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/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+# Implementation Readiness Validation Checklist
+
+## Document Completeness
+
+### Core Planning Documents
+
+- [ ] PRD exists and is complete (Level 2-4 projects)
+- [ ] PRD contains measurable success criteria
+- [ ] PRD defines clear scope boundaries and exclusions
+- [ ] Architecture document exists (architecture\*.md) (Level 3-4 projects)
+- [ ] Technical Specification exists with implementation details
+- [ ] Epic and story breakdown document exists
+- [ ] All documents are dated and versioned
+
+### Document Quality
+
+- [ ] No placeholder sections remain in any document
+- [ ] All documents use consistent terminology
+- [ ] Technical decisions include rationale and trade-offs
+- [ ] Assumptions and risks are explicitly documented
+- [ ] Dependencies are clearly identified and documented
+
+## Alignment Verification
+
+### PRD to Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4)
+
+- [ ] Every functional requirement in PRD has architectural support documented
+- [ ] All non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture
+- [ ] Architecture doesn't introduce features beyond PRD scope
+- [ ] Performance requirements from PRD match architecture capabilities
+- [ ] Security requirements from PRD are fully addressed in architecture
+- [ ] If architecture.md: Implementation patterns are defined for consistency
+- [ ] If architecture.md: All technology choices have verified versions
+- [ ] If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements
+
+### PRD to Stories Coverage (Level 2-4)
+
+- [ ] Every PRD requirement maps to at least one story
+- [ ] All user journeys in PRD have complete story coverage
+- [ ] Story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
+- [ ] Priority levels in stories match PRD feature priorities
+- [ ] No stories exist without PRD requirement traceability
+
+### Architecture to Stories Implementation
+
+- [ ] All architectural components have implementation stories
+- [ ] Infrastructure setup stories exist for each architectural layer
+- [ ] Integration points defined in architecture have corresponding stories
+- [ ] Data migration/setup stories exist if required by architecture
+- [ ] Security implementation stories cover all architecture security decisions
+
+## Story and Sequencing Quality
+
+### Story Completeness
+
+- [ ] All stories have clear acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Technical tasks are defined within relevant stories
+- [ ] Stories include error handling and edge cases
+- [ ] Each story has clear definition of done
+- [ ] Stories are appropriately sized (no epic-level stories remaining)
+
+### Sequencing and Dependencies
+
+- [ ] Stories are sequenced in logical implementation order
+- [ ] Dependencies between stories are explicitly documented
+- [ ] No circular dependencies exist
+- [ ] Prerequisite technical tasks precede dependent stories
+- [ ] Foundation/infrastructure stories come before feature stories
+
+### Greenfield Project Specifics
+
+- [ ] Initial project setup and configuration stories exist
+- [ ] If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization command
+- [ ] Development environment setup is documented
+- [ ] CI/CD pipeline stories are included early in sequence
+- [ ] Database/storage initialization stories are properly placed
+- [ ] Authentication/authorization stories precede protected features
+
+## Risk and Gap Assessment
+
+### Critical Gaps
+
+- [ ] No core PRD requirements lack story coverage
+- [ ] No architectural decisions lack implementation stories
+- [ ] All integration points have implementation plans
+- [ ] Error handling strategy is defined and implemented
+- [ ] Security concerns are all addressed
+
+### Technical Risks
+
+- [ ] No conflicting technical approaches between stories
+- [ ] Technology choices are consistent across all documents
+- [ ] Performance requirements are achievable with chosen architecture
+- [ ] Scalability concerns are addressed if applicable
+- [ ] Third-party dependencies are identified with fallback plans
+
+## UX and Special Concerns (if applicable)
+
+### UX Coverage
+
+- [ ] UX requirements are documented in PRD
+- [ ] UX implementation tasks exist in relevant stories
+- [ ] Accessibility requirements have story coverage
+- [ ] Responsive design requirements are addressed
+- [ ] User flow continuity is maintained across stories
+
+### Special Considerations
+
+- [ ] Compliance requirements are fully addressed
+- [ ] Internationalization needs are covered if required
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks are defined and measurable
+- [ ] Monitoring and observability stories exist
+- [ ] Documentation stories are included where needed
+
+## Overall Readiness
+
+### Ready to Proceed Criteria
+
+- [ ] All critical issues have been resolved
+- [ ] High priority concerns have mitigation plans
+- [ ] Story sequencing supports iterative delivery
+- [ ] Team has necessary skills for implementation
+- [ ] No blocking dependencies remain unresolved
+
+### Quality Indicators
+
+- [ ] Documents demonstrate thorough analysis
+- [ ] Clear traceability exists across all artifacts
+- [ ] Consistent level of detail throughout documents
+- [ ] Risks are identified with mitigation strategies
+- [ ] Success criteria are measurable and achievable
+
+## Assessment Completion
+
+### Report Quality
+
+- [ ] All findings are supported by specific examples
+- [ ] Recommendations are actionable and specific
+- [ ] Severity levels are appropriately assigned
+- [ ] Positive findings are highlighted
+- [ ] Next steps are clearly defined
+
+### Process Validation
+
+- [ ] All expected documents were reviewed
+- [ ] Cross-references were systematically checked
+- [ ] Project level considerations were applied correctly
+- [ ] Workflow status was checked and considered
+- [ ] Output folder was thoroughly searched for artifacts
+
+---
+
+## Issue Log
+
+### Critical Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+### High Priority Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+### Medium Priority Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+---
+
+_Use this checklist to ensure comprehensive validation of implementation readiness_