mirror of
https://github.com/bmadcode/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00
7eb52520fa
- Installation path is now fully configurable, allowing users to specify custom installation directories during setup
- Default installation location changed to .bmad (hidden directory) for cleaner project root organization
Web Bundle Improvements:
- All web bundles (single agent and team) now include party mode support for multi-agent collaboration!
- Advanced elicitation capabilities integrated into standalone agents
- All bundles enhanced with party mode agent manifests
- Added default-party.csv files to bmm, bmgd, and cis module teams
- The default party file is what will be used with single agent bundles. teams can customize for different party configurations before web bundling through a setting in the team yaml file
- New web bundle outputs for all agents (analyst, architect, dev, pm, sm, tea, tech-writer, ux-designer, game-*, creative-squad)
Phase 4 Workflow Updates (In Progress):
- Initiated shift to separate phase 4 implementation artifacts from documentation
- Phase 4 implementation artifacts (stories, code review, sprint plan, context files) will move to dedicated location outside docs folder
- Installer questions and configuration added for artifact path selection
- Updated workflow.yaml files for code-review, sprint-planning, story-context, epic-tech-context, and retrospective workflows to support this, but still might require some udpates
Additional Changes:
- New agent and action command header models for standardization
- Enhanced web-bundle-activation-steps fragment
- Updated web-bundler.js to support new structure
- VS Code settings updated for new .bmad directory
- Party mode instructions and workflow enhanced for better orchestration
IDE Installer Updates:
- Show version number of installer in cli
- improved Installer UX
- Gemini TOML Improved to have clear loading instructions with @ commands
- All tools agent launcher mds improved to use a central file template critical indication isntead of hardcoding in 2 different locations.
5.8 KiB
5.8 KiB
Implementation Readiness Validation Checklist
Document Completeness
Core Planning Documents
- PRD exists and is complete (Level 2-4 projects)
- PRD contains measurable success criteria
- PRD defines clear scope boundaries and exclusions
- Architecture document exists (architecture*.md) (Level 3-4 projects)
- Technical Specification exists with implementation details
- Epic and story breakdown document exists
- All documents are dated and versioned
Document Quality
- No placeholder sections remain in any document
- All documents use consistent terminology
- Technical decisions include rationale and trade-offs
- Assumptions and risks are explicitly documented
- Dependencies are clearly identified and documented
Alignment Verification
PRD to Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4)
- Every functional requirement in PRD has architectural support documented
- All non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture
- Architecture doesn't introduce features beyond PRD scope
- Performance requirements from PRD match architecture capabilities
- Security requirements from PRD are fully addressed in architecture
- If architecture.md: Implementation patterns are defined for consistency
- If architecture.md: All technology choices have verified versions
- If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements
PRD to Stories Coverage (Level 2-4)
- Every PRD requirement maps to at least one story
- All user journeys in PRD have complete story coverage
- Story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
- Priority levels in stories match PRD feature priorities
- No stories exist without PRD requirement traceability
Architecture to Stories Implementation
- All architectural components have implementation stories
- Infrastructure setup stories exist for each architectural layer
- Integration points defined in architecture have corresponding stories
- Data migration/setup stories exist if required by architecture
- Security implementation stories cover all architecture security decisions
Story and Sequencing Quality
Story Completeness
- All stories have clear acceptance criteria
- Technical tasks are defined within relevant stories
- Stories include error handling and edge cases
- Each story has clear definition of done
- Stories are appropriately sized (no epic-level stories remaining)
Sequencing and Dependencies
- Stories are sequenced in logical implementation order
- Dependencies between stories are explicitly documented
- No circular dependencies exist
- Prerequisite technical tasks precede dependent stories
- Foundation/infrastructure stories come before feature stories
Greenfield Project Specifics
- Initial project setup and configuration stories exist
- If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization command
- Development environment setup is documented
- CI/CD pipeline stories are included early in sequence
- Database/storage initialization stories are properly placed
- Authentication/authorization stories precede protected features
Risk and Gap Assessment
Critical Gaps
- No core PRD requirements lack story coverage
- No architectural decisions lack implementation stories
- All integration points have implementation plans
- Error handling strategy is defined and implemented
- Security concerns are all addressed
Technical Risks
- No conflicting technical approaches between stories
- Technology choices are consistent across all documents
- Performance requirements are achievable with chosen architecture
- Scalability concerns are addressed if applicable
- Third-party dependencies are identified with fallback plans
UX and Special Concerns (if applicable)
UX Coverage
- UX requirements are documented in PRD
- UX implementation tasks exist in relevant stories
- Accessibility requirements have story coverage
- Responsive design requirements are addressed
- User flow continuity is maintained across stories
Special Considerations
- Compliance requirements are fully addressed
- Internationalization needs are covered if required
- Performance benchmarks are defined and measurable
- Monitoring and observability stories exist
- Documentation stories are included where needed
Overall Readiness
Ready to Proceed Criteria
- All critical issues have been resolved
- High priority concerns have mitigation plans
- Story sequencing supports iterative delivery
- Team has necessary skills for implementation
- No blocking dependencies remain unresolved
Quality Indicators
- Documents demonstrate thorough analysis
- Clear traceability exists across all artifacts
- Consistent level of detail throughout documents
- Risks are identified with mitigation strategies
- Success criteria are measurable and achievable
Assessment Completion
Report Quality
- All findings are supported by specific examples
- Recommendations are actionable and specific
- Severity levels are appropriately assigned
- Positive findings are highlighted
- Next steps are clearly defined
Process Validation
- All expected documents were reviewed
- Cross-references were systematically checked
- Project level considerations were applied correctly
- Workflow status was checked and considered
- Output folder was thoroughly searched for artifacts
Issue Log
Critical Issues Found
- ***
- ***
- ***
High Priority Issues Found
- ***
- ***
- ***
Medium Priority Issues Found
- ***
- ***
- ***
Use this checklist to ensure comprehensive validation of implementation readiness