update local install

2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00 · 2025-11-03 21:05:18 -06:00
parent 17f81a84f3
commit e7d51739e4
105 changed files with 11997 additions and 13131 deletions
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/README.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
+# BMM Documentation
+
+Complete guides for the BMad Method Module (BMM) - AI-powered agile development workflows that adapt to your project's complexity.
+
+---
+
+## 🚀 Getting Started
+
+**New to BMM?** Start here:
+
+- **[Quick Start Guide](./quick-start.md)** - Step-by-step guide to building your first project (15 min read)
+  - Installation and setup
+  - Understanding the four phases
+  - Running your first workflows
+  - Agent-based development flow
+
+**Quick Path:** Install → workflow-init → Follow agent guidance
+
+---
+
+## 📖 Core Concepts
+
+Understanding how BMM adapts to your needs:
+
+- **[Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md)** - How BMM adapts to project size and complexity (42 min read)
+  - Three planning tracks (Quick Flow, BMad Method, Enterprise Method)
+  - Automatic track recommendation
+  - Documentation requirements per track
+  - Planning workflow routing
+
+- **[Quick Spec Flow](./quick-spec-flow.md)** - Fast-track workflow for Quick Flow track (26 min read)
+  - Bug fixes and small features
+  - Rapid prototyping approach
+  - Auto-detection of stack and patterns
+  - Minutes to implementation
+
+---
+
+## 🤖 Agents & Collaboration
+
+Complete guide to BMM's AI agent team:
+
+- **[Agents Guide](./agents-guide.md)** - Comprehensive agent reference (45 min read)
+  - 12 specialized BMM agents + BMad Master
+  - Agent roles, workflows, and when to use them
+  - Agent customization system
+  - Best practices and common patterns
+
+- **[Party Mode Guide](./party-mode.md)** - Multi-agent collaboration (20 min read)
+  - How party mode works (19+ agents collaborate in real-time)
+  - When to use it (strategic, creative, cross-functional, complex)
+  - Example party compositions
+  - Multi-module integration (BMM + CIS + BMB + custom)
+  - Agent customization in party mode
+  - Best practices and troubleshooting
+
+---
+
+## 🔧 Working with Existing Code
+
+Comprehensive guide for brownfield development:
+
+- **[Brownfield Development Guide](./brownfield-guide.md)** - Complete guide for existing codebases (53 min read)
+  - Documentation phase strategies
+  - Track selection for brownfield
+  - Integration with existing patterns
+  - Phase-by-phase workflow guidance
+  - Common scenarios and troubleshooting
+
+---
+
+## 📚 Quick References
+
+Essential reference materials:
+
+- **[Glossary](./glossary.md)** - Key terminology and concepts
+- **[FAQ](./faq.md)** - Frequently asked questions across all topics
+- **[Troubleshooting](./troubleshooting.md)** - Common issues and solutions
+- **[Enterprise Agentic Development](./enterprise-agentic-development.md)** - Team collaboration strategies
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 Choose Your Path
+
+### I need to...
+
+**Build something new (greenfield)**
+→ Start with [Quick Start Guide](./quick-start.md)
+→ Then review [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md) to understand tracks
+
+**Fix a bug or add small feature**
+→ Go directly to [Quick Spec Flow](./quick-spec-flow.md)
+
+**Work with existing codebase (brownfield)**
+→ Read [Brownfield Development Guide](./brownfield-guide.md)
+→ Pay special attention to Phase 0 documentation requirements
+
+**Understand planning tracks and methodology**
+→ See [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md)
+
+**Find specific commands or answers**
+→ Check [FAQ](./faq.md) or [Troubleshooting](./troubleshooting.md)
+
+---
+
+## 📋 Workflow Guides
+
+Comprehensive documentation for all BMM workflows organized by phase:
+
+- **[Phase 1: Analysis Workflows](./workflows-analysis.md)** - Optional exploration and research workflows (595 lines)
+  - brainstorm-project, product-brief, research, and more
+  - When to use analysis workflows
+  - Creative and strategic tools
+
+- **[Phase 2: Planning Workflows](./workflows-planning.md)** - Scale-adaptive planning (967 lines)
+  - prd, tech-spec, gdd, narrative, ux
+  - Track-based planning approach (Quick Flow, BMad Method, Enterprise Method)
+  - Which planning workflow to use
+
+- **[Phase 3: Solutioning Workflows](./workflows-solutioning.md)** - Architecture and validation (638 lines)
+  - architecture, solutioning-gate-check
+  - Required for BMad Method and Enterprise Method tracks
+  - Preventing agent conflicts
+
+- **[Phase 4: Implementation Workflows](./workflows-implementation.md)** - Sprint-based development (1,634 lines)
+  - sprint-planning, create-story, dev-story, code-review
+  - Complete story lifecycle
+  - One-story-at-a-time discipline
+
+- **[Testing & QA Workflows](./workflows-testing.md)** - Comprehensive quality assurance (1,420 lines)
+  - Test strategy, automation, quality gates
+  - TEA agent and test healing
+  - BMad-integrated vs standalone modes
+
+**Total: 34 workflows documented across all phases**
+
+### Advanced Workflow References
+
+For detailed technical documentation on specific complex workflows:
+
+- **[Document Project Workflow Reference](./workflow-document-project-reference.md)** - Technical deep-dive (445 lines)
+  - v1.2.0 context-safe architecture
+  - Scan levels, resumability, write-as-you-go
+  - Multi-part project detection
+  - Deep-dive mode for targeted analysis
+
+- **[Architecture Workflow Reference](./workflow-architecture-reference.md)** - Decision architecture guide (320 lines)
+  - Starter template intelligence
+  - Novel pattern design
+  - Implementation patterns for agent consistency
+  - Adaptive facilitation approach
+
+---
+
+## 🧪 Testing & Quality
+
+Quality assurance guidance:
+
+- **[Test Architect Guide](../testarch/README.md)** - Comprehensive testing strategy
+  - Test design workflows
+  - Quality gates
+  - Risk assessment
+  - NFR validation
+
+---
+
+## 🏗️ Module Structure
+
+Understanding BMM components:
+
+- **[BMM Module README](../README.md)** - Overview of module structure
+  - Agent roster and roles
+  - Workflow organization
+  - Teams and collaboration
+  - Best practices
+
+---
+
+## 🌐 External Resources
+
+### Community & Support
+
+- **[Discord Community](https://discord.gg/gk8jAdXWmj)** - Get help from the community (#general-dev, #bugs-issues)
+- **[GitHub Issues](https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD/issues)** - Report bugs or request features
+- **[YouTube Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@BMadCode)** - Video tutorials and walkthroughs
+
+### Additional Documentation
+
+- **[IDE Setup Guides](../../../docs/ide-info/)** - Configure your development environment
+  - Claude Code
+  - Cursor
+  - Windsurf
+  - VS Code
+  - Other IDEs
+
+---
+
+## 📊 Documentation Map
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    START[New to BMM?]
+    START --> QS[Quick Start Guide]
+
+    QS --> DECIDE{What are you building?}
+
+    DECIDE -->|Bug fix or<br/>small feature| QSF[Quick Spec Flow]
+    DECIDE -->|New project| SAS[Scale Adaptive System]
+    DECIDE -->|Existing codebase| BF[Brownfield Guide]
+
+    QSF --> IMPL[Implementation]
+    SAS --> IMPL
+    BF --> IMPL
+
+    IMPL --> REF[Quick References<br/>Glossary, FAQ, Troubleshooting]
+
+    style START fill:#bfb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style QS fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style DECIDE fill:#ffb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style IMPL fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+```
+
+---
+
+## 💡 Tips for Using This Documentation
+
+1. **Start with Quick Start** if you're new - it provides the essential foundation
+2. **Use the FAQ** to find quick answers without reading entire guides
+3. **Bookmark Glossary** for terminology references while reading other docs
+4. **Follow the suggested paths** above based on your specific situation
+5. **Join Discord** for interactive help and community insights
+
+---
+
+**Ready to begin?** → [Start with the Quick Start Guide](./quick-start.md)
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/agents-guide.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/agents-guide.md
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/brownfield-guide.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/brownfield-guide.md
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/enterprise-agentic-development.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/enterprise-agentic-development.md
@@ -0,0 +1,680 @@
+# Enterprise Agentic Development with BMad Method
+
+**The paradigm shift: From team-based story parallelism to individual epic ownership**
+
+**Reading Time:** ~18 minutes
+
+---
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+- [The Paradigm Shift](#the-paradigm-shift)
+- [The Evolving Role of Product Managers & UX Designers](#the-evolving-role-of-product-managers--ux-designers)
+- [How BMad Method Enables PM/UX Technical Evolution](#how-bmad-method-enables-pmux-technical-evolution)
+- [Team Collaboration Patterns](#team-collaboration-patterns)
+- [Work Distribution Strategies](#work-distribution-strategies)
+- [Enterprise Configuration with Git Submodules](#enterprise-configuration-with-git-submodules)
+- [Best Practices](#best-practices)
+- [Common Scenarios](#common-scenarios)
+
+---
+
+## The Paradigm Shift
+
+### Traditional Agile: Team-Based Story Parallelism
+
+- **Epic duration:** 4-12 weeks across multiple sprints
+- **Story duration:** 2-5 days per developer
+- **Team size:** 5-9 developers working on same epic
+- **Parallelization:** Multiple devs on stories within single epic
+- **Coordination:** Constant - daily standups, merge conflicts, integration overhead
+
+**Example:** Payment Processing Epic
+
+- Sprint 1-2: Backend API (Dev A)
+- Sprint 1-2: Frontend UI (Dev B)
+- Sprint 2-3: Testing (Dev C)
+- **Result:** 6-8 weeks, 3 developers, high coordination
+
+### Agentic Development: Individual Epic Ownership
+
+- **Epic duration:** Hours to days (not weeks)
+- **Story duration:** 30 min to 4 hours with AI agent
+- **Team size:** 1 developer + AI agents completes full epics
+- **Parallelization:** Developers work on separate epics
+- **Coordination:** Minimal - epic boundaries, async updates
+
+**Same Example:** Payment Processing Epic
+
+- Day 1 AM: Backend API stories (1 dev + agent, 3-4 stories)
+- Day 1 PM: Frontend UI stories (same dev + agent, 2-3 stories)
+- Day 2: Testing & deployment (same dev + agent, 2 stories)
+- **Result:** 1-2 days, 1 developer, minimal coordination
+
+### The Core Difference
+
+**What changed:** AI agents collapse story duration from days to hours, making **epic-level ownership** practical.
+
+**Impact:** Single developer with BMad Method can deliver in 1 day what previously required full team and multiple sprints.
+
+---
+
+## The Evolving Role of Product Managers & UX Designers
+
+### The Future is Now
+
+Product Managers and UX Designers are undergoing **the most significant transformation since the creation of these disciplines**. The emergence of AI agents is creating a new breed of technical product leaders who translate vision directly into working code.
+
+### From Spec Writers to Code Orchestrators
+
+**Traditional PM/UX (Pre-2025):**
+
+- Write PRDs, hand off to engineering
+- Wait weeks/months for implementation
+- Limited validation capabilities
+- Non-technical role, heavy on process
+
+**Emerging PM/UX (2025+):**
+
+- Write AI-optimized PRDs that **feed agentic pipelines directly**
+- Generate working prototypes in 10-15 minutes
+- Review pull requests from AI agents
+- Technical fluency is **table stakes**, not optional
+- Orchestrate cloud-based AI agent teams
+
+### Industry Research (November 2025)
+
+- **56% of product professionals** cite AI/ML as top focus
+- **AI agents automating** customer discovery, PRD creation, status reporting
+- **PRD-to-Code automation** enables PMs to build and deploy apps in 10-15 minutes
+- **By 2026**: Roles converging into "Full-Stack Product Lead" (PM + Design + Engineering)
+- **Very high salaries** for AI agent PMs who orchestrate autonomous dev systems
+
+### Required Skills for Modern PMs/UX
+
+1. **AI Prompt Engineering** - Writing PRDs AI agents can execute autonomously
+2. **Coding Literacy** - Understanding code structure, APIs, data flows (not production coding)
+3. **Agentic Workflow Design** - Orchestrating multi-agent systems (planning → design → dev)
+4. **Technical Architecture** - Reasoning frameworks, memory systems, tool integration
+5. **Data Literacy** - Interpreting model outputs, spotting trends, identifying gaps
+6. **Code Review** - Evaluating AI-generated PRs for correctness and vision alignment
+
+### What Remains Human
+
+**AI Can't Replace:**
+
+- Product vision (market dynamics, customer pain, strategic positioning)
+- Empathy (deep user research, emotional intelligence, stakeholder management)
+- Creativity (novel problem-solving, disruptive thinking)
+- Judgment (prioritization decisions, trade-off analysis)
+- Ethics (responsible AI use, privacy, accessibility)
+
+**What Changes:**
+
+- PMs/UX spend **more time on human elements** (AI handles routine execution)
+- Barrier between "thinking" and "building" collapses
+- Product leaders become **builder-thinkers**, not just spec writers
+
+### The Convergence
+
+- **PMs learning to code** with GitHub Copilot, Cursor, v0
+- **UX designers generating code** with UXPin Merge, Figma-to-code tools
+- **Developers becoming orchestrators** reviewing AI output vs writing from scratch
+
+**The Bottom Line:** By 2026, successful PMs/UX will fluently operate in both vision and execution. **BMad Method provides the structured framework to make this transition.**
+
+---
+
+## How BMad Method Enables PM/UX Technical Evolution
+
+BMad Method is specifically designed to position PMs and UX designers for this future.
+
+### 1. AI-Executable PRD Generation
+
+**PM Workflow:**
+
+```bash
+bmad pm *create-prd
+```
+
+**BMad produces:**
+
+- Structured, machine-readable requirements
+- Testable acceptance criteria per requirement
+- Clear epic/story decomposition
+- Technical context for AI agents
+
+**Why it matters:** Traditional PRDs are human-readable prose. BMad PRDs are **AI-executable work packages**.
+
+**PM Value:** Write once, automatically translated into agent-ready stories. No engineering bottleneck for translation.
+
+### 2. Automated Epic/Story Breakdown
+
+**PM Workflow:**
+
+```bash
+bmad pm *create-epics-and-stories
+```
+
+**BMad produces:**
+
+- Epic files with clear objectives
+- Story files with acceptance criteria, context, technical guidance
+- Priority assignments (P0-P3)
+- Dependency mapping
+
+**Why it matters:** Stories become **work packages for cloud AI agents**. Each story is self-contained with full context.
+
+**PM Value:** No more "story refinement sessions" with engineering. AI agents execute directly from BMad stories.
+
+### 3. Human-in-the-Loop Architecture
+
+**Architect/PM Workflow:**
+
+```bash
+bmad architect *create-architecture
+```
+
+**BMad produces:**
+
+- System architecture aligned with PRD
+- Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
+- Epic-specific technical guidance
+- Integration patterns and standards
+
+**Why it matters:** PMs can **understand and validate** technical decisions. Architecture is conversational, not template-driven.
+
+**PM Value:** Technical fluency built through guided architecture process. PMs learn while creating.
+
+### 4. Cloud Agentic Pipeline (Emerging Pattern)
+
+**Current State (2025):**
+
+```
+PM writes BMad PRD
+   ↓
+create-epics-and-stories generates story queue
+   ↓
+Stories loaded by human developers + BMad agents
+   ↓
+Developers create PRs
+   ↓
+PM/Team reviews PRs
+   ↓
+Merge and deploy
+```
+
+**Near Future (2026):**
+
+```
+PM writes BMad PRD
+   ↓
+create-epics-and-stories generates story queue
+   ↓
+Stories automatically fed to cloud AI agent pool
+   ↓
+AI agents implement stories in parallel
+   ↓
+AI agents create pull requests
+   ↓
+PM/UX/Senior Devs review PRs
+   ↓
+Approved PRs auto-merge
+   ↓
+Continuous deployment to production
+```
+
+**Time Savings:**
+
+- **Traditional:** PM writes spec → 2-4 weeks engineering → review → deploy (6-8 weeks)
+- **BMad Agentic:** PM writes PRD → AI agents implement → review PRs → deploy (2-5 days)
+
+### 5. UX Design Integration
+
+**UX Designer Workflow:**
+
+```bash
+bmad ux *create-design
+```
+
+**BMad produces:**
+
+- Component-based design system
+- Interaction patterns aligned with tech stack
+- Accessibility guidelines
+- Responsive design specifications
+
+**Why it matters:** Design specs become **implementation-ready** for AI agents. No "lost in translation" between design and dev.
+
+**UX Value:** Designs validated through working prototypes, not static mocks. Technical understanding built through BMad workflows.
+
+### 6. PM Technical Skills Development
+
+**BMad teaches PMs technical skills through:**
+
+- **Conversational workflows** - No pre-requisite knowledge, learn by doing
+- **Architecture facilitation** - Understand system design through guided questions
+- **Story context assembly** - See how code patterns inform implementation
+- **Code review workflows** - Learn to evaluate code quality, patterns, standards
+
+**Example:** PM runs `create-architecture` workflow:
+
+- BMad asks about scale, performance, integrations
+- PM answers business questions
+- BMad explains technical implications
+- PM learns architecture concepts while making decisions
+
+**Result:** PMs gain **working technical knowledge** without formal CS education.
+
+### 7. Organizational Leverage
+
+**Traditional Model:**
+
+- 1 PM → supports 5-9 developers → delivers 1-2 features/quarter
+
+**BMad Agentic Model:**
+
+- 1 PM → writes BMad PRD → 20-50 AI agents execute stories in parallel → delivers 5-10 features/quarter
+
+**Leverage multiplier:** 5-10× with same PM headcount.
+
+### 8. Quality Consistency
+
+**BMad ensures:**
+
+- AI agents follow architectural patterns consistently (via story-context)
+- Code standards applied uniformly (via epic-tech-context)
+- PRD traceability throughout implementation (via acceptance criteria)
+- No "telephone game" between PM, design, and dev
+
+**PM Value:** What gets built **matches what was specified**, drastically reducing rework.
+
+### 9. Rapid Prototyping for Validation
+
+**PM Workflow (with BMad + Cursor/v0):**
+
+1. Use BMad to generate PRD structure and requirements
+2. Extract key user flow from PRD
+3. Feed to Cursor/v0 with BMad context
+4. Working prototype in 10-15 minutes
+5. Validate with users **before** committing to full development
+
+**Traditional:** Months of development to validate idea
+**BMad Agentic:** Hours of development to validate idea
+
+### 10. Career Path Evolution
+
+**BMad positions PMs for emerging roles:**
+
+- **AI Agent Product Manager** - Orchestrate autonomous development systems
+- **Full-Stack Product Lead** - Oversee product, design, engineering with AI leverage
+- **Technical Product Strategist** - Bridge business vision and technical execution
+
+**Hiring advantage:** PMs using BMad demonstrate:
+
+- Technical fluency (can read architecture, validate tech decisions)
+- AI-native workflows (structured requirements, agentic orchestration)
+- Results (ship 5-10× faster than peers)
+
+---
+
+## Team Collaboration Patterns
+
+### Old Pattern: Story Parallelism
+
+**Traditional Agile:**
+
+```
+Epic: User Dashboard (8 weeks)
+├─ Story 1: Backend API (Dev A, Sprint 1-2)
+├─ Story 2: Frontend Layout (Dev B, Sprint 1-2)
+├─ Story 3: Data Viz (Dev C, Sprint 2-3)
+└─ Story 4: Integration Testing (Team, Sprint 3-4)
+
+Challenge: Coordination overhead, merge conflicts, integration issues
+```
+
+### New Pattern: Epic Ownership
+
+**Agentic Development:**
+
+```
+Project: Analytics Platform (2-3 weeks)
+
+Developer A:
+└─ Epic 1: User Dashboard (3 days, 12 stories sequentially with AI)
+
+Developer B:
+└─ Epic 2: Admin Panel (4 days, 15 stories sequentially with AI)
+
+Developer C:
+└─ Epic 3: Reporting Engine (5 days, 18 stories sequentially with AI)
+
+Benefit: Minimal coordination, epic-level ownership, clear boundaries
+```
+
+---
+
+## Work Distribution Strategies
+
+### Strategy 1: Epic-Based (Recommended)
+
+**Best for:** 2-10 developers
+
+**Approach:** Each developer owns complete epics, works sequentially through stories
+
+**Example:**
+
+```yaml
+epics:
+  - id: epic-1
+    title: Payment Processing
+    owner: alice
+    stories: 8
+    estimate: 2 days
+
+  - id: epic-2
+    title: User Dashboard
+    owner: bob
+    stories: 12
+    estimate: 3 days
+```
+
+**Benefits:** Clear ownership, minimal conflicts, epic cohesion, reduced coordination
+
+### Strategy 2: Layer-Based
+
+**Best for:** Full-stack apps, specialized teams
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+Frontend Dev: Epic 1 (Product Catalog UI), Epic 3 (Cart UI)
+Backend Dev: Epic 2 (Product API), Epic 4 (Cart Service)
+```
+
+**Benefits:** Developers in expertise area, true parallel work, clear API contracts
+
+**Requirements:** Strong architecture phase, clear API contracts upfront
+
+### Strategy 3: Feature-Based
+
+**Best for:** Large teams (10+ developers)
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+Team A (2 devs): Payments feature (4 epics)
+Team B (2 devs): User Management feature (3 epics)
+Team C (2 devs): Analytics feature (3 epics)
+```
+
+**Benefits:** Feature team autonomy, domain expertise, scalable to large orgs
+
+---
+
+## Enterprise Configuration with Git Submodules
+
+### The Challenge
+
+**Problem:** Teams customize BMad (agents, workflows, configs) but don't want personal tooling in main repo.
+
+**Anti-pattern:** Adding `bmad/` to `.gitignore` breaks IDE tools, submodule management.
+
+### The Solution: Git Submodules
+
+**Benefits:**
+
+- BMad exists in project but tracked separately
+- Each developer controls their own BMad version/config
+- Optional team config sharing via submodule repo
+- IDE tools maintain proper context
+
+### Setup (New Projects)
+
+**1. Create optional team config repo:**
+
+```bash
+git init bmm-config
+cd bmm-config
+npx bmad-method install
+# Customize for team standards
+git commit -m "Team BMM config"
+git push origin main
+```
+
+**2. Add submodule to project:**
+
+```bash
+cd /path/to/your-project
+git submodule add https://github.com/your-org/bmm-config.git bmad
+git commit -m "Add BMM as submodule"
+```
+
+**3. Team members initialize:**
+
+```bash
+git clone https://github.com/your-org/your-project.git
+cd your-project
+git submodule update --init --recursive
+# Make personal customizations in bmad/
+```
+
+### Daily Workflow
+
+**Work in main project:**
+
+```bash
+cd /path/to/your-project
+# BMad available at ./bmad/, load agents normally
+```
+
+**Update personal config:**
+
+```bash
+cd bmad
+# Make changes, commit locally, don't push unless sharing
+```
+
+**Update to latest team config:**
+
+```bash
+cd bmad
+git pull origin main
+```
+
+### Configuration Strategies
+
+**Option 1: Fully Personal** - No submodule, each dev installs independently, use `.gitignore`
+
+**Option 2: Team Baseline + Personal** - Submodule has team standards, devs add personal customizations locally
+
+**Option 3: Full Team Sharing** - All configs in submodule, team collaborates on improvements
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### 1. Epic Ownership
+
+- **Do:** Assign entire epic to one developer (context → implementation → retro)
+- **Don't:** Split epics across multiple developers (coordination overhead, context loss)
+
+### 2. Dependency Management
+
+- **Do:** Identify epic dependencies in planning, document API contracts, complete prerequisites first
+- **Don't:** Start dependent epic before prerequisite ready, change API contracts without coordination
+
+### 3. Communication Cadence
+
+**Traditional:** Daily standups essential
+**Agentic:** Lighter coordination
+
+**Recommended:**
+
+- Daily async updates ("Epic 1, 60% complete, no blockers")
+- Twice-weekly 15min sync
+- Epic completion demos
+- Sprint retro after all epics complete
+
+### 4. Branch Strategy
+
+```bash
+feature/epic-1-payment-processing    (Alice)
+feature/epic-2-user-dashboard        (Bob)
+feature/epic-3-admin-panel           (Carol)
+
+# PR and merge when epic complete
+```
+
+### 5. Testing Strategy
+
+- **Story-level:** Unit tests (DoD requirement, written by agent during dev-story)
+- **Epic-level:** Integration tests across stories
+- **Project-level:** E2E tests after multiple epics complete
+
+### 6. Documentation Updates
+
+- **Real-time:** `sprint-status.yaml` updated by workflows
+- **Epic completion:** Update architecture docs, API docs, README if changed
+- **Sprint completion:** Incorporate retrospective insights
+
+### 7. Metrics (Different from Traditional)
+
+**Traditional:** Story points per sprint, burndown charts
+**Agentic:** Epics per week, stories per day, time to epic completion
+
+**Example velocity:**
+
+- Junior dev + AI: 1-2 epics/week (8-15 stories)
+- Mid-level dev + AI: 2-3 epics/week (15-25 stories)
+- Senior dev + AI: 3-5 epics/week (25-40 stories)
+
+---
+
+## Common Scenarios
+
+### Scenario 1: Startup (2 Developers)
+
+**Project:** SaaS MVP (Level 3)
+
+**Distribution:**
+
+```
+Developer A:
+├─ Epic 1: Authentication (3 days)
+├─ Epic 3: Payment Integration (2 days)
+└─ Epic 5: Admin Dashboard (3 days)
+
+Developer B:
+├─ Epic 2: Core Product Features (4 days)
+├─ Epic 4: Analytics (3 days)
+└─ Epic 6: Notifications (2 days)
+
+Total: ~2 weeks
+Traditional estimate: 3-4 months
+```
+
+**BMM Setup:** Direct installation, both use Claude Code, minimal customization
+
+### Scenario 2: Mid-Size Team (8 Developers)
+
+**Project:** Enterprise Platform (Level 4)
+
+**Distribution (Layer-Based):**
+
+```
+Backend (2 devs): 6 API epics
+Frontend (2 devs): 6 UI epics
+Full-stack (2 devs): 4 integration epics
+DevOps (1 dev): 3 infrastructure epics
+QA (1 dev): 1 E2E testing epic
+
+Total: ~3 weeks
+Traditional estimate: 9-12 months
+```
+
+**BMM Setup:** Git submodule, team config repo, mix of Claude Code/Cursor users
+
+### Scenario 3: Large Enterprise (50+ Developers)
+
+**Project:** Multi-Product Platform
+
+**Organization:**
+
+- 5 product teams (8-10 devs each)
+- 1 platform team (10 devs - shared services)
+- 1 infrastructure team (5 devs)
+
+**Distribution (Feature-Based):**
+
+```
+Product Team A: Payments (10 epics, 2 weeks)
+Product Team B: User Mgmt (12 epics, 2 weeks)
+Product Team C: Analytics (8 epics, 1.5 weeks)
+Product Team D: Admin Tools (10 epics, 2 weeks)
+Product Team E: Mobile (15 epics, 3 weeks)
+
+Platform Team: Shared Services (continuous)
+Infrastructure Team: DevOps (continuous)
+
+Total: 3-4 months
+Traditional estimate: 2-3 years
+```
+
+**BMM Setup:** Each team has own submodule config, org-wide base config, variety of IDE tools
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+### Key Transformation
+
+**Work Unit Changed:**
+
+- **Old:** Story = unit of work assignment
+- **New:** Epic = unit of work assignment
+
+**Why:** AI agents collapse story duration (days → hours), making epic ownership practical.
+
+### Velocity Impact
+
+- **Traditional:** Months for epic delivery, heavy coordination
+- **Agentic:** Days for epic delivery, minimal coordination
+- **Result:** 10-50× productivity gains
+
+### PM/UX Evolution
+
+**BMad Method enables:**
+
+- PMs to write AI-executable PRDs
+- UX designers to validate through working prototypes
+- Technical fluency without CS degrees
+- Orchestration of cloud AI agent teams
+- Career evolution to Full-Stack Product Lead
+
+### Enterprise Adoption
+
+**Git submodules:** Best practice for BMM management across teams
+**Team flexibility:** Mix of tools (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf) with shared BMM foundation
+**Scalable patterns:** Epic-based, layer-based, feature-based distribution strategies
+
+### The Future (2026)
+
+PMs write BMad PRDs → Stories auto-fed to cloud AI agents → Parallel implementation → Human review of PRs → Continuous deployment
+
+**The future isn't AI replacing PMs—it's AI-augmented PMs becoming 10× more powerful.**
+
+---
+
+## Related Documentation
+
+- [FAQ](./faq.md) - Common questions
+- [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md) - Project levels explained
+- [Quick Start Guide](./quick-start.md) - Getting started
+- [Workflows Guide](../workflows/README.md) - Complete workflow reference
+- [Agents Guide](./agents-guide.md) - Understanding BMad agents
+
+---
+
+_BMad Method fundamentally changes how PMs work, how teams structure work, and how products get built. Understanding these patterns is essential for enterprise success in the age of AI agents._
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/faq.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/faq.md
@@ -0,0 +1,589 @@
+# BMM Frequently Asked Questions
+
+Quick answers to common questions about the BMad Method Module.
+
+---
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+- [Getting Started](#getting-started)
+- [Choosing the Right Level](#choosing-the-right-level)
+- [Workflows & Phases](#workflows--phases)
+- [Planning Documents](#planning-documents)
+- [Implementation](#implementation)
+- [Brownfield Development](#brownfield-development)
+- [Tools & Technical](#tools--technical)
+
+---
+
+## Getting Started
+
+### Q: Do I always need to run workflow-init?
+
+**A:** No, once you learn the flow you can go directly to workflows. However, workflow-init is helpful because it:
+
+- Determines your project's appropriate level automatically
+- Creates the tracking status file
+- Routes you to the correct starting workflow
+
+For experienced users: use the [Quick Reference](./quick-start.md#quick-reference-agent--document-mapping) to go directly to the right agent/workflow.
+
+### Q: Why do I need fresh chats for each workflow?
+
+**A:** Context-intensive workflows (like brainstorming, PRD creation, architecture design) can cause AI hallucinations if run in sequence within the same chat. Starting fresh ensures the agent has maximum context capacity for each workflow. This is particularly important for:
+
+- Planning workflows (PRD, architecture)
+- Analysis workflows (brainstorming, research)
+- Complex story implementation
+
+Quick workflows like status checks can reuse chats safely.
+
+### Q: Can I skip workflow-status and just start working?
+
+**A:** Yes, if you already know your project level and which workflow comes next. workflow-status is mainly useful for:
+
+- New projects (guides initial setup)
+- When you're unsure what to do next
+- After breaks in work (reminds you where you left off)
+- Checking overall progress
+
+### Q: What's the minimum I need to get started?
+
+**A:** For the fastest path:
+
+1. Install BMad Method: `npx bmad-method@alpha install`
+2. For small changes: Load PM agent → run tech-spec → implement
+3. For larger projects: Load PM agent → run prd → architect → implement
+
+### Q: How do I know if I'm in Phase 1, 2, 3, or 4?
+
+**A:** Check your `bmm-workflow-status.md` file (created by workflow-init). It shows your current phase and progress. If you don't have this file, you can also tell by what you're working on:
+
+- **Phase 1** - Brainstorming, research, product brief (optional)
+- **Phase 2** - Creating either a PRD or tech-spec (always required)
+- **Phase 3** - Architecture design (Level 2-4 only)
+- **Phase 4** - Actually writing code, implementing stories
+
+---
+
+## Choosing the Right Level
+
+### Q: How do I know which level my project is?
+
+**A:** Use workflow-init for automatic detection, or self-assess using these keywords:
+
+- **Level 0:** "fix", "bug", "typo", "small change", "patch" → 1 story
+- **Level 1:** "simple", "basic", "small feature", "add" → 2-10 stories
+- **Level 2:** "dashboard", "several features", "admin panel" → 5-15 stories
+- **Level 3:** "platform", "integration", "complex", "system" → 12-40 stories
+- **Level 4:** "enterprise", "multi-tenant", "multiple products" → 40+ stories
+
+When in doubt, start smaller. You can always run create-prd later if needed.
+
+### Q: Can I change levels mid-project?
+
+**A:** Yes! If you started at Level 1 but realize it's Level 2, you can run create-prd to add proper planning docs. The system is flexible - your initial level choice isn't permanent.
+
+### Q: What if workflow-init suggests the wrong level?
+
+**A:** You can override it! workflow-init suggests a level but always asks for confirmation. If you disagree, just say so and choose the level you think is appropriate. Trust your judgment.
+
+### Q: Do I always need architecture for Level 2?
+
+**A:** No, architecture is **optional** for Level 2. Only create architecture if you need system-level design. Many Level 2 projects work fine with just PRD + epic-tech-context created during implementation.
+
+### Q: What's the difference between Level 1 and Level 2?
+
+**A:**
+
+- **Level 1:** 1-10 stories, uses tech-spec (simpler, faster), no architecture
+- **Level 2:** 5-15 stories, uses PRD (product-focused), optional architecture
+
+The overlap (5-10 stories) is intentional. Choose based on:
+
+- Need product-level planning? → Level 2
+- Just need technical plan? → Level 1
+- Multiple epics? → Level 2
+- Single epic? → Level 1
+
+---
+
+## Workflows & Phases
+
+### Q: What's the difference between workflow-status and workflow-init?
+
+**A:**
+
+- **workflow-status:** Checks existing status and tells you what's next (use when continuing work)
+- **workflow-init:** Creates new status file and sets up project (use when starting new project)
+
+If status file exists, use workflow-status. If not, use workflow-init.
+
+### Q: Can I skip Phase 1 (Analysis)?
+
+**A:** Yes! Phase 1 is optional for all levels, though recommended for complex projects. Skip if:
+
+- Requirements are clear
+- No research needed
+- Time-sensitive work
+- Small changes (Level 0-1)
+
+### Q: When is Phase 3 (Architecture) required?
+
+**A:**
+
+- **Level 0-1:** Never (skip entirely)
+- **Level 2:** Optional (only if system design needed)
+- **Level 3-4:** Required (comprehensive architecture mandatory)
+
+### Q: What happens if I skip a recommended workflow?
+
+**A:** Nothing breaks! Workflows are guidance, not enforcement. However, skipping recommended workflows (like architecture for Level 3) may cause:
+
+- Integration issues during implementation
+- Rework due to poor planning
+- Conflicting design decisions
+- Longer development time overall
+
+### Q: How do I know when Phase 3 is complete and I can start Phase 4?
+
+**A:** For Level 3-4, run the solutioning-gate-check workflow. It validates that PRD, architecture, and UX (if applicable) are cohesive before implementation. Pass the gate check = ready for Phase 4.
+
+### Q: Can I run workflows in parallel or do they have to be sequential?
+
+**A:** Most workflows must be sequential within a phase:
+
+- Phase 1: brainstorm → research → product-brief (optional order)
+- Phase 2: PRD must complete before moving forward
+- Phase 3: architecture → validate → gate-check (sequential)
+- Phase 4: Stories within an epic should generally be sequential, but stories in different epics can be parallel if you have capacity
+
+---
+
+## Planning Documents
+
+### Q: What's the difference between tech-spec and epic-tech-context?
+
+**A:**
+
+- **Tech-spec (Level 0-1):** Created upfront in Planning Phase, serves as primary/only planning document, a combination of enough technical and planning information to drive a single or multiple files
+- **Epic-tech-context (Level 2-4):** Created during Implementation Phase per epic, supplements PRD + Architecture
+
+Think of it as: tech-spec is for small projects (replaces PRD and architecture), epic-tech-context is for large projects (supplements PRD).
+
+### Q: Why no tech-spec at Level 2+?
+
+**A:** Level 2+ projects need product-level planning (PRD) and system-level design (Architecture), which tech-spec doesn't provide. Tech-spec is too narrow for coordinating multiple features. Instead, Level 2-4 uses:
+
+- PRD (product vision, requirements, epics)
+- Architecture (system design)
+- Epic-tech-context (detailed implementation per epic, created just-in-time)
+
+### Q: When do I create epic-tech-context?
+
+**A:** In Phase 4, right before implementing each epic. Don't create all epic-tech-context upfront - that's over-planning. Create them just-in-time using the epic-tech-context workflow as you're about to start working on that epic.
+
+**Why just-in-time?** You'll learn from earlier epics, and those learnings improve later epic-tech-context.
+
+### Q: Do I need a PRD for a bug fix?
+
+**A:** No! Bug fixes are typically Level 0 (single atomic change). Use Quick Spec Flow:
+
+- Load PM agent
+- Run tech-spec workflow
+- Implement immediately
+
+PRDs are for Level 2-4 projects with multiple features requiring product-level coordination.
+
+### Q: Can I skip the product brief?
+
+**A:** Yes, product brief is always optional. It's most valuable for:
+
+- Level 3-4 projects needing strategic direction
+- Projects with stakeholders requiring alignment
+- Novel products needing market research
+- When you want to explore solution space before committing
+
+---
+
+## Implementation
+
+### Q: Do I need story-context for every story?
+
+**A:** Technically no, but it's recommended. story-context provides implementation-specific guidance, references existing patterns, and injects expertise. Skip it only if:
+
+- Very simple story (self-explanatory)
+- You're already expert in the area
+- Time is extremely limited
+
+For Level 0-1 using tech-spec, story-context is less critical because tech-spec is already comprehensive.
+
+### Q: What if I don't create epic-tech-context before drafting stories?
+
+**A:** You can proceed without it, but you'll miss:
+
+- Epic-level technical direction
+- Architecture guidance for this epic
+- Integration strategy with other epics
+- Common patterns to follow across stories
+
+epic-tech-context helps ensure stories within an epic are cohesive.
+
+### Q: How do I mark a story as done?
+
+**A:** You have two options:
+
+**Option 1: Use story-done workflow (Recommended)**
+
+1. Load SM agent
+2. Run `story-done` workflow
+3. Workflow automatically updates `sprint-status.yaml` (created by sprint-planning at Phase 4 start)
+4. Moves story from current status → `DONE`
+5. Advances the story queue
+
+**Option 2: Manual update**
+
+1. After dev-story completes and code-review passes
+2. Open `sprint-status.yaml` (created by sprint-planning)
+3. Change the story status from `review` to `done`
+4. Save the file
+
+The story-done workflow is faster and ensures proper status file updates.
+
+### Q: Can I work on multiple stories at once?
+
+**A:** Yes, if you have capacity! Stories within different epics can be worked in parallel. However, stories within the same epic are usually sequential because they build on each other.
+
+### Q: What if my story takes longer than estimated?
+
+**A:** That's normal! Stories are estimates. If implementation reveals more complexity:
+
+1. Continue working until DoD is met
+2. Consider if story should be split
+3. Document learnings in retrospective
+4. Adjust future estimates based on this learning
+
+### Q: When should I run retrospective?
+
+**A:** After completing all stories in an epic (when epic is done). Retrospectives capture:
+
+- What went well
+- What could improve
+- Technical insights
+- Input for next epic-tech-context
+
+Don't wait until project end - run after each epic for continuous improvement.
+
+---
+
+## Brownfield Development
+
+### Q: What is brownfield vs greenfield?
+
+**A:**
+
+- **Greenfield:** New project, starting from scratch, clean slate
+- **Brownfield:** Existing project, working with established codebase and patterns
+
+### Q: Do I have to run document-project for brownfield?
+
+**A:** Highly recommended, especially if:
+
+- No existing documentation
+- Documentation is outdated
+- AI agents need context about existing code
+- Level 2-4 complexity
+
+You can skip it if you have comprehensive, up-to-date documentation including `docs/index.md`.
+
+### Q: What if I forget to run document-project on brownfield?
+
+**A:** Workflows will lack context about existing code. You may get:
+
+- Suggestions that don't match existing patterns
+- Integration approaches that miss existing APIs
+- Architecture that conflicts with current structure
+
+Run document-project and restart planning with proper context.
+
+### Q: Can I use Quick Spec Flow for brownfield projects?
+
+**A:** Yes! Quick Spec Flow works great for brownfield. It will:
+
+- Auto-detect your existing stack
+- Analyze brownfield code patterns
+- Detect conventions and ask for confirmation
+- Generate context-rich tech-spec that respects existing code
+
+Perfect for bug fixes and small features in existing codebases.
+
+### Q: How does workflow-init handle brownfield with old planning docs?
+
+**A:** workflow-init asks about YOUR current work first, then uses old artifacts as context:
+
+1. Shows what it found (old PRD, epics, etc.)
+2. Asks: "Is this work in progress, previous effort, or proposed work?"
+3. If previous effort: Asks you to describe your NEW work
+4. Determines level based on YOUR work, not old artifacts
+
+This prevents old Level 3 PRDs from forcing Level 3 workflow for new Level 0 bug fix.
+
+### Q: What if my existing code doesn't follow best practices?
+
+**A:** Quick Spec Flow detects your conventions and asks: "Should I follow these existing conventions?" You decide:
+
+- **Yes** → Maintain consistency with current codebase
+- **No** → Establish new standards (document why in tech-spec)
+
+BMM respects your choice - it won't force modernization, but it will offer it.
+
+---
+
+## Tools & Technical
+
+### Q: Why are my Mermaid diagrams not rendering?
+
+**A:** Common issues:
+
+1. Missing language tag: Use ` ```mermaid` not just ` ``` `
+2. Syntax errors in diagram (validate at mermaid.live)
+3. Tool doesn't support Mermaid (check your Markdown renderer)
+
+All BMM docs use valid Mermaid syntax that should render in GitHub, VS Code, and most IDEs.
+
+### Q: Can I use BMM with GitHub Copilot / Cursor / other AI tools?
+
+**A:** Yes! BMM is complementary. BMM handles:
+
+- Project planning and structure
+- Workflow orchestration
+- Agent Personas and expertise
+- Documentation generation
+- Quality gates
+
+Your AI coding assistant handles:
+
+- Line-by-line code completion
+- Quick refactoring
+- Test generation
+
+Use them together for best results.
+
+### Q: What IDEs/tools support BMM?
+
+**A:** BMM requires tools with **agent mode** and access to **high-quality LLM models** that can load and follow complex workflows, then properly implement code changes.
+
+**Recommended Tools:**
+
+- **Claude Code** ⭐ **Best choice**
+  - Sonnet 4.5 (excellent workflow following, coding, reasoning)
+  - Opus (maximum context, complex planning)
+  - Native agent mode designed for BMM workflows
+
+- **Cursor**
+  - Supports Anthropic (Claude) and OpenAI models
+  - Agent mode with composer
+  - Good for developers who prefer Cursor's UX
+
+- **Windsurf**
+  - Multi-model support
+  - Agent capabilities
+  - Suitable for BMM workflows
+
+**What Matters:**
+
+1. **Agent mode** - Can load long workflow instructions and maintain context
+2. **High-quality LLM** - Models ranked high on SWE-bench (coding benchmarks)
+3. **Model selection** - Access to Claude Sonnet 4.5, Opus, or GPT-4o class models
+4. **Context capacity** - Can handle large planning documents and codebases
+
+**Why model quality matters:** BMM workflows require LLMs that can follow multi-step processes, maintain context across phases, and implement code that adheres to specifications. Tools with weaker models will struggle with workflow adherence and code quality.
+
+See [IDE Setup Guides](../../../docs/ide-info/) for configuration specifics.
+
+### Q: Can I customize agents?
+
+**A:** Yes! Agents are installed as markdown files with XML-style content (optimized for LLMs, readable by any model). Create customization files in `bmad/_cfg/agents/[agent-name].customize.yaml` to override default behaviors while keeping core functionality intact. See agent documentation for customization options.
+
+**Note:** While source agents in this repo are YAML, they install as `.md` files with XML-style tags - a format any LLM can read and follow.
+
+### Q: What happens to my planning docs after implementation?
+
+**A:** Keep them! They serve as:
+
+- Historical record of decisions
+- Onboarding material for new team members
+- Reference for future enhancements
+- Audit trail for compliance
+
+For enterprise projects (Level 4), consider archiving completed planning artifacts to keep workspace clean.
+
+### Q: Can I use BMM for non-software projects?
+
+**A:** BMM is optimized for software development, but the methodology principles (scale-adaptive planning, just-in-time design, context injection) can apply to other complex project types. You'd need to adapt workflows and agents for your domain.
+
+---
+
+## Advanced Questions
+
+### Q: What if my project grows from Level 1 to Level 3?
+
+**A:** Totally fine! When you realize scope has grown:
+
+1. Run create-prd to add product-level planning
+2. Run create-architecture for system design
+3. Use existing tech-spec as input for PRD
+4. Continue with updated level
+
+The system is flexible - growth is expected.
+
+### Q: Can I mix greenfield and brownfield approaches?
+
+**A:** Yes! Common scenario: adding new greenfield feature to brownfield codebase. Approach:
+
+1. Run document-project for brownfield context
+2. Use greenfield workflows for new feature planning
+3. Explicitly document integration points between new and existing
+4. Test integration thoroughly
+
+### Q: How do I handle urgent hotfixes during a sprint?
+
+**A:** Use correct-course workflow or just:
+
+1. Save your current work state
+2. Load PM agent → quick tech-spec for hotfix
+3. Implement hotfix (Level 0 flow)
+4. Deploy hotfix
+5. Return to original sprint work
+
+Level 0 Quick Spec Flow is perfect for urgent fixes.
+
+### Q: What if I disagree with the workflow's recommendations?
+
+**A:** Workflows are guidance, not enforcement. If a workflow recommends something that doesn't make sense for your context:
+
+- Explain your reasoning to the agent
+- Ask for alternative approaches
+- Skip the recommendation if you're confident
+- Document why you deviated (for future reference)
+
+Trust your expertise - BMM supports your decisions.
+
+### Q: Can multiple developers work on the same BMM project?
+
+**A:** Yes! But the paradigm is fundamentally different from traditional agile teams.
+
+**Key Difference:**
+
+- **Traditional:** Multiple devs work on stories within one epic (months)
+- **Agentic:** Each dev owns complete epics (days)
+
+**In traditional agile:** A team of 5 devs might spend 2-3 months on a single epic, with each dev owning different stories.
+
+**With BMM + AI agents:** A single dev can complete an entire epic in 1-3 days. What used to take months now takes days.
+
+**Team Work Distribution:**
+
+- **Recommended:** Split work by **epic** (not story)
+- Each developer owns complete epics end-to-end
+- Parallel work happens at epic level
+- Minimal coordination needed
+
+**For full-stack apps:**
+
+- Frontend and backend can be separate epics (unusual in traditional agile)
+- Frontend dev owns all frontend epics
+- Backend dev owns all backend epics
+- Works because delivery is so fast
+
+**Enterprise Considerations:**
+
+- Use **git submodules** for BMM installation (not .gitignore)
+- Allows personal configurations without polluting main repo
+- Teams may use different AI tools (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.)
+- Developers may follow different methods or create custom agents/workflows
+
+**Quick Tips:**
+
+- Share `sprint-status.yaml` (single source of truth)
+- Assign entire epics to developers (not individual stories)
+- Coordinate at epic boundaries, not story level
+- Use git submodules for BMM in enterprise settings
+
+**For comprehensive coverage of enterprise team collaboration, work distribution strategies, git submodule setup, and velocity expectations, see:**
+
+👉 **[Enterprise Agentic Development Guide](./enterprise-agentic-development.md)**
+
+### Q: What is party mode and when should I use it?
+
+**A:** Party mode is a unique multi-agent collaboration feature where ALL your installed agents (19+ from BMM, CIS, BMB, custom modules) discuss your challenges together in real-time.
+
+**How it works:**
+
+1. Run `/bmad:core:workflows:party-mode` (or `*party-mode` from any agent)
+2. Introduce your topic
+3. BMad Master selects 2-3 most relevant agents per message
+4. Agents cross-talk, debate, and build on each other's ideas
+
+**Best for:**
+
+- Strategic decisions with trade-offs (architecture choices, tech stack, scope)
+- Creative brainstorming (game design, product innovation, UX ideation)
+- Cross-functional alignment (epic kickoffs, retrospectives, phase transitions)
+- Complex problem-solving (multi-faceted challenges, risk assessment)
+
+**Example parties:**
+
+- **Product Strategy:** PM + Innovation Strategist (CIS) + Analyst
+- **Technical Design:** Architect + Creative Problem Solver (CIS) + Game Architect
+- **User Experience:** UX Designer + Design Thinking Coach (CIS) + Storyteller (CIS)
+
+**Why it's powerful:**
+
+- Diverse perspectives (technical, creative, strategic)
+- Healthy debate reveals blind spots
+- Emergent insights from agent interaction
+- Natural collaboration across modules
+
+**For complete documentation:**
+
+👉 **[Party Mode Guide](./party-mode.md)** - How it works, when to use it, example compositions, best practices
+
+---
+
+## Getting Help
+
+### Q: Where do I get help if my question isn't answered here?
+
+**A:**
+
+1. Check [Troubleshooting Guide](./troubleshooting.md) for common issues
+2. Search [Complete Documentation](./README.md) for related topics
+3. Ask in [Discord Community](https://discord.gg/gk8jAdXWmj) (#general-dev)
+4. Open a [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD/issues)
+5. Watch [YouTube Tutorials](https://www.youtube.com/@BMadCode)
+
+### Q: How do I report a bug or request a feature?
+
+**A:** Open a GitHub issue at: https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD/issues
+
+Please include:
+
+- BMM version (check your installed version)
+- Steps to reproduce (for bugs)
+- Expected vs actual behavior
+- Relevant workflow or agent involved
+
+---
+
+## Related Documentation
+
+- [Quick Start Guide](./quick-start.md) - Get started with BMM
+- [Glossary](./glossary.md) - Terminology reference
+- [Troubleshooting](./troubleshooting.md) - Problem resolution
+- [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md) - Understanding levels
+- [Brownfield Guide](./brownfield-guide.md) - Existing codebase workflows
+
+---
+
+**Have a question not answered here?** Please [open an issue](https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD/issues) or ask in [Discord](https://discord.gg/gk8jAdXWmj) so we can add it!
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/glossary.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/glossary.md
@@ -0,0 +1,321 @@
+# BMM Glossary
+
+Comprehensive terminology reference for the BMad Method Module.
+
+---
+
+## Navigation
+
+- [Core Concepts](#core-concepts)
+- [Scale & Complexity](#scale--complexity)
+- [Planning Documents](#planning-documents)
+- [Workflow & Phases](#workflow--phases)
+- [Agents & Roles](#agents--roles)
+- [Status & Tracking](#status--tracking)
+- [Project Types](#project-types)
+- [Implementation Terms](#implementation-terms)
+
+---
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+### BMM (BMad Method Module)
+
+Core orchestration system for AI-driven agile development, providing comprehensive lifecycle management through specialized agents and workflows.
+
+### BMad Method
+
+The complete methodology for AI-assisted software development, encompassing planning, architecture, implementation, and quality assurance workflows that adapt to project complexity.
+
+### Scale-Adaptive System
+
+BMad Method's intelligent workflow orchestration that automatically adjusts planning depth, documentation requirements, and implementation processes based on project needs through three distinct planning tracks (Quick Flow, BMad Method, Enterprise Method).
+
+### Agent
+
+A specialized AI persona with specific expertise (PM, Architect, SM, DEV, TEA) that guides users through workflows and creates deliverables. Agents have defined capabilities, communication styles, and workflow access.
+
+### Workflow
+
+A multi-step guided process that orchestrates AI agent activities to produce specific deliverables. Workflows are interactive and adapt to user context.
+
+---
+
+## Scale & Complexity
+
+### Quick Flow Track
+
+Fast implementation track using tech-spec planning only. Best for bug fixes, small features, and changes with clear scope. Typical range: 1-15 stories. No architecture phase needed. Examples: bug fixes, OAuth login, search features.
+
+### BMad Method Track
+
+Full product planning track using PRD + Architecture + UX. Best for products, platforms, and complex features requiring system design. Typical range: 10-50+ stories. Examples: admin dashboards, e-commerce platforms, SaaS products.
+
+### Enterprise Method Track
+
+Extended enterprise planning track adding Security Architecture, DevOps Strategy, and Test Strategy to BMad Method. Best for enterprise requirements, compliance needs, and multi-tenant systems. Typical range: 30+ stories. Examples: multi-tenant platforms, compliance-driven systems, mission-critical applications.
+
+### Planning Track
+
+The methodology path (Quick Flow, BMad Method, or Enterprise Method) chosen for a project based on planning needs, complexity, and requirements rather than story count alone.
+
+**Note:** Story counts are guidance, not definitions. Tracks are determined by what planning the project needs, not story math.
+
+---
+
+## Planning Documents
+
+### Tech-Spec (Technical Specification)
+
+**Quick Flow track only.** Comprehensive technical plan created upfront that serves as the primary planning document for small changes or features. Contains problem statement, solution approach, file-level changes, stack detection (brownfield), testing strategy, and developer resources.
+
+### Epic-Tech-Context (Epic Technical Context)
+
+**BMad Method/Enterprise tracks only.** Detailed technical planning document created during implementation (just-in-time) for each epic. Supplements PRD + Architecture with epic-specific implementation details, code-level design decisions, and integration points.
+
+**Key Difference:** Tech-spec (Quick Flow) is created upfront and is the only planning doc. Epic-tech-context (BMad Method/Enterprise) is created per epic during implementation and supplements PRD + Architecture.
+
+### PRD (Product Requirements Document)
+
+**BMad Method/Enterprise tracks.** Product-level planning document containing vision, goals, feature requirements, epic breakdown, success criteria, and UX considerations. Replaces tech-spec for larger projects that need product planning.
+
+### Architecture Document
+
+**BMad Method/Enterprise tracks.** System-wide design document defining structure, components, interactions, data models, integration patterns, security, performance, and deployment.
+
+**Scale-Adaptive:** Architecture complexity scales with track - BMad Method is lightweight to moderate, Enterprise Method is comprehensive with security/devops/test strategies.
+
+### Epics
+
+High-level feature groupings that contain multiple related stories. Typically span 5-15 stories each and represent cohesive functionality (e.g., "User Authentication Epic").
+
+### Product Brief
+
+Optional strategic planning document created in Phase 1 (Analysis) that captures product vision, market context, user needs, and high-level requirements before detailed planning.
+
+### GDD (Game Design Document)
+
+Game development equivalent of PRD, created by Game Designer agent for game projects.
+
+---
+
+## Workflow & Phases
+
+### Phase 0: Documentation (Prerequisite)
+
+**Conditional phase for brownfield projects.** Creates comprehensive codebase documentation before planning. Only required if existing documentation is insufficient for AI agents.
+
+### Phase 1: Analysis (Optional)
+
+Discovery and research phase including brainstorming, research workflows, and product brief creation. Optional for Quick Flow, recommended for BMad Method, required for Enterprise Method.
+
+### Phase 2: Planning (Required)
+
+**Always required.** Creates formal requirements and work breakdown. Routes to tech-spec (Quick Flow) or PRD (BMad Method/Enterprise) based on selected track.
+
+### Phase 3: Solutioning (Track-Dependent)
+
+Architecture design phase. Required for BMad Method and Enterprise Method tracks. Includes architecture creation, validation, and gate checks.
+
+### Phase 4: Implementation (Required)
+
+Sprint-based development through story-by-story iteration. Uses sprint-planning, epic-tech-context, create-story, story-context, dev-story, code-review, and retrospective workflows.
+
+### Quick Spec Flow
+
+Fast-track workflow system for Quick Flow track projects that goes straight from idea to tech-spec to implementation, bypassing heavy planning. Designed for bug fixes, small features, and rapid prototyping.
+
+### Just-In-Time Design
+
+Pattern where epic-tech-context is created during implementation (Phase 4) right before working on each epic, rather than all upfront. Enables learning and adaptation.
+
+### Context Injection
+
+Dynamic technical guidance generated for each story via epic-tech-context and story-context workflows, providing exact expertise when needed without upfront over-planning.
+
+---
+
+## Agents & Roles
+
+### PM (Product Manager)
+
+Agent responsible for creating PRDs, tech-specs, and managing product requirements. Primary agent for Phase 2 planning.
+
+### Analyst (Business Analyst)
+
+Agent that initializes workflows, conducts research, creates product briefs, and tracks progress. Often the entry point for new projects.
+
+### Architect
+
+Agent that designs system architecture, creates architecture documents, performs technical reviews, and validates designs. Primary agent for Phase 3 solutioning.
+
+### SM (Scrum Master)
+
+Agent that manages sprints, creates stories, generates contexts, and coordinates implementation. Primary orchestrator for Phase 4 implementation.
+
+### DEV (Developer)
+
+Agent that implements stories, writes code, runs tests, and performs code reviews. Primary implementer in Phase 4.
+
+### TEA (Test Architect)
+
+Agent responsible for test strategy, quality gates, NFR assessment, and comprehensive quality assurance. Integrates throughout all phases.
+
+### Technical Writer
+
+Agent specialized in creating and maintaining high-quality technical documentation. Expert in documentation standards, information architecture, and professional technical writing. The agent's internal name is "paige" but is presented as "Technical Writer" to users.
+
+### UX Designer
+
+Agent that creates UX design documents, interaction patterns, and visual specifications for UI-heavy projects.
+
+### Game Designer
+
+Specialized agent for game development projects. Creates game design documents (GDD) and game-specific workflows.
+
+### BMad Master
+
+Meta-level orchestrator agent from BMad Core. Facilitates party mode, lists available tasks and workflows, and provides high-level guidance across all modules.
+
+### Party Mode
+
+Multi-agent collaboration feature where all installed agents (19+ from BMM, CIS, BMB, custom modules) discuss challenges together in real-time. BMad Master orchestrates, selecting 2-3 relevant agents per message for natural cross-talk and debate. Best for strategic decisions, creative brainstorming, cross-functional alignment, and complex problem-solving. See [Party Mode Guide](./party-mode.md).
+
+---
+
+## Status & Tracking
+
+### bmm-workflow-status.yaml
+
+**Phases 1-3.** Tracking file that shows current phase, completed workflows, progress, and next recommended actions. Created by workflow-init, updated automatically.
+
+### sprint-status.yaml
+
+**Phase 4 only.** Single source of truth for implementation tracking. Contains all epics, stories, and retrospectives with current status for each. Created by sprint-planning, updated by agents.
+
+### Story Status Progression
+
+```
+backlog → drafted → ready-for-dev → in-progress → review → done
+```
+
+- **backlog** - Story exists in epic but not yet drafted
+- **drafted** - Story file created by SM via create-story
+- **ready-for-dev** - Story has context, ready for DEV via story-context
+- **in-progress** - DEV is implementing via dev-story
+- **review** - Implementation complete, awaiting code-review
+- **done** - Completed with DoD met
+
+### Epic Status Progression
+
+```
+backlog → contexted
+```
+
+- **backlog** - Epic exists in planning docs but no context yet
+- **contexted** - Epic has technical context via epic-tech-context
+
+### Retrospective
+
+Workflow run after completing each epic to capture learnings, identify improvements, and feed insights into next epic planning. Critical for continuous improvement.
+
+---
+
+## Project Types
+
+### Greenfield
+
+New project starting from scratch with no existing codebase. Freedom to establish patterns, choose stack, and design from clean slate.
+
+### Brownfield
+
+Existing project with established codebase, patterns, and constraints. Requires understanding existing architecture, respecting established conventions, and planning integration with current systems.
+
+**Critical:** Brownfield projects should run document-project workflow BEFORE planning to ensure AI agents have adequate context about existing code.
+
+### document-project Workflow
+
+**Brownfield prerequisite.** Analyzes and documents existing codebase, creating comprehensive documentation including project overview, architecture analysis, source tree, API contracts, and data models. Three scan levels: quick, deep, exhaustive.
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Terms
+
+### Story
+
+Single unit of implementable work with clear acceptance criteria, typically 2-8 hours of development effort. Stories are grouped into epics and tracked in sprint-status.yaml.
+
+### Story File
+
+Markdown file containing story details: description, acceptance criteria, technical notes, dependencies, implementation guidance, and testing requirements.
+
+### Story Context
+
+Technical guidance document created via story-context workflow that provides implementation-specific context, references existing patterns, suggests approaches, and injects expertise for the specific story.
+
+### Epic Context
+
+Technical planning document created via epic-tech-context workflow before drafting stories within an epic. Provides epic-level technical direction, architecture notes, and implementation strategy.
+
+### Sprint Planning
+
+Workflow that initializes Phase 4 implementation by creating sprint-status.yaml, extracting all epics/stories from planning docs, and setting up tracking infrastructure.
+
+### Gate Check
+
+Validation workflow (solutioning-gate-check) run before Phase 4 to ensure PRD, architecture, and UX documents are cohesive with no gaps or contradictions. Required for BMad Method and Enterprise Method tracks.
+
+### DoD (Definition of Done)
+
+Criteria that must be met before marking a story as done. Typically includes: implementation complete, tests written and passing, code reviewed, documentation updated, and acceptance criteria validated.
+
+### Shard / Sharding
+
+**For runtime LLM optimization only (NOT human docs).** Splitting large planning documents (PRD, epics, architecture) into smaller section-based files to improve workflow efficiency. Phase 1-3 workflows load entire sharded documents transparently. Phase 4 workflows selectively load only needed sections for massive token savings.
+
+---
+
+## Additional Terms
+
+### Workflow Status
+
+Universal entry point workflow that checks for existing status file, displays current phase/progress, and recommends next action based on project state.
+
+### Workflow Init
+
+Initialization workflow that creates bmm-workflow-status.yaml, detects greenfield vs brownfield, determines planning track, and sets up appropriate workflow path.
+
+### Track Selection
+
+Automatic analysis by workflow-init that uses keyword analysis, complexity indicators, and project requirements to suggest appropriate track (Quick Flow, BMad Method, or Enterprise Method). User can override suggested track.
+
+### Correct Course
+
+Workflow run during Phase 4 when significant changes or issues arise. Analyzes impact, proposes solutions, and routes to appropriate remediation workflows.
+
+### Migration Strategy
+
+Plan for handling changes to existing data, schemas, APIs, or patterns during brownfield development. Critical for ensuring backward compatibility and smooth rollout.
+
+### Feature Flags
+
+Implementation technique for brownfield projects that allows gradual rollout of new functionality, easy rollback, and A/B testing. Recommended for BMad Method and Enterprise brownfield changes.
+
+### Integration Points
+
+Specific locations where new code connects with existing systems. Must be documented explicitly in brownfield tech-specs and architectures.
+
+### Convention Detection
+
+Quick Spec Flow feature that automatically detects existing code style, naming conventions, patterns, and frameworks from brownfield codebases, then asks user to confirm before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Related Documentation
+
+- [Quick Start Guide](./quick-start.md) - Learn BMM basics
+- [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md) - Deep dive on tracks and complexity
+- [Brownfield Guide](./brownfield-guide.md) - Working with existing codebases
+- [Quick Spec Flow](./quick-spec-flow.md) - Fast-track for Quick Flow track
+- [FAQ](./faq.md) - Common questions
+- [Troubleshooting](./troubleshooting.md) - Problem resolution
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/party-mode.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/party-mode.md
@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+# Party Mode: Multi-Agent Collaboration
+
+**Get all your AI agents in one conversation**
+
+---
+
+## What is Party Mode?
+
+Ever wanted to gather your entire AI team in one room and see what happens? That's party mode.
+
+Type `/bmad:core:workflows:party-mode` (or `*party-mode` from any agent), and suddenly you've got **all your AI agents** in one conversation. PM, Architect, DEV, UX Designer, the CIS creative agents - everyone shows up.
+
+**Why it's useful:**
+
+- **After complex workflows** - Debrief with the whole team about what worked, what didn't
+- **Big decisions with tradeoffs** - Get technical, creative, and strategic perspectives simultaneously
+- **Brainstorming sessions** - Watch ideas evolve through cross-pollination
+- **When things go wrong** - Call out failures, watch agents defend their decisions, let them debate whose fault it was (oddly therapeutic)
+- **Sprint retrospectives** - Party mode powers the retrospective workflow
+- **Sprint planning** - Multi-agent collaboration for planning sessions
+
+**Future use:** Advanced elicitation workflows will leverage party mode for sophisticated requirement gathering.
+
+---
+
+## How It Works
+
+**The basics:**
+
+1. Party mode reads `bmad/_cfg/agent-manifest.csv`
+2. Loads ALL installed agents (already includes your customizations from install)
+3. BMad Master orchestrates - picks 2-3 relevant agents per message based on topic
+4. Agents respond in character, can agree/disagree/build on each other's ideas
+5. Discussion continues until you type "exit" or reach natural conclusion
+
+**That's it.** No complex merging, no runtime magic. Just agents talking.
+
+---
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```bash
+# Trigger party mode
+/bmad:core:workflows:party-mode
+
+# OR from any agent context
+*party-mode
+
+# During party
+Ask questions, respond to agents, direct the conversation
+
+# Exit
+Type: exit
+```
+
+---
+
+## Fun Examples
+
+### Example 1: Calling Out Bad Architecture
+
+**You:** "Okay team, our last sprint was a disaster. The authentication service went down three times. Who screwed this up?"
+
+**Architect (Winston):** "The design was sound - distributed authentication with proper fallbacks. If implementation deviated from the spec..."
+
+**DEV (Amelia):** "I followed the architecture doc exactly. The spec didn't account for concurrent session invalidation race conditions."
+
+**PM (John):** "Both of you missed the bigger issue - we didn't validate session management requirements in the PRD. This is on me for not catching it."
+
+**TEA (Murat):** "And I should've caught this in integration tests. The test scenarios didn't cover concurrent invalidation."
+
+_(Watch them debate whose fault it really was - it's therapeutic)_
+
+---
+
+### Example 2: Creative Brainstorming
+
+**You:** "How do we make onboarding feel magical instead of boring?"
+
+**UX Designer (Sally):** "Start with progressive disclosure - reveal features as users need them, not all at once in a tutorial."
+
+**Storyteller (CIS):** "What if onboarding was a story? Each step reveals a character's journey - the user IS the hero."
+
+**Innovation Strategist (CIS):** "Take it further - gamify with unlockable achievements. But make them meaningful, not arbitrary badges."
+
+**Game Designer:** "Building on that - what if the first 'quest' is actually solving a real user problem? They learn by doing something valuable."
+
+_(Ideas cross-pollinate and evolve)_
+
+---
+
+### Example 3: Technical Decision
+
+**You:** "Monolith or microservices for MVP?"
+
+**Architect:** "Start monolith. Microservices add complexity you don't need at 1000 users."
+
+**PM:** "Agree. Time to market matters more than theoretical scalability."
+
+**DEV:** "Monolith with clear module boundaries. We can extract services later if needed."
+
+**Innovation Strategist:** "Contrarian take - if your differentiator IS scalability, build for it now. Otherwise Architect's right."
+
+_(Multiple perspectives reveal the right answer)_
+
+---
+
+## When NOT to Use Party Mode
+
+**Skip party mode for:**
+
+- Simple implementation questions → Use DEV agent
+- Document review → Use Technical Writer
+- Workflow status checks → Use any agent + `*workflow-status`
+- Single-domain questions → Use specialist agent
+
+**Use party mode for:**
+
+- Multi-perspective decisions
+- Creative collaboration
+- Post-mortems and retrospectives
+- Sprint planning sessions
+- Complex problem-solving
+
+---
+
+## Agent Customization
+
+Party mode uses agents from `bmad/[module]/agents/*.md` - these already include any customizations you applied during install.
+
+**To customize agents for party mode:**
+
+1. Create customization file: `bmad/_cfg/agents/bmm-pm.customize.yaml`
+2. Run `npx bmad-method install` to rebuild agents
+3. Customizations now active in party mode
+
+Example customization:
+
+```yaml
+agent:
+  persona:
+    principles:
+      - 'HIPAA compliance is non-negotiable'
+      - 'Patient safety over feature velocity'
+```
+
+See [Agents Guide](./agents-guide.md#agent-customization) for details.
+
+---
+
+## BMM Workflows That Use Party Mode
+
+**Current:**
+
+- `epic-retrospective` - Post-epic team retrospective powered by party mode
+- Sprint planning discussions (informal party mode usage)
+
+**Future:**
+
+- Advanced elicitation workflows will officially integrate party mode
+- Multi-agent requirement validation
+- Collaborative technical reviews
+
+---
+
+## Available Agents
+
+Party mode can include **19+ agents** from all installed modules:
+
+**BMM (12 agents):** PM, Analyst, Architect, SM, DEV, TEA, UX Designer, Technical Writer, Game Designer, Game Developer, Game Architect
+
+**CIS (5 agents):** Brainstorming Coach, Creative Problem Solver, Design Thinking Coach, Innovation Strategist, Storyteller
+
+**BMB (1 agent):** BMad Builder
+
+**Core (1 agent):** BMad Master (orchestrator)
+
+**Custom:** Any agents you've created
+
+---
+
+## Tips
+
+**Get better results:**
+
+- Be specific with your topic/question
+- Provide context (project type, constraints, goals)
+- Direct specific agents when you want their expertise
+- Make decisions - party mode informs, you decide
+- Time box discussions (15-30 minutes is usually plenty)
+
+**Examples of good opening questions:**
+
+- "We need to decide between REST and GraphQL for our mobile API. Project is a B2B SaaS with 50 enterprise clients."
+- "Our last sprint failed spectacularly. Let's discuss what went wrong with authentication implementation."
+- "Brainstorm: how can we make our game's tutorial feel rewarding instead of tedious?"
+
+---
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+**Same agents responding every time?**
+Vary your questions or explicitly request other perspectives: "Game Designer, your thoughts?"
+
+**Discussion going in circles?**
+BMad Master will summarize and redirect, or you can make a decision and move on.
+
+**Too many agents talking?**
+Make your topic more specific - BMad Master picks 2-3 agents based on relevance.
+
+**Agents not using customizations?**
+Make sure you ran `npx bmad-method install` after creating customization files.
+
+---
+
+## Related Documentation
+
+- [Agents Guide](./agents-guide.md) - Complete agent reference
+- [Quick Start Guide](./quick-start.md) - Getting started with BMM
+- [FAQ](./faq.md) - Common questions
+
+---
+
+_Better decisions through diverse perspectives. Welcome to party mode._
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/quick-spec-flow.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/quick-spec-flow.md
@@ -8,60 +8,67 @@

 ## What is Quick Spec Flow?

-Quick Spec Flow is a **streamlined alternative** to the full BMad Method for Level 0-1 projects. Instead of going through Product Brief → PRD → Architecture, you go **straight to a context-aware technical specification** and start coding.
+Quick Spec Flow is a **streamlined alternative** to the full BMad Method for Quick Flow track projects. Instead of going through Product Brief → PRD → Architecture, you go **straight to a context-aware technical specification** and start coding.

 ### When to Use Quick Spec Flow

-✅ **Use Quick Spec Flow (Level 0-1) when:**
+✅ **Use Quick Flow track when:**

- Single bug fix or small enhancement (Level 0)
- Small feature with 2-3 related changes (Level 1)
+- Single bug fix or small enhancement
+- Small feature with clear scope (typically 1-15 stories)
 - Rapid prototyping or experimentation
 - Adding to existing brownfield codebase
 - You know exactly what you want to build

-❌ **Use Full BMM Flow (Level 2-4) when:**
+❌ **Use BMad Method or Enterprise tracks when:**

- Building new products or major features (Level 2-4)
+- Building new products or major features
 - Need stakeholder alignment
 - Complex multi-team coordination
 - Requires extensive planning and architecture

-💡 **Not sure?** Run `workflow-init` to get a recommendation based on your project's size and complexity!
+💡 **Not sure?** Run `workflow-init` to get a recommendation based on your project's needs!

 ---

 ## Quick Spec Flow Overview

-```
-┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
-│                    QUICK SPEC FLOW                          │
-│                   (Level 0-1 Projects)                      │
-└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    START[Step 1: Run Tech-Spec Workflow]
+    DETECT[Detects project stack<br/>package.json, requirements.txt, etc.]
+    ANALYZE[Analyzes brownfield codebase<br/>if exists]
+    TEST[Detects test frameworks<br/>and conventions]
+    CONFIRM[Confirms conventions<br/>with you]
+    GENERATE[Generates context-rich<br/>tech-spec]
+    STORIES[Creates ready-to-implement<br/>stories]

-Step 1: Run Tech-Spec Workflow
-    │
-    ├─► Detects your project stack (package.json, requirements.txt, etc.)
-    ├─► Analyzes brownfield codebase (if exists)
-    ├─► Detects test frameworks and conventions
-    ├─► Confirms conventions with you
-    ├─► Generates context-rich tech-spec
-    └─► Creates ready-to-implement stories
+    OPTIONAL[Step 2: Optional<br/>Generate Story Context<br/>SM Agent<br/>For complex scenarios only]

-Step 2: Optional - Generate Story Context (SM Agent)
-    │
-    └─► For complex scenarios only
+    IMPL[Step 3: Implement<br/>DEV Agent<br/>Code, test, commit]

-Step 3: Implement (DEV Agent)
-    │
-    └─► Code, test, commit
+    DONE[DONE! 🚀]

-DONE! 🚀
+    START --> DETECT
+    DETECT --> ANALYZE
+    ANALYZE --> TEST
+    TEST --> CONFIRM
+    CONFIRM --> GENERATE
+    GENERATE --> STORIES
+    STORIES --> OPTIONAL
+    OPTIONAL -.->|Optional| IMPL
+    STORIES --> IMPL
+    IMPL --> DONE
+
+    style START fill:#bfb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style OPTIONAL fill:#ffb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5
+    style IMPL fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style DONE fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:3px
 ```

 ---

-## Level 0: Single Atomic Change
+## Single Atomic Change

 **Best for:** Bug fixes, single file changes, isolated improvements

@@ -97,7 +104,7 @@ DONE! 🚀
 - ✅ Auto-validates quality
 - ✅ Story context optional (tech-spec is comprehensive!)

-### Example Level 0 Scenarios
+### Example Single Change Scenarios

 - "Fix the login validation bug"
 - "Add email field to user registration form"
@@ -106,13 +113,13 @@ DONE! 🚀

 ---

-## Level 1: Coherent Small Feature
+## Coherent Small Feature

 **Best for:** Small features with 2-3 related user stories

 ### What You Get

-1. **tech-spec.md** - Same comprehensive spec as Level 0
+1. **tech-spec.md** - Same comprehensive spec as single change projects
 2. **epics.md** - Epic organization with story breakdown
 3. **story-[epic-slug]-1.md** - First story
 4. **story-[epic-slug]-2.md** - Second story
@@ -140,7 +147,7 @@ Stories are **automatically validated** to ensure proper sequence:
 - ✅ Infrastructure → Features → Polish order
 - ✅ Backend → Frontend flow

-### Example Level 1 Scenarios
+### Example Small Feature Scenarios

 - "Add OAuth social login (Google, GitHub, Twitter)"
 - "Build user profile page with avatar upload"
@@ -295,7 +302,7 @@ Generates scores:
 - Implementation Readiness: ✅ Ready
 ```

-### Story Validation (Level 1 Only)
+### Story Validation (Multi-Story Features)

 Checks:

@@ -310,7 +317,7 @@ Checks:

 ## Complete User Journey

-### Scenario 1: Bug Fix (Level 0)
+### Scenario 1: Bug Fix (Single Change)

 **Goal:** Fix login validation bug

@@ -335,7 +342,7 @@ Checks:

 ---

-### Scenario 2: Small Feature (Level 1)
+### Scenario 2: Small Feature (Multi-Story)

 **Goal:** Add OAuth social login (Google, GitHub)

@@ -385,7 +392,7 @@ Quick Spec Flow works seamlessly with all Phase 4 implementation workflows:
 ### sprint-planning (SM Agent)

 - ✅ Works with epics.md from tech-spec
- ✅ Organizes Level 1 stories for coordinated implementation
+- ✅ Organizes multi-story features for coordinated implementation
 - ✅ Tracks progress through sprint-status.yaml

 ### dev-story (DEV Agent)
@@ -398,7 +405,7 @@ Quick Spec Flow works seamlessly with all Phase 4 implementation workflows:

 ## Comparison: Quick Spec vs Full BMM

-| Aspect                | Quick Spec Flow (Level 0-1)  | Full BMM Flow (Level 2-4)          |
+| Aspect                | Quick Flow Track             | BMad Method/Enterprise Tracks      |
 | --------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |
 | **Setup**             | None (standalone)            | workflow-init recommended          |
 | **Planning Docs**     | tech-spec.md only            | Product Brief → PRD → Architecture |
@@ -412,18 +419,18 @@ Quick Spec Flow works seamlessly with all Phase 4 implementation workflows:

 ---

-## When to Graduate from Quick Spec to Full BMM
+## When to Graduate from Quick Flow to BMad Method

-Start with Quick Spec, but switch to Full BMM when:
+Start with Quick Flow, but switch to BMad Method when:

- ❌ Project grows beyond 3-5 stories
+- ❌ Project grows beyond initial scope
 - ❌ Multiple teams need coordination
 - ❌ Stakeholders need formal documentation
 - ❌ Product vision is unclear
 - ❌ Architectural decisions need deep analysis
 - ❌ Compliance/regulatory requirements exist

-💡 **Tip:** You can always run `workflow-init` later to transition from Quick Spec to Full BMM!
+💡 **Tip:** You can always run `workflow-init` later to transition from Quick Flow to BMad Method!

 ---

@@ -459,8 +466,8 @@ Start with Quick Spec, but switch to Full BMM when:

 ### 🎯 **Focus**

- Level 0: Single atomic change
- Level 1: Coherent small feature
+- Single atomic changes
+- Coherent small features
 - No scope creep
 - Fast iteration

@@ -493,7 +500,7 @@ Start with Quick Spec, but switch to Full BMM when:

 Quick Spec Flow is **fully standalone**:

- Detects if you're Level 0 or Level 1
+- Detects if it's a single change or multi-story feature
 - Asks for greenfield vs brownfield
 - Works without status file tracking
 - Perfect for rapid prototyping
@@ -518,13 +525,13 @@ Quick Spec Flow is **fully standalone**:

 **A:** Absolutely! Quick Spec Flow captures UX/UI considerations, component changes, and accessibility requirements.

-### Q: What if my Level 0 project grows?
+### Q: What if my Quick Flow project grows?

-**A:** No problem! You can always transition to Full BMM by running workflow-init and create-prd. Your tech-spec becomes input for the PRD.
+**A:** No problem! You can always transition to BMad Method by running workflow-init and create-prd. Your tech-spec becomes input for the PRD.

 ### Q: Do I need story-context for every story?

-**A:** Usually no! Tech-spec is comprehensive enough for most Level 0-1 projects. Only use story-context for complex edge cases.
+**A:** Usually no! Tech-spec is comprehensive enough for most Quick Flow projects. Only use story-context for complex edge cases.

 ### Q: Can I skip validation?

@@ -559,13 +566,13 @@ When validation runs, read the scores. They tell you if your spec is production-

 ### 5. **Story Context is Optional**

-For Level 0, try going directly to dev-story first. Only add story-context if you hit complexity.
+For single changes, try going directly to dev-story first. Only add story-context if you hit complexity.

-### 6. **Keep Level 0 Truly Atomic**
+### 6. **Keep Single Changes Truly Atomic**

-If your "single change" needs 3+ files, it might be Level 1. Let the workflow guide you.
+If your "single change" needs 3+ files, it might be a multi-story feature. Let the workflow guide you.

-### 7. **Validate Story Sequence for Level 1**
+### 7. **Validate Story Sequence for Multi-Story Features**

 When you get multiple stories, check the dependency validation output. Proper sequence matters!

@@ -573,7 +580,7 @@ When you get multiple stories, check the dependency validation output. Proper se

 ## Real-World Examples

-### Example 1: Adding Logging (Level 0)
+### Example 1: Adding Logging (Single Change)

 **Input:** "Add structured logging to payment processing"

@@ -589,7 +596,7 @@ When you get multiple stories, check the dependency validation output. Proper se

 ---

-### Example 2: Search Feature (Level 1)
+### Example 2: Search Feature (Multi-Story)

 **Input:** "Add search to product catalog with filters"

--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/quick-start.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/quick-start.md
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ BMad Method (BMM) helps you build software through guided workflows with special

 1. **Phase 1: Analysis** (Optional) - Brainstorming, Research, Product Brief
 2. **Phase 2: Planning** (Required) - Create your requirements (tech-spec or PRD)
-3. **Phase 3: Architecture** (Conditional) - Design the architecture for complex projects (10+ stories)
+3. **Phase 3: Solutioning** (Track-dependent) - Design the architecture for BMad Method and Enterprise tracks
 4. **Phase 4: Implementation** (Required) - Build your software Epic by Epic, Story by Story

 ## Installation
@@ -54,28 +54,28 @@ During workflow-init, you'll describe:
 - Whether there's an existing codebase or this is a new project
 - The general size and complexity (you can adjust this later)

-#### Project Scale Levels
+#### Planning Tracks

-Based on your description, the workflow will suggest a level and let you choose from:
+Based on your description, the workflow will suggest a track and let you choose from:

-**Greenfield Project Levels:**
+**Three Planning Tracks:**

- **Level 0** - Single atomic change (1 story) - bug fixes, typos, minor updates, single file changes
- **Level 1** - Small feature (1-10 stories) - simple additions, isolated features, one module
- **Level 2** - Medium feature set (5-15 stories) - dashboards, multiple related features, several modules
- **Level 3** - Complex integration (12-40 stories) - platform features, major integrations, architectural changes
- **Level 4** - Enterprise expansion (40+ stories) - multi-tenant, ecosystem changes, system-wide initiatives
+- **Quick Flow** - Fast implementation (tech-spec only) - bug fixes, simple features, clear scope (typically 1-15 stories)
+- **BMad Method** - Full planning (PRD + Architecture + UX) - products, platforms, complex features (typically 10-50+ stories)
+- **Enterprise Method** - Extended planning (BMad Method + Security/DevOps/Test) - enterprise requirements, compliance, multi-tenant (typically 30+ stories)
+
+**Note**: Story counts are guidance, not definitions. Tracks are chosen based on planning needs, not story math.

 #### What gets created?

-Once you confirm your level, the `bmm-workflow-status.md` file will be created in your project's docs folder (assuming default install location). This file tracks your progress through all phases.
+Once you confirm your track, the `bmm-workflow-status.yaml` file will be created in your project's docs folder (assuming default install location). This file tracks your progress through all phases.

 **Important notes:**

- Every level has different paths through the phases
+- Every track has different paths through the phases
 - Story counts can still change based on overall complexity as you work
- For this guide, we'll assume a Level 2 project
- This workflow will guide you through Phase 1 (optional), Phase 2 (required), and Phase 3 (required for Level 2+ complexity)
+- For this guide, we'll assume a BMad Method track project
+- This workflow will guide you through Phase 1 (optional), Phase 2 (required), and Phase 3 (required for BMad Method and Enterprise tracks)

 ### Step 2: Work Through Phases 1-3

@@ -100,12 +100,12 @@ Phase 1 (Analysis) is entirely optional. All workflows are optional or recommend
 The next TRULY REQUIRED step is:
  - PRD (Product Requirements Document) in Phase 2 - Planning
  - Agent: pm
-  - Command: /bmad:bmm:workflows:prd
+  - Command: prd
 ```

 #### How to Run Workflows in Phases 1-3

-When an agent tells you to run a workflow (like `/bmad:bmm:workflows:prd`):
+When an agent tells you to run a workflow (like `prd`):

 1. **Start a new chat** with the specified agent (e.g., PM) - See [docs/ide-info](../docs/ide-info/) for your IDE's specific instructions
 2. **Wait for the menu** to appear
@@ -121,21 +121,21 @@ The agents in V6 are very good with fuzzy menu matching!
 For v4 users or those who prefer to skip workflow-status guidance:

 - **Analyst** → Brainstorming, Product Brief
- **PM** → PRD (10+ stories) OR tech-spec (1-10 stories)
+- **PM** → PRD (BMad Method/Enterprise tracks) OR tech-spec (Quick Flow track)
 - **UX-Designer** → UX Design Document (if UI-heavy)
- **Architect** → Architecture (10+ stories)
+- **Architect** → Architecture (BMad Method/Enterprise tracks)

 #### Phase 2: Planning - Creating the PRD

-**For Level 2+ projects (10+ stories):**
+**For BMad Method and Enterprise tracks:**

 1. Load the **PM agent** in a new chat
 2. Tell it to run the PRD workflow
-3. Once complete, you'll have two files:
+3. Once complete, you'll have:
   - **PRD.md** - Your Product Requirements Document
-   - **Epics.md** - High-level epics with stories
+   - Epic breakdown

-**For smaller projects (Levels 0-1):**
+**For Quick Flow track:**

 - Use **tech-spec** instead of PRD (no architecture needed)

@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ If your project has a user interface:

 #### Phase 3: Architecture

-**For Level 2+ projects only:**
+**For BMad Method and Enterprise tracks:**

 1. Load the **Architect agent** in a new chat
 2. Tell it to run the create-architecture workflow
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ The agent creates documents, asks questions, and helps you make decisions throug

 BMad creates two files to track your progress:

-**1. bmm-workflow-status.md**
+**1. bmm-workflow-status.yaml**

 - Shows which phase you're in and what's next
 - Created by workflow-init
@@ -280,28 +280,59 @@ BMad creates two files to track your progress:

 ## The Complete Flow Visualized

-```
-Phase 1 (Optional)          Phase 2 (Required)         Phase 3 (Conditional)        Phase 4 (Required)
-┌─────────────────┐        ┌─────────────────┐        ┌─────────────────┐         ┌──────────────────┐
-│ Analysis        │        │ Planning        │        │ Architecture    │         │ Implementation   │
-│                 │        │                 │        │                 │         │                  │
-│ • Brainstorm    │        │ Level 0-1:      │        │ Level 2+:       │         │ Per Epic:        │
-│ • Research      │───────▶│  • tech-spec    │───────▶│  • architecture │────────▶│  • epic context  │
-│ • Brief         │        │                 │        │  • gate-check   │         │                  │
-│                 │        │ Level 2+:       │        │                 │         │ Per Story:       │
-│ (Analyst)       │        │  • PRD          │        │ (Architect)     │         │  • create-story  │
-│                 │        │  • UX (opt)     │        │                 │         │  • story-context │
-│                 │        │                 │        │                 │         │  • dev-story     │
-│                 │        │ (PM, UX)        │        │                 │         │  • code-review   │
-│                 │        │                 │        │                 │         │                  │
-│                 │        │                 │        │                 │         │ (SM, DEV)        │
-└─────────────────┘        └─────────────────┘        └─────────────────┘         └──────────────────┘
+```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+    subgraph P1["Phase 1 (Optional)<br/>Analysis"]
+        direction TB
+        A1[Brainstorm]
+        A2[Research]
+        A3[Brief]
+        A4[Analyst]
+        A1 ~~~ A2 ~~~ A3 ~~~ A4
+    end
+
+    subgraph P2["Phase 2 (Required)<br/>Planning"]
+        direction TB
+        B1[Quick Flow:<br/>tech-spec]
+        B2[Method/Enterprise:<br/>PRD]
+        B3[UX opt]
+        B4[PM, UX]
+        B1 ~~~ B2 ~~~ B3 ~~~ B4
+    end
+
+    subgraph P3["Phase 3 (Track-dependent)<br/>Solutioning"]
+        direction TB
+        C1[Method/Enterprise:<br/>architecture]
+        C2[gate-check]
+        C3[Architect]
+        C1 ~~~ C2 ~~~ C3
+    end
+
+    subgraph P4["Phase 4 (Required)<br/>Implementation"]
+        direction TB
+        D1[Per Epic:<br/>epic context]
+        D2[Per Story:<br/>create-story]
+        D3[story-context]
+        D4[dev-story]
+        D5[code-review]
+        D6[SM, DEV]
+        D1 ~~~ D2 ~~~ D3 ~~~ D4 ~~~ D5 ~~~ D6
+    end
+
+    P1 --> P2
+    P2 --> P3
+    P3 --> P4
+
+    style P1 fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style P2 fill:#bfb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style P3 fill:#ffb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style P4 fill:#fbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
 ```

 ## Common Questions

 **Q: Do I always need architecture?**
-A: Only for larger projects (10+ stories). Small projects can skip straight from tech-spec to implementation.
+A: Only for BMad Method and Enterprise tracks. Quick Flow projects skip straight from tech-spec to implementation.

 **Q: Can I change my plan later?**
 A: Yes! The SM agent has a "correct-course" workflow for handling scope changes.
@@ -328,14 +359,8 @@ A: Yes, once you learn the flow. Use the Quick Reference in Step 2 to go directl

 ✅ **Always use fresh chats** - Load agents in new chats for each workflow to avoid context issues
 ✅ **Let workflow-status guide you** - Load any agent and ask for status when unsure what's next
-✅ **Level matters** - Small projects (0-1) use tech-spec, larger projects (2+) need PRD and architecture
+✅ **Track matters** - Quick Flow uses tech-spec, BMad Method/Enterprise need PRD and architecture
 ✅ **Tracking is automatic** - The status files update themselves, no manual editing needed
 ✅ **Agents are flexible** - Use menu numbers, shortcuts (\*prd), or natural language

 **Ready to start building?** Install BMad, load the Analyst, run workflow-init, and let the agents guide you!
-
---
-
-**Version**: v6-alpha
-**Last Updated**: 2025-01
-**For detailed documentation**: [Complete BMM Workflows Guide](../src/modules/bmm/workflows/README.md)
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/scale-adaptive-system.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/scale-adaptive-system.md
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/troubleshooting.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/troubleshooting.md
@@ -0,0 +1,680 @@
+# BMM Troubleshooting Guide
+
+Common issues and solutions for the BMad Method Module.
+
+---
+
+## Quick Diagnosis
+
+**Use this flowchart to find your issue:**
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    START{What's the problem?}
+
+    START -->|Can't get started| SETUP[Setup & Installation Issues]
+    START -->|Wrong level detected| LEVEL[Level Detection Problems]
+    START -->|Workflow not working| WORKFLOW[Workflow Issues]
+    START -->|Agent lacks context| CONTEXT[Context & Documentation Issues]
+    START -->|Implementation problems| IMPL[Implementation Issues]
+    START -->|Files/paths wrong| FILES[File & Path Issues]
+
+    style START fill:#ffb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style SETUP fill:#bfb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style LEVEL fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style WORKFLOW fill:#fbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+    style CONTEXT fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
+```
+
+---
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+- [Setup & Installation Issues](#setup--installation-issues)
+- [Level Detection Problems](#level-detection-problems)
+- [Workflow Issues](#workflow-issues)
+- [Context & Documentation Issues](#context--documentation-issues)
+- [Implementation Issues](#implementation-issues)
+- [File & Path Issues](#file--path-issues)
+- [Agent Behavior Issues](#agent-behavior-issues)
+- [Integration Issues (Brownfield)](#integration-issues-brownfield)
+
+---
+
+## Setup & Installation Issues
+
+### Problem: BMM not found after installation
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- `bmad` command not recognized
+- Agent files not accessible
+- Workflows don't load
+
+**Solution:**
+
+```bash
+# Check if BMM is installed
+ls bmad/
+
+# If not present, run installer
+npx bmad-method@alpha install
+
+# For fresh install
+npx bmad-method@alpha install --skip-version-prompt
+```
+
+### Problem: Agents don't have menu
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Load agent file but no menu appears
+- Agent doesn't respond to commands
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. Ensure you're loading the correct agent file path: `bmad/bmm/agents/[agent-name].md`
+2. Wait a few seconds for agent to initialize
+3. Try asking "show menu" or "help"
+4. Check IDE supports Markdown rendering with context
+5. For Claude Code: Ensure agent file is open in chat context
+
+### Problem: Workflows not found
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Agent says workflow doesn't exist
+- Menu shows workflow but won't run
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. Check workflow exists: `ls bmad/bmm/workflows/`
+2. Verify agent has access to workflow (check agent's workflow list)
+3. Try using menu number instead of workflow name
+4. Restart chat with agent in fresh session
+
+---
+
+## Level Detection Problems
+
+### Problem: workflow-init suggests wrong level
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Detects Level 3 but you only need Level 1
+- Suggests Level 1 but project is actually Level 2
+- Can't figure out appropriate level
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Override the suggestion** - workflow-init always asks for confirmation, just say "no" and choose correct level
+2. **Be specific in description** - Use level keywords when describing:
+   - "fix bug" → Level 0
+   - "add small feature" → Level 1
+   - "build dashboard" → Level 2
+3. **Manual override** - You can always switch levels later if needed
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+workflow-init: "Level 3 project?"
+You: "No, this is just adding OAuth login - Level 1"
+workflow-init: "Got it, creating Level 1 workflow"
+```
+
+### Problem: Project level unclear
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Between Level 1 and Level 2
+- Not sure if architecture needed
+- Story count uncertain
+
+**Solution:**
+**When in doubt, start smaller:**
+
+- Choose Level 1 instead of Level 2
+- You can always run `create-prd` later if needed
+- Level 1 is faster, less overhead
+- Easy to upgrade, hard to downgrade
+
+**Decision criteria:**
+
+- Single epic with related stories? → Level 1
+- Multiple independent epics? → Level 2
+- Need product-level planning? → Level 2
+- Just need technical plan? → Level 1
+
+### Problem: Old planning docs influencing level detection
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Old Level 3 PRD in folder
+- Working on new Level 0 bug fix
+- workflow-init suggests Level 3
+
+**Solution:**
+workflow-init asks: "Is this work in progress or previous effort?"
+
+- Answer: "Previous effort"
+- Then describe your NEW work clearly
+- System will detect level based on NEW work, not old artifacts
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Issues
+
+### Problem: Workflow fails or hangs
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Workflow starts but doesn't complete
+- Agent stops responding mid-workflow
+- Progress stalls
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Check context limits** - Start fresh chat for complex workflows
+2. **Verify prerequisites**:
+   - Phase 2 needs Phase 1 complete (if used)
+   - Phase 3 needs Phase 2 complete
+   - Phase 4 needs Phase 3 complete (if Level 3-4)
+3. **Restart workflow** - Load agent in new chat and restart
+4. **Check status file** - Verify `bmm-workflow-status.md` or `sprint-status.yaml` is present and valid
+
+### Problem: Agent says "workflow not found"
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Request workflow by name
+- Agent doesn't recognize it
+- Menu doesn't show workflow
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. Check spelling/format - Use exact workflow name or menu shortcut (*prd not *PRD)
+2. Verify agent has workflow:
+   - PM agent: prd, tech-spec
+   - Architect agent: create-architecture, validate-architecture
+   - SM agent: sprint-planning, create-story, story-context
+3. Try menu number instead of name
+4. Check you're using correct agent for workflow
+
+### Problem: Sprint-planning workflow fails
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Can't create sprint-status.yaml
+- Epics not extracted from files
+- Status file empty or incorrect
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Verify epic files exist**:
+   - Level 1: tech-spec with epic
+   - Level 2-4: epics.md or sharded epic files
+2. **Check file format**:
+   - Epic files should be valid Markdown
+   - Epic headers should be clear (## Epic Name)
+3. **Run in Phase 4 only** - Ensure Phase 2/3 complete first
+4. **Check file paths** - Epic files should be in correct output folder
+
+### Problem: story-context generates empty or wrong context
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Context file created but has no useful content
+- Context doesn't reference existing code
+- Missing technical guidance
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Run epic-tech-context first** - story-context builds on epic context
+2. **Check story file exists** - Verify story was created by create-story
+3. **For brownfield**:
+   - Ensure document-project was run
+   - Verify docs/index.md exists with codebase context
+4. **Try regenerating** - Sometimes needs fresh attempt with more specific story details
+
+---
+
+## Context & Documentation Issues
+
+### Problem: AI agents lack codebase understanding (Brownfield)
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Suggestions don't align with existing patterns
+- Ignores available components
+- Proposes approaches that conflict with architecture
+- Doesn't reference existing code
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Run document-project** - Critical for brownfield projects
+   ```
+   Load Analyst agent → run document-project
+   Choose scan level: Deep (recommended for PRD prep)
+   ```
+2. **Verify docs/index.md exists** - This is master entry point for AI agents
+3. **Check documentation completeness**:
+   - Review generated docs/index.md
+   - Ensure key systems are documented
+4. **Run deep-dive on specific areas** if needed
+
+### Problem: Have documentation but agents can't find it
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md exist
+- AI agents still ask questions answered in docs
+- No docs/index.md file
+
+**Solution:**
+**Option 1: Quick fix (2-5min)**
+Run `index-docs` task:
+
+- Located at `bmad/core/tasks/index-docs.xml`
+- Scans existing docs and generates index.md
+- Lightweight, just creates navigation
+
+**Option 2: Comprehensive (10-30min)**
+Run document-project workflow:
+
+- Discovers existing docs in Step 2
+- Generates NEW AI-friendly documentation from codebase
+- Creates index.md linking to BOTH existing and new docs
+
+**Why this matters:** AI agents need structured entry point (index.md) to navigate docs efficiently.
+
+### Problem: document-project takes too long
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Exhaustive scan running for hours
+- Impatient to start planning
+
+**Solution:**
+**Choose appropriate scan level:**
+
+- **Quick (2-5min)** - Pattern analysis, no source reading - Good for initial overview
+- **Deep (10-30min)** - Reads critical paths - **Recommended for most brownfield projects**
+- **Exhaustive (30-120min)** - Reads all files - Only for migration planning or complete understanding
+
+For most brownfield projects, **Deep scan is sufficient**.
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Issues
+
+### Problem: Existing tests breaking (Brownfield)
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Regression test failures
+- Previously working functionality broken
+- Integration tests failing
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Review changes against existing patterns**:
+   - Check if new code follows existing conventions
+   - Verify API contracts unchanged (unless intentionally versioned)
+2. **Run test-review workflow** (TEA agent):
+   - Analyzes test coverage
+   - Identifies regression risks
+   - Suggests fixes
+3. **Add regression testing to DoD**:
+   - All existing tests must pass
+   - Add integration tests for new code
+4. **Consider feature flags** for gradual rollout
+
+### Problem: Story takes much longer than estimated
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Story estimated 4 hours, took 12 hours
+- Acceptance criteria harder than expected
+- Hidden complexity discovered
+
+**Solution:**
+**This is normal!** Estimates are estimates. To handle:
+
+1. **Continue until DoD met** - Don't compromise quality
+2. **Document learnings in retrospective**:
+   - What caused the overrun?
+   - What should we watch for next time?
+3. **Consider splitting story** if it's truly two stories
+4. **Adjust future estimates** based on this data
+
+**Don't stress about estimate accuracy** - use them for learning, not judgment.
+
+### Problem: Integration points unclear
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Not sure how to connect new code to existing
+- Unsure which files to modify
+- Multiple possible integration approaches
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **For brownfield**:
+   - Ensure document-project captured existing architecture
+   - Review architecture docs before implementing
+2. **Check story-context** - Should document integration points
+3. **In tech-spec/architecture** - Explicitly document:
+   - Which existing modules to modify
+   - What APIs/services to integrate with
+   - Data flow between new and existing code
+4. **Run integration-planning workflow** (Level 3-4):
+   - Architect agent creates integration strategy
+
+### Problem: Inconsistent patterns being introduced
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- New code style doesn't match existing
+- Different architectural approach
+- Not following team conventions
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Check convention detection** (Quick Spec Flow):
+   - Should detect existing patterns
+   - Asks for confirmation before proceeding
+2. **Review documentation** - Ensure document-project captured patterns
+3. **Use story-context** - Injects pattern guidance per story
+4. **Add to code-review checklist**:
+   - Pattern adherence
+   - Convention consistency
+   - Style matching
+5. **Run retrospective** to identify pattern deviations early
+
+---
+
+## File & Path Issues
+
+### Problem: Output files in wrong location
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- PRD created in wrong folder
+- Story files not where expected
+- Documentation scattered
+
+**Solution:**
+Check `bmad/bmm/config.yaml` for configured paths:
+
+```yaml
+output_folder: '{project-root}/docs'
+dev_story_location: '{project-root}/docs/stories'
+```
+
+Default locations:
+
+- Planning docs (PRD, epics, architecture): `{output_folder}/`
+- Stories: `{dev_story_location}/`
+- Status files: `{output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.md`, `{output_folder}/sprint-status.yaml`
+
+To change locations, edit config.yaml then re-run workflows.
+
+### Problem: Can't find status file
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- workflow-status says no status file
+- Can't track progress
+- Lost place in workflow
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Check default location**: `docs/bmm-workflow-status.md`
+2. **If missing, reinitialize**:
+   ```
+   Load Analyst agent → run workflow-init
+   ```
+3. **For Phase 4**: Look for `sprint-status.yaml` in same folder as PRD
+4. **Search for it**:
+   ```bash
+   find . -name "bmm-workflow-status.md"
+   find . -name "sprint-status.yaml"
+   ```
+
+### Problem: Sprint-status.yaml not updating
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Workflows complete but status unchanged
+- Stories stuck in old status
+- Epic status not progressing
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Manual update required** - Most status changes are manual:
+   ```yaml
+   stories:
+     - id: epic-1-story-1
+       status: done # Change this manually
+   ```
+2. **Some workflows auto-update**:
+   - sprint-planning creates file
+   - epic-tech-context changes epic to "contexted"
+   - create-story changes story to "drafted"
+   - story-context changes to "ready-for-dev"
+   - dev-story may auto-update (check workflow)
+3. **Re-run sprint-planning** to resync if needed
+
+---
+
+## Agent Behavior Issues
+
+### Problem: Agent provides vague or generic responses
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- "Use appropriate framework"
+- "Follow best practices"
+- Generic advice without specifics
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Provide more context** - Be specific in your description:
+   - "Add OAuth using passport.js to Express server"
+   - Not: "Add authentication"
+2. **For brownfield**:
+   - Ensure document-project was run
+   - Agent needs codebase context for specific advice
+3. **Reference existing docs**:
+   - "Based on the existing auth system in UserService..."
+4. **Start fresh chat** - Context overload can cause generic responses
+
+### Problem: Agent hallucinating or making up information
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- References files that don't exist
+- Suggests APIs that aren't in your stack
+- Creates imaginary requirements
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Use fresh chat** - Context overflow main cause of hallucinations
+2. **Provide concrete constraints**:
+   - "We use Express 4.18.2, not Next.js"
+   - "Our database is PostgreSQL, not MongoDB"
+3. **For brownfield**:
+   - Document-project provides factual grounding
+   - Agent sees actual code, not assumptions
+4. **Correct immediately**:
+   - "No, we don't have UserService, we have AuthenticationModule"
+
+### Problem: Agent won't follow instructions
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Ignores specific requests
+- Does something different than asked
+- Doesn't respect constraints
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Be more explicit** - Agents respond to clear, specific instructions:
+   - "Use EXACTLY these three steps..."
+   - "Do NOT include database migrations in this story"
+2. **Check agent capabilities** - Agent might not have access to requested workflow
+3. **Try different phrasing** - Rephrase request to be more direct
+4. **Use menu system** - Numbers are clearer than text commands
+
+---
+
+## Integration Issues (Brownfield)
+
+### Problem: New code conflicts with existing architecture
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Integration approach doesn't fit existing structure
+- Would require major refactoring
+- Conflicts with established patterns
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Check if document-project was run** - Agents need architecture context
+2. **Review existing architecture docs**:
+   - Read docs/architecture.md (from document-project)
+   - Understand current system design
+3. **For Level 3-4**:
+   - Run architecture-review workflow before planning
+   - Use integration-planning workflow
+4. **Explicitly document integration strategy** in architecture:
+   - How new components fit existing structure
+   - What modifications needed to existing code
+   - Migration path if changing patterns
+
+### Problem: Breaking changes to existing APIs
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Changing API breaks consumers
+- Downstream services affected
+- Need backward compatibility
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Identify all API consumers** (document-project should show this)
+2. **Plan versioning strategy**:
+   - API v1 (existing) + v2 (new)
+   - Deprecation timeline
+3. **Use feature flags** for gradual rollout
+4. **Document migration guide** for API consumers
+5. **Add to testing strategy**:
+   - Existing consumers still work (v1)
+   - New functionality works (v2)
+
+### Problem: Data migration required
+
+**Symptoms:**
+
+- Schema changes needed
+- Existing data needs transformation
+- Risk of data loss
+
+**Solution:**
+
+1. **Create explicit migration strategy** in architecture:
+   - Forward migration (old → new schema)
+   - Rollback plan (new → old schema)
+   - Data validation approach
+2. **Test migrations thoroughly**:
+   - On copy of production data
+   - Measure performance impact
+3. **Plan rollout**:
+   - Staging environment first
+   - Gradual production rollout
+   - Monitoring for issues
+4. **Document in tech-spec/architecture**:
+   - Migration scripts
+   - Rollback procedures
+   - Expected downtime
+
+---
+
+## Still Stuck?
+
+### Getting More Help
+
+If your issue isn't covered here:
+
+1. **Check other documentation**:
+   - [FAQ](./faq.md) - Common questions
+   - [Glossary](./glossary.md) - Terminology
+   - [Quick Start](./quick-start.md) - Basic usage
+   - [Brownfield Guide](./brownfield-guide.md) - Existing codebases
+   - [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md) - Understanding levels
+
+2. **Community support**:
+   - [Discord](https://discord.gg/gk8jAdXWmj) - #general-dev, #bugs-issues
+   - Active community, fast responses
+   - Share your specific situation
+
+3. **Report bugs**:
+   - [GitHub Issues](https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD/issues)
+   - Include version, steps to reproduce, expected vs actual behavior
+
+4. **Video tutorials**:
+   - [YouTube Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@BMadCode)
+   - Visual walkthroughs of common workflows
+
+---
+
+## Common Error Messages
+
+### "No workflow status file found"
+
+**Cause:** Haven't run workflow-init yet
+**Fix:** Load Analyst agent → run workflow-init
+
+### "Epic file not found"
+
+**Cause:** PRD/epics not created, or wrong path
+**Fix:** Verify PRD/epics exist in output folder, check config.yaml paths
+
+### "Story not in sprint-status.yaml"
+
+**Cause:** Sprint-planning not run, or story file not created
+**Fix:** Run sprint-planning workflow, verify story files exist
+
+### "Documentation insufficient for brownfield"
+
+**Cause:** No docs/index.md or document-project not run
+**Fix:** Run document-project workflow with Deep scan
+
+### "Level detection failed"
+
+**Cause:** Ambiguous project description
+**Fix:** Be more specific, use level keywords (fix, feature, platform, etc.)
+
+### "Context generation failed"
+
+**Cause:** Missing prerequisites (epic context, story file, or docs)
+**Fix:** Verify epic-tech-context run, story file exists, docs present
+
+---
+
+## Prevention Tips
+
+**Avoid common issues before they happen:**
+
+1. ✅ **Always run document-project for brownfield** - Saves hours of context issues later
+2. ✅ **Use fresh chats for complex workflows** - Prevents hallucinations and context overflow
+3. ✅ **Verify files exist before running workflows** - Check PRD, epics, stories are present
+4. ✅ **Read agent menu before requesting workflows** - Confirm agent has the workflow
+5. ✅ **Start with smaller level if unsure** - Easy to upgrade (Level 1 → 2), hard to downgrade
+6. ✅ **Keep status files updated** - Manual updates when needed, don't let them drift
+7. ✅ **Run retrospectives after epics** - Catch issues early, improve next epic
+8. ✅ **Follow phase sequence** - Don't skip required phases (Phase 2 before 3, 3 before 4)
+
+---
+
+**Issue not listed?** Please [report it](https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD/issues) so we can add it to this guide!
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/workflow-architecture-reference.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/workflow-architecture-reference.md
@@ -0,0 +1,371 @@
+# Decision Architecture Workflow - Technical Reference
+
+**Module:** BMM (BMAD Method Module)
+**Type:** Solutioning Workflow
+
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+The Decision Architecture workflow is a complete reimagining of how architectural decisions are made in the BMAD Method. Instead of template-driven documentation, this workflow facilitates an intelligent conversation that produces a **decision-focused architecture document** optimized for preventing AI agent conflicts during implementation.
+
+---
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+**The Problem**: When multiple AI agents implement different parts of a system, they make conflicting technical decisions leading to incompatible implementations.
+
+**The Solution**: A "consistency contract" that documents all critical technical decisions upfront, ensuring every agent follows the same patterns and uses the same technologies.
+
+---
+
+## Key Features
+
+### 1. Starter Template Intelligence ⭐ NEW
+
+- Discovers relevant starter templates (create-next-app, create-t3-app, etc.)
+- Considers UX requirements when selecting templates (animations, accessibility, etc.)
+- Searches for current CLI options and defaults
+- Documents decisions made BY the starter template
+- Makes remaining architectural decisions around the starter foundation
+- First implementation story becomes "initialize with starter command"
+
+### 2. Adaptive Facilitation
+
+- Adjusts conversation style based on user skill level (beginner/intermediate/expert)
+- Experts get rapid, technical discussions
+- Beginners receive education and protection from complexity
+- Everyone produces the same high-quality output
+
+### 3. Dynamic Version Verification
+
+- NEVER trusts hardcoded version numbers
+- Uses WebSearch to find current stable versions
+- Verifies versions during the conversation
+- Documents only verified, current versions
+
+### 4. Intelligent Discovery
+
+- No rigid project type templates
+- Analyzes PRD to identify which decisions matter for THIS project
+- Uses knowledge base of decisions and patterns
+- Scales to infinite project types
+
+### 5. Collaborative Decision Making
+
+- Facilitates discussion for each critical decision
+- Presents options with trade-offs
+- Integrates advanced elicitation for innovative approaches
+- Ensures decisions are coherent and compatible
+
+### 6. Consistent Output
+
+- Structured decision collection during conversation
+- Strict document generation from collected decisions
+- Validated against hard requirements
+- Optimized for AI agent consumption
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Structure
+
+```
+Step 0: Validate workflow and extract project configuration
+Step 0.5: Validate workflow sequencing
+Step 1: Load PRD and understand project context
+Step 2: Discover and evaluate starter templates ⭐ NEW
+Step 3: Adapt facilitation style and identify remaining decisions
+Step 4: Facilitate collaborative decision making (with version verification)
+Step 5: Address cross-cutting concerns
+Step 6: Define project structure and boundaries
+Step 7: Design novel architectural patterns (when needed) ⭐ NEW
+Step 8: Define implementation patterns to prevent agent conflicts
+Step 9: Validate architectural coherence
+Step 10: Generate decision architecture document (with initialization commands)
+Step 11: Validate document completeness
+Step 12: Final review and update workflow status
+```
+
+---
+
+## Files in This Workflow
+
+- **workflow.yaml** - Configuration and metadata
+- **instructions.md** - The adaptive facilitation flow
+- **decision-catalog.yaml** - Knowledge base of all architectural decisions
+- **architecture-patterns.yaml** - Common patterns identified from requirements
+- **pattern-categories.csv** - Pattern principles that teach LLM what needs defining
+- **checklist.md** - Validation requirements for the output document
+- **architecture-template.md** - Strict format for the final document
+
+---
+
+## How It's Different from Old architecture
+
+| Aspect               | Old Workflow                                 | New Workflow                                    |
+| -------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- |
+| **Approach**         | Template-driven                              | Conversation-driven                             |
+| **Project Types**    | 11 rigid types with 22+ files                | Infinite flexibility with intelligent discovery |
+| **User Interaction** | Output sections with "Continue?"             | Collaborative decision facilitation             |
+| **Skill Adaptation** | One-size-fits-all                            | Adapts to beginner/intermediate/expert          |
+| **Decision Making**  | Late in process (Step 5)                     | Upfront and central focus                       |
+| **Output**           | Multiple documents including faux tech-specs | Single decision-focused architecture            |
+| **Time**             | Confusing and slow                           | 30-90 minutes depending on skill level          |
+| **Elicitation**      | Never used                                   | Integrated at decision points                   |
+
+---
+
+## Expected Inputs
+
+- **PRD** (Product Requirements Document) with:
+  - Functional Requirements
+  - Non-Functional Requirements
+  - Performance and compliance needs
+
+- **Epics** file with:
+  - User stories
+  - Acceptance criteria
+  - Dependencies
+
+- **UX Spec** (Optional but valuable) with:
+  - Interface designs and interaction patterns
+  - Accessibility requirements (WCAG levels)
+  - Animation and transition needs
+  - Platform-specific UI requirements
+  - Performance expectations for interactions
+
+---
+
+## Output Document
+
+A single `architecture.md` file containing:
+
+- Executive summary (2-3 sentences)
+- Project initialization command (if using starter template)
+- Decision summary table with verified versions and epic mapping
+- Complete project structure
+- Integration specifications
+- Consistency rules for AI agents
+
+---
+
+## How Novel Pattern Design Works
+
+Step 7 handles unique or complex patterns that need to be INVENTED:
+
+### 1. Detection
+
+The workflow analyzes the PRD for concepts that don't have standard solutions:
+
+- Novel interaction patterns (e.g., "swipe to match" when Tinder doesn't exist)
+- Complex multi-epic workflows (e.g., "viral invitation system")
+- Unique data relationships (e.g., "social graph" before Facebook)
+- New paradigms (e.g., "ephemeral messages" before Snapchat)
+
+### 2. Design Collaboration
+
+Instead of just picking technologies, the workflow helps DESIGN the solution:
+
+- Identifies the core problem to solve
+- Explores different approaches with the user
+- Documents how components interact
+- Creates sequence diagrams for complex flows
+- Uses elicitation to find innovative solutions
+
+### 3. Documentation
+
+Novel patterns become part of the architecture with:
+
+- Pattern name and purpose
+- Component interactions
+- Data flow diagrams
+- Which epics/stories are affected
+- Implementation guidance for agents
+
+### 4. Example
+
+```
+PRD: "Users can create 'circles' of friends with overlapping membership"
+↓
+Workflow detects: This is a novel social structure pattern
+↓
+Designs with user: Circle membership model, permission cascading, UI patterns
+↓
+Documents: "Circle Pattern" with component design and data flow
+↓
+All agents understand how to implement circle-related features consistently
+```
+
+---
+
+## How Implementation Patterns Work
+
+Step 8 prevents agent conflicts by defining patterns for consistency:
+
+### 1. The Core Principle
+
+> "Any time multiple agents might make the SAME decision DIFFERENTLY, that's a pattern to capture"
+
+The LLM asks: "What could an agent encounter where they'd have to guess?"
+
+### 2. Pattern Categories (principles, not prescriptions)
+
+- **Naming**: How things are named (APIs, database fields, files)
+- **Structure**: How things are organized (folders, modules, layers)
+- **Format**: How data is formatted (JSON structures, responses)
+- **Communication**: How components talk (events, messages, protocols)
+- **Lifecycle**: How states change (workflows, transitions)
+- **Location**: Where things go (URLs, paths, storage)
+- **Consistency**: Cross-cutting concerns (dates, errors, logs)
+
+### 3. LLM Intelligence
+
+- Uses the principle to identify patterns beyond the 7 categories
+- Figures out what specific patterns matter for chosen tech
+- Only asks about patterns that could cause conflicts
+- Skips obvious patterns that the tech choice determines
+
+### 4. Example
+
+```
+Tech chosen: REST API + PostgreSQL + React
+↓
+LLM identifies needs:
+- REST: URL structure, response format, status codes
+- PostgreSQL: table naming, column naming, FK patterns
+- React: component structure, state management, test location
+↓
+Facilitates each with user
+↓
+Documents as Implementation Patterns in architecture
+```
+
+---
+
+## How Starter Templates Work
+
+When the workflow detects a project type that has a starter template:
+
+1. **Discovery**: Searches for relevant starter templates based on PRD
+2. **Investigation**: Looks up current CLI options and defaults
+3. **Presentation**: Shows user what the starter provides
+4. **Integration**: Documents starter decisions as "PROVIDED BY STARTER"
+5. **Continuation**: Only asks about decisions NOT made by starter
+6. **Documentation**: Includes exact initialization command in architecture
+
+### Example Flow
+
+```
+PRD says: "Next.js web application with authentication"
+↓
+Workflow finds: create-next-app and create-t3-app
+↓
+User chooses: create-t3-app (includes auth setup)
+↓
+Starter provides: Next.js, TypeScript, tRPC, Prisma, NextAuth, Tailwind
+↓
+Workflow only asks about: Database choice, deployment target, additional services
+↓
+First story becomes: "npx create t3-app@latest my-app --trpc --nextauth --prisma"
+```
+
+---
+
+## Usage
+
+```bash
+# In your BMAD-enabled project
+workflow architecture
+```
+
+The AI agent will:
+
+1. Load your PRD and epics
+2. Identify critical decisions needed
+3. Facilitate discussion on each decision
+4. Generate a comprehensive architecture document
+5. Validate completeness
+
+---
+
+## Design Principles
+
+1. **Facilitation over Prescription** - Guide users to good decisions rather than imposing templates
+2. **Intelligence over Templates** - Use AI understanding rather than rigid structures
+3. **Decisions over Details** - Focus on what prevents agent conflicts, not implementation minutiae
+4. **Adaptation over Uniformity** - Meet users where they are while ensuring quality output
+5. **Collaboration over Output** - The conversation matters as much as the document
+
+---
+
+## For Developers
+
+This workflow assumes:
+
+- Single developer + AI agents (not teams)
+- Speed matters (decisions in minutes, not days)
+- AI agents need clear constraints to prevent conflicts
+- The architecture document is for agents, not humans
+
+---
+
+## Migration from architecture
+
+Projects using the old `architecture` workflow should:
+
+1. Complete any in-progress architecture work
+2. Use `architecture` for new projects
+3. The old workflow remains available but is deprecated
+
+---
+
+## Version History
+
+**1.3.2** - UX specification integration and fuzzy file matching
+
+- Added UX spec as optional input with fuzzy file matching
+- Updated workflow.yaml with input file references
+- Starter template selection now considers UX requirements
+- Added UX alignment validation to checklist
+- Instructions use variable references for flexible file names
+
+**1.3.1** - Workflow refinement and standardization
+
+- Added workflow status checking at start (Steps 0 and 0.5)
+- Added workflow status updating at end (Step 12)
+- Reorganized step numbering for clarity (removed fractional steps)
+- Enhanced with intent-based approach throughout
+- Improved cohesiveness across all workflow components
+
+**1.3.0** - Novel pattern design for unique architectures
+
+- Added novel pattern design (now Step 7, formerly Step 5.3)
+- Detects novel concepts in PRD that need architectural invention
+- Facilitates design collaboration with sequence diagrams
+- Uses elicitation for innovative approaches
+- Documents custom patterns for multi-epic consistency
+
+**1.2.0** - Implementation patterns for agent consistency
+
+- Added implementation patterns (now Step 8, formerly Step 5.5)
+- Created principle-based pattern-categories.csv (7 principles, not 118 prescriptions)
+- Core principle: "What could agents decide differently?"
+- LLM uses principle to identify patterns beyond the categories
+- Prevents agent conflicts through intelligent pattern discovery
+
+**1.1.0** - Enhanced with starter template discovery and version verification
+
+- Added intelligent starter template detection and integration (now Step 2)
+- Added dynamic version verification via web search
+- Starter decisions are documented as "PROVIDED BY STARTER"
+- First implementation story uses starter initialization command
+
+**1.0.0** - Initial release replacing architecture workflow
+
+---
+
+**Related Documentation:**
+
+- [Solutioning Workflows](./workflows-solutioning.md)
+- [Planning Workflows](./workflows-planning.md)
+- [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md)
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/workflow-document-project-reference.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/workflow-document-project-reference.md
@@ -0,0 +1,487 @@
+# Document Project Workflow - Technical Reference
+
+**Module:** BMM (BMAD Method Module)
+**Type:** Action Workflow (Documentation Generator)
+
+---
+
+## Purpose
+
+Analyzes and documents brownfield projects by scanning codebase, architecture, and patterns to create comprehensive reference documentation for AI-assisted development. Generates a master index and multiple documentation files tailored to project structure and type.
+
+**NEW in v1.2.0:** Context-safe architecture with scan levels, resumability, and write-as-you-go pattern to prevent context exhaustion.
+
+---
+
+## Key Features
+
+- **Multi-Project Type Support**: Handles web, backend, mobile, CLI, game, embedded, data, infra, library, desktop, and extension projects
+- **Multi-Part Detection**: Automatically detects and documents projects with separate client/server or multiple services
+- **Three Scan Levels** (NEW v1.2.0): Quick (2-5 min), Deep (10-30 min), Exhaustive (30-120 min)
+- **Resumability** (NEW v1.2.0): Interrupt and resume workflows without losing progress
+- **Write-as-you-go** (NEW v1.2.0): Documents written immediately to prevent context exhaustion
+- **Intelligent Batching** (NEW v1.2.0): Subfolder-based processing for deep/exhaustive scans
+- **Data-Driven Analysis**: Uses CSV-based project type detection and documentation requirements
+- **Comprehensive Scanning**: Analyzes APIs, data models, UI components, configuration, security patterns, and more
+- **Architecture Matching**: Matches projects to 170+ architecture templates from the solutioning registry
+- **Brownfield PRD Ready**: Generates documentation specifically designed for AI agents planning new features
+
+---
+
+## How to Invoke
+
+```bash
+workflow document-project
+```
+
+Or from BMAD CLI:
+
+```bash
+/bmad:bmm:workflows:document-project
+```
+
+---
+
+## Scan Levels (NEW in v1.2.0)
+
+Choose the right scan depth for your needs:
+
+### 1. Quick Scan (Default)
+
+**Duration:** 2-5 minutes
+**What it does:** Pattern-based analysis without reading source files
+**Reads:** Config files, package manifests, directory structure, README
+**Use when:**
+
+- You need a fast project overview
+- Initial understanding of project structure
+- Planning next steps before deeper analysis
+
+**Does NOT read:** Source code files (_.js, _.ts, _.py, _.go, etc.)
+
+### 2. Deep Scan
+
+**Duration:** 10-30 minutes
+**What it does:** Reads files in critical directories based on project type
+**Reads:** Files in critical paths defined by documentation requirements
+**Use when:**
+
+- Creating comprehensive documentation for brownfield PRD
+- Need detailed analysis of key areas
+- Want balance between depth and speed
+
+**Example:** For a web app, reads controllers/, models/, components/, but not every utility file
+
+### 3. Exhaustive Scan
+
+**Duration:** 30-120 minutes
+**What it does:** Reads ALL source files in project
+**Reads:** Every source file (excludes node_modules, dist, build, .git)
+**Use when:**
+
+- Complete project analysis needed
+- Migration planning requires full understanding
+- Detailed audit of entire codebase
+- Deep technical debt assessment
+
+**Note:** Deep-dive mode ALWAYS uses exhaustive scan (no choice)
+
+---
+
+## Resumability (NEW in v1.2.0)
+
+The workflow can be interrupted and resumed without losing progress:
+
+- **State Tracking:** Progress saved in `project-scan-report.json`
+- **Auto-Detection:** Workflow detects incomplete runs (<24 hours old)
+- **Resume Prompt:** Choose to resume or start fresh
+- **Step-by-Step:** Resume from exact step where interrupted
+- **Archiving:** Old state files automatically archived
+
+**Example Resume Flow:**
+
+```
+> workflow document-project
+
+I found an in-progress workflow state from 2025-10-11 14:32:15.
+
+Current Progress:
+- Mode: initial_scan
+- Scan Level: deep
+- Completed Steps: 5/12
+- Last Step: step_5
+
+Would you like to:
+1. Resume from where we left off - Continue from step 6
+2. Start fresh - Archive old state and begin new scan
+3. Cancel - Exit without changes
+
+Your choice [1/2/3]:
+```
+
+---
+
+## What It Does
+
+### Step-by-Step Process
+
+1. **Detects Project Structure** - Identifies if project is single-part or multi-part (client/server/etc.)
+2. **Classifies Project Type** - Matches against 12 project types (web, backend, mobile, etc.)
+3. **Discovers Documentation** - Finds existing README, CONTRIBUTING, ARCHITECTURE files
+4. **Analyzes Tech Stack** - Parses package files, identifies frameworks, versions, dependencies
+5. **Conditional Scanning** - Performs targeted analysis based on project type requirements:
+   - API routes and endpoints
+   - Database models and schemas
+   - State management patterns
+   - UI component libraries
+   - Configuration and security
+   - CI/CD and deployment configs
+6. **Generates Source Tree** - Creates annotated directory structure with critical paths
+7. **Extracts Dev Instructions** - Documents setup, build, run, and test commands
+8. **Creates Architecture Docs** - Generates detailed architecture using matched templates
+9. **Builds Master Index** - Creates comprehensive index.md as primary AI retrieval source
+10. **Validates Output** - Runs 140+ point checklist to ensure completeness
+
+### Output Files
+
+**Single-Part Projects:**
+
+- `index.md` - Master index
+- `project-overview.md` - Executive summary
+- `architecture.md` - Detailed architecture
+- `source-tree-analysis.md` - Annotated directory tree
+- `component-inventory.md` - Component catalog (if applicable)
+- `development-guide.md` - Local dev instructions
+- `api-contracts.md` - API documentation (if applicable)
+- `data-models.md` - Database schema (if applicable)
+- `deployment-guide.md` - Deployment process (optional)
+- `contribution-guide.md` - Contributing guidelines (optional)
+- `project-scan-report.json` - State file for resumability (NEW v1.2.0)
+
+**Multi-Part Projects (e.g., client + server):**
+
+- `index.md` - Master index with part navigation
+- `project-overview.md` - Multi-part summary
+- `architecture-{part_id}.md` - Per-part architecture docs
+- `source-tree-analysis.md` - Full tree with part annotations
+- `component-inventory-{part_id}.md` - Per-part components
+- `development-guide-{part_id}.md` - Per-part dev guides
+- `integration-architecture.md` - How parts communicate
+- `project-parts.json` - Machine-readable metadata
+- `project-scan-report.json` - State file for resumability (NEW v1.2.0)
+- Additional conditional files per part (API, data models, etc.)
+
+---
+
+## Data Files
+
+The workflow uses a single comprehensive CSV file:
+
+**documentation-requirements.csv** - Complete project analysis guide
+
+- Location: `/bmad/bmm/workflows/document-project/documentation-requirements.csv`
+- 12 project types (web, mobile, backend, cli, library, desktop, game, data, extension, infra, embedded)
+- 24 columns combining:
+  - **Detection columns**: `project_type_id`, `key_file_patterns` (identifies project type from codebase)
+  - **Requirement columns**: `requires_api_scan`, `requires_data_models`, `requires_ui_components`, etc.
+  - **Pattern columns**: `critical_directories`, `test_file_patterns`, `config_patterns`, etc.
+- Self-contained: All project detection AND scanning requirements in one file
+- Architecture patterns inferred from tech stack (no external registry needed)
+
+---
+
+## Use Cases
+
+### Primary Use Case: Brownfield PRD Creation
+
+After running this workflow, use the generated `index.md` as input to brownfield PRD workflows:
+
+```
+User: "I want to add a new dashboard feature"
+PRD Workflow: Loads docs/index.md
+→ Understands existing architecture
+→ Identifies reusable components
+→ Plans integration with existing APIs
+→ Creates contextual PRD with epics and stories
+```
+
+### Other Use Cases
+
+- **Onboarding New Developers** - Comprehensive project documentation
+- **Architecture Review** - Structured analysis of existing system
+- **Technical Debt Assessment** - Identify patterns and anti-patterns
+- **Migration Planning** - Understand current state before refactoring
+
+---
+
+## Requirements
+
+### Recommended Inputs (Optional)
+
+- Project root directory (defaults to current directory)
+- README.md or similar docs (auto-discovered if present)
+- User guidance on key areas to focus (workflow will ask)
+
+### Tools Used
+
+- File system scanning (Glob, Read, Grep)
+- Code analysis
+- Git repository analysis (optional)
+
+---
+
+## Configuration
+
+### Default Output Location
+
+Files are saved to: `{output_folder}` (from config.yaml)
+
+Default: `/docs/` folder in project root
+
+### Customization
+
+- Modify `documentation-requirements.csv` to adjust scanning patterns for project types
+- Add new project types to `project-types.csv`
+- Add new architecture templates to `registry.csv`
+
+---
+
+## Example: Multi-Part Web App
+
+**Input:**
+
+```
+my-app/
+├── client/     # React frontend
+├── server/     # Express backend
+└── README.md
+```
+
+**Detection Result:**
+
+- Repository Type: Monorepo
+- Part 1: client (web/React)
+- Part 2: server (backend/Express)
+
+**Output (10+ files):**
+
+```
+docs/
+├── index.md
+├── project-overview.md
+├── architecture-client.md
+├── architecture-server.md
+├── source-tree-analysis.md
+├── component-inventory-client.md
+├── development-guide-client.md
+├── development-guide-server.md
+├── api-contracts-server.md
+├── data-models-server.md
+├── integration-architecture.md
+└── project-parts.json
+```
+
+---
+
+## Example: Simple CLI Tool
+
+**Input:**
+
+```
+hello-cli/
+├── main.go
+├── go.mod
+└── README.md
+```
+
+**Detection Result:**
+
+- Repository Type: Monolith
+- Part 1: main (cli/Go)
+
+**Output (4 files):**
+
+```
+docs/
+├── index.md
+├── project-overview.md
+├── architecture.md
+└── source-tree-analysis.md
+```
+
+---
+
+## Deep-Dive Mode
+
+### What is Deep-Dive Mode?
+
+When you run the workflow on a project that already has documentation, you'll be offered a choice:
+
+1. **Rescan entire project** - Update all documentation with latest changes
+2. **Deep-dive into specific area** - Generate EXHAUSTIVE documentation for a particular feature/module/folder
+3. **Cancel** - Keep existing documentation
+
+Deep-dive mode performs **comprehensive, file-by-file analysis** of a specific area, reading EVERY file completely and documenting:
+
+- All exports with complete signatures
+- All imports and dependencies
+- Dependency graphs and data flow
+- Code patterns and implementations
+- Testing coverage and strategies
+- Integration points
+- Reuse opportunities
+
+### When to Use Deep-Dive Mode
+
+- **Before implementing a feature** - Deep-dive the area you'll be modifying
+- **During architecture review** - Deep-dive complex modules
+- **For code understanding** - Deep-dive unfamiliar parts of codebase
+- **When creating PRDs** - Deep-dive areas affected by new features
+
+### Deep-Dive Process
+
+1. Workflow detects existing `index.md`
+2. Offers deep-dive option
+3. Suggests areas based on project structure:
+   - API route groups
+   - Feature modules
+   - UI component areas
+   - Services/business logic
+4. You select area or specify custom path
+5. Workflow reads EVERY file in that area
+6. Generates `deep-dive-{area-name}.md` with complete analysis
+7. Updates `index.md` with link to deep-dive doc
+8. Offers to deep-dive another area or finish
+
+### Deep-Dive Output Example
+
+**docs/deep-dive-dashboard-feature.md:**
+
+- Complete file inventory (47 files analyzed)
+- Every export with signatures
+- Dependency graph
+- Data flow analysis
+- Integration points
+- Testing coverage
+- Related code references
+- Implementation guidance
+- ~3,000 LOC documented in detail
+
+### Incremental Deep-Diving
+
+You can deep-dive multiple areas over time:
+
+- First run: Scan entire project → generates index.md
+- Second run: Deep-dive dashboard feature
+- Third run: Deep-dive API layer
+- Fourth run: Deep-dive authentication system
+
+All deep-dive docs are linked from the master index.
+
+---
+
+## Validation
+
+The workflow includes a comprehensive 160+ point checklist covering:
+
+- Project detection accuracy
+- Technology stack completeness
+- Codebase scanning thoroughness
+- Architecture documentation quality
+- Multi-part handling (if applicable)
+- Brownfield PRD readiness
+- Deep-dive completeness (if applicable)
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps After Completion
+
+1. **Review** `docs/index.md` - Your master documentation index
+2. **Validate** - Check generated docs for accuracy
+3. **Use for PRD** - Point brownfield PRD workflow to index.md
+4. **Maintain** - Re-run workflow when architecture changes significantly
+
+---
+
+## File Structure
+
+```
+document-project/
+├── workflow.yaml                    # Workflow configuration
+├── instructions.md                  # Step-by-step workflow logic
+├── checklist.md                     # Validation criteria
+├── documentation-requirements.csv   # Project type scanning patterns
+├── templates/                       # Output templates
+│   ├── index-template.md
+│   ├── project-overview-template.md
+│   └── source-tree-template.md
+└── README.md                        # This file
+```
+
+---
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+**Issue: Project type not detected correctly**
+
+- Solution: Workflow will ask for confirmation; manually select correct type
+
+**Issue: Missing critical information**
+
+- Solution: Provide additional context when prompted; re-run specific analysis steps
+
+**Issue: Multi-part detection missed a part**
+
+- Solution: When asked to confirm parts, specify the missing part and its path
+
+**Issue: Architecture template doesn't match well**
+
+- Solution: Check registry.csv; may need to add new template or adjust matching criteria
+
+---
+
+## Architecture Improvements in v1.2.0
+
+### Context-Safe Design
+
+The workflow now uses a write-as-you-go architecture:
+
+- Documents written immediately to disk (not accumulated in memory)
+- Detailed findings purged after writing (only summaries kept)
+- State tracking enables resumption from any step
+- Batching strategy prevents context exhaustion on large projects
+
+### Batching Strategy
+
+For deep/exhaustive scans:
+
+- Process ONE subfolder at a time
+- Read files → Extract info → Write output → Validate → Purge context
+- Primary concern is file SIZE (not count)
+- Track batches in state file for resumability
+
+### State File Format
+
+Optimized JSON (no pretty-printing):
+
+```json
+{
+  "workflow_version": "1.2.0",
+  "timestamps": {...},
+  "mode": "initial_scan",
+  "scan_level": "deep",
+  "completed_steps": [...],
+  "current_step": "step_6",
+  "findings": {"summary": "only"},
+  "outputs_generated": [...],
+  "resume_instructions": "..."
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+**Related Documentation:**
+
+- [Brownfield Development Guide](./brownfield-guide.md)
+- [Implementation Workflows](./workflows-implementation.md)
+- [Scale Adaptive System](./scale-adaptive-system.md)
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-analysis.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-analysis.md
@@ -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.
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-implementation.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-implementation.md
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-planning.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-planning.md
--- a/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-solutioning.md
+++ b/bmad/bmm/docs/workflows-solutioning.md
@@ -0,0 +1,726 @@
+# BMM Solutioning Workflows (Phase 3)
+
+**Reading Time:** ~8 minutes
+
+## Overview
+
+Phase 3 (Solutioning) workflows translate **what** to build (from Planning) into **how** to build it (technical design). This phase is **required for Levels 3-4** and **optional for Level 2** projects.
+
+**Key principle:** Prevent agent conflicts by making architectural decisions explicit and documented before implementation begins.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Workflow                   | Project Levels | Duration  | Purpose                                     |
+| -------------------------- | -------------- | --------- | ------------------------------------------- |
+| **architecture**           | 2-4            | 2-6 hours | Technical architecture and design decisions |
+| **solutioning-gate-check** | 3-4            | 15-30 min | Validate planning/solutioning completeness  |
+
+**When to Skip Solutioning:**
+
+- **Level 0-1**: Simple changes don't need architecture → Skip to Phase 4 (Implementation)
+- **Level 2**: Optional - use if technically complex, skip if straightforward
+
+**When Solutioning is Required:**
+
+- **Level 3-4**: Multi-epic, multi-agent projects → Architecture prevents conflicts
+
+---
+
+## Understanding the Solutioning Phase
+
+### Why Solutioning Matters
+
+**Problem Without Solutioning:**
+
+1. DEV agent implements Epic 1 using REST API
+2. DEV agent implements Epic 2 using GraphQL
+3. **Conflict**: Inconsistent API design, integration nightmare
+
+**Solution With Solutioning:**
+
+1. **architecture** workflow decides: "Use GraphQL for all APIs"
+2. All DEV agents follow architecture decisions
+3. **Result**: Consistent implementation, no conflicts
+
+### Solutioning vs Planning
+
+| Aspect   | Planning (Phase 2) | Solutioning (Phase 3)    |
+| -------- | ------------------ | ------------------------ |
+| Question | What and Why?      | How?                     |
+| Output   | Requirements       | Technical Design         |
+| Agent    | PM                 | Architect                |
+| Audience | Stakeholders       | Developers               |
+| Document | PRD/GDD            | Architecture + Tech Spec |
+| Level    | Business logic     | Implementation detail    |
+
+### Scale-Adaptive Solutioning
+
+**Level 0-1 (Skip Solutioning):**
+
+- Planning: Quick Spec (tech-spec workflow)
+- Solutioning: **None**
+- Implementation: dev-story directly
+
+**Level 2 (Optional Solutioning):**
+
+- Planning: Lightweight PRD
+- Solutioning: **Optional** architecture
+- Implementation: dev-story with or without architecture
+
+**Level 3-4 (Required Solutioning):**
+
+- Planning: Standard/Comprehensive PRD
+- Solutioning: **Required** architecture + epic-tech-context
+- Gate Check: **Required** solutioning-gate-check
+- Implementation: dev-story guided by architecture
+
+---
+
+## architecture
+
+### Purpose
+
+Collaborative architectural decision facilitation that produces a decision-focused architecture document optimized for preventing agent conflicts. Replaces template-driven architecture with intelligent, adaptive conversation.
+
+**Agent:** Architect
+**Phase:** 3 (Solutioning)
+**Project Levels:** 2-4
+**Required:** Level 3-4, Optional Level 2
+**Typical Duration:**
+
+- Level 2: 1-2 hours (Simple architecture)
+- Level 3: 2-4 hours (Standard architecture)
+- Level 4: 4-8 hours (Complex architecture with ADRs)
+
+### When to Use
+
+- Multi-epic projects (Level 3-4)
+- Cross-cutting technical concerns
+- Multiple agents will implement different parts
+- Integration complexity exists
+- Technology choices need alignment
+
+**When to Skip:**
+
+- Level 0-1 (simple changes)
+- Level 2 with straightforward tech stack
+- Single epic with clear technical approach
+
+### Adaptive Conversation Approach
+
+**This is NOT a template filler.** The architecture workflow:
+
+1. **Discovers** your technical needs through conversation
+2. **Proposes** architectural options with trade-offs
+3. **Documents** decisions that prevent agent conflicts
+4. **Focuses** on decision points, not exhaustive documentation
+
+### Process Overview
+
+**Phase 1: Context Discovery (Steps 1-3)**
+
+- Load PRD/GDD for requirements
+- Understand project level and complexity
+- Identify technical constraints
+- Determine existing architecture (if brownfield)
+
+**Phase 2: Architecture Definition (Steps 4-10)**
+
+- System architecture (monolith, microservices, etc.)
+- Data architecture (database, state management)
+- API design (REST, GraphQL, gRPC)
+- Frontend architecture (if applicable)
+- Integration patterns
+- Security architecture
+- Deployment architecture
+
+**Phase 3: Decision Documentation (Steps 11-13)**
+
+- Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
+- Trade-off analysis
+- Technology selections with rationale
+- Non-negotiable standards
+
+**Phase 4: Implementation Guidance (Step 14)**
+
+- Epic-specific technical notes
+- Directory structure
+- Coding standards
+- Testing strategy
+
+### Inputs
+
+Required:
+
+- **PRD.md** or **GDD.md** (from Phase 2)
+- **epics.md** (epic breakdown)
+
+Optional:
+
+- Existing architecture documentation (brownfield)
+- Technical constraints document
+- Infrastructure requirements
+- Security requirements
+
+### Outputs
+
+**Primary Output:** `architecture-{project-name}-{date}.md`
+
+**Document Structure:**
+
+**1. Architecture Overview**
+
+- System context
+- Key principles
+- Architectural style
+
+**2. System Architecture**
+
+- High-level system diagram
+- Component interactions
+- Communication patterns
+
+**3. Data Architecture**
+
+- Database design approach
+- State management
+- Caching strategy
+- Data flow
+
+**4. API Architecture**
+
+- API style (REST/GraphQL/gRPC)
+- Authentication/authorization
+- Versioning strategy
+- Error handling patterns
+
+**5. Frontend Architecture** (if applicable)
+
+- Framework selection
+- State management
+- Component architecture
+- Routing approach
+
+**6. Integration Architecture**
+
+- Third-party integrations
+- Message queuing
+- Event-driven patterns
+- API gateways
+
+**7. Security Architecture**
+
+- Authentication/authorization
+- Data protection
+- Security boundaries
+- Compliance requirements
+
+**8. Deployment Architecture**
+
+- Deployment model
+- CI/CD pipeline
+- Environment strategy
+- Monitoring and observability
+
+**9. Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)**
+
+- Key decisions with context
+- Options considered
+- Trade-off analysis
+- Rationale for choices
+
+**10. Epic-Specific Guidance**
+
+- Technical notes per epic
+- Implementation priorities
+- Dependency sequencing
+
+**11. Standards and Conventions**
+
+- Directory structure
+- Naming conventions
+- Code organization
+- Testing requirements
+
+### Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
+
+**Purpose:** Document **why** decisions were made, not just what was decided.
+
+**ADR Template:**
+
+```markdown
+## ADR-001: Use GraphQL for All APIs
+
+**Status:** Accepted
+**Date:** 2025-11-02
+**Context:** PRD requires flexible querying across multiple epics
+
+**Decision:** Use GraphQL for all client-server communication
+
+**Options Considered:**
+
+1. REST API - Familiar, well-understood, but requires multiple endpoints
+2. GraphQL - Flexible querying, single endpoint, learning curve
+3. gRPC - High performance, but poor browser support
+
+**Rationale:**
+
+- PRD requires flexible data fetching (Epic 1, Epic 3)
+- Mobile app needs bandwidth optimization (Epic 2)
+- Team has GraphQL experience from previous project
+- Allows frontend flexibility without backend changes
+
+**Consequences:**
+
+- Positive: Flexible querying, reduced API versioning
+- Negative: Caching complexity, N+1 query risk
+- Mitigation: Use DataLoader for batching
+
+**Implications for Epics:**
+
+- Epic 1: User Management → GraphQL mutations
+- Epic 2: Mobile App → Optimized queries
+- Epic 3: Admin Dashboard → Complex nested queries
+```
+
+### Example: Level 3 Architecture for E-Commerce Platform
+
+**System Architecture:**
+
+- Monolith (early stage, < 50K users)
+- PostgreSQL database
+- Redis for caching and sessions
+- Next.js for frontend
+- Deployed on Vercel + Railway
+
+**Key ADRs:**
+
+1. **ADR-001**: Use Next.js (vs React + Express)
+   - Rationale: SEO critical, SSR needed, unified codebase
+2. **ADR-002**: Use GraphQL (vs REST)
+   - Rationale: Flexible querying for dashboard, mobile optimization
+3. **ADR-003**: Use Stripe (vs PayPal + Stripe)
+   - Rationale: Simpler integration, lower fees, better UX
+
+**Epic Guidance:**
+
+- **Epic 1 (Auth)**: NextAuth.js with PostgreSQL adapter
+- **Epic 2 (Products)**: GraphQL with DataLoader for categories
+- **Epic 3 (Cart)**: Redis for session-based cart (no DB writes)
+- **Epic 4 (Checkout)**: Stripe webhooks for payment confirmation
+
+**Standards:**
+
+```
+Directory Structure:
+/pages          - Next.js routes
+/components     - Reusable UI components
+/lib            - Business logic
+  /graphql      - GraphQL schema and resolvers
+  /db           - Prisma models and migrations
+  /services     - Third-party integrations
+/tests          - Test files mirror /lib
+```
+
+### Related Workflows
+
+- **prd/gdd** (Phase 2) - Requirements input
+- **solutioning-gate-check** (Phase 3) - Validate completeness
+- **tech-spec** (Phase 3) - Epic-level specifications (optional)
+- **sprint-planning** (Phase 4) - Implementation tracking
+
+---
+
+## solutioning-gate-check
+
+### Purpose
+
+Systematically validate that all planning and solutioning phases are complete and properly aligned before transitioning to Phase 4 implementation. Ensures PRD, architecture, and stories are cohesive with no gaps or contradictions.
+
+**Agent:** SM (Scrum Master)
+**Phase:** 3 (Solutioning)
+**Project Levels:** 3-4
+**Required:** Level 3-4 only
+**Typical Duration:** 15-30 minutes
+
+### When to Use
+
+**Always run before starting Phase 4** for Level 3-4 projects.
+
+**Trigger Points:**
+
+- After architecture workflow completes
+- Before sprint-planning workflow
+- When stakeholders request readiness check
+- Before kicking off implementation
+
+**Skip if:**
+
+- Level 0-2 (no solutioning phase)
+- Exploratory prototype (no formal planning)
+
+### Purpose of Gate Check
+
+**Prevents Common Issues:**
+
+- ❌ Architecture doesn't address all epics
+- ❌ Stories conflict with architecture decisions
+- ❌ Requirements ambiguous or contradictory
+- ❌ Missing critical dependencies
+- ❌ Unclear success criteria
+
+**Ensures:**
+
+- ✅ PRD → Architecture → Stories alignment
+- ✅ All epics have clear technical approach
+- ✅ No contradictions or gaps
+- ✅ Team ready to implement
+- ✅ Stakeholders aligned
+
+### Process Overview
+
+**Phase 1: Document Loading (Step 1)**
+
+- Load PRD/GDD
+- Load architecture document
+- Load epic files
+- Load story files (if created)
+
+**Phase 2: Completeness Check (Steps 2-4)**
+
+- **PRD Completeness**: All required sections present
+- **Architecture Completeness**: All technical areas addressed
+- **Epic Completeness**: All epics from PRD have stories
+
+**Phase 3: Alignment Check (Steps 5-7)**
+
+- **PRD ↔ Architecture**: Architecture addresses all requirements
+- **Architecture ↔ Epics**: Epics align with architecture decisions
+- **Cross-Epic**: No contradictions between epics
+
+**Phase 4: Quality Check (Steps 8-10)**
+
+- **Acceptance Criteria**: All stories have clear AC
+- **Dependencies**: Dependencies identified and sequenced
+- **Risks**: High-risk items have mitigation plans
+
+**Phase 5: Reporting (Step 11)**
+
+- Generate gate check report
+- List gaps and blockers
+- Provide recommendations
+- Issue PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL decision
+
+### Gate Check Criteria
+
+**PRD/GDD Completeness:**
+
+- [ ] Problem statement clear and evidence-based
+- [ ] Success metrics defined
+- [ ] User personas identified
+- [ ] Feature requirements complete
+- [ ] All epics defined with objectives
+- [ ] Non-functional requirements (NFRs) specified
+- [ ] Risks and assumptions documented
+
+**Architecture Completeness:**
+
+- [ ] System architecture defined
+- [ ] Data architecture specified
+- [ ] API architecture decided
+- [ ] Key ADRs documented
+- [ ] Security architecture addressed
+- [ ] Epic-specific guidance provided
+- [ ] Standards and conventions defined
+
+**Epic/Story Completeness:**
+
+- [ ] All PRD features mapped to stories
+- [ ] Stories have acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Stories prioritized (P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- [ ] Dependencies identified
+- [ ] Story sequencing logical
+
+**Alignment Checks:**
+
+- [ ] Architecture addresses all PRD requirements
+- [ ] Stories align with architecture decisions
+- [ ] No contradictions between epics
+- [ ] NFRs have technical approach
+- [ ] Integration points clear
+
+**Quality Checks:**
+
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria testable
+- [ ] Stories appropriately sized (<5 days)
+- [ ] High-risk items have mitigation
+- [ ] Success metrics measurable
+
+### Gate Decision Logic
+
+**PASS** ✅
+
+- All critical criteria met (PRD, Architecture, Epic completeness)
+- Minor gaps acceptable with documented plan
+- **Action**: Proceed to Phase 4 (Implementation)
+
+**CONCERNS** ⚠️
+
+- Some criteria not met but not blockers
+- Gaps identified with clear resolution path
+- Risks documented with mitigation
+- **Action**: Proceed with caution, address gaps in parallel
+
+**FAIL** ❌
+
+- Critical gaps or contradictions
+- Architecture missing key decisions
+- Stories conflict with PRD/architecture
+- **Action**: BLOCK Phase 4, resolve issues first
+
+### Inputs
+
+Required:
+
+- PRD.md or GDD.md
+- architecture.md
+- epics.md
+- Epic files (epic-1-_.md, epic-2-_.md, etc.)
+
+Optional:
+
+- Story files (if already created)
+- Tech spec documents
+
+### Outputs
+
+**Primary Output:** `solutioning-gate-check-{date}.md`
+
+**Document Structure:**
+
+1. Executive Summary (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
+2. Completeness Assessment
+   - PRD/GDD Score
+   - Architecture Score
+   - Epic/Story Score
+3. Alignment Assessment
+   - PRD ↔ Architecture alignment
+   - Architecture ↔ Epic alignment
+   - Cross-epic consistency
+4. Quality Assessment
+   - Story quality
+   - Dependency clarity
+   - Risk mitigation
+5. Gaps and Recommendations
+   - Critical gaps (blockers)
+   - Minor gaps (address in parallel)
+   - Recommendations for remediation
+6. Gate Decision (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
+7. Next Steps
+
+### Example: Gate Check for E-Commerce Platform
+
+**Result:** CONCERNS ⚠️
+
+**Completeness:**
+
+- ✅ PRD complete (18/18 criteria)
+- ⚠️ Architecture missing security section (15/18 criteria)
+- ✅ Epics complete (24/24 criteria)
+
+**Alignment:**
+
+- ✅ PRD ↔ Architecture aligned
+- ⚠️ Epic 4 (Checkout) has payment gateway undefined in architecture
+- ✅ No cross-epic contradictions
+
+**Quality:**
+
+- ✅ Stories have acceptance criteria
+- ⚠️ Epic 2, Story 3 is too large (10 day estimate)
+- ✅ Dependencies identified
+
+**Gaps Identified:**
+
+1. **Critical**: Architecture missing security architecture section
+   - **Impact**: Epic 1 (Auth) and Epic 4 (Checkout) lack security guidance
+   - **Recommendation**: Complete security architecture (2 hours)
+
+2. **High**: Payment gateway not selected
+   - **Impact**: Epic 4 (Checkout) cannot proceed
+   - **Recommendation**: Add ADR for payment gateway selection (1 hour)
+
+3. **Medium**: Epic 2, Story 3 too large
+   - **Impact**: Risk of story scope creep
+   - **Recommendation**: Split into 2 stories (30 min)
+
+**Gate Decision:** CONCERNS ⚠️
+
+- **Rationale**: Critical and high gaps block Epic 1 and Epic 4
+- **Action**: Resolve gaps #1 and #2 before starting implementation
+- **Timeline**: Address in 3 hours, then re-run gate check
+
+**Next Steps:**
+
+1. Complete security architecture section
+2. Document payment gateway ADR
+3. Split Epic 2, Story 3
+4. Re-run solutioning-gate-check
+5. If PASS → Proceed to sprint-planning
+
+### Related Workflows
+
+- **architecture** (Phase 3) - Must complete before gate check
+- **prd/gdd** (Phase 2) - Input to gate check
+- **sprint-planning** (Phase 4) - Runs after PASS decision
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Phase 2 (Planning) and Phase 4 (Implementation)
+
+### Planning → Solutioning Flow
+
+**Level 0-1:**
+
+```
+Planning (tech-spec Quick Spec)
+  → Skip Solutioning
+  → Implementation (dev-story)
+```
+
+**Level 2:**
+
+```
+Planning (prd Lightweight)
+  → Optional: architecture (if complex)
+  → Implementation (sprint-planning → dev-story)
+```
+
+**Level 3-4:**
+
+```
+Planning (prd Standard/Comprehensive)
+  → architecture (Required)
+  → solutioning-gate-check (Required)
+  → Implementation (sprint-planning → dev-story)
+```
+
+### Solutioning → Implementation Handoff
+
+**Documents Produced:**
+
+1. `architecture.md` → Guides all dev-story workflows
+2. `ADRs` (in architecture) → Referenced by agents during implementation
+3. `solutioning-gate-check.md` → Confirms readiness
+
+**How Implementation Uses Solutioning:**
+
+- **sprint-planning**: Loads architecture for epic sequencing
+- **dev-story**: References architecture decisions and ADRs
+- **code-review**: Validates code follows architectural standards
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices for Phase 3
+
+### 1. Make Decisions Explicit
+
+Don't leave technology choices implicit. Document decisions with rationale so future agents understand context.
+
+### 2. Focus on Agent Conflicts
+
+Architecture's primary job is preventing conflicting implementations by different agents. Focus on cross-cutting concerns.
+
+### 3. Use ADRs for Key Decisions
+
+Every significant technology choice should have an ADR explaining the "why", not just the "what".
+
+### 4. Keep It Practical
+
+Don't over-architect Level 2 projects. Simple projects need simple architecture.
+
+### 5. Run Gate Check Before Implementation
+
+Catching alignment issues in solutioning is 10× faster than discovering them mid-implementation.
+
+### 6. Iterate Architecture
+
+Architecture documents are living. Update them as you learn during implementation.
+
+---
+
+## Common Anti-Patterns
+
+### ❌ Skipping Architecture for Level 3-4
+
+"Architecture slows us down, let's just start coding."
+→ **Result**: Agent conflicts, inconsistent design, rework
+
+### ❌ Over-Architecting Level 2
+
+"Let me design this simple feature like a distributed system."
+→ **Result**: Wasted time, over-engineering
+
+### ❌ Template-Driven Architecture
+
+"Fill out every section of this architecture template."
+→ **Result**: Documentation theater, no real decisions made
+
+### ❌ Skipping Gate Check
+
+"PRD and architecture look good enough, let's start."
+→ **Result**: Gaps discovered mid-sprint, wasted implementation time
+
+### ✅ Correct Approach
+
+- Use architecture for Level 3-4 (required)
+- Keep Level 2 architecture simple (if used)
+- Focus on decisions, not documentation volume
+- Always run gate check before implementation
+
+---
+
+## Decision Guide: When to Use Solutioning Workflows
+
+### Level 0-1 Projects
+
+- **Planning**: tech-spec (Quick Spec)
+- **Solutioning**: **Skip entirely**
+- **Implementation**: dev-story directly
+
+### Level 2 Projects (Simple)
+
+- **Planning**: prd (Lightweight)
+- **Solutioning**: **Skip** if straightforward tech
+- **Implementation**: sprint-planning → dev-story
+
+### Level 2 Projects (Technically Complex)
+
+- **Planning**: prd (Lightweight)
+- **Solutioning**: architecture (simplified)
+- **Gate Check**: Optional
+- **Implementation**: sprint-planning → dev-story
+
+### Level 3-4 Projects
+
+- **Planning**: prd/gdd (Standard/Comprehensive)
+- **Solutioning**: architecture (comprehensive) → **Required**
+- **Gate Check**: solutioning-gate-check → **Required**
+- **Implementation**: sprint-planning → epic-tech-context → dev-story
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Phase 3 Solutioning workflows bridge planning and implementation:
+
+| Workflow                   | Purpose                               | When Required                            |
+| -------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
+| **architecture**           | Make technical decisions explicit     | Level 3-4 (required), Level 2 (optional) |
+| **solutioning-gate-check** | Validate readiness for implementation | Level 3-4 only                           |
+
+**Key Takeaway:** Solutioning prevents agent conflicts in multi-epic projects by documenting architectural decisions before implementation begins.
+
+**Next Phase:** Implementation (Phase 4) - Sprint-based story development
+
+See: [workflows-implementation.md](./workflows-implementation.md)