mirror of
https://github.com/bmadcode/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00
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.
This commit is contained in:
Brian Madison
@@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
|
||||
# Create UX Design Workflow Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**: Validate UX Design Specification is complete, collaborative, and implementation-ready.
|
||||
|
||||
**Paradigm**: Visual collaboration-driven, not template generation
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Outputs**:
|
||||
|
||||
- ux-design-specification.md
|
||||
- ux-color-themes.html (color theme visualizer)
|
||||
- ux-design-directions.html (design mockups)
|
||||
- Optional: ux-prototype.html, ux-component-showcase.html, ai-frontend-prompt.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Output Files Exist
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **ux-design-specification.md** created in output folder
|
||||
- [ ] **ux-color-themes.html** generated (interactive color exploration)
|
||||
- [ ] **ux-design-directions.html** generated (6-8 design mockups)
|
||||
- [ ] No unfilled {{template_variables}} in specification
|
||||
- [ ] All sections have content (not placeholder text)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Collaborative Process Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**The workflow should facilitate decisions WITH the user, not FOR them**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Design system chosen by user** (not auto-selected)
|
||||
- [ ] **Color theme selected from options** (user saw visualizations and chose)
|
||||
- [ ] **Design direction chosen from mockups** (user explored 6-8 options)
|
||||
- [ ] **User journey flows designed collaboratively** (options presented, user decided)
|
||||
- [ ] **UX patterns decided with user input** (not just generated)
|
||||
- [ ] **Decisions documented WITH rationale** (why each choice was made)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Visual Collaboration Artifacts
|
||||
|
||||
### Color Theme Visualizer
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **HTML file exists and is valid** (ux-color-themes.html)
|
||||
- [ ] **Shows 3-4 theme options** (or documented existing brand)
|
||||
- [ ] **Each theme has complete palette** (primary, secondary, semantic colors)
|
||||
- [ ] **Live UI component examples** in each theme (buttons, forms, cards)
|
||||
- [ ] **Side-by-side comparison** enabled
|
||||
- [ ] **User's selection documented** in specification
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Direction Mockups
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **HTML file exists and is valid** (ux-design-directions.html)
|
||||
- [ ] **6-8 different design approaches** shown
|
||||
- [ ] **Full-screen mockups** of key screens
|
||||
- [ ] **Design philosophy labeled** for each direction (e.g., "Dense Dashboard", "Spacious Explorer")
|
||||
- [ ] **Interactive navigation** between directions
|
||||
- [ ] **Responsive preview** toggle available
|
||||
- [ ] **User's choice documented WITH reasoning** (what they liked, why it fits)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Design System Foundation
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Design system chosen** (or custom design decision documented)
|
||||
- [ ] **Current version identified** (if using established system)
|
||||
- [ ] **Components provided by system documented**
|
||||
- [ ] **Custom components needed identified**
|
||||
- [ ] **Decision rationale clear** (why this system for this project)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Core Experience Definition
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Defining experience articulated** (the ONE thing that makes this app unique)
|
||||
- [ ] **Novel UX patterns identified** (if applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] **Novel patterns fully designed** (interaction model, states, feedback)
|
||||
- [ ] **Core experience principles defined** (speed, guidance, flexibility, feedback)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Visual Foundation
|
||||
|
||||
### Color System
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Complete color palette** (primary, secondary, accent, semantic, neutrals)
|
||||
- [ ] **Semantic color usage defined** (success, warning, error, info)
|
||||
- [ ] **Color accessibility considered** (contrast ratios for text)
|
||||
- [ ] **Brand alignment** (follows existing brand or establishes new identity)
|
||||
|
||||
### Typography
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Font families selected** (heading, body, monospace if needed)
|
||||
- [ ] **Type scale defined** (h1-h6, body, small, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] **Font weights documented** (when to use each)
|
||||
- [ ] **Line heights specified** for readability
|
||||
|
||||
### Spacing & Layout
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Spacing system defined** (base unit, scale)
|
||||
- [ ] **Layout grid approach** (columns, gutters)
|
||||
- [ ] **Container widths** for different breakpoints
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Design Direction
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Specific direction chosen** from mockups (not generic)
|
||||
- [ ] **Layout pattern documented** (navigation, content structure)
|
||||
- [ ] **Visual hierarchy defined** (density, emphasis, focus)
|
||||
- [ ] **Interaction patterns specified** (modal vs inline, disclosure approach)
|
||||
- [ ] **Visual style documented** (minimal, balanced, rich, maximalist)
|
||||
- [ ] **User's reasoning captured** (why this direction fits their vision)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. User Journey Flows
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **All critical journeys from PRD designed** (no missing flows)
|
||||
- [ ] **Each flow has clear goal** (what user accomplishes)
|
||||
- [ ] **Flow approach chosen collaboratively** (user picked from options)
|
||||
- [ ] **Step-by-step documentation** (screens, actions, feedback)
|
||||
- [ ] **Decision points and branching** defined
|
||||
- [ ] **Error states and recovery** addressed
|
||||
- [ ] **Success states specified** (completion feedback)
|
||||
- [ ] **Mermaid diagrams or clear flow descriptions** included
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Component Library Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **All required components identified** (from design system + custom)
|
||||
- [ ] **Custom components fully specified**:
|
||||
- Purpose and user-facing value
|
||||
- Content/data displayed
|
||||
- User actions available
|
||||
- All states (default, hover, active, loading, error, disabled)
|
||||
- Variants (sizes, styles, layouts)
|
||||
- Behavior on interaction
|
||||
- Accessibility considerations
|
||||
- [ ] **Design system components customization needs** documented
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. UX Pattern Consistency Rules
|
||||
|
||||
**These patterns ensure consistent UX across the entire app**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Button hierarchy defined** (primary, secondary, tertiary, destructive)
|
||||
- [ ] **Feedback patterns established** (success, error, warning, info, loading)
|
||||
- [ ] **Form patterns specified** (labels, validation, errors, help text)
|
||||
- [ ] **Modal patterns defined** (sizes, dismiss behavior, focus, stacking)
|
||||
- [ ] **Navigation patterns documented** (active state, breadcrumbs, back button)
|
||||
- [ ] **Empty state patterns** (first use, no results, cleared content)
|
||||
- [ ] **Confirmation patterns** (when to confirm destructive actions)
|
||||
- [ ] **Notification patterns** (placement, duration, stacking, priority)
|
||||
- [ ] **Search patterns** (trigger, results, filters, no results)
|
||||
- [ ] **Date/time patterns** (format, timezone, pickers)
|
||||
|
||||
**Each pattern should have:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Clear specification (how it works)
|
||||
- [ ] Usage guidance (when to use)
|
||||
- [ ] Examples (concrete implementations)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Responsive Design
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Breakpoints defined** for target devices (mobile, tablet, desktop)
|
||||
- [ ] **Adaptation patterns documented** (how layouts change)
|
||||
- [ ] **Navigation adaptation** (how nav changes on small screens)
|
||||
- [ ] **Content organization changes** (multi-column to single, grid to list)
|
||||
- [ ] **Touch targets adequate** on mobile (minimum size specified)
|
||||
- [ ] **Responsive strategy aligned** with chosen design direction
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 12. Accessibility
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **WCAG compliance level specified** (A, AA, or AAA)
|
||||
- [ ] **Color contrast requirements** documented (ratios for text)
|
||||
- [ ] **Keyboard navigation** addressed (all interactive elements accessible)
|
||||
- [ ] **Focus indicators** specified (visible focus states)
|
||||
- [ ] **ARIA requirements** noted (roles, labels, announcements)
|
||||
- [ ] **Screen reader considerations** (meaningful labels, structure)
|
||||
- [ ] **Alt text strategy** for images
|
||||
- [ ] **Form accessibility** (label associations, error identification)
|
||||
- [ ] **Testing strategy** defined (automated tools, manual testing)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 13. Coherence and Integration
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Design system and custom components visually consistent**
|
||||
- [ ] **All screens follow chosen design direction**
|
||||
- [ ] **Color usage consistent with semantic meanings**
|
||||
- [ ] **Typography hierarchy clear and consistent**
|
||||
- [ ] **Similar actions handled the same way** (pattern consistency)
|
||||
- [ ] **All PRD user journeys have UX design**
|
||||
- [ ] **All entry points designed**
|
||||
- [ ] **Error and edge cases handled**
|
||||
- [ ] **Every interactive element meets accessibility requirements**
|
||||
- [ ] **All flows keyboard-navigable**
|
||||
- [ ] **Colors meet contrast requirements**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 14. Cross-Workflow Alignment (Epics File Update)
|
||||
|
||||
**As UX design progresses, you discover implementation details that affect the story breakdown**
|
||||
|
||||
### Stories Discovered During UX Design
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Review epics.md file** for alignment with UX design
|
||||
- [ ] **New stories identified** during UX design that weren't in epics.md:
|
||||
- [ ] Custom component build stories (if significant)
|
||||
- [ ] UX pattern implementation stories
|
||||
- [ ] Animation/transition stories
|
||||
- [ ] Responsive adaptation stories
|
||||
- [ ] Accessibility implementation stories
|
||||
- [ ] Edge case handling stories discovered during journey design
|
||||
- [ ] Onboarding/empty state stories
|
||||
- [ ] Error state handling stories
|
||||
|
||||
### Story Complexity Adjustments
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Existing stories complexity reassessed** based on UX design:
|
||||
- [ ] Stories that are now more complex (UX revealed additional requirements)
|
||||
- [ ] Stories that are simpler (design system handles more than expected)
|
||||
- [ ] Stories that should be split (UX design shows multiple components/flows)
|
||||
- [ ] Stories that can be combined (UX design shows they're tightly coupled)
|
||||
|
||||
### Epic Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Epic scope still accurate** after UX design
|
||||
- [ ] **New epic needed** for discovered work (if significant)
|
||||
- [ ] **Epic ordering might change** based on UX dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
### Action Items for Epics File Update
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **List of new stories to add** to epics.md documented
|
||||
- [ ] **Complexity adjustments noted** for existing stories
|
||||
- [ ] **Update epics.md** OR flag for architecture review first
|
||||
- [ ] **Rationale documented** for why new stories/changes are needed
|
||||
|
||||
**Note:** If significant story changes are identified, consider running architecture workflow BEFORE updating epics.md, since architecture decisions might reveal additional adjustments needed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 15. Decision Rationale
|
||||
|
||||
**Unlike template-driven workflows, this workflow should document WHY**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Design system choice has rationale** (why this fits the project)
|
||||
- [ ] **Color theme selection has reasoning** (why this emotional impact)
|
||||
- [ ] **Design direction choice explained** (what user liked, how it fits vision)
|
||||
- [ ] **User journey approaches justified** (why this flow pattern)
|
||||
- [ ] **UX pattern decisions have context** (why these patterns for this app)
|
||||
- [ ] **Responsive strategy aligned with user priorities**
|
||||
- [ ] **Accessibility level appropriate for deployment intent**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 16. Implementation Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Designers can create high-fidelity mockups** from this spec
|
||||
- [ ] **Developers can implement** with clear UX guidance
|
||||
- [ ] **Sufficient detail** for frontend development
|
||||
- [ ] **Component specifications actionable** (states, variants, behaviors)
|
||||
- [ ] **Flows implementable** (clear steps, decision logic, error handling)
|
||||
- [ ] **Visual foundation complete** (colors, typography, spacing all defined)
|
||||
- [ ] **Pattern consistency enforceable** (clear rules for implementation)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 17. Critical Failures (Auto-Fail)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No visual collaboration** (color themes or design mockups not generated)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **User not involved in decisions** (auto-generated without collaboration)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No design direction chosen** (missing key visual decisions)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No user journey designs** (critical flows not documented)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No UX pattern consistency rules** (implementation will be inconsistent)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Missing core experience definition** (no clarity on what makes app unique)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No component specifications** (components not actionable)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Responsive strategy missing** (for multi-platform projects)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Accessibility ignored** (no compliance target or requirements)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Generic/templated content** (not specific to this project)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Document findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
- UX Design Quality: [Exceptional / Strong / Adequate / Needs Work / Incomplete]
|
||||
- Collaboration Level: [Highly Collaborative / Collaborative / Somewhat Collaborative / Generated]
|
||||
- Visual Artifacts: [Complete & Interactive / Partial / Missing]
|
||||
- Implementation Readiness: [Ready / Needs Design Phase / Not Ready]
|
||||
|
||||
## **Strengths:**
|
||||
|
||||
## **Areas for Improvement:**
|
||||
|
||||
## **Recommended Actions:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Ready for next phase?** [Yes - Proceed to Design / Yes - Proceed to Development / Needs Refinement]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
_This checklist validates collaborative UX design facilitation, not template generation. A successful UX workflow creates design decisions WITH the user through visual exploration and informed choices._
|
||||
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
|
||||
# {{project_name}} UX Design Specification
|
||||
|
||||
_Created on {{date}} by {{user_name}}_
|
||||
_Generated using BMad Method - Create UX Design Workflow v1.0_
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
{{project_vision}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Design System Foundation
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.1 Design System Choice
|
||||
|
||||
{{design_system_decision}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Core User Experience
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.1 Defining Experience
|
||||
|
||||
{{core_experience}}
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2 Novel UX Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
{{novel_ux_patterns}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Visual Foundation
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1 Color System
|
||||
|
||||
{{visual_foundation}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Interactive Visualizations:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Color Theme Explorer: [ux-color-themes.html](./ux-color-themes.html)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Design Direction
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1 Chosen Design Approach
|
||||
|
||||
{{design_direction_decision}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Interactive Mockups:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Design Direction Showcase: [ux-design-directions.html](./ux-design-directions.html)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. User Journey Flows
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.1 Critical User Paths
|
||||
|
||||
{{user_journey_flows}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Component Library
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.1 Component Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
{{component_library_strategy}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. UX Pattern Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.1 Consistency Rules
|
||||
|
||||
{{ux_pattern_decisions}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Responsive Design & Accessibility
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.1 Responsive Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
{{responsive_accessibility_strategy}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Implementation Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.1 Completion Summary
|
||||
|
||||
{{completion_summary}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Appendix
|
||||
|
||||
### Related Documents
|
||||
|
||||
- Product Requirements: `{{prd_file}}`
|
||||
- Product Brief: `{{brief_file}}`
|
||||
- Brainstorming: `{{brainstorm_file}}`
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Interactive Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
This UX Design Specification was created through visual collaboration:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Color Theme Visualizer**: {{color_themes_html}}
|
||||
- Interactive HTML showing all color theme options explored
|
||||
- Live UI component examples in each theme
|
||||
- Side-by-side comparison and semantic color usage
|
||||
|
||||
- **Design Direction Mockups**: {{design_directions_html}}
|
||||
- Interactive HTML with 6-8 complete design approaches
|
||||
- Full-screen mockups of key screens
|
||||
- Design philosophy and rationale for each direction
|
||||
|
||||
### Optional Enhancement Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
_This section will be populated if additional UX artifacts are generated through follow-up workflows._
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Additional deliverables added here by other workflows -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Next Steps & Follow-Up Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
This UX Design Specification can serve as input to:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Wireframe Generation Workflow** - Create detailed wireframes from user flows
|
||||
- **Figma Design Workflow** - Generate Figma files via MCP integration
|
||||
- **Interactive Prototype Workflow** - Build clickable HTML prototypes
|
||||
- **Component Showcase Workflow** - Create interactive component library
|
||||
- **AI Frontend Prompt Workflow** - Generate prompts for v0, Lovable, Bolt, etc.
|
||||
- **Solution Architecture Workflow** - Define technical architecture with UX context
|
||||
|
||||
### Version History
|
||||
|
||||
| Date | Version | Changes | Author |
|
||||
| -------- | ------- | ------------------------------- | ------------- |
|
||||
| {{date}} | 1.0 | Initial UX Design Specification | {{user_name}} |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
_This UX Design Specification was created through collaborative design facilitation, not template generation. All decisions were made with user input and are documented with rationale._
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
# Create UX Design Workflow Configuration
|
||||
name: create-ux-design
|
||||
description: "Collaborative UX design facilitation workflow that creates exceptional user experiences through visual exploration and informed decision-making. Unlike template-driven approaches, this workflow facilitates discovery, generates visual options, and collaboratively designs the UX with the user at every step."
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
# Input requirements - We work from PRD, Brief, or Brainstorming docs
|
||||
recommended_inputs:
|
||||
- prd: "Product Requirements Document with features and user journeys"
|
||||
- product_brief: "Product brief with vision and target users"
|
||||
- brainstorming: "Brainstorming documents with ideas and concepts"
|
||||
|
||||
# Input file references (fuzzy matched from output folder)
|
||||
prd_file: "{output_folder}/bmm-PRD.md or PRD.md or product-requirements.md"
|
||||
brief_file: "{output_folder}/product-brief.md or brief.md or project-brief.md"
|
||||
brainstorm_file: "{output_folder}/brainstorming.md or brainstorm.md or ideation.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
|
||||
# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
|
||||
input_file_patterns:
|
||||
prd:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*prd*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*prd*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
product_brief:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*brief*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*brief*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
epics:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*epic*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*epic*/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/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design"
|
||||
instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
|
||||
validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
|
||||
template: "{installed_path}/ux-design-template.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Output configuration - Progressive saves throughout workflow
|
||||
default_output_file: "{output_folder}/ux-design-specification.md"
|
||||
color_themes_html: "{output_folder}/ux-color-themes.html"
|
||||
design_directions_html: "{output_folder}/ux-design-directions.html"
|
||||
|
||||
standalone: true
|
||||
# Web bundle configuration for standalone deployment
|
||||
350
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/checklist.md
Normal file
350
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/checklist.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,350 @@
|
||||
# PRD + Epics + Stories Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**: Comprehensive validation that PRD, epics, and stories form a complete, implementable product plan.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope**: Validates the complete planning output (PRD.md + epics.md) for Levels 2-4 software projects
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Outputs**:
|
||||
|
||||
- PRD.md with complete requirements
|
||||
- epics.md with detailed epic and story breakdown
|
||||
- Updated bmm-workflow-status.yaml
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. PRD Document Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Sections Present
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Executive Summary with vision alignment
|
||||
- [ ] Product magic essence clearly articulated
|
||||
- [ ] Project classification (type, domain, complexity)
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria defined
|
||||
- [ ] Product scope (MVP, Growth, Vision) clearly delineated
|
||||
- [ ] Functional requirements comprehensive and numbered
|
||||
- [ ] Non-functional requirements (when applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] References section with source documents
|
||||
|
||||
### Project-Specific Sections
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **If complex domain:** Domain context and considerations documented
|
||||
- [ ] **If innovation:** Innovation patterns and validation approach documented
|
||||
- [ ] **If API/Backend:** Endpoint specification and authentication model included
|
||||
- [ ] **If Mobile:** Platform requirements and device features documented
|
||||
- [ ] **If SaaS B2B:** Tenant model and permission matrix included
|
||||
- [ ] **If UI exists:** UX principles and key interactions documented
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No unfilled template variables ({{variable}})
|
||||
- [ ] All variables properly populated with meaningful content
|
||||
- [ ] Product magic woven throughout (not just stated once)
|
||||
- [ ] Language is clear, specific, and measurable
|
||||
- [ ] Project type correctly identified and sections match
|
||||
- [ ] Domain complexity appropriately addressed
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Functional Requirements Quality
|
||||
|
||||
### FR Format and Structure
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Each FR has unique identifier (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] FRs describe WHAT capabilities, not HOW to implement
|
||||
- [ ] FRs are specific and measurable
|
||||
- [ ] FRs are testable and verifiable
|
||||
- [ ] FRs focus on user/business value
|
||||
- [ ] No technical implementation details in FRs (those belong in architecture)
|
||||
|
||||
### FR Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All MVP scope features have corresponding FRs
|
||||
- [ ] Growth features documented (even if deferred)
|
||||
- [ ] Vision features captured for future reference
|
||||
- [ ] Domain-mandated requirements included
|
||||
- [ ] Innovation requirements captured with validation needs
|
||||
- [ ] Project-type specific requirements complete
|
||||
|
||||
### FR Organization
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] FRs organized by capability/feature area (not by tech stack)
|
||||
- [ ] Related FRs grouped logically
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies between FRs noted when critical
|
||||
- [ ] Priority/phase indicated (MVP vs Growth vs Vision)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Epics Document Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Files
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] epics.md exists in output folder
|
||||
- [ ] Epic list in PRD.md matches epics in epics.md (titles and count)
|
||||
- [ ] All epics have detailed breakdown sections
|
||||
|
||||
### Epic Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Each epic has clear goal and value proposition
|
||||
- [ ] Each epic includes complete story breakdown
|
||||
- [ ] Stories follow proper user story format: "As a [role], I want [goal], so that [benefit]"
|
||||
- [ ] Each story has numbered acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Prerequisites/dependencies explicitly stated per story
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are AI-agent sized (completable in 2-4 hour session)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. FR Coverage Validation (CRITICAL)
|
||||
|
||||
### Complete Traceability
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Every FR from PRD.md is covered by at least one story in epics.md**
|
||||
- [ ] Each story references relevant FR numbers
|
||||
- [ ] No orphaned FRs (requirements without stories)
|
||||
- [ ] No orphaned stories (stories without FR connection)
|
||||
- [ ] Coverage matrix verified (can trace FR → Epic → Stories)
|
||||
|
||||
### Coverage Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Stories sufficiently decompose FRs into implementable units
|
||||
- [ ] Complex FRs broken into multiple stories appropriately
|
||||
- [ ] Simple FRs have appropriately scoped single stories
|
||||
- [ ] Non-functional requirements reflected in story acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Domain requirements embedded in relevant stories
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Story Sequencing Validation (CRITICAL)
|
||||
|
||||
### Epic 1 Foundation Check
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Epic 1 establishes foundational infrastructure**
|
||||
- [ ] Epic 1 delivers initial deployable functionality
|
||||
- [ ] Epic 1 creates baseline for subsequent epics
|
||||
- [ ] Exception: If adding to existing app, foundation requirement adapted appropriately
|
||||
|
||||
### Vertical Slicing
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Each story delivers complete, testable functionality** (not horizontal layers)
|
||||
- [ ] No "build database" or "create UI" stories in isolation
|
||||
- [ ] Stories integrate across stack (data + logic + presentation when applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] Each story leaves system in working/deployable state
|
||||
|
||||
### No Forward Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **No story depends on work from a LATER story or epic**
|
||||
- [ ] Stories within each epic are sequentially ordered
|
||||
- [ ] Each story builds only on previous work
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies flow backward only (can reference earlier stories)
|
||||
- [ ] Parallel tracks clearly indicated if stories are independent
|
||||
|
||||
### Value Delivery Path
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Each epic delivers significant end-to-end value
|
||||
- [ ] Epic sequence shows logical product evolution
|
||||
- [ ] User can see value after each epic completion
|
||||
- [ ] MVP scope clearly achieved by end of designated epics
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Scope Management
|
||||
|
||||
### MVP Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] MVP scope is genuinely minimal and viable
|
||||
- [ ] Core features list contains only true must-haves
|
||||
- [ ] Each MVP feature has clear rationale for inclusion
|
||||
- [ ] No obvious scope creep in "must-have" list
|
||||
|
||||
### Future Work Captured
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Growth features documented for post-MVP
|
||||
- [ ] Vision features captured to maintain long-term direction
|
||||
- [ ] Out-of-scope items explicitly listed
|
||||
- [ ] Deferred features have clear reasoning for deferral
|
||||
|
||||
### Clear Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Stories marked as MVP vs Growth vs Vision
|
||||
- [ ] Epic sequencing aligns with MVP → Growth progression
|
||||
- [ ] No confusion about what's in vs out of initial scope
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Research and Context Integration
|
||||
|
||||
### Source Document Integration
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **If product brief exists:** Key insights incorporated into PRD
|
||||
- [ ] **If domain brief exists:** Domain requirements reflected in FRs and stories
|
||||
- [ ] **If research documents exist:** Research findings inform requirements
|
||||
- [ ] **If competitive analysis exists:** Differentiation strategy clear in PRD
|
||||
- [ ] All source documents referenced in PRD References section
|
||||
|
||||
### Research Continuity to Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Domain complexity considerations documented for architects
|
||||
- [ ] Technical constraints from research captured
|
||||
- [ ] Regulatory/compliance requirements clearly stated
|
||||
- [ ] Integration requirements with existing systems documented
|
||||
- [ ] Performance/scale requirements informed by research data
|
||||
|
||||
### Information Completeness for Next Phase
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] PRD provides sufficient context for architecture decisions
|
||||
- [ ] Epics provide sufficient detail for technical design
|
||||
- [ ] Stories have enough acceptance criteria for implementation
|
||||
- [ ] Non-obvious business rules documented
|
||||
- [ ] Edge cases and special scenarios captured
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Cross-Document Consistency
|
||||
|
||||
### Terminology Consistency
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Same terms used across PRD and epics for concepts
|
||||
- [ ] Feature names consistent between documents
|
||||
- [ ] Epic titles match between PRD and epics.md
|
||||
- [ ] No contradictions between PRD and epics
|
||||
|
||||
### Alignment Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Success metrics in PRD align with story outcomes
|
||||
- [ ] Product magic articulated in PRD reflected in epic goals
|
||||
- [ ] Technical preferences in PRD align with story implementation hints
|
||||
- [ ] Scope boundaries consistent across all documents
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Readiness for Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
### Architecture Readiness (Next Phase)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] PRD provides sufficient context for architecture workflow
|
||||
- [ ] Technical constraints and preferences documented
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points identified
|
||||
- [ ] Performance/scale requirements specified
|
||||
- [ ] Security and compliance needs clear
|
||||
|
||||
### Development Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are specific enough to estimate
|
||||
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are testable
|
||||
- [ ] Technical unknowns identified and flagged
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies on external systems documented
|
||||
- [ ] Data requirements specified
|
||||
|
||||
### Track-Appropriate Detail
|
||||
|
||||
**If BMad Method:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] PRD supports full architecture workflow
|
||||
- [ ] Epic structure supports phased delivery
|
||||
- [ ] Scope appropriate for product/platform development
|
||||
- [ ] Clear value delivery through epic sequence
|
||||
|
||||
**If Enterprise Method:**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] PRD addresses enterprise requirements (security, compliance, multi-tenancy)
|
||||
- [ ] Epic structure supports extended planning phases
|
||||
- [ ] Scope includes security, devops, and test strategy considerations
|
||||
- [ ] Clear value delivery with enterprise gates
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Quality and Polish
|
||||
|
||||
### Writing Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Language is clear and free of jargon (or jargon is defined)
|
||||
- [ ] Sentences are concise and specific
|
||||
- [ ] No vague statements ("should be fast", "user-friendly")
|
||||
- [ ] Measurable criteria used throughout
|
||||
- [ ] Professional tone appropriate for stakeholder review
|
||||
|
||||
### Document Structure
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Sections flow logically
|
||||
- [ ] Headers and numbering consistent
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-references accurate (FR numbers, section references)
|
||||
- [ ] Formatting consistent throughout
|
||||
- [ ] Tables/lists formatted properly
|
||||
|
||||
### Completeness Indicators
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No [TODO] or [TBD] markers remain
|
||||
- [ ] No placeholder text
|
||||
- [ ] All sections have substantive content
|
||||
- [ ] Optional sections either complete or omitted (not half-done)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Failures (Auto-Fail)
|
||||
|
||||
If ANY of these are true, validation FAILS:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No epics.md file exists** (two-file output required)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Epic 1 doesn't establish foundation** (violates core sequencing principle)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Stories have forward dependencies** (breaks sequential implementation)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Stories not vertically sliced** (horizontal layers block value delivery)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Epics don't cover all FRs** (orphaned requirements)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **FRs contain technical implementation details** (should be in architecture)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No FR traceability to stories** (can't validate coverage)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Template variables unfilled** (incomplete document)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Validation Points:** ~85
|
||||
|
||||
### Scoring Guide
|
||||
|
||||
- **Pass Rate ≥ 95% (81+/85):** ✅ EXCELLENT - Ready for architecture phase
|
||||
- **Pass Rate 85-94% (72-80/85):** ⚠️ GOOD - Minor fixes needed
|
||||
- **Pass Rate 70-84% (60-71/85):** ⚠️ FAIR - Important issues to address
|
||||
- **Pass Rate < 70% (<60/85):** ❌ POOR - Significant rework required
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Issue Threshold
|
||||
|
||||
- **0 Critical Failures:** Proceed to fixes
|
||||
- **1+ Critical Failures:** STOP - Must fix critical issues first
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Execution Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**When validating:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Load ALL documents:**
|
||||
- PRD.md (required)
|
||||
- epics.md (required)
|
||||
- product-brief.md (if exists)
|
||||
- domain-brief.md (if exists)
|
||||
- research documents (if referenced)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Validate in order:**
|
||||
- Check critical failures first (immediate stop if any found)
|
||||
- Verify PRD completeness
|
||||
- Verify epics completeness
|
||||
- Cross-reference FR coverage (most important)
|
||||
- Check sequencing (second most important)
|
||||
- Validate research integration
|
||||
- Check polish and quality
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Report findings:**
|
||||
- List critical failures prominently
|
||||
- Group issues by severity
|
||||
- Provide specific line numbers/sections
|
||||
- Suggest concrete fixes
|
||||
- Highlight what's working well
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Provide actionable next steps:**
|
||||
- If validation passes: "Ready for architecture workflow"
|
||||
- If minor issues: "Fix [X] items then re-validate"
|
||||
- If major issues: "Rework [sections] then re-validate"
|
||||
- If critical failures: "Must fix critical items before proceeding"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Remember:** This validation ensures the entire planning phase is complete and the implementation phase has everything needed to succeed. Be thorough but fair - the goal is quality, not perfection.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
||||
# {{project_name}} - Epic Breakdown
|
||||
|
||||
**Author:** {{user_name}}
|
||||
**Date:** {{date}}
|
||||
**Project Level:** {{project_level}}
|
||||
**Target Scale:** {{target_scale}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
This document provides the complete epic and story breakdown for {{project_name}}, decomposing the requirements from the [PRD](./PRD.md) into implementable stories.
|
||||
|
||||
{{epics_summary}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Repeat for each epic (N = 1, 2, 3...) -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Epic {{N}}: {{epic_title_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{epic_goal_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Repeat for each story (M = 1, 2, 3...) within epic N -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Story {{N}}.{{M}}: {{story_title_N_M}}
|
||||
|
||||
As a {{user_type}},
|
||||
I want {{capability}},
|
||||
So that {{value_benefit}}.
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance Criteria:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Given** {{precondition}}
|
||||
**When** {{action}}
|
||||
**Then** {{expected_outcome}}
|
||||
|
||||
**And** {{additional_criteria}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Prerequisites:** {{dependencies_on_previous_stories}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Notes:** {{implementation_guidance}}
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- End story repeat -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- End epic repeat -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
_For implementation: Use the `create-story` workflow to generate individual story implementation plans from this epic breakdown._
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
|
||||
# Epic and Story Decomposition - Intent-Based Implementation Planning
|
||||
|
||||
<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 transforms requirements into BITE-SIZED STORIES for development agents</critical>
|
||||
<critical>EVERY story must be completable by a single dev agent in one focused session</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and adapt to {user_skill_level}</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
|
||||
<critical>LIVING DOCUMENT: Write to epics.md continuously as you work - never wait until the end</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Input documents specified in workflow.yaml input_file_patterns - workflow engine handles fuzzy matching, whole vs sharded document discovery automatically</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
<workflow>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="1" goal="Load PRD and extract requirements">
|
||||
<action>Welcome {user_name} to epic and story planning
|
||||
|
||||
Load required documents (fuzzy match, handle both whole and sharded):
|
||||
|
||||
- PRD.md (required)
|
||||
- domain-brief.md (if exists)
|
||||
- product-brief.md (if exists)
|
||||
|
||||
Extract from PRD:
|
||||
|
||||
- All functional requirements
|
||||
- Non-functional requirements
|
||||
- Domain considerations and compliance needs
|
||||
- Project type and complexity
|
||||
- MVP vs growth vs vision scope boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
Understand the context:
|
||||
|
||||
- What makes this product special (the magic)
|
||||
- Technical constraints
|
||||
- User types and their goals
|
||||
- Success criteria</action>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="2" goal="Propose epic structure from natural groupings">
|
||||
<action>Analyze requirements and identify natural epic boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
INTENT: Find organic groupings that make sense for THIS product
|
||||
|
||||
Look for natural patterns:
|
||||
|
||||
- Features that work together cohesively
|
||||
- User journeys that connect
|
||||
- Business capabilities that cluster
|
||||
- Domain requirements that relate (compliance, validation, security)
|
||||
- Technical systems that should be built together
|
||||
|
||||
Name epics based on VALUE, not technical layers:
|
||||
|
||||
- Good: "User Onboarding", "Content Discovery", "Compliance Framework"
|
||||
- Avoid: "Database Layer", "API Endpoints", "Frontend"
|
||||
|
||||
Each epic should:
|
||||
|
||||
- Have clear business goal and user value
|
||||
- Be independently valuable
|
||||
- Contain 3-8 related capabilities
|
||||
- Be deliverable in cohesive phase
|
||||
|
||||
For greenfield projects:
|
||||
|
||||
- First epic MUST establish foundation (project setup, core infrastructure, deployment pipeline)
|
||||
- Foundation enables all subsequent work
|
||||
|
||||
For complex domains:
|
||||
|
||||
- Consider dedicated compliance/regulatory epics
|
||||
- Group validation and safety requirements logically
|
||||
- Note expertise requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Present proposed epic structure showing:
|
||||
|
||||
- Epic titles with clear value statements
|
||||
- High-level scope of each epic
|
||||
- Suggested sequencing
|
||||
- Why this grouping makes sense</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>epics_summary</template-output>
|
||||
<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="3" goal="Decompose each epic into bite-sized stories" repeat="for-each-epic">
|
||||
<action>Break down Epic {{N}} into small, implementable stories
|
||||
|
||||
INTENT: Create stories sized for single dev agent completion
|
||||
|
||||
For each epic, generate:
|
||||
|
||||
- Epic title as `epic_title_{{N}}`
|
||||
- Epic goal/value as `epic_goal_{{N}}`
|
||||
- All stories as repeated pattern `story_title_{{N}}_{{M}}` for each story M
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL for Epic 1 (Foundation):
|
||||
|
||||
- Story 1.1 MUST be project setup/infrastructure initialization
|
||||
- Sets up: repo structure, build system, deployment pipeline basics, core dependencies
|
||||
- Creates foundation for all subsequent stories
|
||||
- Note: Architecture workflow will flesh out technical details
|
||||
|
||||
Each story should follow BDD-style acceptance criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Pattern:**
|
||||
As a [user type],
|
||||
I want [specific capability],
|
||||
So that [clear value/benefit].
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance Criteria using BDD:**
|
||||
Given [precondition or initial state]
|
||||
When [action or trigger]
|
||||
Then [expected outcome]
|
||||
|
||||
And [additional criteria as needed]
|
||||
|
||||
**Prerequisites:** Only previous stories (never forward dependencies)
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Notes:** Implementation guidance, affected components, compliance requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Ensure stories are:
|
||||
|
||||
- Vertically sliced (deliver complete functionality, not just one layer)
|
||||
- Sequentially ordered (logical progression, no forward dependencies)
|
||||
- Independently valuable when possible
|
||||
- Small enough for single-session completion
|
||||
- Clear enough for autonomous implementation
|
||||
|
||||
For each story in epic {{N}}, output variables following this pattern:
|
||||
|
||||
- story*title*{{N}}_1, story_title_{{N}}\_2, etc.
|
||||
- Each containing: user story, BDD acceptance criteria, prerequisites, technical notes</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>epic*title*{{N}}</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>epic*goal*{{N}}</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>For each story M in epic {{N}}, generate story content</action>
|
||||
<template-output>story*title*{{N}}\_{{M}}</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="4" goal="Review and finalize epic breakdown">
|
||||
<action>Review the complete epic breakdown for quality and completeness
|
||||
|
||||
Validate:
|
||||
|
||||
- All functional requirements from PRD are covered by stories
|
||||
- Epic 1 establishes proper foundation
|
||||
- All stories are vertically sliced
|
||||
- No forward dependencies exist
|
||||
- Story sizing is appropriate for single-session completion
|
||||
- BDD acceptance criteria are clear and testable
|
||||
- Domain/compliance requirements are properly distributed
|
||||
- Sequencing enables incremental value delivery
|
||||
|
||||
Confirm with {user_name}:
|
||||
|
||||
- Epic structure makes sense
|
||||
- Story breakdown is actionable
|
||||
- Dependencies are clear
|
||||
- BDD format provides clarity
|
||||
- Ready for architecture and implementation phases</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>epic_breakdown_summary</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
</workflow>
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
||||
# Epic and Story Decomposition Workflow
|
||||
name: create-epics-and-stories
|
||||
description: "Transform PRD requirements into bite-sized stories organized in epics for 200k context dev agents"
|
||||
author: "BMad"
|
||||
|
||||
# Critical variables from config
|
||||
config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
|
||||
project_name: "{config_source}:project_name"
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
# Input requirements
|
||||
recommended_inputs:
|
||||
- prd: "Product Requirements Document with FRs and NFRs"
|
||||
- product_brief: "Product Brief with vision and goals (optional)"
|
||||
- domain_brief: "Domain-specific requirements and context (optional)"
|
||||
|
||||
# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
|
||||
# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
|
||||
input_file_patterns:
|
||||
prd:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*prd*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*prd*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
product_brief:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*product*brief*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*product*brief*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
domain_brief:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*domain*brief*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*domain*brief*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Module path and component files
|
||||
installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/create-epics-and-stories"
|
||||
instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
|
||||
template: "{installed_path}/epics-template.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Output configuration
|
||||
default_output_file: "{output_folder}/epics.md"
|
||||
|
||||
standalone: true
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
|
||||
domain,signals,complexity,key_concerns,required_knowledge,suggested_workflow,web_searches,special_sections
|
||||
healthcare,"medical,diagnostic,clinical,FDA,patient,treatment,HIPAA,therapy,pharma,drug",high,"FDA approval;Clinical validation;HIPAA compliance;Patient safety;Medical device classification;Liability","Regulatory pathways;Clinical trial design;Medical standards;Data privacy;Integration requirements","domain-research","FDA software medical device guidance {date};HIPAA compliance software requirements;Medical software standards {date};Clinical validation software","clinical_requirements;regulatory_pathway;validation_methodology;safety_measures"
|
||||
fintech,"payment,banking,trading,investment,crypto,wallet,transaction,KYC,AML,funds,fintech",high,"Regional compliance;Security standards;Audit requirements;Fraud prevention;Data protection","KYC/AML requirements;PCI DSS;Open banking;Regional laws (US/EU/APAC);Crypto regulations","domain-research","fintech regulations {date};payment processing compliance {date};open banking API standards;cryptocurrency regulations {date}","compliance_matrix;security_architecture;audit_requirements;fraud_prevention"
|
||||
govtech,"government,federal,civic,public sector,citizen,municipal,voting",high,"Procurement rules;Security clearance;Accessibility (508);FedRAMP;Privacy;Transparency","Government procurement;Security frameworks;Accessibility standards;Privacy laws;Open data requirements","domain-research","government software procurement {date};FedRAMP compliance requirements;section 508 accessibility;government security standards","procurement_compliance;security_clearance;accessibility_standards;transparency_requirements"
|
||||
edtech,"education,learning,student,teacher,curriculum,assessment,K-12,university,LMS",medium,"Student privacy (COPPA/FERPA);Accessibility;Content moderation;Age verification;Curriculum standards","Educational privacy laws;Learning standards;Accessibility requirements;Content guidelines;Assessment validity","domain-research","educational software privacy {date};COPPA FERPA compliance;WCAG education requirements;learning management standards","privacy_compliance;content_guidelines;accessibility_features;curriculum_alignment"
|
||||
aerospace,"aircraft,spacecraft,aviation,drone,satellite,propulsion,flight,radar,navigation",high,"Safety certification;DO-178C compliance;Performance validation;Simulation accuracy;Export controls","Aviation standards;Safety analysis;Simulation validation;ITAR/export controls;Performance requirements","domain-research + technical-model","DO-178C software certification;aerospace simulation standards {date};ITAR export controls software;aviation safety requirements","safety_certification;simulation_validation;performance_requirements;export_compliance"
|
||||
automotive,"vehicle,car,autonomous,ADAS,automotive,driving,EV,charging",high,"Safety standards;ISO 26262;V2X communication;Real-time requirements;Certification","Automotive standards;Functional safety;V2X protocols;Real-time systems;Testing requirements","domain-research","ISO 26262 automotive software;automotive safety standards {date};V2X communication protocols;EV charging standards","safety_standards;functional_safety;communication_protocols;certification_requirements"
|
||||
scientific,"research,algorithm,simulation,modeling,computational,analysis,data science,ML,AI",medium,"Reproducibility;Validation methodology;Peer review;Performance;Accuracy;Computational resources","Scientific method;Statistical validity;Computational requirements;Domain expertise;Publication standards","technical-model","scientific computing best practices {date};research reproducibility standards;computational modeling validation;peer review software","validation_methodology;accuracy_metrics;reproducibility_plan;computational_requirements"
|
||||
legaltech,"legal,law,contract,compliance,litigation,patent,attorney,court",high,"Legal ethics;Bar regulations;Data retention;Attorney-client privilege;Court system integration","Legal practice rules;Ethics requirements;Court filing systems;Document standards;Confidentiality","domain-research","legal technology ethics {date};law practice management software requirements;court filing system standards;attorney client privilege technology","ethics_compliance;data_retention;confidentiality_measures;court_integration"
|
||||
insuretech,"insurance,claims,underwriting,actuarial,policy,risk,premium",high,"Insurance regulations;Actuarial standards;Data privacy;Fraud detection;State compliance","Insurance regulations by state;Actuarial methods;Risk modeling;Claims processing;Regulatory reporting","domain-research","insurance software regulations {date};actuarial standards software;insurance fraud detection;state insurance compliance","regulatory_requirements;risk_modeling;fraud_detection;reporting_compliance"
|
||||
energy,"energy,utility,grid,solar,wind,power,electricity,oil,gas",high,"Grid compliance;NERC standards;Environmental regulations;Safety requirements;Real-time operations","Energy regulations;Grid standards;Environmental compliance;Safety protocols;SCADA systems","domain-research","energy sector software compliance {date};NERC CIP standards;smart grid requirements;renewable energy software standards","grid_compliance;safety_protocols;environmental_compliance;operational_requirements"
|
||||
gaming,"game,player,gameplay,level,character,multiplayer,quest",redirect,"REDIRECT TO GAME WORKFLOWS","Game design","game-brief","NA","NA"
|
||||
general,"",low,"Standard requirements;Basic security;User experience;Performance","General software practices","continue","software development best practices {date}","standard_requirements"
|
||||
|
408
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/instructions.md
Normal file
408
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/instructions.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,408 @@
|
||||
# PRD Workflow - Intent-Driven Product Planning
|
||||
|
||||
<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 PLANNING - adapt organically to product type and context</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 PRD.md continuously as you discover - never wait until the end</critical>
|
||||
<critical>GUIDING PRINCIPLE: Find and weave the product's magic throughout - what makes it special should inspire every section</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Input documents specified in workflow.yaml input_file_patterns - workflow engine handles fuzzy matching, whole vs sharded document discovery automatically</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
<workflow>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="0" goal="Validate workflow readiness" tag="workflow-status">
|
||||
<action>Check if {status_file} exists</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action if="status file not found">Set standalone_mode = true</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="status file found">
|
||||
<action>Load the FULL file: {status_file}</action>
|
||||
<action>Parse workflow_status section</action>
|
||||
<action>Check status of "prd" workflow</action>
|
||||
<action>Get project_track from YAML metadata</action>
|
||||
<action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="project_track is Quick Flow">
|
||||
<output>**Quick Flow Track - Redirecting**
|
||||
|
||||
Quick Flow projects use tech-spec workflow for implementation-focused planning.
|
||||
PRD is for BMad Method and Enterprise Method tracks that need comprehensive requirements.</output>
|
||||
<action>Exit and suggest tech-spec workflow</action>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="prd status is file path (already completed)">
|
||||
<output>⚠️ PRD already completed: {{prd status}}</output>
|
||||
<ask>Re-running will overwrite the existing PRD. Continue? (y/n)</ask>
|
||||
<check if="n">
|
||||
<output>Exiting. Use workflow-status to see your next step.</output>
|
||||
<action>Exit workflow</action>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Set standalone_mode = false</action>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="1" goal="Discovery - Project, Domain, and Vision">
|
||||
<action>Welcome {user_name} and begin comprehensive discovery, and then start to GATHER ALL CONTEXT:
|
||||
1. Check workflow-status.yaml for project_context (if exists)
|
||||
2. Look for existing documents (Product Brief, Domain Brief, research)
|
||||
3. Detect project type AND domain complexity
|
||||
|
||||
Load references:
|
||||
{installed_path}/project-types.csv
|
||||
{installed_path}/domain-complexity.csv
|
||||
|
||||
Through natural conversation:
|
||||
"Tell me about what you want to build - what problem does it solve and for whom?"
|
||||
|
||||
DUAL DETECTION:
|
||||
Project type signals: API, mobile, web, CLI, SDK, SaaS
|
||||
Domain complexity signals: medical, finance, government, education, aerospace
|
||||
|
||||
SPECIAL ROUTING:
|
||||
If game detected → Inform user that game development requires the BMGD module (BMad Game Development)
|
||||
If complex domain detected → Offer domain research options:
|
||||
A) Run domain-research workflow (thorough)
|
||||
B) Quick web search (basic)
|
||||
C) User provides context
|
||||
D) Continue with general knowledge
|
||||
|
||||
CAPTURE THE MAGIC EARLY with a few questions such as for example: "What excites you most about this product?", "What would make users love this?", "What's the moment that will make people go 'wow'?"
|
||||
|
||||
This excitement becomes the thread woven throughout the PRD.</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>vision_alignment</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>project_classification</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>project_type</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>domain_type</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>complexity_level</template-output>
|
||||
<check if="complex domain">
|
||||
<template-output>domain_context_summary</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<template-output>product_magic_essence</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>product_brief_path</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>domain_brief_path</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>research_documents</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="2" goal="Success Definition">
|
||||
<action>Define what winning looks like for THIS specific product
|
||||
|
||||
INTENT: Meaningful success criteria, not generic metrics
|
||||
|
||||
Adapt to context:
|
||||
|
||||
- Consumer: User love, engagement, retention
|
||||
- B2B: ROI, efficiency, adoption
|
||||
- Developer tools: Developer experience, community
|
||||
- Regulated: Compliance, safety, validation
|
||||
|
||||
Make it specific:
|
||||
|
||||
- NOT: "10,000 users"
|
||||
- BUT: "100 power users who rely on it daily"
|
||||
|
||||
- NOT: "99.9% uptime"
|
||||
- BUT: "Zero data loss during critical operations"
|
||||
|
||||
Weave in the magic:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Success means users experience [that special moment] and [desired outcome]"</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>success_criteria</template-output>
|
||||
<check if="business focus">
|
||||
<template-output>business_metrics</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="3" goal="Scope Definition">
|
||||
<action>Smart scope negotiation - find the sweet spot
|
||||
|
||||
The Scoping Game:
|
||||
|
||||
1. "What must work for this to be useful?" → MVP
|
||||
2. "What makes it competitive?" → Growth
|
||||
3. "What's the dream version?" → Vision
|
||||
|
||||
Challenge scope creep conversationally:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Could that wait until after launch?"
|
||||
- "Is that essential for proving the concept?"
|
||||
|
||||
For complex domains:
|
||||
|
||||
- Include compliance minimums in MVP
|
||||
- Note regulatory gates between phases</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>mvp_scope</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>growth_features</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>vision_features</template-output>
|
||||
<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="4" goal="Domain-Specific Exploration" optional="true">
|
||||
<action>Only if complex domain detected or domain-brief exists
|
||||
|
||||
Synthesize domain requirements that will shape everything:
|
||||
|
||||
- Regulatory requirements
|
||||
- Compliance needs
|
||||
- Industry standards
|
||||
- Safety/risk factors
|
||||
- Required validations
|
||||
- Special expertise needed
|
||||
|
||||
These inform:
|
||||
|
||||
- What features are mandatory
|
||||
- What NFRs are critical
|
||||
- How to sequence development
|
||||
- What validation is required</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="complex domain">
|
||||
<template-output>domain_considerations</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="5" goal="Innovation Discovery" optional="true">
|
||||
<action>Identify truly novel patterns if applicable
|
||||
|
||||
Listen for innovation signals:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Nothing like this exists"
|
||||
- "We're rethinking how [X] works"
|
||||
- "Combining [A] with [B] for the first time"
|
||||
|
||||
Explore deeply:
|
||||
|
||||
- What makes it unique?
|
||||
- What assumption are you challenging?
|
||||
- How do we validate it?
|
||||
- What's the fallback?
|
||||
|
||||
<WebSearch if="novel">{concept} innovations {date}</WebSearch></action>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="innovation detected">
|
||||
<template-output>innovation_patterns</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>validation_approach</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="6" goal="Project-Specific Deep Dive">
|
||||
<action>Based on detected project type, dive deep into specific needs
|
||||
|
||||
Load project type requirements from CSV and expand naturally.
|
||||
|
||||
FOR API/BACKEND:
|
||||
|
||||
- Map out endpoints, methods, parameters
|
||||
- Define authentication and authorization
|
||||
- Specify error codes and rate limits
|
||||
- Document data schemas
|
||||
|
||||
FOR MOBILE:
|
||||
|
||||
- Platform requirements (iOS/Android/both)
|
||||
- Device features needed
|
||||
- Offline capabilities
|
||||
- Store compliance
|
||||
|
||||
FOR SAAS B2B:
|
||||
|
||||
- Multi-tenant architecture
|
||||
- Permission models
|
||||
- Subscription tiers
|
||||
- Critical integrations
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue for other types...]
|
||||
|
||||
Always relate back to the product magic:
|
||||
"How does [requirement] enhance [the special thing]?"</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>project_type_requirements</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Dynamic sections based on project type -->
|
||||
<check if="API/Backend project">
|
||||
<template-output>endpoint_specification</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>authentication_model</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="Mobile project">
|
||||
<template-output>platform_requirements</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>device_features</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="SaaS B2B project">
|
||||
<template-output>tenant_model</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>permission_matrix</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="7" goal="UX Principles" if="project has UI or UX">
|
||||
<action>Only if product has a UI
|
||||
|
||||
Light touch on UX - not full design:
|
||||
|
||||
- Visual personality
|
||||
- Key interaction patterns
|
||||
- Critical user flows
|
||||
|
||||
"How should this feel to use?"
|
||||
"What's the vibe - professional, playful, minimal?"
|
||||
|
||||
Connect to the magic:
|
||||
"The UI should reinforce [the special moment] through [design approach]"</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="has UI">
|
||||
<template-output>ux_principles</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>key_interactions</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="8" goal="Functional Requirements Synthesis">
|
||||
<action>Transform everything discovered into clear functional requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Pull together:
|
||||
|
||||
- Core features from scope
|
||||
- Domain-mandated features
|
||||
- Project-type specific needs
|
||||
- Innovation requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Organize by capability, not technology:
|
||||
|
||||
- User Management (not "auth system")
|
||||
- Content Discovery (not "search algorithm")
|
||||
- Team Collaboration (not "websockets")
|
||||
|
||||
Each requirement should:
|
||||
|
||||
- Be specific and measurable
|
||||
- Connect to user value
|
||||
- Include acceptance criteria
|
||||
- Note domain constraints
|
||||
|
||||
The magic thread:
|
||||
Highlight which requirements deliver the special experience</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>functional_requirements_complete</template-output>
|
||||
<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="9" goal="Non-Functional Requirements Discovery">
|
||||
<action>Only document NFRs that matter for THIS product
|
||||
|
||||
Performance: Only if user-facing impact
|
||||
Security: Only if handling sensitive data
|
||||
Scale: Only if growth expected
|
||||
Accessibility: Only if broad audience
|
||||
Integration: Only if connecting systems
|
||||
|
||||
For each NFR:
|
||||
|
||||
- Why it matters for THIS product
|
||||
- Specific measurable criteria
|
||||
- Domain-driven requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Skip categories that don't apply!</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Only output sections that were discussed -->
|
||||
<check if="performance matters">
|
||||
<template-output>performance_requirements</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<check if="security matters">
|
||||
<template-output>security_requirements</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<check if="scale matters">
|
||||
<template-output>scalability_requirements</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<check if="accessibility matters">
|
||||
<template-output>accessibility_requirements</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
<check if="integration matters">
|
||||
<template-output>integration_requirements</template-output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="10" goal="Review PRD and transition to epics">
|
||||
<action>Review the PRD we've built together
|
||||
|
||||
"Let's review what we've captured:
|
||||
|
||||
- Vision: [summary]
|
||||
- Success: [key metrics]
|
||||
- Scope: [MVP highlights]
|
||||
- Requirements: [count] functional, [count] non-functional
|
||||
- Special considerations: [domain/innovation]
|
||||
|
||||
Does this capture your product vision?"</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>prd_summary</template-output>
|
||||
<invoke-task halt="true">{project-root}/.bmad/core/tasks/adv-elicit.xml</invoke-task>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>After PRD review and refinement complete:
|
||||
|
||||
"Excellent! Now we need to break these requirements into implementable epics and stories.
|
||||
|
||||
For the epic breakdown, you have two options:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Start a new session focused on epics (recommended for complex projects)
|
||||
2. Continue here (I'll transform requirements into epics now)
|
||||
|
||||
Which would you prefer?"
|
||||
|
||||
If new session:
|
||||
"To start epic planning in a new session:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Save your work here
|
||||
2. Start fresh and run: workflow epics-stories
|
||||
3. It will load your PRD and create the epic breakdown
|
||||
|
||||
This keeps each session focused and manageable."
|
||||
|
||||
If continue:
|
||||
"Let's continue with epic breakdown here..."
|
||||
[Proceed with epics-stories subworkflow]
|
||||
Set project_track based on workflow status (BMad Method or Enterprise Method)
|
||||
Generate epic_details for the epics breakdown document</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>project_track</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output>epic_details</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="11" goal="Complete PRD and suggest next steps">
|
||||
<template-output>product_magic_summary</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="standalone_mode != true">
|
||||
<action>Load the FULL file: {status_file}</action>
|
||||
<action>Update workflow_status["prd"] = "{default_output_file}"</action>
|
||||
<action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure</action>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<output>**✅ PRD Complete, {user_name}!**
|
||||
|
||||
Your product requirements are documented and ready for implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Created:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **PRD.md** - Complete requirements adapted to {project_type} and {domain}
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Steps:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Epic Breakdown** (Required)
|
||||
Run: `workflow create-epics-and-stories` to decompose requirements into implementable stories
|
||||
|
||||
2. **UX Design** (If UI exists)
|
||||
Run: `workflow ux-design` for detailed user experience design
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Architecture** (Recommended)
|
||||
Run: `workflow create-architecture` for technical architecture decisions
|
||||
|
||||
The magic of your product - {product_magic_summary} - is woven throughout the PRD and will guide all subsequent work.
|
||||
</output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
</workflow>
|
||||
237
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/prd-template.md
Normal file
237
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/prd-template.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
|
||||
# {{project_name}} - Product Requirements Document
|
||||
|
||||
**Author:** {{user_name}}
|
||||
**Date:** {{date}}
|
||||
**Version:** 1.0
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
{{vision_alignment}}
|
||||
|
||||
### What Makes This Special
|
||||
|
||||
{{product_magic_essence}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Classification
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Type:** {{project_type}}
|
||||
**Domain:** {{domain_type}}
|
||||
**Complexity:** {{complexity_level}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{project_classification}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if domain_context_summary}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Domain Context
|
||||
|
||||
{{domain_context_summary}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
{{success_criteria}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if business_metrics}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Business Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
{{business_metrics}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Product Scope
|
||||
|
||||
### MVP - Minimum Viable Product
|
||||
|
||||
{{mvp_scope}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Growth Features (Post-MVP)
|
||||
|
||||
{{growth_features}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Vision (Future)
|
||||
|
||||
{{vision_features}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if domain_considerations}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain-Specific Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
{{domain_considerations}}
|
||||
|
||||
This section shapes all functional and non-functional requirements below.
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if innovation_patterns}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Innovation & Novel Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
{{innovation_patterns}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Validation Approach
|
||||
|
||||
{{validation_approach}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if project_type_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
## {{project_type}} Specific Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
{{project_type_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if endpoint_specification}}
|
||||
|
||||
### API Specification
|
||||
|
||||
{{endpoint_specification}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if authentication_model}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Authentication & Authorization
|
||||
|
||||
{{authentication_model}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if platform_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Platform Support
|
||||
|
||||
{{platform_requirements}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if device_features}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Device Capabilities
|
||||
|
||||
{{device_features}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if tenant_model}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Multi-Tenancy Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
{{tenant_model}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if permission_matrix}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Permissions & Roles
|
||||
|
||||
{{permission_matrix}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if ux_principles}}
|
||||
|
||||
## User Experience Principles
|
||||
|
||||
{{ux_principles}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Interactions
|
||||
|
||||
{{key_interactions}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
{{functional_requirements_complete}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if performance_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Performance
|
||||
|
||||
{{performance_requirements}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if security_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Security
|
||||
|
||||
{{security_requirements}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if scalability_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Scalability
|
||||
|
||||
{{scalability_requirements}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if accessibility_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Accessibility
|
||||
|
||||
{{accessibility_requirements}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if integration_requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Integration
|
||||
|
||||
{{integration_requirements}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if no_nfrs}}
|
||||
_No specific non-functional requirements identified for this project type._
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Planning
|
||||
|
||||
### Epic Breakdown Required
|
||||
|
||||
Requirements must be decomposed into epics and bite-sized stories (200k context limit).
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Step:** Run `workflow epics-stories` to create the implementation breakdown.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
{{#if product_brief_path}}
|
||||
|
||||
- Product Brief: {{product_brief_path}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
{{#if domain_brief_path}}
|
||||
- Domain Brief: {{domain_brief_path}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
{{#if research_documents}}
|
||||
- Research: {{research_documents}}
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Epic & Story Breakdown** - Run: `workflow epics-stories`
|
||||
2. **UX Design** (if UI) - Run: `workflow ux-design`
|
||||
3. **Architecture** - Run: `workflow create-architecture`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
_This PRD captures the essence of {{project_name}} - {{product_magic_summary}}_
|
||||
|
||||
_Created through collaborative discovery between {{user_name}} and AI facilitator._
|
||||
11
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/project-types.csv
Normal file
11
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/project-types.csv
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
|
||||
project_type,detection_signals,key_questions,required_sections,skip_sections,web_search_triggers,innovation_signals
|
||||
api_backend,"API,REST,GraphQL,backend,service,endpoints","Endpoints needed?;Authentication method?;Data formats?;Rate limits?;Versioning?;SDK needed?","endpoint_specs;auth_model;data_schemas;error_codes;rate_limits;api_docs","ux_ui;visual_design;user_journeys","framework best practices;OpenAPI standards","API composition;New protocol"
|
||||
mobile_app,"iOS,Android,app,mobile,iPhone,iPad","Native or cross-platform?;Offline needed?;Push notifications?;Device features?;Store compliance?","platform_reqs;device_permissions;offline_mode;push_strategy;store_compliance","desktop_features;cli_commands","app store guidelines;platform requirements","Gesture innovation;AR/VR features"
|
||||
saas_b2b,"SaaS,B2B,platform,dashboard,teams,enterprise","Multi-tenant?;Permission model?;Subscription tiers?;Integrations?;Compliance?","tenant_model;rbac_matrix;subscription_tiers;integration_list;compliance_reqs","cli_interface;mobile_first","compliance requirements;integration guides","Workflow automation;AI agents"
|
||||
developer_tool,"SDK,library,package,npm,pip,framework","Language support?;Package managers?;IDE integration?;Documentation?;Examples?","language_matrix;installation_methods;api_surface;code_examples;migration_guide","visual_design;store_compliance","package manager best practices;API design patterns","New paradigm;DSL creation"
|
||||
cli_tool,"CLI,command,terminal,bash,script","Interactive or scriptable?;Output formats?;Config method?;Shell completion?","command_structure;output_formats;config_schema;scripting_support","visual_design;ux_principles;touch_interactions","CLI design patterns;shell integration","Natural language CLI;AI commands"
|
||||
web_app,"website,webapp,browser,SPA,PWA","SPA or MPA?;Browser support?;SEO needed?;Real-time?;Accessibility?","browser_matrix;responsive_design;performance_targets;seo_strategy;accessibility_level","native_features;cli_commands","web standards;WCAG guidelines","New interaction;WebAssembly use"
|
||||
game,"game,player,gameplay,level,character","REDIRECT TO GAME WORKFLOWS","game-brief;GDD","most_sections","game design patterns","Novel mechanics;Genre mixing"
|
||||
desktop_app,"desktop,Windows,Mac,Linux,native","Cross-platform?;Auto-update?;System integration?;Offline?","platform_support;system_integration;update_strategy;offline_capabilities","web_seo;mobile_features","desktop guidelines;platform requirements","Desktop AI;System automation"
|
||||
iot_embedded,"IoT,embedded,device,sensor,hardware","Hardware specs?;Connectivity?;Power constraints?;Security?;OTA updates?","hardware_reqs;connectivity_protocol;power_profile;security_model;update_mechanism","visual_ui;browser_support","IoT standards;protocol specs","Edge AI;New sensors"
|
||||
blockchain_web3,"blockchain,crypto,DeFi,NFT,smart contract","Chain selection?;Wallet integration?;Gas optimization?;Security audit?","chain_specs;wallet_support;smart_contracts;security_audit;gas_optimization","traditional_auth;centralized_db","blockchain standards;security patterns","Novel tokenomics;DAO structure"
|
||||
|
46
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/workflow.yaml
Normal file
46
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/workflow.yaml
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
# Product Requirements Document (PRD) Workflow
|
||||
name: prd
|
||||
description: "Unified PRD workflow for BMad Method and Enterprise Method tracks. Produces strategic PRD and tactical epic breakdown. Hands off to architecture workflow for technical design. Note: Quick Flow track uses tech-spec workflow."
|
||||
author: "BMad"
|
||||
|
||||
# Critical variables from config
|
||||
config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
|
||||
project_name: "{config_source}:project_name"
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
# Workflow components
|
||||
installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd"
|
||||
instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Templates
|
||||
prd_template: "{installed_path}/prd-template.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Output files
|
||||
status_file: "{output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml"
|
||||
default_output_file: "{output_folder}/PRD.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Recommended input documents
|
||||
recommended_inputs:
|
||||
- product_brief: "{output_folder}/product-brief.md"
|
||||
- market_research: "{output_folder}/market-research.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
|
||||
# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
|
||||
input_file_patterns:
|
||||
product_brief:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*brief*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*brief*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
research:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*research*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*research*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
document_project:
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/docs/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
standalone: true
|
||||
214
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/tech-spec/checklist.md
Normal file
214
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/tech-spec/checklist.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
|
||||
# Tech-Spec Workflow Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**: Validate tech-spec workflow outputs are context-rich, definitive, complete, and implementation-ready.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope**: Levels 0-1 software projects
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Outputs**: tech-spec.md + story files (1 for Level 0, 2-3 for Level 1)
|
||||
|
||||
**New Standard**: Tech-spec should be comprehensive enough to replace story-context for Level 0-1 projects
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Output Files Exist
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] tech-spec.md created in output folder
|
||||
- [ ] Story file(s) created in dev_ephemeral_location
|
||||
- Level 0: 1 story file (story-{slug}.md)
|
||||
- Level 1: epics.md + 2-3 story files (story-{epic-slug}-N.md)
|
||||
- [ ] bmm-workflow-status.yaml updated (if not standalone mode)
|
||||
- [ ] No unfilled {{template_variables}} in any files
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Context Gathering (NEW - CRITICAL)
|
||||
|
||||
### Document Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Existing documents loaded**: Product brief, research docs found and incorporated (if they exist)
|
||||
- [ ] **Document-project output**: Checked for {output_folder}/docs/index.md (brownfield codebase map)
|
||||
- [ ] **Sharded documents**: If sharded versions found, ALL sections loaded and synthesized
|
||||
- [ ] **Context summary**: loaded_documents_summary lists all sources used
|
||||
|
||||
### Project Stack Detection
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Setup files identified**: package.json, requirements.txt, or equivalent found and parsed
|
||||
- [ ] **Framework detected**: Exact framework name and version captured (e.g., "Express 4.18.2")
|
||||
- [ ] **Dependencies extracted**: All production dependencies with specific versions
|
||||
- [ ] **Dev tools identified**: TypeScript, Jest, ESLint, pytest, etc. with versions
|
||||
- [ ] **Scripts documented**: Available npm/pip/etc scripts identified
|
||||
- [ ] **Stack summary**: project_stack_summary is complete and accurate
|
||||
|
||||
### Brownfield Analysis (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Directory structure**: Main code directories identified and documented
|
||||
- [ ] **Code patterns**: Dominant patterns identified (class-based, functional, MVC, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] **Naming conventions**: Existing conventions documented (camelCase, snake_case, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] **Key modules**: Important existing modules/services identified
|
||||
- [ ] **Testing patterns**: Test framework and patterns documented
|
||||
- [ ] **Structure summary**: existing_structure_summary is comprehensive
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Tech-Spec Definitiveness (CRITICAL)
|
||||
|
||||
### No Ambiguity Allowed
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Zero "or" statements**: NO "use X or Y", "either A or B", "options include"
|
||||
- [ ] **Specific versions**: All frameworks, libraries, tools have EXACT versions
|
||||
- ✅ GOOD: "Python 3.11", "React 18.2.0", "winston v3.8.2 (from package.json)"
|
||||
- ❌ BAD: "Python 2 or 3", "React 18+", "a logger like pino or winston"
|
||||
- [ ] **Definitive decisions**: Every technical choice is final, not a proposal
|
||||
- [ ] **Stack-aligned**: Decisions reference detected project stack
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Clarity
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Source tree changes**: EXACT file paths with CREATE/MODIFY/DELETE actions
|
||||
- ✅ GOOD: "src/services/UserService.ts - MODIFY - Add validateEmail() method"
|
||||
- ❌ BAD: "Update some files in the services folder"
|
||||
- [ ] **Technical approach**: Describes SPECIFIC implementation using detected stack
|
||||
- [ ] **Existing patterns**: Documents brownfield patterns to follow (if applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] **Integration points**: Specific modules, APIs, services identified
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Context-Rich Content (NEW)
|
||||
|
||||
### Context Section
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Available Documents**: Lists all loaded documents
|
||||
- [ ] **Project Stack**: Complete framework and dependency information
|
||||
- [ ] **Existing Codebase Structure**: Brownfield analysis or greenfield notation
|
||||
|
||||
### The Change Section
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Problem Statement**: Clear, specific problem definition
|
||||
- [ ] **Proposed Solution**: Concrete solution approach
|
||||
- [ ] **Scope In/Out**: Clear boundaries defined
|
||||
|
||||
### Development Context Section
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Relevant Existing Code**: References to specific files and line numbers (brownfield)
|
||||
- [ ] **Framework Dependencies**: Complete list with exact versions from project
|
||||
- [ ] **Internal Dependencies**: Internal modules listed
|
||||
- [ ] **Configuration Changes**: Specific config file updates identified
|
||||
|
||||
### Developer Resources Section
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **File Paths Reference**: Complete list of all files involved
|
||||
- [ ] **Key Code Locations**: Functions, classes, modules with file:line references
|
||||
- [ ] **Testing Locations**: Specific test directories and patterns
|
||||
- [ ] **Documentation Updates**: Docs that need updating identified
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Story Quality
|
||||
|
||||
### Story Format
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All stories use "As a [role], I want [capability], so that [benefit]" format
|
||||
- [ ] Each story has numbered acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Tasks reference AC numbers: (AC: #1), (AC: #2)
|
||||
- [ ] Dev Notes section links to tech-spec.md
|
||||
|
||||
### Story Context Integration (NEW)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Tech-Spec Reference**: Story explicitly references tech-spec.md as primary context
|
||||
- [ ] **Dev Agent Record**: Includes all required sections (Context Reference, Agent Model, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] **Test Results section**: Placeholder ready for dev execution
|
||||
- [ ] **Review Notes section**: Placeholder ready for code review
|
||||
|
||||
### Story Sequencing (If Level 1)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Vertical slices**: Each story delivers complete, testable functionality
|
||||
- [ ] **Sequential ordering**: Stories in logical progression
|
||||
- [ ] **No forward dependencies**: No story depends on later work
|
||||
- [ ] Each story leaves system in working state
|
||||
|
||||
### Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Story acceptance criteria derived from tech-spec
|
||||
- [ ] Story tasks map to tech-spec implementation guide
|
||||
- [ ] Files in stories match tech-spec source tree
|
||||
- [ ] Key code references align with tech-spec Developer Resources
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Epic Quality (Level 1 Only)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Epic title**: User-focused outcome (not implementation detail)
|
||||
- [ ] **Epic slug**: Clean kebab-case slug (2-3 words)
|
||||
- [ ] **Epic goal**: Clear purpose and value statement
|
||||
- [ ] **Epic scope**: Boundaries clearly defined
|
||||
- [ ] **Success criteria**: Measurable outcomes
|
||||
- [ ] **Story map**: Visual representation of epic → stories
|
||||
- [ ] **Implementation sequence**: Logical story ordering with dependencies
|
||||
- [ ] **Tech-spec reference**: Links back to tech-spec.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Workflow Status Integration
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] bmm-workflow-status.yaml updated (if exists)
|
||||
- [ ] Current phase reflects tech-spec completion
|
||||
- [ ] Progress percentage updated appropriately
|
||||
- [ ] Next workflow clearly identified
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Implementation Readiness (NEW - ENHANCED)
|
||||
|
||||
### Can Developer Start Immediately?
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **All context available**: Brownfield analysis + stack details + existing patterns
|
||||
- [ ] **No research needed**: Developer doesn't need to hunt for framework versions or patterns
|
||||
- [ ] **Specific file paths**: Developer knows exactly which files to create/modify
|
||||
- [ ] **Code references**: Can find similar code to reference (brownfield)
|
||||
- [ ] **Testing clear**: Knows what to test and how
|
||||
- [ ] **Deployment documented**: Knows how to deploy and rollback
|
||||
|
||||
### Tech-Spec Replaces Story-Context?
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Comprehensive enough**: Contains all info typically in story-context XML
|
||||
- [ ] **Brownfield analysis**: If applicable, includes codebase reconnaissance
|
||||
- [ ] **Framework specifics**: Exact versions and usage patterns
|
||||
- [ ] **Pattern guidance**: Shows examples of existing patterns to follow
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Critical Failures (Auto-Fail)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Non-definitive technical decisions** (any "option A or B" or vague choices)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Missing versions** (framework/library without specific version)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Context not gathered** (didn't check for document-project, setup files, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Stack mismatch** (decisions don't align with detected project stack)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Stories don't match template** (missing Dev Agent Record sections)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Missing tech-spec sections** (required section missing from enhanced template)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Stories have forward dependencies** (would break sequential implementation)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **Vague source tree** (file changes not specific with actions)
|
||||
- [ ] ❌ **No brownfield analysis** (when document-project output exists but wasn't used)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Document any findings:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Context Gathering Score**: [Comprehensive / Partial / Insufficient]
|
||||
- **Definitiveness Score**: [All definitive / Some ambiguity / Significant ambiguity]
|
||||
- **Brownfield Integration**: [N/A - Greenfield / Excellent / Partial / Missing]
|
||||
- **Stack Alignment**: [Perfect / Good / Partial / None]
|
||||
|
||||
## **Strengths:**
|
||||
|
||||
## **Issues to address:**
|
||||
|
||||
## **Recommended actions:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Ready for implementation?** [Yes / No - explain]
|
||||
|
||||
**Can skip story-context?** [Yes - tech-spec is comprehensive / No - additional context needed / N/A]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
_The tech-spec should be a RICH CONTEXT DOCUMENT that gives developers everything they need without requiring separate context generation._
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
|
||||
# {{project_name}} - Epic Breakdown
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {{date}}
|
||||
**Project Level:** {{project_level}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Repeat for each epic (N = 1, 2, 3...) -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Epic {{N}}: {{epic_title_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Slug:** {{epic_slug_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Goal
|
||||
|
||||
{{epic_goal_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Scope
|
||||
|
||||
{{epic_scope_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
{{epic_success_criteria_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
{{epic_dependencies_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Story Map - Epic {{N}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{story_map_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Stories - Epic {{N}}
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Repeat for each story (M = 1, 2, 3...) within epic N -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Story {{N}}.{{M}}: {{story_title_N_M}}
|
||||
|
||||
As a {{user_type}},
|
||||
I want {{capability}},
|
||||
So that {{value_benefit}}.
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance Criteria:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Given** {{precondition}}
|
||||
**When** {{action}}
|
||||
**Then** {{expected_outcome}}
|
||||
|
||||
**And** {{additional_criteria}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Prerequisites:** {{dependencies_on_previous_stories}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Notes:** {{implementation_guidance}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Estimated Effort:** {{story_points}} points ({{time_estimate}})
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- End story repeat -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Timeline - Epic {{N}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Story Points:** {{total_points_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Estimated Timeline:** {{estimated_timeline_N}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- End epic repeat -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tech-Spec Reference
|
||||
|
||||
See [tech-spec.md](../tech-spec.md) for complete technical implementation details.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
|
||||
# Level 0 - Minimal User Story Generation
|
||||
|
||||
<workflow>
|
||||
|
||||
<critical>This generates a single user story for Level 0 atomic changes</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Level 0 = single file change, bug fix, or small isolated task</critical>
|
||||
<critical>This workflow runs AFTER tech-spec.md has been completed</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Output format MUST match create-story template for compatibility with story-context and dev-story workflows</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="1" goal="Load tech spec and extract the change">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Read the completed tech-spec.md file from {output_folder}/tech-spec.md</action>
|
||||
<action>Load bmm-workflow-status.yaml from {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml (if exists)</action>
|
||||
<action>Extract dev_ephemeral_location from config (where stories are stored)</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Extract from the ENHANCED tech-spec structure:
|
||||
|
||||
- Problem statement from "The Change → Problem Statement" section
|
||||
- Solution overview from "The Change → Proposed Solution" section
|
||||
- Scope from "The Change → Scope" section
|
||||
- Source tree from "Implementation Details → Source Tree Changes" section
|
||||
- Time estimate from "Implementation Guide → Implementation Steps" section
|
||||
- Acceptance criteria from "Implementation Guide → Acceptance Criteria" section
|
||||
- Framework dependencies from "Development Context → Framework/Libraries" section
|
||||
- Existing code references from "Development Context → Relevant Existing Code" section
|
||||
- File paths from "Developer Resources → File Paths Reference" section
|
||||
- Key code locations from "Developer Resources → Key Code Locations" section
|
||||
- Testing locations from "Developer Resources → Testing Locations" section
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="2" goal="Generate story slug and filename">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Derive a short URL-friendly slug from the feature/change name</action>
|
||||
<action>Max slug length: 3-5 words, kebab-case format</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
- "Migrate JS Library Icons" → "icon-migration"
|
||||
- "Fix Login Validation Bug" → "login-fix"
|
||||
- "Add OAuth Integration" → "oauth-integration"
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Set story_filename = "story-{slug}.md"</action>
|
||||
<action>Set story_path = "{dev_ephemeral_location}/story-{slug}.md"</action>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="3" goal="Create user story in standard format">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Create 1 story that describes the technical change as a deliverable</action>
|
||||
<action>Story MUST use create-story template format for compatibility</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<guidelines>
|
||||
**Story Point Estimation:**
|
||||
- 1 point = < 1 day (2-4 hours)
|
||||
- 2 points = 1-2 days
|
||||
- 3 points = 2-3 days
|
||||
- 5 points = 3-5 days (if this high, question if truly Level 0)
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Title Best Practices:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Use active, user-focused language
|
||||
- Describe WHAT is delivered, not HOW
|
||||
- Good: "Icon Migration to Internal CDN"
|
||||
- Bad: "Run curl commands to download PNGs"
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Description Format:**
|
||||
|
||||
- As a [role] (developer, user, admin, etc.)
|
||||
- I want [capability/change]
|
||||
- So that [benefit/value]
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance Criteria:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Extract from tech-spec "Testing Approach" section
|
||||
- Must be specific, measurable, and testable
|
||||
- Include performance criteria if specified
|
||||
|
||||
**Tasks/Subtasks:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Map directly to tech-spec "Implementation Guide" tasks
|
||||
- Use checkboxes for tracking
|
||||
- Reference AC numbers: (AC: #1), (AC: #2)
|
||||
- Include explicit testing subtasks
|
||||
|
||||
**Dev Notes:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Extract technical constraints from tech-spec
|
||||
- Include file paths from "Developer Resources → File Paths Reference"
|
||||
- Include existing code references from "Development Context → Relevant Existing Code"
|
||||
- Reference architecture patterns if applicable
|
||||
- Cite tech-spec sections for implementation details
|
||||
- Note dependencies (internal and external)
|
||||
|
||||
**NEW: Comprehensive Context**
|
||||
|
||||
Since tech-spec is now context-rich, populate all new template fields:
|
||||
|
||||
- dependencies: Extract from "Development Context" and "Implementation Details → Integration Points"
|
||||
- existing_code_references: Extract from "Development Context → Relevant Existing Code" and "Developer Resources → Key Code Locations"
|
||||
</guidelines>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Initialize story file using user_story_template</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">story_title</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">role</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">capability</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">benefit</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">acceptance_criteria</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">tasks_subtasks</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">technical_summary</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">files_to_modify</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">test_locations</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">story_points</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">time_estimate</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">dependencies</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">existing_code_references</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path}">architecture_references</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="4" goal="Update status - Level 0 single story">
|
||||
|
||||
<invoke-workflow path="{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/workflow-status">
|
||||
<param>mode: update</param>
|
||||
<param>action: complete_workflow</param>
|
||||
<param>workflow_name: tech-spec</param>
|
||||
</invoke-workflow>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="success == true">
|
||||
<output>✅ Tech-spec complete! Next: {{next_workflow}}</output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Load {{status_file_path}}</action>
|
||||
<action>Set STORIES_SEQUENCE: [{slug}]</action>
|
||||
<action>Set TODO_STORY: {slug}</action>
|
||||
<action>Set TODO_TITLE: {{story_title}}</action>
|
||||
<action>Set IN_PROGRESS_STORY: (empty)</action>
|
||||
<action>Set STORIES_DONE: []</action>
|
||||
<action>Save {{status_file_path}}</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<output>Story queue initialized with single story: {slug}</output>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="5" goal="Provide user guidance for next steps">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Display completion summary</action>
|
||||
|
||||
**Level 0 Planning Complete!**
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated Artifacts:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `tech-spec.md` → Technical source of truth
|
||||
- `story-{slug}.md` → User story ready for implementation
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Location:** `{story_path}`
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Steps:**
|
||||
|
||||
**🎯 RECOMMENDED - Direct to Development (Level 0):**
|
||||
|
||||
Since the tech-spec is now CONTEXT-RICH with:
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Brownfield codebase analysis (if applicable)
|
||||
- ✅ Framework and library details with exact versions
|
||||
- ✅ Existing patterns and code references
|
||||
- ✅ Complete file paths and integration points
|
||||
|
||||
**You can skip story-context and go straight to dev!**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Load DEV agent: `{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/agents/dev.md`
|
||||
2. Run `dev-story` workflow
|
||||
3. Begin implementation immediately
|
||||
|
||||
**Option B - Generate Additional Context (optional):**
|
||||
|
||||
Only needed for extremely complex scenarios:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Load SM agent: `{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/agents/sm.md`
|
||||
2. Run `story-context` workflow (generates additional XML context)
|
||||
3. Then load DEV agent and run `dev-story` workflow
|
||||
|
||||
**Progress Tracking:**
|
||||
|
||||
- All decisions logged in: `bmm-workflow-status.yaml`
|
||||
- Next action clearly identified
|
||||
|
||||
<ask>Ready to proceed? Choose your path:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Go directly to dev-story (RECOMMENDED - tech-spec has all context)
|
||||
2. Generate additional story context (for complex edge cases)
|
||||
3. Exit for now
|
||||
|
||||
Select option (1-3):</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
</workflow>
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
|
||||
# Level 1 - Epic and Stories Generation
|
||||
|
||||
<workflow>
|
||||
|
||||
<critical>This generates epic and user stories for Level 1 projects after tech-spec completion</critical>
|
||||
<critical>This is a lightweight story breakdown - not a full PRD</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Level 1 = coherent feature, 1-10 stories (prefer 2-3), 1 epic</critical>
|
||||
<critical>This workflow runs AFTER tech-spec.md has been completed</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Story format MUST match create-story template for compatibility with story-context and dev-story workflows</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="1" goal="Load tech spec and extract implementation tasks">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Read the completed tech-spec.md file from {output_folder}/tech-spec.md</action>
|
||||
<action>Load bmm-workflow-status.yaml from {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml (if exists)</action>
|
||||
<action>Extract dev_ephemeral_location from config (where stories are stored)</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Extract from the ENHANCED tech-spec structure:
|
||||
|
||||
- Overall feature goal from "The Change → Problem Statement" and "Proposed Solution"
|
||||
- Implementation tasks from "Implementation Guide → Implementation Steps"
|
||||
- Time estimates from "Implementation Guide → Implementation Steps"
|
||||
- Dependencies from "Implementation Details → Integration Points" and "Development Context → Dependencies"
|
||||
- Source tree from "Implementation Details → Source Tree Changes"
|
||||
- Framework dependencies from "Development Context → Framework/Libraries"
|
||||
- Existing code references from "Development Context → Relevant Existing Code"
|
||||
- File paths from "Developer Resources → File Paths Reference"
|
||||
- Key code locations from "Developer Resources → Key Code Locations"
|
||||
- Testing locations from "Developer Resources → Testing Locations"
|
||||
- Acceptance criteria from "Implementation Guide → Acceptance Criteria"
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="2" goal="Create single epic">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Create 1 epic that represents the entire feature</action>
|
||||
<action>Epic title should be user-facing value statement</action>
|
||||
<action>Epic goal should describe why this matters to users</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<guidelines>
|
||||
**Epic Best Practices:**
|
||||
- Title format: User-focused outcome (not implementation detail)
|
||||
- Good: "JS Library Icon Reliability"
|
||||
- Bad: "Update recommendedLibraries.ts file"
|
||||
- Scope: Clearly define what's included/excluded
|
||||
- Success criteria: Measurable outcomes that define "done"
|
||||
</guidelines>
|
||||
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
**Epic:** JS Library Icon Reliability
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Eliminate external dependencies for JS library icons to ensure consistent, reliable display and improve application performance.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope:** Migrate all 14 recommended JS library icons from third-party CDN URLs (GitHub, jsDelivr) to internal static asset hosting.
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Criteria:**
|
||||
|
||||
- All library icons load from internal paths
|
||||
- Zero external requests for library icons
|
||||
- Icons load 50-200ms faster than baseline
|
||||
- No broken icons in production
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Derive epic slug from epic title (kebab-case, 2-3 words max)</action>
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
|
||||
- "JS Library Icon Reliability" → "icon-reliability"
|
||||
- "OAuth Integration" → "oauth-integration"
|
||||
- "Admin Dashboard" → "admin-dashboard"
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Initialize epics.md summary document using epics_template</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Also capture project_level for the epic template</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">project_level</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">epic_title</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">epic_slug</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">epic_goal</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">epic_scope</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">epic_success_criteria</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">epic_dependencies</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="3" goal="Determine optimal story count">
|
||||
|
||||
<critical>Level 1 should have 2-3 stories maximum - prefer longer stories over more stories</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Analyze tech spec implementation tasks and time estimates</action>
|
||||
<action>Group related tasks into logical story boundaries</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<guidelines>
|
||||
**Story Count Decision Matrix:**
|
||||
|
||||
**2 Stories (preferred for most Level 1):**
|
||||
|
||||
- Use when: Feature has clear build/verify split
|
||||
- Example: Story 1 = Build feature, Story 2 = Test and deploy
|
||||
- Typical points: 3-5 points per story
|
||||
|
||||
**3 Stories (only if necessary):**
|
||||
|
||||
- Use when: Feature has distinct setup, build, verify phases
|
||||
- Example: Story 1 = Setup, Story 2 = Core implementation, Story 3 = Integration and testing
|
||||
- Typical points: 2-3 points per story
|
||||
|
||||
**Never exceed 3 stories for Level 1:**
|
||||
|
||||
- If more needed, consider if project should be Level 2
|
||||
- Better to have longer stories (5 points) than more stories (5x 1-point stories)
|
||||
</guidelines>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Determine story_count = 2 or 3 based on tech spec complexity</action>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="4" goal="Generate user stories from tech spec tasks">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>For each story (2-3 total), generate separate story file</action>
|
||||
<action>Story filename format: "story-{epic_slug}-{n}.md" where n = 1, 2, or 3</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<guidelines>
|
||||
**Story Generation Guidelines:**
|
||||
- Each story = multiple implementation tasks from tech spec
|
||||
- Story title format: User-focused deliverable (not implementation steps)
|
||||
- Include technical acceptance criteria from tech spec tasks
|
||||
- Link back to tech spec sections for implementation details
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL: Acceptance Criteria Must Be:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Numbered** - AC #1, AC #2, AC #3, etc.
|
||||
2. **Specific** - No vague statements like "works well" or "is fast"
|
||||
3. **Testable** - Can be verified objectively
|
||||
4. **Complete** - Covers all success conditions
|
||||
5. **Independent** - Each AC tests one thing
|
||||
6. **Format**: Use Given/When/Then when applicable
|
||||
|
||||
**Good AC Examples:**
|
||||
✅ AC #1: Given a valid email address, when user submits the form, then the account is created and user receives a confirmation email within 30 seconds
|
||||
✅ AC #2: Given an invalid email format, when user submits, then form displays "Invalid email format" error message
|
||||
✅ AC #3: All unit tests in UserService.test.ts pass with 100% coverage
|
||||
|
||||
**Bad AC Examples:**
|
||||
❌ "User can create account" (too vague)
|
||||
❌ "System performs well" (not measurable)
|
||||
❌ "Works correctly" (not specific)
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Point Estimation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- 1 point = < 1 day (2-4 hours)
|
||||
- 2 points = 1-2 days
|
||||
- 3 points = 2-3 days
|
||||
- 5 points = 3-5 days
|
||||
|
||||
**Level 1 Typical Totals:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Total story points: 5-10 points
|
||||
- 2 stories: 3-5 points each
|
||||
- 3 stories: 2-3 points each
|
||||
- If total > 15 points, consider if this should be Level 2
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Structure (MUST match create-story format):**
|
||||
|
||||
- Status: Draft
|
||||
- Story: As a [role], I want [capability], so that [benefit]
|
||||
- Acceptance Criteria: Numbered list from tech spec
|
||||
- Tasks / Subtasks: Checkboxes mapped to tech spec tasks (AC: #n references)
|
||||
- Dev Notes: Technical summary, project structure notes, references
|
||||
- Dev Agent Record: Empty sections (tech-spec provides context)
|
||||
|
||||
**NEW: Comprehensive Context Fields**
|
||||
|
||||
Since tech-spec is context-rich, populate ALL template fields:
|
||||
|
||||
- dependencies: Extract from tech-spec "Development Context → Dependencies" and "Integration Points"
|
||||
- existing_code_references: Extract from "Development Context → Relevant Existing Code" and "Developer Resources → Key Code Locations"
|
||||
</guidelines>
|
||||
|
||||
<for-each story="1 to story_count">
|
||||
<action>Set story_path_{n} = "{dev_ephemeral_location}/story-{epic_slug}-{n}.md"</action>
|
||||
<action>Create story file from user_story_template with the following content:</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output file="{story_path_{n}}">
|
||||
- story_title: User-focused deliverable title
|
||||
- role: User role (e.g., developer, user, admin)
|
||||
- capability: What they want to do
|
||||
- benefit: Why it matters
|
||||
- acceptance_criteria: Specific, measurable criteria from tech spec
|
||||
- tasks_subtasks: Implementation tasks with AC references
|
||||
- technical_summary: High-level approach, key decisions
|
||||
- files_to_modify: List of files that will change (from tech-spec "Developer Resources → File Paths Reference")
|
||||
- test_locations: Where tests will be added (from tech-spec "Developer Resources → Testing Locations")
|
||||
- story_points: Estimated effort (1/2/3/5)
|
||||
- time_estimate: Days/hours estimate
|
||||
- dependencies: Internal/external dependencies (from tech-spec "Development Context" and "Integration Points")
|
||||
- existing_code_references: Code to reference (from tech-spec "Development Context → Relevant Existing Code" and "Key Code Locations")
|
||||
- architecture_references: Links to tech-spec.md sections
|
||||
</template-output>
|
||||
</for-each>
|
||||
|
||||
<critical>Generate exactly {story_count} story files (2 or 3 based on Step 3 decision)</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="5" goal="Create story map and implementation sequence with dependency validation">
|
||||
|
||||
<critical>Stories MUST be ordered so earlier stories don't depend on later ones</critical>
|
||||
<critical>Each story must have CLEAR, TESTABLE acceptance criteria</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Analyze dependencies between stories:
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependency Rules:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Infrastructure/setup → Feature implementation → Testing/polish
|
||||
2. Database changes → API changes → UI changes
|
||||
3. Backend services → Frontend components
|
||||
4. Core functionality → Enhancement features
|
||||
5. No story can depend on a later story!
|
||||
|
||||
**Validate Story Sequence:**
|
||||
For each story N, check:
|
||||
|
||||
- Does it require anything from Story N+1, N+2, etc.? ❌ INVALID
|
||||
- Does it only use things from Story 1...N-1? ✅ VALID
|
||||
- Can it be implemented independently or using only prior stories? ✅ VALID
|
||||
|
||||
If invalid dependencies found, REORDER stories!
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Generate visual story map showing epic → stories hierarchy with dependencies</action>
|
||||
<action>Calculate total story points across all stories</action>
|
||||
<action>Estimate timeline based on total points (1-2 points per day typical)</action>
|
||||
<action>Define implementation sequence with explicit dependency notes</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<example>
|
||||
## Story Map
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Epic: Icon Reliability
|
||||
├── Story 1: Build Icon Infrastructure (3 points)
|
||||
│ Dependencies: None (foundational work)
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── Story 2: Test and Deploy Icons (2 points)
|
||||
Dependencies: Story 1 (requires infrastructure)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Story Points:** 5
|
||||
**Estimated Timeline:** 1 sprint (1 week)
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Sequence
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Story 1** → Build icon infrastructure (setup, download, configure)
|
||||
- Dependencies: None
|
||||
- Deliverable: Icon files downloaded, organized, accessible
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Story 2** → Test and deploy (depends on Story 1)
|
||||
- Dependencies: Story 1 must be complete
|
||||
- Deliverable: Icons verified, tested, deployed to production
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependency Validation:** ✅ Valid sequence - no forward dependencies
|
||||
</example>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">story_summaries</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">story_map</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">total_points</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">estimated_timeline</template-output>
|
||||
<template-output file="{output_folder}/epics.md">implementation_sequence</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="6" goal="Update status and populate story backlog">
|
||||
|
||||
<invoke-workflow path="{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/workflow-status">
|
||||
<param>mode: update</param>
|
||||
<param>action: complete_workflow</param>
|
||||
<param>workflow_name: tech-spec</param>
|
||||
<param>populate_stories_from: {epics_output_file}</param>
|
||||
</invoke-workflow>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="success == true">
|
||||
<output>✅ Status updated! Loaded {{total_stories}} stories from epics.</output>
|
||||
<output>Next: {{next_workflow}} ({{next_agent}} agent)</output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="success == false">
|
||||
<output>⚠️ Status update failed: {{error}}</output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="7" goal="Auto-validate story quality and sequence">
|
||||
|
||||
<critical>Auto-run validation - NOT optional!</critical>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Running automatic story validation...</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>**Validate Story Sequence (CRITICAL):**
|
||||
|
||||
For each story, check:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Does Story N depend on Story N+1 or later? ❌ FAIL - Reorder required!
|
||||
2. Are dependencies clearly documented? ✅ PASS
|
||||
3. Can stories be implemented in order 1→2→3? ✅ PASS
|
||||
|
||||
If sequence validation FAILS:
|
||||
|
||||
- Identify the problem dependencies
|
||||
- Propose new ordering
|
||||
- Ask user to confirm reordering
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>**Validate Acceptance Criteria Quality:**
|
||||
|
||||
For each story's AC, check:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Is it numbered (AC #1, AC #2, etc.)? ✅ Required
|
||||
2. Is it specific and testable? ✅ Required
|
||||
3. Does it use Given/When/Then or equivalent? ✅ Recommended
|
||||
4. Are all success conditions covered? ✅ Required
|
||||
|
||||
Count vague AC (contains "works", "good", "fast", "well"):
|
||||
|
||||
- 0 vague AC: ✅ EXCELLENT
|
||||
- 1-2 vague AC: ⚠️ WARNING - Should improve
|
||||
- 3+ vague AC: ❌ FAIL - Must improve
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>**Validate Story Completeness:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Do all stories map to tech spec tasks? ✅ Required
|
||||
2. Do story points align with tech spec estimates? ✅ Recommended
|
||||
3. Are dependencies clearly noted? ✅ Required
|
||||
4. Does each story have testable AC? ✅ Required
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Generate validation report</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="sequence validation fails OR AC quality fails">
|
||||
<output>❌ **Story Validation Failed:**
|
||||
|
||||
{{issues_found}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Fixes:**
|
||||
{{recommended_fixes}}
|
||||
|
||||
Shall I fix these issues? (yes/no)</output>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask>Apply fixes? (yes/no)</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="yes">
|
||||
<action>Apply fixes (reorder stories, rewrite vague AC, add missing details)</action>
|
||||
<action>Re-validate</action>
|
||||
<output>✅ Validation passed after fixes!</output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<check if="validation passes">
|
||||
<output>✅ **Story Validation Passed!**
|
||||
|
||||
**Sequence:** ✅ Valid (no forward dependencies)
|
||||
**AC Quality:** ✅ All specific and testable
|
||||
**Completeness:** ✅ All tech spec tasks covered
|
||||
**Dependencies:** ✅ Clearly documented
|
||||
|
||||
Stories are implementation-ready!</output>
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="8" goal="Finalize and provide user guidance">
|
||||
|
||||
<action>Confirm all validation passed</action>
|
||||
<action>Verify total story points align with tech spec time estimates</action>
|
||||
<action>Confirm epic and stories are complete</action>
|
||||
|
||||
**Level 1 Planning Complete!**
|
||||
|
||||
**Epic:** {{epic_title}}
|
||||
**Total Stories:** {{story_count}}
|
||||
**Total Story Points:** {{total_points}}
|
||||
**Estimated Timeline:** {{estimated_timeline}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated Artifacts:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `tech-spec.md` → Technical source of truth
|
||||
- `epics.md` → Epic and story summary
|
||||
- `story-{epic_slug}-1.md` → First story (ready for implementation)
|
||||
- `story-{epic_slug}-2.md` → Second story
|
||||
{{#if story_3}}
|
||||
- `story-{epic_slug}-3.md` → Third story
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Story Location:** `{dev_ephemeral_location}/`
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Steps - Iterative Implementation:**
|
||||
|
||||
**🎯 RECOMMENDED - Direct to Development (Level 1):**
|
||||
|
||||
Since the tech-spec is now CONTEXT-RICH with:
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Brownfield codebase analysis (if applicable)
|
||||
- ✅ Framework and library details with exact versions
|
||||
- ✅ Existing patterns and code references
|
||||
- ✅ Complete file paths and integration points
|
||||
- ✅ Dependencies clearly mapped
|
||||
|
||||
**You can skip story-context for most Level 1 stories!**
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Start with Story 1:**
|
||||
a. Load DEV agent: `{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/agents/dev.md`
|
||||
b. Run `dev-story` workflow (select story-{epic_slug}-1.md)
|
||||
c. Tech-spec provides all context needed
|
||||
d. Implement story 1
|
||||
|
||||
**2. After Story 1 Complete:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Repeat for story-{epic_slug}-2.md
|
||||
- Reference completed story 1 in your work
|
||||
|
||||
**3. After Story 2 Complete:**
|
||||
{{#if story_3}}
|
||||
|
||||
- Repeat for story-{epic_slug}-3.md
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
- Level 1 feature complete!
|
||||
|
||||
**Option B - Generate Additional Context (optional):**
|
||||
|
||||
Only needed for extremely complex multi-story dependencies:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Load SM agent: `{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/agents/sm.md`
|
||||
2. Run `story-context` workflow for complex stories
|
||||
3. Then load DEV agent and run `dev-story`
|
||||
|
||||
**Progress Tracking:**
|
||||
|
||||
- All decisions logged in: `bmm-workflow-status.yaml`
|
||||
- Next action clearly identified
|
||||
|
||||
<ask>Ready to proceed? Choose your path:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Go directly to dev-story for story 1 (RECOMMENDED - tech-spec has all context)
|
||||
2. Generate additional story context first (for complex dependencies)
|
||||
3. Exit for now
|
||||
|
||||
Select option (1-3):</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
</workflow>
|
||||
1115
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/tech-spec/instructions.md
Normal file
1115
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/tech-spec/instructions.md
Normal file
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
|
||||
# {{project_name}} - Technical Specification
|
||||
|
||||
**Author:** {{user_name}}
|
||||
**Date:** {{date}}
|
||||
**Project Level:** {{project_level}}
|
||||
**Change Type:** {{change_type}}
|
||||
**Development Context:** {{development_context}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
### Available Documents
|
||||
|
||||
{{loaded_documents_summary}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Project Stack
|
||||
|
||||
{{project_stack_summary}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Existing Codebase Structure
|
||||
|
||||
{{existing_structure_summary}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Change
|
||||
|
||||
### Problem Statement
|
||||
|
||||
{{problem_statement}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Proposed Solution
|
||||
|
||||
{{solution_overview}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Scope
|
||||
|
||||
**In Scope:**
|
||||
|
||||
{{scope_in}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Out of Scope:**
|
||||
|
||||
{{scope_out}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Details
|
||||
|
||||
### Source Tree Changes
|
||||
|
||||
{{source_tree_changes}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Approach
|
||||
|
||||
{{technical_approach}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Existing Patterns to Follow
|
||||
|
||||
{{existing_patterns}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Integration Points
|
||||
|
||||
{{integration_points}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Development Context
|
||||
|
||||
### Relevant Existing Code
|
||||
|
||||
{{existing_code_references}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
**Framework/Libraries:**
|
||||
|
||||
{{framework_dependencies}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Internal Modules:**
|
||||
|
||||
{{internal_dependencies}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Configuration Changes
|
||||
|
||||
{{configuration_changes}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Existing Conventions (Brownfield)
|
||||
|
||||
{{existing_conventions}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Framework & Standards
|
||||
|
||||
{{test_framework_info}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Stack
|
||||
|
||||
{{implementation_stack}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Details
|
||||
|
||||
{{technical_details}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Development Setup
|
||||
|
||||
{{development_setup}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Guide
|
||||
|
||||
### Setup Steps
|
||||
|
||||
{{setup_steps}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
|
||||
{{implementation_steps}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Testing Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
{{testing_strategy}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
{{acceptance_criteria}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Developer Resources
|
||||
|
||||
### File Paths Reference
|
||||
|
||||
{{file_paths_complete}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Code Locations
|
||||
|
||||
{{key_code_locations}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Testing Locations
|
||||
|
||||
{{testing_locations}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Documentation to Update
|
||||
|
||||
{{documentation_updates}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## UX/UI Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
{{ux_ui_considerations}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing Approach
|
||||
|
||||
{{testing_approach}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Deployment Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Deployment Steps
|
||||
|
||||
{{deployment_steps}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Rollback Plan
|
||||
|
||||
{{rollback_plan}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Monitoring
|
||||
|
||||
{{monitoring_approach}}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
|
||||
# Story {{N}}.{{M}}: {{story_title}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** Draft
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## User Story
|
||||
|
||||
As a {{user_type}},
|
||||
I want {{capability}},
|
||||
So that {{value_benefit}}.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Given** {{precondition}}
|
||||
**When** {{action}}
|
||||
**Then** {{expected_outcome}}
|
||||
|
||||
**And** {{additional_criteria}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Details
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasks / Subtasks
|
||||
|
||||
{{tasks_subtasks}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Summary
|
||||
|
||||
{{technical_summary}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Project Structure Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- **Files to modify:** {{files_to_modify}}
|
||||
- **Expected test locations:** {{test_locations}}
|
||||
- **Estimated effort:** {{story_points}} story points ({{time_estimate}})
|
||||
- **Prerequisites:** {{dependencies}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Code References
|
||||
|
||||
{{existing_code_references}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Context References
|
||||
|
||||
**Tech-Spec:** [tech-spec.md](../tech-spec.md) - Primary context document containing:
|
||||
|
||||
- Brownfield codebase analysis (if applicable)
|
||||
- Framework and library details with versions
|
||||
- Existing patterns to follow
|
||||
- Integration points and dependencies
|
||||
- Complete implementation guidance
|
||||
|
||||
**Architecture:** {{architecture_references}}
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Additional context XML paths will be added here if story-context workflow is run -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Dev Agent Record
|
||||
|
||||
### Agent Model Used
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Will be populated during dev-story execution -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Debug Log References
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Will be populated during dev-story execution -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Completion Notes
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Will be populated during dev-story execution -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Files Modified
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Will be populated during dev-story execution -->
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Results
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Will be populated during dev-story execution -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Notes
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Will be populated during code review -->
|
||||
60
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/tech-spec/workflow.yaml
Normal file
60
.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/tech-spec/workflow.yaml
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
# Technical Specification
|
||||
name: tech-spec
|
||||
description: "Technical specification workflow for Level 0 projects (single atomic changes). Creates focused tech spec for bug fixes, single endpoint additions, or small isolated changes. Tech-spec only - no PRD needed."
|
||||
author: "BMad"
|
||||
|
||||
# Critical variables from config
|
||||
config_source: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
|
||||
project_name: "{config_source}:project_name"
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
# Runtime variables (captured during workflow execution)
|
||||
project_level: runtime-captured
|
||||
project_type: runtime-captured
|
||||
development_context: runtime-captured
|
||||
change_type: runtime-captured
|
||||
field_type: runtime-captured
|
||||
|
||||
# Workflow components
|
||||
installed_path: "{project-root}/.bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/tech-spec"
|
||||
instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
|
||||
template: "{installed_path}/tech-spec-template.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Story generation instructions (invoked based on level)
|
||||
instructions_level0_story: "{installed_path}/instructions-level0-story.md"
|
||||
instructions_level1_stories: "{installed_path}/instructions-level1-stories.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Templates
|
||||
user_story_template: "{installed_path}/user-story-template.md"
|
||||
epics_template: "{installed_path}/epics-template.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Output configuration
|
||||
default_output_file: "{output_folder}/tech-spec.md"
|
||||
user_story_file: "{output_folder}/user-story.md"
|
||||
epics_file: "{output_folder}/epics.md"
|
||||
|
||||
# Recommended input documents (optional for Level 0)
|
||||
recommended_inputs:
|
||||
- bug_report: "Bug description or issue ticket"
|
||||
- feature_request: "Brief feature description"
|
||||
|
||||
# Smart input file references - handles both whole docs and sharded docs
|
||||
# Priority: Whole document first, then sharded version
|
||||
input_file_patterns:
|
||||
product_brief:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*brief*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*brief*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
research:
|
||||
whole: "{output_folder}/*research*.md"
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/*research*/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
document_project:
|
||||
sharded: "{output_folder}/docs/index.md"
|
||||
|
||||
standalone: true
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user