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
@@ -1,38 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
last-redoc-date: 2025-10-01
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Game Brainstorming Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
This workflow employs structured ideation methodologies to generate and refine game concepts through systematic creative exploration. It leverages five distinct brainstorming techniques—SCAMPER, Mind Mapping, Lotus Blossom, Six Thinking Hats, and Random Word Association—each applied in isolation to produce diverse conceptual approaches. The workflow emphasizes iterative refinement where initial concepts are evaluated against design pillars, technical feasibility, and market positioning to identify the most promising directions.
|
||||
|
||||
The system operates through a game-specific context framework that considers platform constraints, target audience characteristics, monetization models, and core gameplay pillars. Each brainstorming method generates distinct artifacts: SCAMPER produces systematic modification analyses, Mind Mapping reveals conceptual hierarchies, Lotus Blossom creates radial expansion patterns, Six Thinking Hats enforces multi-perspective evaluation, and Random Word Association drives lateral thinking breakthroughs. The workflow culminates in a consolidated concept document that synthesizes the strongest elements from each method into cohesive game proposals.
|
||||
|
||||
Critical to this workflow is its emphasis on constraint-driven creativity. The game-context.md framework establishes technical boundaries (platform capabilities, performance targets), market parameters (genre conventions, competitive positioning), and design philosophy (accessibility requirements, monetization ethics) that ground creative exploration in practical realities. This prevents ideation from drifting into infeasible territory while maintaining creative ambition.
|
||||
|
||||
## Usage
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
bmad bmm 1-analysis brainstorm-game
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
- **Game Context Document**: Platform specifications, genre preferences, technical constraints, target audience demographics, monetization approach, and core design pillars
|
||||
- **Initial Concept Seed** (optional): High-level game idea or theme to guide brainstorming direction
|
||||
|
||||
## Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
- **Method-Specific Artifacts**: Five separate brainstorming documents, each applying a different ideation methodology to the concept space
|
||||
- **Consolidated Concept Document**: Synthesized game concepts with feasibility assessments, unique value propositions, and recommended next steps
|
||||
- **Design Pillar Alignment Matrix**: Evaluation of each concept against stated design objectives and technical constraints
|
||||
|
||||
## Brainstorming Methods
|
||||
|
||||
| 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 |
|
||||
@@ -1,113 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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
|
||||
@@ -1,221 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Game Brief Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
The Game Brief workflow is the starting point for game projects in the BMad Method. It's a lightweight, interactive brainstorming and planning session that captures your game vision before diving into detailed Game Design Documents (GDD).
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
**Game Brief answers:**
|
||||
|
||||
- What game are you making?
|
||||
- Who is it for?
|
||||
- What makes it unique?
|
||||
- Is it feasible?
|
||||
|
||||
**This is NOT:**
|
||||
|
||||
- A full Game Design Document
|
||||
- A technical specification
|
||||
- A production plan
|
||||
- A detailed content outline
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use This Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Use the game-brief workflow when:
|
||||
|
||||
- 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 the GDD workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Skip if:
|
||||
|
||||
- You already have a complete GDD
|
||||
- Continuing an existing project
|
||||
- Prototyping without planning needs
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Interactive Mode (Recommended)
|
||||
|
||||
Work through each section collaboratively:
|
||||
|
||||
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 (visual and audio style)
|
||||
8. Risk Assessment (risks, challenges, mitigation)
|
||||
9. Success Criteria (MVP, metrics, launch goals)
|
||||
10. Next Steps (immediate actions, research, questions)
|
||||
|
||||
### YOLO Mode
|
||||
|
||||
AI generates complete draft, then you refine sections iteratively.
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Features
|
||||
|
||||
### Optional Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
The workflow can incorporate:
|
||||
|
||||
- Market research
|
||||
- Brainstorming results
|
||||
- Competitive analysis
|
||||
- Design notes
|
||||
- Reference game lists
|
||||
|
||||
### Realistic Scoping
|
||||
|
||||
The workflow actively helps you:
|
||||
|
||||
- Identify scope vs. resource mismatches
|
||||
- Assess technical feasibility
|
||||
- Recognize market risks
|
||||
- Plan mitigation strategies
|
||||
|
||||
### Clear Handoff
|
||||
|
||||
Output is designed to feed directly into:
|
||||
|
||||
- GDD workflow (2-plan phase)
|
||||
- Prototyping decisions
|
||||
- Team discussions
|
||||
- Stakeholder presentations
|
||||
|
||||
## Output
|
||||
|
||||
**game-brief-{game_name}-{date}.md** containing:
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with BMad Method
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1-analysis/game-brief (You are here)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
2-plan-workflows/gdd (Game Design Document)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
2-plan-workflows/narrative (Optional: Story-heavy games)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
3-solutioning (Technical architecture, engine selection)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
4-dev-stories (Implementation stories)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Use Case
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario: Indie Roguelike Card Game
|
||||
|
||||
**Starting Point:**
|
||||
"I want to make a roguelike card game with a twist"
|
||||
|
||||
**After Game Brief:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Core Concept:** "A 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
|
||||
|
||||
## Tips for Success
|
||||
|
||||
### Be Honest About Scope
|
||||
|
||||
The most common game dev failure is scope mismatch. Use this workflow to reality-check:
|
||||
|
||||
- Can your team actually build this?
|
||||
- Is the timeline realistic?
|
||||
- Do you have budget for assets?
|
||||
|
||||
### Focus on Player Experience
|
||||
|
||||
Don't think about code or implementation. Think about:
|
||||
|
||||
- What will players DO?
|
||||
- How will they FEEL?
|
||||
- Why will they CARE?
|
||||
|
||||
### Validate Early
|
||||
|
||||
The brief identifies assumptions and risks. Don't skip to GDD without:
|
||||
|
||||
- Prototyping risky mechanics
|
||||
- Testing with target audience
|
||||
- Validating market interest
|
||||
|
||||
### Use References Wisely
|
||||
|
||||
"Like X but with Y" is a starting point, not a differentiator. Push beyond:
|
||||
|
||||
- What specifically from reference games?
|
||||
- What are you explicitly NOT doing?
|
||||
- What's genuinely new?
|
||||
|
||||
## FAQ
|
||||
|
||||
**Q: Is this required before GDD?**
|
||||
A: No, but highly recommended for new projects. You can start directly with GDD if you have a clear vision.
|
||||
|
||||
**Q: Can I use this for game jams?**
|
||||
A: Yes, but use YOLO mode for speed. Focus on vision, mechanics, and MVP scope.
|
||||
|
||||
**Q: What if my game concept changes?**
|
||||
A: Revisit and update the brief. It's a living document during early development.
|
||||
|
||||
**Q: How detailed should content volume estimates be?**
|
||||
A: Rough orders of magnitude are fine. "~50 enemies" not "47 enemies with 3 variants each."
|
||||
|
||||
**Q: Should I complete this alone or with my team?**
|
||||
A: Involve your team! Collaborative briefs catch blind spots and build shared vision.
|
||||
|
||||
## Related Workflows
|
||||
|
||||
- **Product Brief** (`1-analysis/product-brief`): For software products, not games
|
||||
- **GDD** (`2-plan-workflows/gdd`): Next step after game brief
|
||||
- **Narrative Design** (`2-plan-workflows/narrative`): For story-heavy games after GDD
|
||||
- **Solutioning** (`3-solutioning`): Technical architecture after planning
|
||||
@@ -1,180 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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_
|
||||
@@ -1,454 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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_
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user