docs: massive documentation overhaul + introduce Paige (Documentation Guide agent)

## 📚 Complete Documentation Restructure

**BMM Documentation Hub Created:**
- New centralized documentation system at `src/modules/bmm/docs/`
- 18 comprehensive guides organized by topic (7000+ lines total)
- Clear learning paths for greenfield, brownfield, and quick spec flows
- Professional technical writing standards throughout

**New Documentation:**
- `README.md` - Complete documentation hub with navigation
- `quick-start.md` - 15-minute getting started guide
- `agents-guide.md` - Comprehensive 12-agent reference (45 min read)
- `party-mode.md` - Multi-agent collaboration guide (20 min read)
- `scale-adaptive-system.md` - Deep dive on Levels 0-4 (42 min read)
- `brownfield-guide.md` - Existing codebase development (53 min read)
- `quick-spec-flow.md` - Rapid Level 0-1 development (26 min read)
- `workflows-analysis.md` - Phase 1 workflows (12 min read)
- `workflows-planning.md` - Phase 2 workflows (19 min read)
- `workflows-solutioning.md` - Phase 3 workflows (13 min read)
- `workflows-implementation.md` - Phase 4 workflows (33 min read)
- `workflows-testing.md` - Testing & QA workflows (29 min read)
- `workflow-architecture-reference.md` - Architecture workflow deep-dive
- `workflow-document-project-reference.md` - Document-project workflow reference
- `enterprise-agentic-development.md` - Team collaboration patterns
- `faq.md` - Comprehensive Q&A covering all topics
- `glossary.md` - Complete terminology reference
- `troubleshooting.md` - Common issues and solutions

**Documentation Improvements:**
- Removed all version/date footers (git handles versioning)
- Agent customization docs now include full rebuild process
- Cross-referenced links between all guides
- Reading time estimates for all major docs
- Consistent professional formatting and structure

**Consolidated & Streamlined:**
- Module README (`src/modules/bmm/README.md`) streamlined to lean signpost
- Root README polished with better hierarchy and clear CTAs
- Moved docs from root `docs/` to module-specific locations
- Better separation of user docs vs. developer reference

## 🤖 New Agent: Paige (Documentation Guide)

**Role:** Technical documentation specialist and information architect

**Expertise:**
- Professional technical writing standards
- Documentation structure and organization
- Information architecture and navigation
- User-focused content design
- Style guide enforcement

**Status:** Work in progress - Paige will evolve as documentation needs grow

**Integration:**
- Listed in agents-guide.md, glossary.md, FAQ
- Available for all phases (documentation is continuous)
- Can be customized like all BMM agents

## 🔧 Additional Changes

- Updated agent manifest with Paige
- Updated workflow manifest with new documentation workflows
- Fixed workflow-to-agent mappings across all guides
- Improved root README with clearer Quick Start section
- Better module structure explanations
- Enhanced community links with Discord channel names

**Total Impact:**
- 18 new/restructured documentation files
- 7000+ lines of professional technical documentation
- Complete navigation system with cross-references
- Clear learning paths for all user types
- Foundation for knowledge base (coming in beta)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

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

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# Project Brainstorming Workflow
+
+Structured ideation for software projects exploring problem spaces, architectures, and innovative solutions beyond traditional requirements gathering.
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+- [Purpose](#purpose)
+- [Usage](#usage)
+- [Process](#process)
+- [Inputs & Outputs](#inputs--outputs)
+- [Integration](#integration)
+
+## Purpose
+
+Generate multiple solution approaches for software projects through:
+
+- Parallel ideation tracks (architecture, UX, integration, value delivery)
+- Technical-business alignment from inception
+- Hidden assumption discovery
+- Innovation beyond obvious solutions
+
+## Usage
+
+```bash
+# Run brainstorming session
+bmad bmm *brainstorm-project
+
+# Or via Analyst agent
+*brainstorm-project
+```
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Context Capture
+
+- Business objectives and constraints
+- Technical environment
+- Stakeholder needs
+- Success criteria
+
+### 2. Parallel Ideation
+
+- **Architecture Track**: Technical approaches with trade-offs
+- **UX Track**: Interface paradigms and user journeys
+- **Integration Track**: System connection patterns
+- **Value Track**: Feature prioritization and delivery
+
+### 3. Solution Synthesis
+
+- Evaluate feasibility and impact
+- Align with strategic objectives
+- Surface hidden assumptions
+- Generate recommendations
+
+## Inputs & Outputs
+
+### Inputs
+
+| Input             | Type     | Purpose                                       |
+| ----------------- | -------- | --------------------------------------------- |
+| Project Context   | Document | Business objectives, environment, constraints |
+| Problem Statement | Optional | Core challenge or opportunity                 |
+
+### Outputs
+
+| Output                   | Content                                     |
+| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------- |
+| Architecture Proposals   | Multiple approaches with trade-off analysis |
+| Value Framework          | Prioritized features aligned to objectives  |
+| Risk Analysis            | Dependencies, challenges, opportunities     |
+| Strategic Recommendation | Synthesized direction with rationale        |
+
+## Integration
+
+### Workflow Chain
+
+1. **brainstorm-project** ← Current step
+2. research (optional deep dive)
+3. product-brief (strategic document)
+4. Phase 2 planning (PRD/tech-spec)
+
+### Feed Into
+
+- Product Brief development
+- Architecture decisions
+- PRD requirements
+- Epic prioritization
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Prepare context** - Gather business and technical background
+2. **Think broadly** - Explore non-obvious approaches
+3. **Document assumptions** - Capture implicit beliefs
+4. **Consider constraints** - Technical, organizational, resource
+5. **Focus on value** - Align to business objectives
+
+## Configuration
+
+```yaml
+# bmad/bmm/config.yaml
+output_folder: ./output
+project_name: Your Project
+```
+
+## Related Workflows
+
+- [Research](../research/README.md) - Deep investigation
+- [Product Brief](../product-brief/README.md) - Strategic planning
+- [PRD](../../2-plan-workflows/prd/README.md) - Requirements document
+
+---
+
+Part of BMad Method v6 - Phase 1 Analysis workflows

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

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Brainstorm Project - Workflow Instructions
+
+```xml
+<critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project_root}/bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
+<critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language}</critical>
+<critical>This is a meta-workflow that orchestrates the CIS brainstorming workflow with project-specific context</critical>
+
+<workflow>
+
+  <step n="1" goal="Validate workflow readiness" tag="workflow-status">
+    <action>Check if {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml exists</action>
+
+    <check if="status file not found">
+      <output>No workflow status file found. Brainstorming is optional - you can continue without status tracking.</output>
+      <action>Set standalone_mode = true</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <check if="status file found">
+      <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
+      <action>Parse workflow_status section</action>
+      <action>Check status of "brainstorm-project" workflow</action>
+      <action>Get project_level from YAML metadata</action>
+      <action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
+
+      <check if="brainstorm-project status is file path (already completed)">
+        <output>⚠️ Brainstorming session already completed: {{brainstorm-project status}}</output>
+        <ask>Re-running will create a new session. Continue? (y/n)</ask>
+        <check if="n">
+          <output>Exiting. Use workflow-status to see your next step.</output>
+          <action>Exit workflow</action>
+        </check>
+      </check>
+
+      <check if="brainstorm-project is not the next expected workflow (anything after brainstorm-project is completed already)">
+        <output>⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Brainstorming is out of sequence.</output>
+        <ask>Continue with brainstorming anyway? (y/n)</ask>
+        <check if="n">
+          <output>Exiting. Run {{next_workflow}} instead.</output>
+          <action>Exit workflow</action>
+        </check>
+      </check>
+
+      <action>Set standalone_mode = false</action>
+    </check>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="2" goal="Load project brainstorming context">
+    <action>Read the project context document from: {project_context}</action>
+    <action>This context provides project-specific guidance including:
+      - Focus areas for project ideation
+      - Key considerations for software/product projects
+      - Recommended techniques for project brainstorming
+      - Output structure guidance
+    </action>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="3" goal="Invoke core brainstorming with project context">
+    <action>Execute the CIS brainstorming workflow with project context</action>
+    <invoke-workflow path="{core_brainstorming}" data="{project_context}">
+      The CIS brainstorming workflow will:
+      - Present interactive brainstorming techniques menu
+      - Guide the user through selected ideation methods
+      - Generate and capture brainstorming session results
+      - Save output to: {output_folder}/brainstorming-session-results-{{date}}.md
+    </invoke-workflow>
+  </step>
+
+  <step n="4" goal="Update status and complete" tag="workflow-status">
+    <check if="standalone_mode != true">
+      <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
+      <action>Find workflow_status key "brainstorm-project"</action>
+      <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
+      <action>Update workflow_status["brainstorm-project"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-brainstorming-session-{{date}}.md"</action>
+      <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS</action>
+
+      <action>Find first non-completed workflow in workflow_status (next workflow to do)</action>
+      <action>Determine next agent from path file based on next workflow</action>
+    </check>
+
+    <output>**✅ Brainstorming Session Complete, {user_name}!**
+
+**Session Results:**
+
+- Brainstorming results saved to: {output_folder}/bmm-brainstorming-session-{{date}}.md
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+**Status Updated:**
+
+- Progress tracking updated
+
+**Next Steps:**
+
+- **Next required:** {{next_workflow}} ({{next_agent}} agent)
+- **Optional:** You can run other analysis workflows (research, product-brief) before proceeding
+
+Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
+{{else}}
+**Next Steps:**
+
+Since no workflow is in progress:
+
+- Refer to the BMM workflow guide if unsure what to do next
+- Or run `workflow-init` to create a workflow path and get guided next steps
+{{/if}}
+    </output>
+  </step>
+
+</workflow>
+```

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+workflow:
+  id: domain-research
+  name: "Domain Research"
+  module: bmm
+  version: "6.0.0-alpha"
+  description: "Collaborative exploration of domain-specific requirements, regulations, and patterns for complex projects"
+
+  environment:
+    # Inherit from parent workflow or set defaults
+    user_name: "partner"
+    user_skill_level: "intermediate"
+    communication_language: "English"
+    document_output_language: "English"
+    date: "{system.date}"
+
+  required_files:
+    - instructions.md
+    - template.md
+
+  optional_files:
+    - domain-knowledge-base.md
+
+  outputs:
+    - domain-brief.md
+
+  metadata:
+    category: "analysis"
+    complexity: "medium"
+    estimated_time: "30-45 minutes"
+    prerequisites:
+      - "Basic project understanding"
+    when_to_use:
+      - "Complex regulated domains (healthcare, finance, aerospace)"
+      - "Novel technical domains requiring deep understanding"
+      - "Before PRD when domain expertise needed"
+      - "When compliance and regulations matter"

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

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+# Product Brief Workflow
+
+## Overview
+
+Interactive product brief creation workflow that guides users through defining their product vision with multiple input sources and conversational collaboration. Supports both structured interactive mode and rapid "YOLO" mode for quick draft generation.
+
+## Key Features
+
+- **Dual Mode Operation** - Interactive step-by-step or rapid draft generation
+- **Multi-Input Support** - Integrates market research, competitive analysis, and brainstorming results
+- **Conversational Design** - Guides users through strategic thinking with probing questions
+- **Executive Summary Generation** - Creates compelling summaries for stakeholder communication
+- **Comprehensive Coverage** - Addresses all critical product planning dimensions
+- **Stakeholder Ready** - Generates professional briefs suitable for PM handoff
+
+## Usage
+
+### Basic Invocation
+
+```bash
+workflow product-brief
+```
+
+### With Input Documents
+
+```bash
+# With market research
+workflow product-brief --input market-research.md
+
+# With multiple inputs
+workflow product-brief --input market-research.md --input competitive-analysis.md
+```
+
+### Configuration
+
+- **brief_format**: "comprehensive" (full detail) or "executive" (3-page limit)
+- **autonomous**: false (requires user collaboration)
+- **output_folder**: Location for generated brief
+
+## Workflow Structure
+
+### Files Included
+
+```
+product-brief/
+├── workflow.yaml           # Configuration and metadata
+├── instructions.md         # Interactive workflow steps
+├── template.md            # Product brief document structure
+├── checklist.md           # Validation criteria
+└── README.md              # This file
+```
+
+## Workflow Process
+
+### Phase 1: Initialization and Context (Steps 0-2)
+
+- **Project Setup**: Captures project name and basic context
+- **Input Gathering**: Collects and analyzes available documents
+- **Mode Selection**: Chooses interactive or YOLO collaboration approach
+- **Context Extraction**: Identifies core problems and opportunities
+
+### Phase 2: Interactive Development (Steps 3-12) - Interactive Mode
+
+- **Problem Definition**: Deep dive into user pain points and market gaps
+- **Solution Articulation**: Develops clear value proposition and approach
+- **User Segmentation**: Defines primary and secondary target audiences
+- **Success Metrics**: Establishes measurable goals and KPIs
+- **MVP Scoping**: Ruthlessly defines minimum viable features
+- **Financial Planning**: Assesses ROI and strategic alignment
+- **Technical Context**: Captures platform and technology considerations
+- **Risk Assessment**: Identifies constraints, assumptions, and unknowns
+
+### Phase 3: Rapid Generation (Steps 3-4) - YOLO Mode
+
+- **Complete Draft**: Generates full brief based on initial context
+- **Iterative Refinement**: User-guided section improvements
+- **Quality Validation**: Ensures completeness and consistency
+
+### Phase 4: Finalization (Steps 13-15)
+
+- **Executive Summary**: Creates compelling overview for stakeholders
+- **Supporting Materials**: Compiles research summaries and references
+- **Final Review**: Quality check and handoff preparation
+
+## Output
+
+### Generated Files
+
+- **Primary output**: product-brief-{project_name}-{date}.md
+- **Supporting files**: Research summaries and stakeholder input documentation
+
+### Output Structure
+
+1. **Executive Summary** - High-level product concept and value proposition
+2. **Problem Statement** - Detailed problem analysis with evidence
+3. **Proposed Solution** - Core approach and key differentiators
+4. **Target Users** - Primary and secondary user segments with personas
+5. **Goals and Success Metrics** - Business objectives and measurable KPIs
+6. **MVP Scope** - Must-have features and out-of-scope items
+7. **Post-MVP Vision** - Phase 2 features and long-term roadmap
+8. **Financial Impact** - Investment requirements and ROI projections
+9. **Strategic Alignment** - Connection to company OKRs and initiatives
+10. **Technical Considerations** - Platform requirements and preferences
+11. **Constraints and Assumptions** - Resource limits and key assumptions
+12. **Risks and Open Questions** - Risk assessment and research needs
+13. **Supporting Materials** - Research summaries and references
+
+## Requirements
+
+No special requirements - designed to work with or without existing documentation.
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### Before Starting
+
+1. **Gather Available Research**: Collect any market research, competitive analysis, or user feedback
+2. **Define Stakeholder Audience**: Know who will use this brief for decision-making
+3. **Set Time Boundaries**: Interactive mode requires 60-90 minutes for quality results
+
+### During Execution
+
+1. **Be Specific**: Avoid generic statements - provide concrete examples and data
+2. **Think Strategically**: Focus on "why" and "what" rather than "how"
+3. **Challenge Assumptions**: Use the conversation to test and refine your thinking
+4. **Scope Ruthlessly**: Resist feature creep in MVP definition
+
+### After Completion
+
+1. **Validate with Checklist**: Use included criteria to ensure completeness
+2. **Stakeholder Review**: Share executive summary first, then full brief
+3. **Iterate Based on Feedback**: Product briefs should evolve with new insights
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+### Common Issues
+
+**Issue**: Brief lacks specificity or contains vague statements
+
+- **Solution**: Restart problem definition with concrete examples and measurable impacts
+- **Check**: Ensure each section answers "so what?" and provides actionable insights
+
+**Issue**: MVP scope is too large or undefined
+
+- **Solution**: Use the "what's the minimum to validate core hypothesis?" filter
+- **Check**: Verify that each MVP feature is truly essential for initial value delivery
+
+**Issue**: Missing strategic context or business justification
+
+- **Solution**: Return to financial impact and strategic alignment sections
+- **Check**: Ensure connection to company goals and clear ROI potential
+
+## Customization
+
+To customize this workflow:
+
+1. **Modify Questions**: Update instructions.md to add industry-specific or company-specific prompts
+2. **Adjust Template**: Customize template.md sections for organizational brief standards
+3. **Add Validation**: Extend checklist.md with company-specific quality criteria
+4. **Configure Modes**: Adjust brief_format settings for different output styles
+
+## Version History
+
+- **v6.0.0** - Interactive conversational design with dual modes
+  - Interactive and YOLO mode support
+  - Multi-input document integration
+  - Executive summary generation
+  - Strategic alignment focus
+
+## Support
+
+For issues or questions:
+
+- Review the workflow creation guide at `/bmad/bmb/workflows/create-workflow/workflow-creation-guide.md`
+- Validate output using `checklist.md`
+- Consider running market research workflow first if lacking business context
+- Consult BMAD documentation for product planning methodology
+
+---
+
+_Part of the BMad Method v6 - BMM (Method) Module_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ -0,0 +1,454 @@
+# Research Workflow - Multi-Type Research System
+
+## Overview
+
+The Research Workflow is a comprehensive, adaptive research system that supports multiple research types through an intelligent router pattern. This workflow consolidates various research methodologies into a single, powerful tool that adapts to your specific research needs - from market analysis to technical evaluation to AI prompt generation.
+
+**Version 2.0.0** - Multi-type research system with router-based architecture
+
+## Key Features
+
+### 🔀 Intelligent Research Router
+
+- **6 Research Types**: Market, Deep Prompt, Technical, Competitive, User, Domain
+- **Dynamic Instructions**: Loads appropriate instruction set based on research type
+- **Adaptive Templates**: Selects optimal output format for research goal
+- **Context-Aware**: Adjusts frameworks and methods per research type
+
+### 🔍 Market Research (Type: `market`)
+
+- Real-time web research for current market data
+- TAM/SAM/SOM calculations with multiple methodologies
+- Competitive landscape analysis and positioning
+- Customer persona development and Jobs-to-be-Done
+- Porter's Five Forces and strategic frameworks
+- Go-to-market strategy recommendations
+
+### 🤖 Deep Research Prompt Generation (Type: `deep_prompt`)
+
+- **Optimized for AI Research Platforms**: ChatGPT Deep Research, Gemini, Grok DeepSearch, Claude Projects
+- **Prompt Engineering Best Practices**: Multi-stage research workflows, iterative refinement
+- **Platform-Specific Optimization**: Tailored prompts for each AI research tool
+- **Context Packaging**: Structures background information for optimal AI understanding
+- **Research Question Refinement**: Transforms vague questions into precise research prompts
+
+### 🏗️ Technical/Architecture Research (Type: `technical`)
+
+- Technology evaluation and comparison matrices
+- Architecture pattern research and trade-off analysis
+- Framework/library assessment with pros/cons
+- Technical feasibility studies
+- Cost-benefit analysis for technology decisions
+- Architecture Decision Records (ADR) generation
+
+### 🎯 Competitive Intelligence (Type: `competitive`)
+
+- Deep competitor analysis and profiling
+- Competitive positioning and gap analysis
+- Strategic group mapping
+- Feature comparison matrices
+- Pricing strategy analysis
+- Market share and growth tracking
+
+### 👥 User Research (Type: `user`)
+
+- Customer insights and behavioral analysis
+- Persona development with demographics and psychographics
+- Jobs-to-be-Done framework application
+- Customer journey mapping
+- Pain point identification
+- Willingness-to-pay analysis
+
+### 🌐 Domain/Industry Research (Type: `domain`)
+
+- Industry deep dives and trend analysis
+- Regulatory landscape assessment
+- Domain expertise synthesis
+- Best practices identification
+- Standards and compliance requirements
+- Emerging patterns and disruptions
+
+## Usage
+
+### Basic Invocation
+
+```bash
+workflow research
+```
+
+The workflow will prompt you to select a research type.
+
+### Direct Research Type Selection
+
+```bash
+# Market research
+workflow research --type market
+
+# Deep research prompt generation
+workflow research --type deep_prompt
+
+# Technical evaluation
+workflow research --type technical
+
+# Competitive intelligence
+workflow research --type competitive
+
+# User research
+workflow research --type user
+
+# Domain analysis
+workflow research --type domain
+```
+
+### With Input Documents
+
+```bash
+workflow research --type market --input product-brief.md --input competitor-list.md
+workflow research --type technical --input requirements.md --input architecture.md
+workflow research --type deep_prompt --input research-question.md
+```
+
+### Configuration Options
+
+Can be customized through `workflow.yaml`:
+
+- **research_depth**: `quick`, `standard`, or `comprehensive`
+- **enable_web_research**: `true`/`false` for real-time data gathering
+- **enable_competitor_analysis**: `true`/`false` (market/competitive types)
+- **enable_financial_modeling**: `true`/`false` (market type)
+
+## Workflow Structure
+
+### Files Included
+
+```
+research/
+├── workflow.yaml                  # Multi-type configuration
+├── instructions-router.md         # Router logic (loads correct instructions)
+├── instructions-market.md         # Market research workflow
+├── instructions-deep-prompt.md    # Deep prompt generation workflow
+├── instructions-technical.md      # Technical evaluation workflow
+├── template-market.md             # Market research report template
+├── template-deep-prompt.md        # Research prompt template
+├── template-technical.md          # Technical evaluation template
+├── checklist.md                   # Universal validation criteria
+├── README.md                      # This file
+└── claude-code/                   # Claude Code enhancements (optional)
+    ├── injections.yaml            # Integration configuration
+    └── sub-agents/                # Specialized research agents
+        ├── bmm-market-researcher.md
+        ├── bmm-trend-spotter.md
+        ├── bmm-data-analyst.md
+        ├── bmm-competitor-analyzer.md
+        ├── bmm-user-researcher.md
+        └── bmm-technical-evaluator.md
+```
+
+## Workflow Process
+
+### Phase 1: Research Type Selection and Setup
+
+1. Router presents research type menu
+2. User selects research type (market, deep_prompt, technical, competitive, user, domain)
+3. Router loads appropriate instructions and template
+4. Gather research parameters and inputs
+
+### Phase 2: Research Type-Specific Execution
+
+**For Market Research:**
+
+1. Define research objectives and market boundaries
+2. Conduct web research across multiple sources
+3. Calculate TAM/SAM/SOM with triangulation
+4. Develop customer segments and personas
+5. Analyze competitive landscape
+6. Apply industry frameworks (Porter's Five Forces, etc.)
+7. Identify trends and opportunities
+8. Develop strategic recommendations
+9. Create financial projections (optional)
+10. Compile comprehensive report
+
+**For Deep Prompt Generation:**
+
+1. Analyze research question or topic
+2. Identify optimal AI research platform (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Claude)
+3. Structure research context and background
+4. Generate platform-optimized prompt
+5. Create multi-stage research workflow
+6. Define iteration and refinement strategy
+7. Package with context documents
+8. Provide execution guidance
+
+**For Technical Research:**
+
+1. Define technical requirements and constraints
+2. Identify technologies/frameworks to evaluate
+3. Research each option (documentation, community, maturity)
+4. Create comparison matrix with criteria
+5. Perform trade-off analysis
+6. Calculate cost-benefit for each option
+7. Generate Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
+8. Provide recommendation with rationale
+
+**For Competitive/User/Domain:**
+
+- Uses market research workflow with specific focus
+- Adapts questions and frameworks to research type
+- Customizes output format for target audience
+
+### Phase 3: Validation and Delivery
+
+1. Review outputs against checklist
+2. Validate completeness and quality
+3. Generate final report/document
+4. Provide next steps and recommendations
+
+## Output
+
+### Generated Files by Research Type
+
+**Market Research:**
+
+- `market-research-{product_name}-{date}.md`
+- Comprehensive market analysis report (10+ sections)
+
+**Deep Research Prompt:**
+
+- `deep-research-prompt-{date}.md`
+- Optimized AI research prompt with context and instructions
+
+**Technical Research:**
+
+- `technical-research-{date}.md`
+- Technology evaluation with comparison matrix and ADR
+
+**Competitive Intelligence:**
+
+- `competitive-intelligence-{date}.md`
+- Detailed competitor analysis and positioning
+
+**User Research:**
+
+- `user-research-{date}.md`
+- Customer insights and persona documentation
+
+**Domain Research:**
+
+- `domain-research-{date}.md`
+- Industry deep dive with trends and best practices
+
+## Requirements
+
+### All Research Types
+
+- BMAD Core v6 project structure
+- Web search capability (for real-time research)
+- Access to research data sources
+
+### Market Research
+
+- Product or business description
+- Target customer hypotheses (optional)
+- Known competitors list (optional)
+
+### Deep Prompt Research
+
+- Research question or topic
+- Background context documents (optional)
+- Target AI platform preference (optional)
+
+### Technical Research
+
+- Technical requirements document
+- Current architecture (if brownfield)
+- Technical constraints list
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### Before Starting
+
+1. **Know Your Research Goal**: Select the most appropriate research type
+2. **Gather Context**: Collect relevant documents before starting
+3. **Set Depth Level**: Choose appropriate research_depth (quick/standard/comprehensive)
+4. **Define Success Criteria**: What decisions will this research inform?
+
+### During Execution
+
+**Market Research:**
+
+- Provide specific product/service details
+- Validate market boundaries carefully
+- Review TAM/SAM/SOM assumptions
+- Challenge competitive positioning
+
+**Deep Prompt Generation:**
+
+- Be specific about research platform target
+- Provide rich context documents
+- Clarify expected research outcome
+- Define iteration strategy
+
+**Technical Research:**
+
+- List all evaluation criteria upfront
+- Weight criteria by importance
+- Consider long-term implications
+- Include cost analysis
+
+### After Completion
+
+1. Review using the validation checklist
+2. Update with any missing information
+3. Share with stakeholders for feedback
+4. Schedule follow-up research if needed
+5. Document decisions made based on research
+
+## Research Frameworks Available
+
+### Market Research Frameworks
+
+- TAM/SAM/SOM Analysis
+- Porter's Five Forces
+- Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD)
+- Technology Adoption Lifecycle
+- SWOT Analysis
+- Value Chain Analysis
+
+### Technical Research Frameworks
+
+- Trade-off Analysis Matrix
+- Architecture Decision Records (ADR)
+- Technology Radar
+- Comparison Matrix
+- Cost-Benefit Analysis
+- Technical Risk Assessment
+
+### Deep Prompt Frameworks
+
+- ChatGPT Deep Research Best Practices
+- Gemini Deep Research Framework
+- Grok DeepSearch Optimization
+- Claude Projects Methodology
+- Iterative Prompt Refinement
+
+## Data Sources
+
+The workflow leverages multiple data sources:
+
+- Industry reports and publications
+- Government statistics and databases
+- Financial reports and SEC filings
+- News articles and press releases
+- Academic research papers
+- Technical documentation and RFCs
+- GitHub repositories and discussions
+- Stack Overflow and developer forums
+- Market research firm reports
+- Social media and communities
+- Patent databases
+- Benchmarking studies
+
+## Claude Code Enhancements
+
+### Available Subagents
+
+1. **bmm-market-researcher** - Market intelligence gathering
+2. **bmm-trend-spotter** - Emerging trends and weak signals
+3. **bmm-data-analyst** - Quantitative analysis and modeling
+4. **bmm-competitor-analyzer** - Competitive intelligence
+5. **bmm-user-researcher** - Customer insights and personas
+6. **bmm-technical-evaluator** - Technology assessment
+
+These are automatically invoked during workflow execution if Claude Code integration is configured.
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+### Issue: Don't know which research type to choose
+
+- **Solution**: Start with research question - "What do I need to know?"
+  - Market viability? → `market`
+  - Best technology? → `technical`
+  - Need AI to research deeper? → `deep_prompt`
+  - Who are competitors? → `competitive`
+  - Who are users? → `user`
+  - Industry understanding? → `domain`
+
+### Issue: Market research results seem incomplete
+
+- **Solution**: Increase research_depth to `comprehensive`
+- **Check**: Enable web_research in workflow.yaml
+- **Try**: Run competitive and user research separately for more depth
+
+### Issue: Deep prompt doesn't work with target platform
+
+- **Solution**: Review platform-specific best practices in generated prompt
+- **Check**: Ensure context documents are included
+- **Try**: Regenerate with different platform selection
+
+### Issue: Technical comparison is subjective
+
+- **Solution**: Add more objective criteria (performance metrics, cost, community size)
+- **Check**: Weight criteria by business importance
+- **Try**: Run pilot implementations for top 2 options
+
+## Customization
+
+### Adding New Research Types
+
+1. Create new instructions file: `instructions-{type}.md`
+2. Create new template file: `template-{type}.md`
+3. Add research type to `workflow.yaml` `research_types` section
+4. Update router logic in `instructions-router.md`
+
+### Modifying Existing Research Types
+
+1. Edit appropriate `instructions-{type}.md` file
+2. Update corresponding `template-{type}.md` if needed
+3. Adjust validation criteria in `checklist.md`
+
+### Creating Custom Frameworks
+
+Add to `workflow.yaml` `frameworks` section under appropriate research type.
+
+## Version History
+
+- **v2.0.0** - Multi-type research system with router architecture
+  - Added deep_prompt research type for AI research platform optimization
+  - Added technical research type for technology evaluation
+  - Consolidated competitive, user, domain under market with focus variants
+  - Router-based instruction loading
+  - Template selection by research type
+  - Enhanced Claude Code subagent support
+
+- **v1.0.0** - Initial market research only implementation
+  - Single-purpose market research workflow
+  - Now deprecated in favor of v2.0.0 multi-type system
+
+## Support
+
+For issues or questions:
+
+- Review workflow creation guide at `/bmad/bmb/workflows/create-workflow/workflow-creation-guide.md`
+- Check validation against `checklist.md`
+- Examine router logic in `instructions-router.md`
+- Review research type-specific instructions
+- Consult BMAD Method v6 documentation
+
+## Migration from v1.0 market-research
+
+If you're used to the standalone `market-research` workflow:
+
+```bash
+# Old way
+workflow market-research
+
+# New way
+workflow research --type market
+# Or just: workflow research (then select market)
+```
+
+All market research functionality is preserved and enhanced in v2.0.0.
+
+---
+
+_Part of the BMad Method v6 - BMM (BMad Method) Module - Empowering systematic research and analysis_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Research Workflow Router Instructions
+
+<critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project_root}/bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
+<critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>Communicate in {communication_language}, generate documents in {document_output_language}</critical>
+<critical>Web research is ENABLED - always use current {{current_year}} data</critical>
+
+<critical>🚨 ANTI-HALLUCINATION PROTOCOL - MANDATORY 🚨</critical>
+<critical>NEVER present information without a verified source - if you cannot find a source, say "I could not find reliable data on this"</critical>
+<critical>ALWAYS cite sources with URLs when presenting data, statistics, or factual claims</critical>
+<critical>REQUIRE at least 2 independent sources for critical claims (market size, growth rates, competitive data)</critical>
+<critical>When sources conflict, PRESENT BOTH views and note the discrepancy - do NOT pick one arbitrarily</critical>
+<critical>Flag any data you are uncertain about with confidence levels: [High Confidence], [Medium Confidence], [Low Confidence - verify]</critical>
+<critical>Distinguish clearly between: FACTS (from sources), ANALYSIS (your interpretation), and SPECULATION (educated guesses)</critical>
+<critical>When using WebSearch results, ALWAYS extract and include the source URL for every claim</critical>
+
+<!-- IDE-INJECT-POINT: research-subagents -->
+
+<workflow>
+
+<critical>This is a ROUTER that directs to specialized research instruction sets</critical>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Validate workflow readiness" tag="workflow-status">
+<action>Check if {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml exists</action>
+
+<check if="status file not found">
+  <output>No workflow status file found. Research is optional - you can continue without status tracking.</output>
+  <action>Set standalone_mode = true</action>
+</check>
+
+<check if="status file found">
+  <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
+  <action>Parse workflow_status section</action>
+  <action>Check status of "research" workflow</action>
+  <action>Get project_level from YAML metadata</action>
+  <action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
+  <action>Pass status context to loaded instruction set for final update</action>
+
+  <check if="research status is file path (already completed)">
+    <output>⚠️ Research already completed: {{research status}}</output>
+    <ask>Re-running will create a new research report. Continue? (y/n)</ask>
+    <check if="n">
+      <output>Exiting. Use workflow-status to see your next step.</output>
+      <action>Exit workflow</action>
+    </check>
+  </check>
+
+  <check if="research is not the next expected workflow (latter items are completed already in the list)">
+    <output>⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Research is out of sequence.</output>
+    <output>Note: Research can provide valuable insights at any project stage.</output>
+    <ask>Continue with Research anyway? (y/n)</ask>
+    <check if="n">
+      <output>Exiting. Run {{next_workflow}} instead.</output>
+      <action>Exit workflow</action>
+    </check>
+  </check>
+
+<action>Set standalone_mode = false</action>
+</check>
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Discover research needs through conversation">
+
+<action>Welcome {user_name} warmly. Position yourself as their research partner who uses live {{current_year}} web data. Ask what they're looking to understand or research.</action>
+
+<action>Listen and collaboratively identify the research type based on what they describe:
+
+- Market/Business questions → Market Research
+- Competitor questions → Competitive Intelligence
+- Customer questions → User Research
+- Technology questions → Technical Research
+- Industry questions → Domain Research
+- Creating research prompts for AI platforms → Deep Research Prompt Generator
+
+Confirm your understanding of what type would be most helpful and what it will produce.
+</action>
+
+<action>Capture {{research_type}} and {{research_mode}}</action>
+
+<template-output>research_type_discovery</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Route to Appropriate Research Instructions">
+
+<critical>Based on user selection, load the appropriate instruction set</critical>
+
+<check if="research_type == 1 OR fuzzy match market research">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "market"</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Continue with market research workflow</action>
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 2 or prompt or fuzzy match deep research prompt">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "deep-prompt"</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-deep-prompt.md</action>
+  <action>Continue with deep research prompt generation</action>
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 3 technical or architecture or fuzzy match indicates technical type of research">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "technical"</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-technical.md</action>
+  <action>Continue with technical research workflow</action>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 4 or fuzzy match competitive">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "competitive"</action>
+  <action>This will use market research workflow with competitive focus</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Pass mode="competitive" to focus on competitive intelligence</action>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 5 or fuzzy match user research">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "user"</action>
+  <action>This will use market research workflow with user research focus</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Pass mode="user" to focus on customer insights</action>
+
+</check>
+
+<check if="research_type == 6 or fuzzy match domain or industry or category">
+  <action>Set research_mode = "domain"</action>
+  <action>This will use market research workflow with domain focus</action>
+  <action>LOAD: {installed_path}/instructions-market.md</action>
+  <action>Pass mode="domain" to focus on industry/domain analysis</action>
+</check>
+
+<critical>The loaded instruction set will continue from here with full context of the {research_type}</critical>
+
+</step>
+
+</workflow>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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