mirror of
https://github.com/bmadcode/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00
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>
This commit is contained in:
Brian Madison
670
src/modules/bmm/docs/workflows-analysis.md
Normal file
670
src/modules/bmm/docs/workflows-analysis.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,670 @@
|
||||
# BMM Analysis Workflows (Phase 1)
|
||||
|
||||
**Reading Time:** ~12 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 (Analysis) workflows are **optional** exploration and discovery tools that help you understand your project space before committing to detailed planning. These workflows facilitate creative thinking, market validation, and strategic alignment.
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use Analysis workflows:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Starting a new project from scratch
|
||||
- Exploring a problem space or opportunity
|
||||
- Validating market fit before significant investment
|
||||
- Gathering strategic context for planning phases
|
||||
|
||||
**When to skip Analysis workflows:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Continuing an existing project with clear requirements
|
||||
- Working on well-defined features with known solutions
|
||||
- Operating under strict time constraints where discovery is complete
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
| Workflow | Agent | Duration | Required | Purpose |
|
||||
| ------------------ | ------- | --------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| brainstorm-project | Analyst | 30-60 min | No | Explore solution approaches and architectures |
|
||||
| brainstorm-game | Analyst | 45-90 min | No | Generate game concepts using creative techniques |
|
||||
| product-brief | PM | 60-90 min | Recommended | Define product vision and strategy |
|
||||
| game-brief | PM | 60-90 min | Recommended | Capture game vision before GDD |
|
||||
| research | Analyst | Varies | No | Multi-type research system (market, technical, competitive) |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## brainstorm-project
|
||||
|
||||
### Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Generate multiple solution approaches for software projects through parallel ideation tracks that align technical and business thinking from inception.
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent:** Analyst
|
||||
**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
|
||||
**Required:** No
|
||||
**Typical Duration:** 30-60 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- You have a business objective but unclear technical approach
|
||||
- Multiple solution paths exist and you need to evaluate trade-offs
|
||||
- Hidden assumptions need discovery before planning
|
||||
- Innovation beyond obvious solutions is valuable
|
||||
|
||||
### Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
- Business objectives and constraints
|
||||
- Technical environment context
|
||||
- Stakeholder needs identified
|
||||
- Success criteria defined (at least preliminary)
|
||||
|
||||
### Process Overview
|
||||
|
||||
**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 sequences
|
||||
|
||||
**3. Solution Synthesis**
|
||||
|
||||
- Evaluate feasibility and impact
|
||||
- Align with strategic objectives
|
||||
- Surface hidden assumptions
|
||||
- Generate recommendations with rationale
|
||||
|
||||
### Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
| Input | Type | Purpose |
|
||||
| ----------------- | -------- | --------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| Project Context | Document | Business objectives, environment, constraints |
|
||||
| Problem Statement | Optional | Core challenge or opportunity to address |
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 |
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Starting Point:**
|
||||
"We need a customer dashboard for our SaaS product"
|
||||
|
||||
**After brainstorm-project:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Architecture Option A**: Monolith with server-side rendering (faster to market, easier ops)
|
||||
- **Architecture Option B**: Microservices + SPA (better scalability, more complex)
|
||||
- **Architecture Option C**: Hybrid approach (SSR shell + client-side islands)
|
||||
- **Recommendation**: Option A for MVP, with clear path to Option C as we scale
|
||||
- **Risk**: Option A may require rewrite if we hit 10K+ concurrent users
|
||||
|
||||
### Related Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
- **research** - Deep investigation of market/technical options
|
||||
- **product-brief** - Strategic planning document
|
||||
- **prd** (Phase 2) - Requirements document from chosen approach
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## brainstorm-game
|
||||
|
||||
### Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Generate and refine game concepts through systematic creative exploration using five distinct brainstorming techniques, grounded in practical constraints.
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent:** Analyst
|
||||
**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
|
||||
**Required:** No
|
||||
**Typical Duration:** 45-90 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- Generating original game concepts
|
||||
- Exploring variations on a theme
|
||||
- Breaking creative blocks
|
||||
- Validating game ideas against constraints
|
||||
|
||||
### Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
- Platform specifications (mobile, PC, console, web)
|
||||
- Genre preferences or inspirations
|
||||
- Technical constraints understood
|
||||
- Target audience defined
|
||||
- Core design pillars identified (at least preliminary)
|
||||
|
||||
### Process Overview
|
||||
|
||||
**Five Brainstorming Methods** (applied in isolation, then synthesized):
|
||||
|
||||
| Method | Focus | Output Characteristics |
|
||||
| ----------------------- | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------- |
|
||||
| SCAMPER | Systematic modification | Structured transformation analysis |
|
||||
| Mind Mapping | Hierarchical exploration | Visual concept relationships |
|
||||
| Lotus Blossom | Radial expansion | Layered thematic development |
|
||||
| Six Thinking Hats | Multi-perspective | Balanced evaluation framework |
|
||||
| Random Word Association | Lateral thinking | Unexpected conceptual combinations |
|
||||
|
||||
Each method generates distinct artifacts that are then evaluated against design pillars, technical feasibility, and market positioning.
|
||||
|
||||
### Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
- **Game Context Document**: Platform specs, genre, technical constraints, target audience, monetization approach, design pillars
|
||||
- **Initial Concept Seed** (optional): High-level game idea or theme
|
||||
|
||||
### Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
- **Method-Specific Artifacts**: Five separate brainstorming documents
|
||||
- **Consolidated Concept Document**: Synthesized game concepts with feasibility assessments and unique value propositions
|
||||
- **Design Pillar Alignment Matrix**: Evaluation of concepts against stated objectives
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Starting Point:**
|
||||
"A roguelike with psychological themes"
|
||||
|
||||
**After brainstorm-game:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **SCAMPER Result**: "What if standard roguelike death → becomes emotional regression?"
|
||||
- **Mind Map Result**: Emotion types (anger, fear, joy) as character classes
|
||||
- **Lotus Blossom Result**: Inner demons as enemies, therapy sessions as rest points
|
||||
- **Six Thinking Hats Result**: White (data) - mental health market growing; Red (emotion) - theme may alienate hardcore players
|
||||
- **Random Word Association Result**: "Mirror" + "Roguelike" = reflection mechanics that change gameplay
|
||||
|
||||
**Synthesized Concept:**
|
||||
"Mirror of Mind: A roguelike card battler where you play as emotions battling inner demons. Deck composition affects narrative, emotional theme drives mechanics, 3 characters representing anger/fear/joy, target audience: core gamers interested in mental health themes."
|
||||
|
||||
### Related Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
- **game-brief** - Capture validated concept in structured brief
|
||||
- **gdd** (Phase 2) - Full game design document
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## product-brief
|
||||
|
||||
### Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Interactive product brief creation that guides users through defining their product vision with multiple input sources and conversational collaboration.
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent:** PM
|
||||
**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
|
||||
**Required:** Recommended (skip only if PRD already exists)
|
||||
**Typical Duration:** 60-90 minutes (Interactive), 20-30 minutes (YOLO)
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- Starting a new product or major feature initiative
|
||||
- Aligning stakeholders before detailed planning
|
||||
- Transitioning from exploration to strategy
|
||||
- Creating executive-level product documentation
|
||||
|
||||
### Prerequisites
|
||||
|
||||
- Business context understood
|
||||
- Problem or opportunity identified
|
||||
- Stakeholders accessible for input
|
||||
- Strategic objectives defined
|
||||
|
||||
### Modes of Operation
|
||||
|
||||
**Interactive Mode** (Recommended):
|
||||
|
||||
- Step-by-step collaborative development
|
||||
- Probing questions to refine thinking
|
||||
- Deep exploration of problem/solution fit
|
||||
- 60-90 minutes with high-quality output
|
||||
|
||||
**YOLO Mode**:
|
||||
|
||||
- AI generates complete draft from initial context
|
||||
- User reviews and refines sections iteratively
|
||||
- 20-30 minutes for rapid draft
|
||||
- Best for time-constrained situations or when you have clear vision
|
||||
|
||||
### Process Overview
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1: Initialization and Context (Steps 0-2)**
|
||||
|
||||
- Project setup and context capture
|
||||
- Input document gathering
|
||||
- Mode selection
|
||||
- Context extraction
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2: Interactive Development (Steps 3-12) - Interactive Mode**
|
||||
|
||||
- Problem definition and pain points
|
||||
- Solution articulation and value proposition
|
||||
- User segmentation
|
||||
- Success metrics and KPIs
|
||||
- MVP scoping (ruthlessly defined)
|
||||
- Financial planning and ROI
|
||||
- Technical context
|
||||
- Risk assessment and assumptions
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3: Rapid Generation (Steps 3-4) - YOLO Mode**
|
||||
|
||||
- Complete draft generation from context
|
||||
- Iterative refinement of sections
|
||||
- Quality validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 4: Finalization (Steps 13-15)**
|
||||
|
||||
- Executive summary creation
|
||||
- Supporting materials compilation
|
||||
- Final review and handoff preparation
|
||||
|
||||
### Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
- Optional: Market research, competitive analysis, brainstorming results
|
||||
- User input through conversational process
|
||||
- Business context and objectives
|
||||
|
||||
### Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Output:** `product-brief-{project_name}-{date}.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Structure:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Executive Summary
|
||||
2. Problem Statement (with evidence)
|
||||
3. Proposed Solution (core approach and differentiators)
|
||||
4. Target Users (primary and secondary segments)
|
||||
5. Goals and Success Metrics
|
||||
6. MVP Scope (must-have features)
|
||||
7. Post-MVP Vision
|
||||
8. Financial Impact (investment and ROI)
|
||||
9. Strategic Alignment
|
||||
10. Technical Considerations
|
||||
11. Constraints and Assumptions
|
||||
12. Risks and Open Questions
|
||||
13. Supporting Materials
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Starting Point:**
|
||||
"We see customers struggling with project tracking"
|
||||
|
||||
**After product-brief (Interactive Mode):**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Problem**: Teams using 3+ tools for project management, causing 40% efficiency loss
|
||||
- **Solution**: Unified workspace combining tasks, docs, and communication
|
||||
- **Target Users**: 10-50 person product teams, SaaS-first companies
|
||||
- **MVP Scope**: Task management + Real-time collaboration + Integrations (GitHub, Slack)
|
||||
- **Success Metrics**: 30% reduction in tool-switching time, 20% faster project completion
|
||||
- **Financial Impact**: $2M investment, $10M ARR target year 2
|
||||
|
||||
### Related Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
- **brainstorm-project** - Generate solution approaches first
|
||||
- **research** - Gather market/competitive intelligence
|
||||
- **prd** (Phase 2) - Detailed requirements from product brief
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## game-brief
|
||||
|
||||
### Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Lightweight, interactive brainstorming and planning session that captures game vision before diving into detailed Game Design Documents.
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent:** PM
|
||||
**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
|
||||
**Required:** Recommended for game projects
|
||||
**Typical Duration:** 60-90 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
### When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
- Starting a new game project from scratch
|
||||
- Exploring a game idea before committing
|
||||
- Pitching a concept to team/stakeholders
|
||||
- Validating market fit and feasibility
|
||||
- Preparing input for GDD workflow
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip if:**
|
||||
|
||||
- You already have a complete GDD
|
||||
- Continuing an existing project
|
||||
- Prototyping without planning needs
|
||||
|
||||
### Comparison: Game Brief vs GDD
|
||||
|
||||
| Aspect | Game Brief | GDD |
|
||||
| --------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------- |
|
||||
| Purpose | Validate concept | Design for implementation |
|
||||
| Detail Level | High-level vision | Detailed specifications |
|
||||
| Time Investment | 1-2 hours | 4-10 hours |
|
||||
| Audience | Self, team, stakeholders | Development team |
|
||||
| Scope | Concept validation | Implementation roadmap |
|
||||
| Format | Conversational, exploratory | Structured, comprehensive |
|
||||
| Output | 3-5 pages | 10-30+ pages |
|
||||
|
||||
### Comparison: Game Brief vs Product Brief
|
||||
|
||||
| Aspect | Game Brief | Product Brief |
|
||||
| ------------- | ---------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
|
||||
| Focus | Player experience, fun, feel | User problems, features, value |
|
||||
| Metrics | Engagement, retention, fun | Revenue, conversion, satisfaction |
|
||||
| Core Elements | Gameplay pillars, mechanics | Problem/solution, user segments |
|
||||
| References | Other games | Competitors, market |
|
||||
| Vision | Emotional experience | Business outcomes |
|
||||
|
||||
### Workflow Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**Interactive Mode** (Recommended):
|
||||
|
||||
1. Game Vision (concept, pitch, vision statement)
|
||||
2. Target Market (audience, competition, positioning)
|
||||
3. Game Fundamentals (pillars, mechanics, experience goals)
|
||||
4. Scope and Constraints (platforms, timeline, budget, team)
|
||||
5. Reference Framework (inspiration, competitors, differentiators)
|
||||
6. Content Framework (world, narrative, volume)
|
||||
7. Art and Audio Direction
|
||||
8. Risk Assessment (risks, challenges, mitigation)
|
||||
9. Success Criteria (MVP, metrics, launch goals)
|
||||
10. Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
**YOLO Mode**: AI generates complete draft, then you refine iteratively
|
||||
|
||||
### Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Optional:
|
||||
|
||||
- Market research
|
||||
- Brainstorming results
|
||||
- Competitive analysis
|
||||
- Design notes
|
||||
- Reference game lists
|
||||
|
||||
### Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Output:** `game-brief-{game_name}-{date}.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Sections:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Executive summary
|
||||
- Complete game vision
|
||||
- Target market analysis
|
||||
- Core gameplay definition
|
||||
- Scope and constraints
|
||||
- Reference framework
|
||||
- Art/audio direction
|
||||
- Risk assessment
|
||||
- Success criteria
|
||||
- Next steps
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Starting Point:**
|
||||
"I want to make a roguelike card game with a twist"
|
||||
|
||||
**After Game Brief:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Core Concept**: Roguelike card battler where you play as emotions battling inner demons
|
||||
- **Target Audience**: Core gamers who love Slay the Spire, interested in mental health themes
|
||||
- **Differentiator**: Emotional narrative system where deck composition affects story
|
||||
- **MVP Scope**: 3 characters, 80 cards, 30 enemy types, 3 bosses, 6-hour first run
|
||||
- **Platform**: PC (Steam) first, mobile later
|
||||
- **Timeline**: 12 months with 2-person team
|
||||
- **Key Risk**: Emotional theme might alienate hardcore roguelike fans
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: Prototype early, test with target audience, offer "mechanical-only" mode
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Steps:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Build card combat prototype (2 weeks)
|
||||
2. Test emotional resonance with players
|
||||
3. Proceed to GDD workflow if prototype validates
|
||||
|
||||
### Related Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
- **brainstorm-game** - Generate initial concepts
|
||||
- **gdd** (Phase 2) - Full game design document
|
||||
- **narrative** (Phase 2) - For story-heavy games
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## research
|
||||
|
||||
### Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Comprehensive, adaptive multi-type research system that consolidates various research methodologies into a single powerful tool.
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent:** Analyst
|
||||
**Phase:** 1 (Analysis)
|
||||
**Required:** No
|
||||
**Typical Duration:** Varies by type (Quick: 30-60 min, Standard: 2-4 hours, Comprehensive: 4-8 hours)
|
||||
|
||||
### Research Types
|
||||
|
||||
**6 Research Types Available:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Type | Purpose | Use When |
|
||||
| --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| **market** | Market intelligence, TAM/SAM/SOM, competitive analysis | Need market viability validation |
|
||||
| **deep_prompt** | Generate optimized research prompts for AI platforms | Need AI to research deeper topics |
|
||||
| **technical** | Technology evaluation, architecture decisions | Choosing frameworks/platforms |
|
||||
| **competitive** | Deep competitor analysis | Understanding competitive landscape |
|
||||
| **user** | Customer insights, personas, JTBD | Need user understanding |
|
||||
| **domain** | Industry deep dives, trends | Understanding domain/industry |
|
||||
|
||||
### Market Research (Type: market)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Features:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Real-time web research
|
||||
- TAM/SAM/SOM calculations with multiple methodologies
|
||||
- Competitive landscape analysis
|
||||
- Customer persona development
|
||||
- Porter's Five Forces and strategic frameworks
|
||||
- Go-to-market strategy recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
**Inputs:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Product or business description
|
||||
- Target customer hypotheses (optional)
|
||||
- Known competitors list (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
**Outputs:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Market size analysis (TAM/SAM/SOM)
|
||||
- Competitive positioning
|
||||
- Customer segments and personas
|
||||
- Market trends and opportunities
|
||||
- Strategic recommendations
|
||||
- Financial projections (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
### Deep Research Prompt (Type: deep_prompt)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Features:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Optimized for AI research platforms (ChatGPT Deep Research, Gemini, Grok, Claude Projects)
|
||||
- Prompt engineering best practices
|
||||
- Platform-specific optimization
|
||||
- Context packaging for optimal AI understanding
|
||||
- Research question refinement
|
||||
|
||||
**Inputs:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Research question or topic
|
||||
- Background context documents (optional)
|
||||
- Target AI platform preference (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
**Outputs:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Platform-optimized research prompt
|
||||
- Multi-stage research workflow
|
||||
- Context documents packaged
|
||||
- Execution guidance
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Research (Type: technical)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Features:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Technology evaluation and comparison matrices
|
||||
- Architecture pattern research
|
||||
- Framework/library assessment
|
||||
- Technical feasibility studies
|
||||
- Cost-benefit analysis
|
||||
- Architecture Decision Records (ADR)
|
||||
|
||||
**Inputs:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Technical requirements
|
||||
- Current architecture (if brownfield)
|
||||
- Technical constraints
|
||||
|
||||
**Outputs:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Technology comparison matrix
|
||||
- Trade-off analysis
|
||||
- Cost-benefit assessment
|
||||
- ADR with recommendation
|
||||
- Implementation guidance
|
||||
|
||||
### Configuration Options
|
||||
|
||||
Can be customized through workflow.yaml:
|
||||
|
||||
- **research_depth**: `quick`, `standard`, or `comprehensive`
|
||||
- **enable_web_research**: Enable real-time data gathering
|
||||
- **enable_competitor_analysis**: Competitive intelligence
|
||||
- **enable_financial_modeling**: Financial projections
|
||||
|
||||
### Frameworks Available
|
||||
|
||||
**Market Research:**
|
||||
|
||||
- TAM/SAM/SOM Analysis
|
||||
- Porter's Five Forces
|
||||
- Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD)
|
||||
- Technology Adoption Lifecycle
|
||||
- SWOT Analysis
|
||||
- Value Chain Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Research:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Trade-off Analysis Matrix
|
||||
- Architecture Decision Records (ADR)
|
||||
- Technology Radar
|
||||
- Comparison Matrix
|
||||
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
|
||||
- Technical Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Type: market**
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:**
|
||||
"SaaS project management tool for remote teams"
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **TAM**: $50B (global project management software)
|
||||
- **SAM**: $5B (remote-first teams 10-50 people)
|
||||
- **SOM**: $50M (achievable in year 3)
|
||||
- **Top Competitors**: Asana, Monday.com, ClickUp
|
||||
- **Positioning**: "Real-time collaboration focused, vs async-first competitors"
|
||||
- **Customer Personas**: Product Managers (primary), Engineering Leads (secondary)
|
||||
- **Key Trends**: Remote work permanence, tool consolidation, AI features
|
||||
- **Go-to-Market**: PLG motion, free tier, viral invite mechanics
|
||||
|
||||
### Related Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
- **product-brief** - Use research to inform brief
|
||||
- **prd** (Phase 2) - Research feeds requirements
|
||||
- **architecture** (Phase 3) - Technical research informs design
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practices for Phase 1
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Don't Over-Invest in Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis workflows are optional for a reason. If you already know what you're building and why, skip to Phase 2 (Planning).
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Iterate Between Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
It's common to:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Run **brainstorm-project** to explore
|
||||
2. Use **research** to validate
|
||||
3. Create **product-brief** to synthesize
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Document Assumptions
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis phase is about surfacing and validating assumptions. Document them explicitly so planning can challenge them.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Keep It Strategic
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis workflows focus on "what" and "why", not "how". Leave implementation details for Planning and Solutioning phases.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Involve Stakeholders
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis workflows are collaborative. Use them to align stakeholders before committing to detailed planning.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Guide: Which Analysis Workflow?
|
||||
|
||||
### Starting a Software Project
|
||||
|
||||
1. **brainstorm-project** (if unclear solution) → **research** (market/technical) → **product-brief**
|
||||
|
||||
### Starting a Game Project
|
||||
|
||||
1. **brainstorm-game** (if generating concepts) → **research** (market/competitive) → **game-brief**
|
||||
|
||||
### Validating an Idea
|
||||
|
||||
1. **research** (market type) → **product-brief** or **game-brief**
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Decision
|
||||
|
||||
1. **research** (technical type) → Use ADR in **architecture** (Phase 3)
|
||||
|
||||
### Understanding Market
|
||||
|
||||
1. **research** (market or competitive type) → **product-brief**
|
||||
|
||||
### Generating Deep Research
|
||||
|
||||
1. **research** (deep_prompt type) → External AI research platform → Return with findings
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with Phase 2 (Planning)
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis workflows feed directly into Planning:
|
||||
|
||||
| Analysis Output | Planning Input |
|
||||
| --------------------------- | -------------------------- |
|
||||
| product-brief.md | **prd** workflow |
|
||||
| game-brief.md | **gdd** workflow |
|
||||
| market-research.md | **prd** context |
|
||||
| technical-research.md | **architecture** (Phase 3) |
|
||||
| competitive-intelligence.md | **prd** positioning |
|
||||
|
||||
The Planning phase (Phase 2) will load these documents automatically if they exist in the output folder.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 Analysis workflows are your strategic thinking tools. Use them to:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Explore** problem spaces and solutions
|
||||
- **Validate** ideas before heavy investment
|
||||
- **Align** stakeholders on vision
|
||||
- **Research** markets, competitors, and technologies
|
||||
- **Document** strategic thinking for future reference
|
||||
|
||||
Remember: **These workflows are optional.** If you know what you're building and why, skip to Phase 2 (Planning) to define requirements and create your PRD/GDD.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user