diff --git a/bmad-agent/examples/v0-example-project.md b/bmad-agent/examples/v0-example-project.md index 85e7f0ad..3d98ed18 100644 --- a/bmad-agent/examples/v0-example-project.md +++ b/bmad-agent/examples/v0-example-project.md @@ -69,32 +69,32 @@ const ProductCard: React.FC = ({ product, onEdit, onDelete }) ### v0 Component Quality Checklist Applied -✅ **Design Consistency** +**Design Consistency** - Follows established design system patterns - Color palette matches brand guidelines (#2563eb, #64748b) - Typography scales appropriately - Spacing follows 8px grid system -✅ **Code Quality** +**Code Quality** - Components are properly typed (TypeScript) - Props are well-documented with interfaces - Components handle edge cases (loading, error states) - Performance optimized with React.memo where appropriate -✅ **Accessibility** +**Accessibility** - Semantic HTML structure (header, main, section) - Proper ARIA labels and roles - Keyboard navigation support (tab order, enter/space activation) - Screen reader compatibility tested - Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards (4.5:1 ratio) -✅ **Responsive Design** +**Responsive Design** - Mobile-first approach implemented - Breakpoints: 640px (sm), 768px (md), 1024px (lg) - Touch-friendly interaction areas (44px minimum) - Content reflows appropriately on all screen sizes -✅ **Integration** +**Integration** - Imports/exports properly configured - Dependencies clearly documented (React, TypeScript, Tailwind) - Integration examples provided diff --git a/bmad-agent/tasks/checklist-run-task.md b/bmad-agent/tasks/checklist-run-task.md index 7399b108..b25b62d3 100644 --- a/bmad-agent/tasks/checklist-run-task.md +++ b/bmad-agent/tasks/checklist-run-task.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Checklist Validation Task +# Checklist Validation Task This task provides instructions for validating documentation against checklists. The agent should follow these instructions to ensure thorough and systematic validation of documents. @@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ The BMAD Method uses various checklists to ensure quality and completeness of di - Look for evidence in the documentation that satisfies the requirement - Consider both explicit mentions and implicit coverage - Mark items as: - - ✅ PASS: Requirement clearly met - - ❌ FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage - - ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement + - PASS: Requirement clearly met + - ❌ FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage + - ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement - N/A: Not applicable to this case 5. **Section Analysis** diff --git a/docs/analyst-quality-standards.md b/docs/analyst-quality-standards.md index 4770f9ba..60fa1de3 100644 --- a/docs/analyst-quality-standards.md +++ b/docs/analyst-quality-standards.md @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Alternative approaches are considered and selection rationale is provided **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Methodology is innovative, rigorous, and perfectly suited to objectives -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Methodology is sound, well-executed, and appropriate +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Methodology is innovative, rigorous, and perfectly suited to objectives +- **Good (7-8)**: Methodology is sound, well-executed, and appropriate - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Methodology is adequate but may have minor limitations - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Methodology has significant limitations affecting reliability - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Methodology is inappropriate or fundamentally flawed @@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Limitations and constraints are acknowledged and addressed **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Analysis demonstrates exceptional depth with novel insights -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Analysis is thorough and reveals important insights +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Analysis demonstrates exceptional depth with novel insights +- **Good (7-8)**: Analysis is thorough and reveals important insights - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Analysis covers key areas but may lack some depth - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Analysis is superficial or misses important aspects - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Analysis lacks depth and fails to address core issues @@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Peer review is conducted for all major analytical conclusions **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive validation using multiple rigorous methods -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Adequate validation with minor gaps +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive validation using multiple rigorous methods +- **Good (7-8)**: Adequate validation with minor gaps - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Basic validation but some findings lack support - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Insufficient validation for key findings - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Little to no validation of analytical conclusions @@ -102,8 +102,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Source limitations and potential biases are documented **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: All sources are highly credible and perfectly relevant -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Sources are credible with minor relevance gaps +- **Excellent (9-10)**: All sources are highly credible and perfectly relevant +- **Good (7-8)**: Sources are credible with minor relevance gaps - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Most sources are adequate but some quality concerns - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Several sources lack credibility or relevance - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Sources are generally unreliable or inappropriate @@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Gaps in data are identified and their impact assessed **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Evidence is comprehensive and exceeds sufficiency requirements -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Evidence is sufficient with minor gaps +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Evidence is comprehensive and exceeds sufficiency requirements +- **Good (7-8)**: Evidence is sufficient with minor gaps - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Evidence meets minimum requirements - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Evidence is insufficient for some conclusions - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Evidence is generally insufficient for reliable conclusions @@ -138,8 +138,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Integration methodology is transparent and replicable **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Masterful synthesis revealing profound insights -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Effective synthesis with clear insights +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Masterful synthesis revealing profound insights +- **Good (7-8)**: Effective synthesis with clear insights - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Adequate synthesis but limited insight generation - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Poor synthesis with conflicting or unclear conclusions - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: No effective synthesis; evidence presented without integration @@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Supporting details are appropriately placed in appendices **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Perfect organization with compelling narrative flow -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Well-organized with clear logical progression +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Perfect organization with compelling narrative flow +- **Good (7-8)**: Well-organized with clear logical progression - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Adequate organization but some unclear transitions - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Poor organization impedes understanding - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Disorganized with no clear structure @@ -178,8 +178,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Document length is appropriate for content complexity **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Crystal clear communication perfectly tailored to audience -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Clear communication with minor accessibility issues +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Crystal clear communication perfectly tailored to audience +- **Good (7-8)**: Clear communication with minor accessibility issues - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Generally clear but some confusing elements - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Unclear communication impedes comprehension - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Very unclear; major communication barriers @@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Source data and methodology are clearly cited **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Outstanding visualizations that reveal insights -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Effective visualizations that support understanding +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Outstanding visualizations that reveal insights +- **Good (7-8)**: Effective visualizations that support understanding - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Adequate visualizations with minor issues - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Poor visualizations that confuse or mislead - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Misleading or inappropriate visualizations @@ -220,8 +220,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Scope boundaries are respected and maintained **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Exceeds objectives with additional valuable insights -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Fully meets objectives with quality execution +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Exceeds objectives with additional valuable insights +- **Good (7-8)**: Fully meets objectives with quality execution - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Meets most objectives but some gaps - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Partially meets objectives with significant gaps - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Fails to meet primary objectives @@ -237,8 +237,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Value proposition is clear and compelling **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Stakeholders are delighted with value provided -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Stakeholders are satisfied with deliverable quality +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Stakeholders are delighted with value provided +- **Good (7-8)**: Stakeholders are satisfied with deliverable quality - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Stakeholders find deliverable adequate - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Stakeholders have significant concerns - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Stakeholders are dissatisfied with deliverable @@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Success metrics are defined for each recommendation **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Recommendations are highly specific and immediately actionable -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Recommendations are clear and actionable with minor gaps +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Recommendations are highly specific and immediately actionable +- **Good (7-8)**: Recommendations are clear and actionable with minor gaps - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Recommendations are generally actionable but lack some detail - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Recommendations are vague or difficult to implement - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Recommendations are unclear or not actionable @@ -277,8 +277,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Alternative approaches are considered when primary recommendations face barriers **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive feasibility analysis with creative solutions -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Thorough feasibility assessment with practical recommendations +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive feasibility analysis with creative solutions +- **Good (7-8)**: Thorough feasibility assessment with practical recommendations - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Basic feasibility consideration but some gaps - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Limited feasibility analysis - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: No meaningful feasibility assessment @@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes. - Contingency plans are developed for critical path activities **Quality Indicators**: -- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Consistently delivers early with exceptional quality -- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Meets deadlines with high quality +- **Excellent (9-10)**: Consistently delivers early with exceptional quality +- **Good (7-8)**: Meets deadlines with high quality - ⚠️ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Generally meets deadlines but occasional delays - ❌ **Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Frequent delays or quality compromises - ❌ **Poor (1-2)**: Consistently late or poor quality due to time pressure diff --git a/docs/architect-quality-standards.md b/docs/architect-quality-standards.md index d1fd26e7..ce0509de 100644 --- a/docs/architect-quality-standards.md +++ b/docs/architect-quality-standards.md @@ -57,10 +57,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Documentation is updated to reflect implementation changes **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ All template sections are addressed -- ✅ No critical information gaps exist -- ✅ Documentation reflects current system state -- ✅ Stakeholder information needs are met +- All template sections are addressed +- No critical information gaps exist +- Documentation reflects current system state +- Stakeholder information needs are met **Validation Methods**: - Documentation completeness checklist @@ -79,10 +79,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Organize information logically and consistently **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Technical concepts are explained clearly -- ✅ Visual diagrams support textual descriptions -- ✅ Examples illustrate key concepts effectively -- ✅ Information is organized logically +- Technical concepts are explained clearly +- Visual diagrams support textual descriptions +- Examples illustrate key concepts effectively +- Information is organized logically **Validation Methods**: - Readability assessment @@ -101,10 +101,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Maintain consistency with related documentation **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Templates are used correctly and completely -- ✅ Terminology is consistent throughout -- ✅ Notation and diagramming standards are followed -- ✅ Cross-references are accurate and current +- Templates are used correctly and completely +- Terminology is consistent throughout +- Notation and diagramming standards are followed +- Cross-references are accurate and current **Validation Methods**: - Template compliance checking @@ -123,10 +123,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Maintain version history and change tracking **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Requirements traceability is maintained -- ✅ Decision rationales are documented -- ✅ Implementation links are current -- ✅ Change history is tracked +- Requirements traceability is maintained +- Decision rationales are documented +- Implementation links are current +- Change history is tracked **Validation Methods**: - Traceability matrix validation @@ -147,10 +147,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Maintain loose coupling and high cohesion **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Components have single, well-defined responsibilities -- ✅ Dependencies are minimized and well-managed -- ✅ Interfaces are clean and stable -- ✅ Patterns are applied appropriately +- Components have single, well-defined responsibilities +- Dependencies are minimized and well-managed +- Interfaces are clean and stable +- Patterns are applied appropriately **Validation Methods**: - Architectural principle compliance review @@ -169,10 +169,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Document quality attribute trade-offs **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ All quality attributes are explicitly addressed -- ✅ Quality mechanisms are appropriate and effective -- ✅ Trade-offs are documented and justified -- ✅ Quality targets are measurable and testable +- All quality attributes are explicitly addressed +- Quality mechanisms are appropriate and effective +- Trade-offs are documented and justified +- Quality targets are measurable and testable **Validation Methods**: - Quality attribute scenario analysis @@ -191,10 +191,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Plan for horizontal and vertical scaling **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Scalability approach is clearly defined -- ✅ Performance targets are specified and achievable -- ✅ Bottlenecks are identified and addressed -- ✅ Scaling mechanisms are implemented +- Scalability approach is clearly defined +- Performance targets are specified and achievable +- Bottlenecks are identified and addressed +- Scaling mechanisms are implemented **Validation Methods**: - Performance modeling and simulation @@ -213,10 +213,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Plan for security monitoring and incident response **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Security controls are layered and comprehensive -- ✅ Access controls are appropriate and enforced -- ✅ Data protection mechanisms are implemented -- ✅ Security monitoring is designed in +- Security controls are layered and comprehensive +- Access controls are appropriate and enforced +- Data protection mechanisms are implemented +- Security monitoring is designed in **Validation Methods**: - Security architecture review @@ -237,10 +237,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Document selection rationale and alternatives **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Technology evaluation is comprehensive -- ✅ Selection criteria are appropriate and applied -- ✅ Organizational fit is assessed -- ✅ Rationale is documented and justified +- Technology evaluation is comprehensive +- Selection criteria are appropriate and applied +- Organizational fit is assessed +- Rationale is documented and justified **Validation Methods**: - Technology evaluation review @@ -259,10 +259,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Follow API design standards **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Integration patterns are appropriate for use cases -- ✅ Error handling is comprehensive and tested -- ✅ Monitoring and logging are implemented -- ✅ API standards are followed +- Integration patterns are appropriate for use cases +- Error handling is comprehensive and tested +- Monitoring and logging are implemented +- API standards are followed **Validation Methods**: - Integration pattern review @@ -281,10 +281,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Provide clear implementation guidelines **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Coding standards are comprehensive and clear -- ✅ Quality checks are automated where possible -- ✅ Implementation guidelines are actionable -- ✅ Code quality metrics are tracked +- Coding standards are comprehensive and clear +- Quality checks are automated where possible +- Implementation guidelines are actionable +- Code quality metrics are tracked **Validation Methods**: - Code quality metrics analysis @@ -305,10 +305,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Validate requirements understanding **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Stakeholder needs are understood and documented -- ✅ Requirements analysis is comprehensive -- ✅ Constraints and assumptions are identified -- ✅ Requirements understanding is validated +- Stakeholder needs are understood and documented +- Requirements analysis is comprehensive +- Constraints and assumptions are identified +- Requirements understanding is validated **Validation Methods**: - Stakeholder interview assessment @@ -327,10 +327,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Iterate based on feedback and learning **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Design process is systematic and repeatable -- ✅ Design decisions are documented -- ✅ Validation is performed against requirements -- ✅ Feedback is incorporated effectively +- Design process is systematic and repeatable +- Design decisions are documented +- Validation is performed against requirements +- Feedback is incorporated effectively **Validation Methods**: - Design process assessment @@ -349,10 +349,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Document review findings and actions **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Reviews are conducted by qualified reviewers -- ✅ Stakeholder validation is comprehensive -- ✅ Technical feasibility is assessed -- ✅ Review findings are addressed +- Reviews are conducted by qualified reviewers +- Stakeholder validation is comprehensive +- Technical feasibility is assessed +- Review findings are addressed **Validation Methods**: - Review process effectiveness assessment @@ -373,10 +373,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Maintain ongoing stakeholder relationships **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ All relevant stakeholders are identified and engaged -- ✅ Communication is effective and appropriate -- ✅ Feedback is actively sought and incorporated -- ✅ Stakeholder relationships are maintained +- All relevant stakeholders are identified and engaged +- Communication is effective and appropriate +- Feedback is actively sought and incorporated +- Stakeholder relationships are maintained **Validation Methods**: - Stakeholder satisfaction surveys @@ -395,10 +395,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Resolve conflicts constructively **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Persona roles and responsibilities are understood -- ✅ Communication channels are effective -- ✅ Work coordination is smooth -- ✅ Conflicts are resolved constructively +- Persona roles and responsibilities are understood +- Communication channels are effective +- Work coordination is smooth +- Conflicts are resolved constructively **Validation Methods**: - Collaboration effectiveness assessment @@ -417,10 +417,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Contribute to organizational knowledge base **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Knowledge is documented and accessible -- ✅ Knowledge transfer is effective -- ✅ Mentoring is provided as needed -- ✅ Organizational knowledge is enhanced +- Knowledge is documented and accessible +- Knowledge transfer is effective +- Mentoring is provided as needed +- Organizational knowledge is enhanced **Validation Methods**: - Knowledge documentation assessment @@ -454,10 +454,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Share lessons learned with team **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Self-assessment is performed regularly -- ✅ Quality issues are identified and addressed -- ✅ Improvement opportunities are pursued -- ✅ Lessons learned are documented and shared +- Self-assessment is performed regularly +- Quality issues are identified and addressed +- Improvement opportunities are pursued +- Lessons learned are documented and shared ### Peer Review Procedures @@ -483,10 +483,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Document review outcomes **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Reviews are conducted by qualified peers -- ✅ Review process is systematic and thorough -- ✅ Findings are documented and addressed -- ✅ Follow-up ensures completion +- Reviews are conducted by qualified peers +- Review process is systematic and thorough +- Findings are documented and addressed +- Follow-up ensures completion ### Stakeholder Validation Procedures @@ -512,10 +512,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars: - Document validation outcomes **Quality Criteria**: -- ✅ Appropriate stakeholders are involved -- ✅ Validation process is comprehensive -- ✅ Feedback is gathered and addressed -- ✅ Changes are validated and documented +- Appropriate stakeholders are involved +- Validation process is comprehensive +- Feedback is gathered and addressed +- Changes are validated and documented ## Continuous Improvement diff --git a/docs/architect-quickstart.md b/docs/architect-quickstart.md index ac96a225..6083a434 100644 --- a/docs/architect-quickstart.md +++ b/docs/architect-quickstart.md @@ -208,31 +208,31 @@ Now let me update the sprint status to reflect completion of the System Architec ## Story Status -### ✅ Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE -**Status**: ✅ DONE +### Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE +**Status**: DONE **Completed**: Current Date -### ✅ Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE -**Status**: ✅ DONE +### Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE +**Status**: DONE **Completed**: Current Date **Deliverables**: -- ✅ PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md) -- ✅ PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md) -- ✅ PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md) +- PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md) +- PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md) +- PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md) -### ✅ Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE -**Status**: ✅ DONE +### Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE +**Status**: DONE **Completed**: Current Date **Deliverables**: -- ✅ System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md) -- ✅ System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md) -- ✅ System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md) +- System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md) +- System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md) +- System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md) **Acceptance Criteria Met**: -- ✅ Create System Architect Comprehensive Guide -- ✅ Create System Architect Integration Guide -- ✅ Create System Architect Quick Start Guide -- ✅ Validate documentation follows template standards +- Create System Architect Comprehensive Guide +- Create System Architect Integration Guide +- Create System Architect Quick Start Guide +- Validate documentation follows template standards ### ⏳ Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - NEXT UP **Status**: ⏳ TODO @@ -273,8 +273,8 @@ Now let me update the sprint status to reflect completion of the System Architec - **Days Remaining**: 8 days ## Next Actions -1. ✅ Complete Product Manager documentation package -2. ✅ Complete System Architect documentation package +1. Complete Product Manager documentation package +2. Complete System Architect documentation package 3. 🔄 Create Product Owner (Sarah) documentation package --- diff --git a/docs/design-architect-success-metrics.md b/docs/design-architect-success-metrics.md index 01258bf7..717cee30 100644 --- a/docs/design-architect-success-metrics.md +++ b/docs/design-architect-success-metrics.md @@ -609,11 +609,11 @@ Now let me update the Sprint 4 status to reflect the completion of Story 4.2: **Status**: COMPLETED ✅ All acceptance criteria met: -- ✅ Developer persona documentation completed -- ✅ Development workflows documented -- ✅ Template library established -- ✅ Quality standards defined -- ✅ Integration points established +- Developer persona documentation completed +- Development workflows documented +- Template library established +- Quality standards defined +- Integration points established **Deliverables**: - Enhanced dev-comprehensive-guide.md @@ -628,11 +628,11 @@ All acceptance criteria met: **Status**: COMPLETED ✅ All acceptance criteria met: -- ✅ Design Architect persona documentation completed -- ✅ Design workflows documented -- ✅ Template library established -- ✅ Quality standards defined -- ✅ Integration points established +- Design Architect persona documentation completed +- Design workflows documented +- Template library established +- Quality standards defined +- Integration points established **Deliverables**: - Enhanced design-architect-comprehensive-guide.md @@ -659,10 +659,10 @@ All acceptance criteria met: - **Remaining Work**: Stories 4.3, 4.4 (14 points) ## Key Achievements -- ✅ Complete Developer documentation package with 7 new/enhanced documents -- ✅ Comprehensive developer workflow mapping with 3 distinct modes -- ✅ Detailed quality standards with 6 dimensions and measurement framework -- ✅ Success metrics framework with 5 categories and 25 specific metrics +- Complete Developer documentation package with 7 new/enhanced documents +- Comprehensive developer workflow mapping with 3 distinct modes +- Detailed quality standards with 6 dimensions and measurement framework +- Success metrics framework with 5 categories and 25 specific metrics ## Next Steps - Complete Story 4.3: Scrum Master Documentation Package (7 points) diff --git a/docs/design-architect-template-guide.md b/docs/design-architect-template-guide.md index 6cca928f..5388b64b 100644 --- a/docs/design-architect-template-guide.md +++ b/docs/design-architect-template-guide.md @@ -1325,9 +1325,9 @@ import { ComponentName } from '@/components/ui/component-name' ## Best Practices ### Do's -- ✅ [Best practice 1] -- ✅ [Best practice 2] -- ✅ [Best practice 3] +- [Best practice 1] +- [Best practice 2] +- [Best practice 3] ### Don'ts - ❌ [What to avoid 1] diff --git a/docs/dev-quickstart.md b/docs/dev-quickstart.md index 5512e842..4e0e341c 100644 --- a/docs/dev-quickstart.md +++ b/docs/dev-quickstart.md @@ -311,22 +311,22 @@ describe('Authentication API', () => { Developer: "Running comprehensive quality checks before marking story complete." Quality Assurance Checklist: -✅ Code follows established style guidelines (ESLint passed) -✅ All tests pass (Unit: 15/15, Integration: 8/8, E2E: 3/3) -✅ Test coverage exceeds 80% threshold (Current: 92%) -✅ Security scan passed (No high-severity vulnerabilities) -✅ Performance benchmarks met (Login response < 200ms) -✅ Documentation updated (API docs, component docs) -✅ Accessibility requirements met (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance) +Code follows established style guidelines (ESLint passed) +All tests pass (Unit: 15/15, Integration: 8/8, E2E: 3/3) +Test coverage exceeds 80% threshold (Current: 92%) +Security scan passed (No high-severity vulnerabilities) +Performance benchmarks met (Login response < 200ms) +Documentation updated (API docs, component docs) +Accessibility requirements met (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance) Definition of Done Validation: -✅ All acceptance criteria implemented and tested -✅ Code reviewed and approved by senior developer -✅ Integration with existing authentication system verified -✅ Error handling and edge cases covered -✅ Security best practices implemented -✅ User experience validated with UX team -✅ Ready for deployment to staging environment +All acceptance criteria implemented and tested +Code reviewed and approved by senior developer +Integration with existing authentication system verified +Error handling and edge cases covered +Security best practices implemented +User experience validated with UX team +Ready for deployment to staging environment Story Status: Ready for Review ✅ ``` diff --git a/docs/how-it-works/README.md b/docs/how-it-works/README.md index 3dd65e64..63138d68 100644 --- a/docs/how-it-works/README.md +++ b/docs/how-it-works/README.md @@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ The BMAD Method is a revolutionary AI-driven development approach that uses spec | Traditional Approach | BMAD Method | |---------------------|-------------| -| ❌ Manual coordination between roles | ✅ Automated orchestration | -| ❌ Context switching between tools | ✅ Unified AI-driven workflow | -| ❌ Inconsistent deliverable quality | ✅ Template-driven standardization | -| ❌ Knowledge silos | ✅ Shared context across all personas | -| ❌ Time-consuming handoffs | ✅ Seamless persona transitions | +| ❌ Manual coordination between roles | Automated orchestration | +| ❌ Context switching between tools | Unified AI-driven workflow | +| ❌ Inconsistent deliverable quality | Template-driven standardization | +| ❌ Knowledge silos | Shared context across all personas | +| ❌ Time-consuming handoffs | Seamless persona transitions | ### Key Benefits diff --git a/docs/persona-documentation-audit.md b/docs/persona-documentation-audit.md index 9d1c21a0..b0511ec4 100644 --- a/docs/persona-documentation-audit.md +++ b/docs/persona-documentation-audit.md @@ -7,10 +7,10 @@ ## Current Persona Documentation Status -### ✅ Well-Documented Personas +### Well-Documented Personas #### v0 UX/UI Architect -- **Status**: ✅ COMPLETE - Recently standardized +- **Status**: COMPLETE - Recently standardized - **Files**: - `bmad-agent/personas/v0-ux-ui-architect.md` (Web version) - `bmad-agent/personas/v0-ux-ui-architect.ide.md` (IDE version) diff --git a/docs/po-quickstart.md b/docs/po-quickstart.md index 3b4e2f06..59127557 100644 --- a/docs/po-quickstart.md +++ b/docs/po-quickstart.md @@ -246,39 +246,39 @@ Start creating sprint-ready user stories today with Sarah's systematic approach ## Story Status -### ✅ Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE -**Status**: ✅ DONE +### Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE +**Status**: DONE **Completed**: Current Date -### ✅ Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE -**Status**: ✅ DONE +### Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE +**Status**: DONE **Completed**: Current Date **Deliverables**: -- ✅ PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md) -- ✅ PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md) -- ✅ PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md) +- PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md) +- PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md) +- PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md) -### ✅ Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE -**Status**: ✅ DONE +### Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE +**Status**: DONE **Completed**: Current Date **Deliverables**: -- ✅ System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md) -- ✅ System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md) -- ✅ System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md) +- System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md) +- System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md) +- System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md) -### ✅ Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE -**Status**: ✅ DONE +### Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE +**Status**: DONE **Completed**: Current Date **Deliverables**: -- ✅ Product Owner Comprehensive Guide (docs/po-comprehensive-guide.md) -- ✅ Product Owner Integration Guide (docs/po-integration-guide.md) -- ✅ Product Owner Quick Start Guide (docs/po-quickstart.md) +- Product Owner Comprehensive Guide (docs/po-comprehensive-guide.md) +- Product Owner Integration Guide (docs/po-integration-guide.md) +- Product Owner Quick Start Guide (docs/po-quickstart.md) **Acceptance Criteria Met**: -- ✅ Create Product Owner Comprehensive Guide -- ✅ Create Product Owner Integration Guide -- ✅ Create Product Owner Quick Start Guide -- ✅ Validate documentation follows template standards +- Create Product Owner Comprehensive Guide +- Create Product Owner Integration Guide +- Create Product Owner Quick Start Guide +- Validate documentation follows template standards ### ⏳ Story 1.3: Create IDE-Specific Setup Guides (5 points) - TODO **Status**: ⏳ TODO @@ -311,9 +311,9 @@ Start creating sprint-ready user stories today with Sarah's systematic approach - **Days Remaining**: 8 days ## Next Actions -1. ✅ Complete Product Manager documentation package -2. ✅ Complete System Architect documentation package -3. ✅ Complete Product Owner documentation package +1. Complete Product Manager documentation package +2. Complete System Architect documentation package +3. Complete Product Owner documentation package 4. ⏳ Begin Story 1.3: Create IDE-Specific Setup Guides (5 points) --- diff --git a/docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md b/docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md index 5016a8cc..84de1f37 100644 --- a/docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md +++ b/docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md @@ -365,8 +365,8 @@ graph TB *This system overview provides the foundation for understanding the BMAD platform architecture and its key components.* **Story 2.2 Progress Update:** -- ✅ Created `docs/system-architecture/README.md` - Architecture documentation overview -- ✅ Created `docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md` - High-level system architecture +- Created `docs/system-architecture/README.md` - Architecture documentation overview +- Created `docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md` - High-level system architecture - 🔄 **In Progress**: Need to create remaining architecture documents **Story 2.2 Status**: 25% complete (2/8 points) diff --git a/docs/visual-elements/README.md b/docs/visual-elements/README.md index e5aa6e64..3a6c95cc 100644 --- a/docs/visual-elements/README.md +++ b/docs/visual-elements/README.md @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ We use a consistent icon system throughout the documentation: - 🎨 **UX/UI Designer**: User experience - 💻 **Developer**: Implementation - 📊 **Analyst**: Data and requirements -- ✅ **Completed**: Finished tasks +- **Completed**: Finished tasks - 🔄 **In Progress**: Active work - ⏳ **Pending**: Waiting to start - ⭐ **Decision Point**: Key choices diff --git a/examples/dashboard-component-example.md b/examples/dashboard-component-example.md index 8dd06376..fe37ec1e 100644 --- a/examples/dashboard-component-example.md +++ b/examples/dashboard-component-example.md @@ -65,26 +65,26 @@ We ran the component through our quality assurance process: ### Accessibility Testing -- ✅ Semantic HTML structure -- ✅ ARIA labels for interactive elements -- ✅ Proper focus management -- ✅ Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards -- ✅ Screen reader compatibility +- Semantic HTML structure +- ARIA labels for interactive elements +- Proper focus management +- Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards +- Screen reader compatibility ### Responsive Testing -- ✅ Mobile layout (320px+) -- ✅ Tablet layout (768px+) -- ✅ Desktop layout (1024px+) -- ✅ Touch-friendly targets -- ✅ Proper content reflow +- Mobile layout (320px+) +- Tablet layout (768px+) +- Desktop layout (1024px+) +- Touch-friendly targets +- Proper content reflow ### Performance Testing -- ✅ Optimized rendering -- ✅ Proper loading states -- ✅ Efficient state management -- ✅ Minimal bundle size impact +- Optimized rendering +- Proper loading states +- Efficient state management +- Minimal bundle size impact ## Step 6: Final Implementation diff --git a/web-build-sample/examples.txt b/web-build-sample/examples.txt index a98aca84..cf8c9da4 100644 --- a/web-build-sample/examples.txt +++ b/web-build-sample/examples.txt @@ -70,32 +70,32 @@ const ProductCard: React.FC = ({ product, onEdit, onDelete }) ### v0 Component Quality Checklist Applied -✅ **Design Consistency** +**Design Consistency** - Follows established design system patterns - Color palette matches brand guidelines (#2563eb, #64748b) - Typography scales appropriately - Spacing follows 8px grid system -✅ **Code Quality** +**Code Quality** - Components are properly typed (TypeScript) - Props are well-documented with interfaces - Components handle edge cases (loading, error states) - Performance optimized with React.memo where appropriate -✅ **Accessibility** +**Accessibility** - Semantic HTML structure (header, main, section) - Proper ARIA labels and roles - Keyboard navigation support (tab order, enter/space activation) - Screen reader compatibility tested - Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards (4.5:1 ratio) -✅ **Responsive Design** +**Responsive Design** - Mobile-first approach implemented - Breakpoints: 640px (sm), 768px (md), 1024px (lg) - Touch-friendly interaction areas (44px minimum) - Content reflows appropriately on all screen sizes -✅ **Integration** +**Integration** - Imports/exports properly configured - Dependencies clearly documented (React, TypeScript, Tailwind) - Integration examples provided diff --git a/web-build-sample/tasks.txt b/web-build-sample/tasks.txt index 9e43afe1..bd8a217d 100644 --- a/web-build-sample/tasks.txt +++ b/web-build-sample/tasks.txt @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ The BMAD Method uses various checklists to ensure quality and completeness of di - Look for evidence in the documentation that satisfies the requirement - Consider both explicit mentions and implicit coverage - Mark items as: - - ✅ PASS: Requirement clearly met + - PASS: Requirement clearly met - ❌ FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage - ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement - N/A: Not applicable to this case