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/testarch/test-design/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Test Design and Risk Assessment - Validation Checklist
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- [ ] Story markdown with clear acceptance criteria exists
+- [ ] PRD or epic documentation available
+- [ ] Architecture documents available (optional)
+- [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
+
+## Process Steps
+
+### Step 1: Context Loading
+
+- [ ] PRD.md read and requirements extracted
+- [ ] Epics.md or specific epic documentation loaded
+- [ ] Story markdown with acceptance criteria analyzed
+- [ ] Architecture documents reviewed (if available)
+- [ ] Existing test coverage analyzed
+- [ ] Knowledge base fragments loaded (risk-governance, probability-impact, test-levels, test-priorities)
+
+### Step 2: Risk Assessment
+
+- [ ] Genuine risks identified (not just features)
+- [ ] Risks classified by category (TECH/SEC/PERF/DATA/BUS/OPS)
+- [ ] Probability scored (1-3 for each risk)
+- [ ] Impact scored (1-3 for each risk)
+- [ ] Risk scores calculated (probability × impact)
+- [ ] High-priority risks (score ≥6) flagged
+- [ ] Mitigation plans defined for high-priority risks
+- [ ] Owners assigned for each mitigation
+- [ ] Timelines set for mitigations
+- [ ] Residual risk documented
+
+### Step 3: Coverage Design
+
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria broken into atomic scenarios
+- [ ] Test levels selected (E2E/API/Component/Unit)
+- [ ] No duplicate coverage across levels
+- [ ] Priority levels assigned (P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- [ ] P0 scenarios meet strict criteria (blocks core + high risk + no workaround)
+- [ ] Data prerequisites identified
+- [ ] Tooling requirements documented
+- [ ] Execution order defined (smoke → P0 → P1 → P2/P3)
+
+### Step 4: Deliverables Generation
+
+- [ ] Risk assessment matrix created
+- [ ] Coverage matrix created
+- [ ] Execution order documented
+- [ ] Resource estimates calculated
+- [ ] Quality gate criteria defined
+- [ ] Output file written to correct location
+- [ ] Output file uses template structure
+
+## Output Validation
+
+### Risk Assessment Matrix
+
+- [ ] All risks have unique IDs (R-001, R-002, etc.)
+- [ ] Each risk has category assigned
+- [ ] Probability values are 1, 2, or 3
+- [ ] Impact values are 1, 2, or 3
+- [ ] Scores calculated correctly (P × I)
+- [ ] High-priority risks (≥6) clearly marked
+- [ ] Mitigation strategies specific and actionable
+
+### Coverage Matrix
+
+- [ ] All requirements mapped to test levels
+- [ ] Priorities assigned to all scenarios
+- [ ] Risk linkage documented
+- [ ] Test counts realistic
+- [ ] Owners assigned where applicable
+- [ ] No duplicate coverage (same behavior at multiple levels)
+
+### Execution Order
+
+- [ ] Smoke tests defined (<5 min target)
+- [ ] P0 tests listed (<10 min target)
+- [ ] P1 tests listed (<30 min target)
+- [ ] P2/P3 tests listed (<60 min target)
+- [ ] Order optimizes for fast feedback
+
+### Resource Estimates
+
+- [ ] P0 hours calculated (count × 2 hours)
+- [ ] P1 hours calculated (count × 1 hour)
+- [ ] P2 hours calculated (count × 0.5 hours)
+- [ ] P3 hours calculated (count × 0.25 hours)
+- [ ] Total hours summed
+- [ ] Days estimate provided (hours / 8)
+- [ ] Estimates include setup time
+
+### Quality Gate Criteria
+
+- [ ] P0 pass rate threshold defined (should be 100%)
+- [ ] P1 pass rate threshold defined (typically ≥95%)
+- [ ] High-risk mitigation completion required
+- [ ] Coverage targets specified (≥80% recommended)
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+### Evidence-Based Assessment
+
+- [ ] Risk assessment based on documented evidence
+- [ ] No speculation on business impact
+- [ ] Assumptions clearly documented
+- [ ] Clarifications requested where needed
+- [ ] Historical data referenced where available
+
+### Risk Classification Accuracy
+
+- [ ] TECH risks are architecture/integration issues
+- [ ] SEC risks are security vulnerabilities
+- [ ] PERF risks are performance/scalability concerns
+- [ ] DATA risks are data integrity issues
+- [ ] BUS risks are business/revenue impacts
+- [ ] OPS risks are deployment/operational issues
+
+### Priority Assignment Accuracy
+
+- [ ] P0: Truly blocks core functionality
+- [ ] P0: High-risk (score ≥6)
+- [ ] P0: No workaround exists
+- [ ] P1: Important but not blocking
+- [ ] P2/P3: Nice-to-have or edge cases
+
+### Test Level Selection
+
+- [ ] E2E used only for critical paths
+- [ ] API tests cover complex business logic
+- [ ] Component tests for UI interactions
+- [ ] Unit tests for edge cases and algorithms
+- [ ] No redundant coverage
+
+## Integration Points
+
+### Knowledge Base Integration
+
+- [ ] risk-governance.md consulted
+- [ ] probability-impact.md applied
+- [ ] test-levels-framework.md referenced
+- [ ] test-priorities-matrix.md used
+- [ ] Additional fragments loaded as needed
+
+### Status File Integration
+
+- [ ] bmm-workflow-status.md exists
+- [ ] Test design logged in Quality & Testing Progress
+- [ ] Epic number and scope documented
+- [ ] Completion timestamp recorded
+
+### Workflow Dependencies
+
+- [ ] Can proceed to `atdd` workflow with P0 scenarios
+- [ ] Can proceed to `automate` workflow with full coverage plan
+- [ ] Risk assessment informs `gate` workflow criteria
+- [ ] Integrates with `ci` workflow execution order
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+**All must be true:**
+
+- [ ] All prerequisites met
+- [ ] All process steps completed
+- [ ] All output validations passed
+- [ ] All quality checks passed
+- [ ] All integration points verified
+- [ ] Output file complete and well-formatted
+- [ ] Team review scheduled (if required)
+
+## Post-Workflow Actions
+
+**User must complete:**
+
+1. [ ] Review risk assessment with team
+2. [ ] Prioritize mitigation for high-priority risks (score ≥6)
+3. [ ] Allocate resources per estimates
+4. [ ] Run `atdd` workflow to generate P0 tests
+5. [ ] Set up test data factories and fixtures
+6. [ ] Schedule team review of test design document
+
+**Recommended next workflows:**
+
+1. [ ] Run `atdd` workflow for P0 test generation
+2. [ ] Run `framework` workflow if not already done
+3. [ ] Run `ci` workflow to configure pipeline stages
+
+## Rollback Procedure
+
+If workflow fails:
+
+1. [ ] Delete output file
+2. [ ] Review error logs
+3. [ ] Fix missing context (PRD, architecture docs)
+4. [ ] Clarify ambiguous requirements
+5. [ ] Retry workflow
+
+## Notes
+
+### Common Issues
+
+**Issue**: Too many P0 tests
+
+- **Solution**: Apply strict P0 criteria - must block core AND high risk AND no workaround
+
+**Issue**: Risk scores all high
+
+- **Solution**: Differentiate between high-impact (3) and degraded (2) impacts
+
+**Issue**: Duplicate coverage across levels
+
+- **Solution**: Use test pyramid - E2E for critical paths only
+
+**Issue**: Resource estimates too high
+
+- **Solution**: Invest in fixtures/factories to reduce per-test setup time
+
+### Best Practices
+
+- Base risk assessment on evidence, not assumptions
+- High-priority risks (≥6) require immediate mitigation
+- P0 tests should cover <10% of total scenarios
+- Avoid testing same behavior at multiple levels
+- Include smoke tests (P0 subset) for fast feedback
+
+---
+
+**Checklist Complete**: Sign off when all items validated.
+
+**Completed by:** **\*\***\_\_\_**\*\***
+**Date:** **\*\***\_\_\_**\*\***
+**Epic:** **\*\***\_\_\_**\*\***
+**Notes:** \***\*\*\*\*\***\*\*\***\*\*\*\*\***\_\_\_\***\*\*\*\*\***\*\*\***\*\*\*\*\***