mirror of
https://github.com/bmadcode/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00
cfedecbd53
## 📚 Complete Documentation Restructure **BMM Documentation Hub Created:** - New centralized documentation system at `src/modules/bmm/docs/` - 18 comprehensive guides organized by topic (7000+ lines total) - Clear learning paths for greenfield, brownfield, and quick spec flows - Professional technical writing standards throughout **New Documentation:** - `README.md` - Complete documentation hub with navigation - `quick-start.md` - 15-minute getting started guide - `agents-guide.md` - Comprehensive 12-agent reference (45 min read) - `party-mode.md` - Multi-agent collaboration guide (20 min read) - `scale-adaptive-system.md` - Deep dive on Levels 0-4 (42 min read) - `brownfield-guide.md` - Existing codebase development (53 min read) - `quick-spec-flow.md` - Rapid Level 0-1 development (26 min read) - `workflows-analysis.md` - Phase 1 workflows (12 min read) - `workflows-planning.md` - Phase 2 workflows (19 min read) - `workflows-solutioning.md` - Phase 3 workflows (13 min read) - `workflows-implementation.md` - Phase 4 workflows (33 min read) - `workflows-testing.md` - Testing & QA workflows (29 min read) - `workflow-architecture-reference.md` - Architecture workflow deep-dive - `workflow-document-project-reference.md` - Document-project workflow reference - `enterprise-agentic-development.md` - Team collaboration patterns - `faq.md` - Comprehensive Q&A covering all topics - `glossary.md` - Complete terminology reference - `troubleshooting.md` - Common issues and solutions **Documentation Improvements:** - Removed all version/date footers (git handles versioning) - Agent customization docs now include full rebuild process - Cross-referenced links between all guides - Reading time estimates for all major docs - Consistent professional formatting and structure **Consolidated & Streamlined:** - Module README (`src/modules/bmm/README.md`) streamlined to lean signpost - Root README polished with better hierarchy and clear CTAs - Moved docs from root `docs/` to module-specific locations - Better separation of user docs vs. developer reference ## 🤖 New Agent: Paige (Documentation Guide) **Role:** Technical documentation specialist and information architect **Expertise:** - Professional technical writing standards - Documentation structure and organization - Information architecture and navigation - User-focused content design - Style guide enforcement **Status:** Work in progress - Paige will evolve as documentation needs grow **Integration:** - Listed in agents-guide.md, glossary.md, FAQ - Available for all phases (documentation is continuous) - Can be customized like all BMM agents ## 🔧 Additional Changes - Updated agent manifest with Paige - Updated workflow manifest with new documentation workflows - Fixed workflow-to-agent mappings across all guides - Improved root README with clearer Quick Start section - Better module structure explanations - Enhanced community links with Discord channel names **Total Impact:** - 18 new/restructured documentation files - 7000+ lines of professional technical documentation - Complete navigation system with cross-references - Clear learning paths for all user types - Foundation for knowledge base (coming in beta) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
190 lines
6.1 KiB
YAML
190 lines
6.1 KiB
YAML
# Implementation Readiness Validation Criteria
|
|
# Defines systematic validation rules by project level
|
|
|
|
validation_rules:
|
|
# Level 0-1 Projects (Simple, minimal planning)
|
|
level_0_1:
|
|
required_documents:
|
|
- tech_spec
|
|
- stories_or_tasks
|
|
|
|
validations:
|
|
- name: "Tech Spec Completeness"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "All features defined with implementation approach"
|
|
- "Technical dependencies identified"
|
|
- "API contracts defined if applicable"
|
|
- "Data models specified"
|
|
|
|
- name: "Story Coverage"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "All tech spec features have corresponding stories"
|
|
- "Stories are sequenced logically"
|
|
- "Technical tasks are defined"
|
|
- "No critical gaps in coverage"
|
|
|
|
# Level 2 Projects (PRD + Tech Spec, no separate architecture)
|
|
level_2:
|
|
required_documents:
|
|
- prd
|
|
- tech_spec # Includes architecture decisions
|
|
- epics_and_stories
|
|
|
|
validations:
|
|
- name: "PRD to Tech Spec Alignment"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "All PRD requirements addressed in tech spec"
|
|
- "Architecture embedded in tech spec covers PRD needs"
|
|
- "Non-functional requirements are specified"
|
|
- "Technical approach supports business goals"
|
|
|
|
- name: "Story Coverage and Alignment"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "Every PRD requirement has story coverage"
|
|
- "Stories align with tech spec approach"
|
|
- "Epic breakdown is complete"
|
|
- "Acceptance criteria match PRD success criteria"
|
|
|
|
- name: "Sequencing Validation"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "Foundation stories come first"
|
|
- "Dependencies are properly ordered"
|
|
- "Iterative delivery is possible"
|
|
- "No circular dependencies"
|
|
|
|
# Level 3-4 Projects (Full planning with separate architecture)
|
|
level_3_4:
|
|
required_documents:
|
|
- prd
|
|
- architecture
|
|
- epics_and_stories
|
|
|
|
validations:
|
|
- name: "PRD Completeness"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "User requirements fully documented"
|
|
- "Success criteria are measurable"
|
|
- "Scope boundaries clearly defined"
|
|
- "Priorities are assigned"
|
|
|
|
- name: "Architecture Coverage"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "All PRD requirements have architectural support"
|
|
- "System design is complete"
|
|
- "Integration points defined"
|
|
- "Security architecture specified"
|
|
- "Performance considerations addressed"
|
|
- "If architecture.md: Implementation patterns defined"
|
|
- "If architecture.md: Technology versions verified and current"
|
|
- "If architecture.md: Starter template command documented (if applicable)"
|
|
|
|
- name: "PRD-Architecture Alignment"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "No architecture gold-plating beyond PRD"
|
|
- "NFRs from PRD reflected in architecture"
|
|
- "Technology choices support requirements"
|
|
- "Scalability matches expected growth"
|
|
- "If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements"
|
|
- "If UX spec exists: Component library supports interaction patterns"
|
|
|
|
- name: "Story Implementation Coverage"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "All architectural components have stories"
|
|
- "Infrastructure setup stories exist"
|
|
- "Integration implementation planned"
|
|
- "Security implementation stories present"
|
|
|
|
- name: "Comprehensive Sequencing"
|
|
checks:
|
|
- "Infrastructure before features"
|
|
- "Authentication before protected resources"
|
|
- "Core features before enhancements"
|
|
- "Dependencies properly ordered"
|
|
- "Allows for iterative releases"
|
|
|
|
# Special validation contexts
|
|
special_contexts:
|
|
greenfield:
|
|
additional_checks:
|
|
- "Project initialization stories exist"
|
|
- "If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization"
|
|
- "Development environment setup documented"
|
|
- "CI/CD pipeline stories included"
|
|
- "Initial data/schema setup planned"
|
|
- "Deployment infrastructure stories present"
|
|
|
|
ux_workflow_active:
|
|
additional_checks:
|
|
- "UX requirements in PRD"
|
|
- "UX implementation stories exist"
|
|
- "Accessibility requirements covered"
|
|
- "Responsive design addressed"
|
|
- "User flow continuity maintained"
|
|
|
|
api_heavy:
|
|
additional_checks:
|
|
- "API contracts fully defined"
|
|
- "Versioning strategy documented"
|
|
- "Authentication/authorization specified"
|
|
- "Rate limiting considered"
|
|
- "API documentation stories included"
|
|
|
|
# Severity definitions
|
|
severity_levels:
|
|
critical:
|
|
description: "Must be resolved before implementation"
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "Missing stories for core requirements"
|
|
- "Conflicting technical approaches"
|
|
- "No infrastructure setup for greenfield"
|
|
- "Security requirements not addressed"
|
|
|
|
high:
|
|
description: "Should be addressed to reduce risk"
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "Incomplete acceptance criteria"
|
|
- "Unclear story dependencies"
|
|
- "Missing error handling coverage"
|
|
- "Performance requirements not validated"
|
|
|
|
medium:
|
|
description: "Consider addressing for smoother implementation"
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "Documentation gaps"
|
|
- "Test strategy not defined"
|
|
- "Monitoring approach unclear"
|
|
- "Minor sequencing improvements possible"
|
|
|
|
low:
|
|
description: "Minor improvements for consideration"
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "Formatting inconsistencies"
|
|
- "Optional enhancements identified"
|
|
- "Style guide compliance"
|
|
- "Nice-to-have features noted"
|
|
|
|
# Readiness decision criteria
|
|
readiness_decisions:
|
|
ready:
|
|
criteria:
|
|
- "No critical issues found"
|
|
- "All required documents present"
|
|
- "Core alignments validated"
|
|
- "Story sequencing logical"
|
|
- "Team can begin implementation"
|
|
|
|
ready_with_conditions:
|
|
criteria:
|
|
- "Only high/medium issues found"
|
|
- "Mitigation plans identified"
|
|
- "Core path to MVP clear"
|
|
- "Issues won't block initial stories"
|
|
|
|
not_ready:
|
|
criteria:
|
|
- "Critical issues identified"
|
|
- "Major gaps in coverage"
|
|
- "Conflicting approaches found"
|
|
- "Required documents missing"
|
|
- "Blocking dependencies unresolved"
|