2}}
+{{/competitor_analysis_2}}
+
+{{#competitor_analysis_3}}
+
+#### Competitor 3
+
+{{competitor_analysis_3}}
+{{/competitor_analysis_3}}
+
+{{#competitor_analysis_4}}
+
+#### Competitor 4
+
+{{competitor_analysis_4}}
+{{/competitor_analysis_4}}
+
+{{#competitor_analysis_5}}
+
+#### Competitor 5
+
+{{competitor_analysis_5}}
+{{/competitor_analysis_5}}
+
+### Competitive Positioning
+
+{{competitive_positioning}}
+
+---
+
+## 6. Industry Analysis
+
+### Porter's Five Forces Assessment
+
+{{porters_five_forces}}
+
+### Technology Adoption Lifecycle
+
+{{adoption_lifecycle}}
+
+### Value Chain Analysis
+
+{{value_chain_analysis}}
+
+---
+
+## 7. Market Opportunities
+
+### Identified Opportunities
+
+{{market_opportunities}}
+
+### Opportunity Prioritization Matrix
+
+{{opportunity_prioritization}}
+
+---
+
+## 8. Strategic Recommendations
+
+### Go-to-Market Strategy
+
+{{gtm_strategy}}
+
+#### Positioning Strategy
+
+{{positioning_strategy}}
+
+#### Target Segment Sequencing
+
+{{segment_sequencing}}
+
+#### Channel Strategy
+
+{{channel_strategy}}
+
+#### Pricing Strategy
+
+{{pricing_recommendations}}
+
+### Implementation Roadmap
+
+{{implementation_roadmap}}
+
+---
+
+## 9. Risk Assessment
+
+### Risk Analysis
+
+{{risk_assessment}}
+
+### Mitigation Strategies
+
+{{mitigation_strategies}}
+
+---
+
+## 10. Financial Projections
+
+{{#financial_projections}}
+{{financial_projections}}
+{{/financial_projections}}
+
+---
+
+## Appendices
+
+### Appendix A: Data Sources and References
+
+{{data_sources}}
+
+### Appendix B: Detailed Calculations
+
+{{detailed_calculations}}
+
+### Appendix C: Additional Analysis
+
+{{#appendices}}
+{{appendices}}
+{{/appendices}}
+
+### Appendix D: Glossary of Terms
+
+{{glossary}}
+
+---
+
+## References and Sources
+
+**CRITICAL: All data in this report must be verifiable through the sources listed below**
+
+### Market Size and Growth Data Sources
+
+{{sources_market_size}}
+
+### Competitive Intelligence Sources
+
+{{sources_competitive}}
+
+### Customer Research Sources
+
+{{sources_customer}}
+
+### Industry Trends and Analysis Sources
+
+{{sources_trends}}
+
+### Additional References
+
+{{sources_additional}}
+
+### Source Quality Assessment
+
+- **High Credibility Sources (2+ corroborating):** {{high_confidence_count}} claims
+- **Medium Credibility (single source):** {{medium_confidence_count}} claims
+- **Low Credibility (needs verification):** {{low_confidence_count}} claims
+
+**Note:** Any claim marked [Low Confidence] or [Single source] should be independently verified before making critical business decisions.
+
+---
+
+## Document Information
+
+**Workflow:** BMad Market Research Workflow v1.0
+**Generated:** {{date}}
+**Next Review:** {{next_review_date}}
+**Classification:** {{classification}}
+
+### Research Quality Metrics
+
+- **Data Freshness:** Current as of {{date}}
+- **Source Reliability:** {{source_reliability_score}}
+- **Confidence Level:** {{confidence_level}}
+- **Total Sources Cited:** {{total_sources}}
+- **Web Searches Conducted:** {{search_count}}
+
+---
+
+_This market research report was generated using the BMad Method Market Research Workflow, combining systematic analysis frameworks with real-time market intelligence gathering. All factual claims are backed by cited sources with verification dates._

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/template-technical.md

@@ -0,0 +1,245 @@
+# Technical Research Report: {{technical_question}}
+
+**Date:** {{date}}
+**Prepared by:** {{user_name}}
+**Project Context:** {{project_context}}
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+{{recommendations}}
+
+### Key Recommendation
+
+**Primary Choice:** [Technology/Pattern Name]
+
+**Rationale:** [2-3 sentence summary]
+
+**Key Benefits:**
+
+- [Benefit 1]
+- [Benefit 2]
+- [Benefit 3]
+
+---
+
+## 1. Research Objectives
+
+### Technical Question
+
+{{technical_question}}
+
+### Project Context
+
+{{project_context}}
+
+### Requirements and Constraints
+
+#### Functional Requirements
+
+{{functional_requirements}}
+
+#### Non-Functional Requirements
+
+{{non_functional_requirements}}
+
+#### Technical Constraints
+
+{{technical_constraints}}
+
+---
+
+## 2. Technology Options Evaluated
+
+{{technology_options}}
+
+---
+
+## 3. Detailed Technology Profiles
+
+{{#tech_profile_1}}
+
+### Option 1: [Technology Name]
+
+{{tech_profile_1}}
+{{/tech_profile_1}}
+
+{{#tech_profile_2}}
+
+### Option 2: [Technology Name]
+
+{{tech_profile_2}}
+{{/tech_profile_2}}
+
+{{#tech_profile_3}}
+
+### Option 3: [Technology Name]
+
+{{tech_profile_3}}
+{{/tech_profile_3}}
+
+{{#tech_profile_4}}
+
+### Option 4: [Technology Name]
+
+{{tech_profile_4}}
+{{/tech_profile_4}}
+
+{{#tech_profile_5}}
+
+### Option 5: [Technology Name]
+
+{{tech_profile_5}}
+{{/tech_profile_5}}
+
+---
+
+## 4. Comparative Analysis
+
+{{comparative_analysis}}
+
+### Weighted Analysis
+
+**Decision Priorities:**
+{{decision_priorities}}
+
+{{weighted_analysis}}
+
+---
+
+## 5. Trade-offs and Decision Factors
+
+{{use_case_fit}}
+
+### Key Trade-offs
+
+[Comparison of major trade-offs between top options]
+
+---
+
+## 6. Real-World Evidence
+
+{{real_world_evidence}}
+
+---
+
+## 7. Architecture Pattern Analysis
+
+{{#architecture_pattern_analysis}}
+{{architecture_pattern_analysis}}
+{{/architecture_pattern_analysis}}
+
+---
+
+## 8. Recommendations
+
+{{recommendations}}
+
+### Implementation Roadmap
+
+1. **Proof of Concept Phase**
+   - [POC objectives and timeline]
+
+2. **Key Implementation Decisions**
+   - [Critical decisions to make during implementation]
+
+3. **Migration Path** (if applicable)
+   - [Migration approach from current state]
+
+4. **Success Criteria**
+   - [How to validate the decision]
+
+### Risk Mitigation
+
+{{risk_mitigation}}
+
+---
+
+## 9. Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
+
+{{architecture_decision_record}}
+
+---
+
+## 10. References and Resources
+
+### Documentation
+
+- [Links to official documentation]
+
+### Benchmarks and Case Studies
+
+- [Links to benchmarks and real-world case studies]
+
+### Community Resources
+
+- [Links to communities, forums, discussions]
+
+### Additional Reading
+
+- [Links to relevant articles, papers, talks]
+
+---
+
+## Appendices
+
+### Appendix A: Detailed Comparison Matrix
+
+[Full comparison table with all evaluated dimensions]
+
+### Appendix B: Proof of Concept Plan
+
+[Detailed POC plan if needed]
+
+### Appendix C: Cost Analysis
+
+[TCO analysis if performed]
+
+---
+
+## References and Sources
+
+**CRITICAL: All technical claims, versions, and benchmarks must be verifiable through sources below**
+
+### Official Documentation and Release Notes
+
+{{sources_official_docs}}
+
+### Performance Benchmarks and Comparisons
+
+{{sources_benchmarks}}
+
+### Community Experience and Reviews
+
+{{sources_community}}
+
+### Architecture Patterns and Best Practices
+
+{{sources_architecture}}
+
+### Additional Technical References
+
+{{sources_additional}}
+
+### Version Verification
+
+- **Technologies Researched:** {{technology_count}}
+- **Versions Verified ({{current_year}}):** {{verified_versions_count}}
+- **Sources Requiring Update:** {{outdated_sources_count}}
+
+**Note:** All version numbers were verified using current {{current_year}} sources. Versions may change - always verify latest stable release before implementation.
+
+---
+
+## Document Information
+
+**Workflow:** BMad Research Workflow - Technical Research v2.0
+**Generated:** {{date}}
+**Research Type:** Technical/Architecture Research
+**Next Review:** [Date for review/update]
+**Total Sources Cited:** {{total_sources}}
+
+---
+
+_This technical research report was generated using the BMad Method Research Workflow, combining systematic technology evaluation frameworks with real-time research and analysis. All version numbers and technical claims are backed by current {{current_year}} sources._

.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Research Workflow - Multi-Type Research System
+name: research
+description: "Adaptive research workflow supporting multiple research types: market research, deep research prompt generation, technical/architecture evaluation, competitive intelligence, user research, and domain analysis"
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+user_skill_level: "{config_source}:user_skill_level"
+date: system-generated
+current_year: system-generated
+current_month: system-generated
+
+# Research behavior - WEB RESEARCH IS DEFAULT
+enable_web_research: true
+
+# Source tracking and verification - CRITICAL FOR ACCURACY
+require_citations: true
+require_source_urls: true
+minimum_sources_per_claim: 2
+fact_check_critical_data: true
+
+# Workflow components - ROUTER PATTERN
+installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions-router.md" # Router loads specific instruction sets
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+
+# Research type specific instructions (loaded by router)
+instructions_market: "{installed_path}/instructions-market.md"
+instructions_deep_prompt: "{installed_path}/instructions-deep-prompt.md"
+instructions_technical: "{installed_path}/instructions-technical.md"
+
+# Templates (loaded based on research type)
+template_market: "{installed_path}/template-market.md"
+template_deep_prompt: "{installed_path}/template-deep-prompt.md"
+template_technical: "{installed_path}/template-technical.md"
+
+# Output configuration (dynamic based on research type selected in router)
+default_output_file: "{output_folder}/research-{{research_type}}-{{date}}.md"
+
+standalone: true