Documentation Update

bmad-agent/examples/v0-example-project.md

@@ -69,32 +69,32 @@ const ProductCard: React.FC<ProductCardProps> = ({ 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

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
+     - PASS: Requirement clearly met
-     - ❌ FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage
+     - ❌ FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage
-     - ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement
+     - ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement
      - N/A: Not applicable to this case
 
 5. **Section Analysis**

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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Methodology is innovative, rigorous, and perfectly suited to objectives
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Methodology is sound, well-executed, and appropriate
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Analysis demonstrates exceptional depth with novel insights
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Analysis is thorough and reveals important 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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive validation using multiple rigorous methods
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Adequate validation with minor gaps
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: All sources are highly credible and perfectly relevant
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Sources are credible with minor relevance gaps
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Evidence is comprehensive and exceeds sufficiency requirements
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Evidence is sufficient with minor gaps
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Masterful synthesis revealing profound insights
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Effective synthesis with clear 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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Perfect organization with compelling narrative flow
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Well-organized with clear logical progression
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Crystal clear communication perfectly tailored to audience
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Clear communication with minor accessibility issues
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Outstanding visualizations that reveal insights
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Effective visualizations that support understanding
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Exceeds objectives with additional valuable insights
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Fully meets objectives with quality execution
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Stakeholders are delighted with value provided
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Stakeholders are satisfied with deliverable quality
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Recommendations are highly specific and immediately actionable
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Recommendations are clear and actionable with minor gaps
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive feasibility analysis with creative solutions
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Thorough feasibility assessment with practical recommendations
+- **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
+- **Excellent (9-10)**: Consistently delivers early with exceptional quality
-- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Meets deadlines with high 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

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
+- All template sections are addressed
-- ✅ No critical information gaps exist
+- No critical information gaps exist
-- ✅ Documentation reflects current system state
+- Documentation reflects current system state
-- ✅ Stakeholder information needs are met
+- 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
+- Technical concepts are explained clearly
-- ✅ Visual diagrams support textual descriptions
+- Visual diagrams support textual descriptions
-- ✅ Examples illustrate key concepts effectively
+- Examples illustrate key concepts effectively
-- ✅ Information is organized logically
+- 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
+- Templates are used correctly and completely
-- ✅ Terminology is consistent throughout
+- Terminology is consistent throughout
-- ✅ Notation and diagramming standards are followed
+- Notation and diagramming standards are followed
-- ✅ Cross-references are accurate and current
+- 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
+- Requirements traceability is maintained
-- ✅ Decision rationales are documented
+- Decision rationales are documented
-- ✅ Implementation links are current
+- Implementation links are current
-- ✅ Change history is tracked
+- 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
+- Components have single, well-defined responsibilities
-- ✅ Dependencies are minimized and well-managed
+- Dependencies are minimized and well-managed
-- ✅ Interfaces are clean and stable
+- Interfaces are clean and stable
-- ✅ Patterns are applied appropriately
+- 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
+- All quality attributes are explicitly addressed
-- ✅ Quality mechanisms are appropriate and effective
+- Quality mechanisms are appropriate and effective
-- ✅ Trade-offs are documented and justified
+- Trade-offs are documented and justified
-- ✅ Quality targets are measurable and testable
+- 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
+- Scalability approach is clearly defined
-- ✅ Performance targets are specified and achievable
+- Performance targets are specified and achievable
-- ✅ Bottlenecks are identified and addressed
+- Bottlenecks are identified and addressed
-- ✅ Scaling mechanisms are implemented
+- 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
+- Security controls are layered and comprehensive
-- ✅ Access controls are appropriate and enforced
+- Access controls are appropriate and enforced
-- ✅ Data protection mechanisms are implemented
+- Data protection mechanisms are implemented
-- ✅ Security monitoring is designed in
+- 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
+- Technology evaluation is comprehensive
-- ✅ Selection criteria are appropriate and applied
+- Selection criteria are appropriate and applied
-- ✅ Organizational fit is assessed
+- Organizational fit is assessed
-- ✅ Rationale is documented and justified
+- 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
+- Integration patterns are appropriate for use cases
-- ✅ Error handling is comprehensive and tested
+- Error handling is comprehensive and tested
-- ✅ Monitoring and logging are implemented
+- Monitoring and logging are implemented
-- ✅ API standards are followed
+- 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
+- Coding standards are comprehensive and clear
-- ✅ Quality checks are automated where possible
+- Quality checks are automated where possible
-- ✅ Implementation guidelines are actionable
+- Implementation guidelines are actionable
-- ✅ Code quality metrics are tracked
+- 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
+- Stakeholder needs are understood and documented
-- ✅ Requirements analysis is comprehensive
+- Requirements analysis is comprehensive
-- ✅ Constraints and assumptions are identified
+- Constraints and assumptions are identified
-- ✅ Requirements understanding is validated
+- 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 process is systematic and repeatable
-- ✅ Design decisions are documented
+- Design decisions are documented
-- ✅ Validation is performed against requirements
+- Validation is performed against requirements
-- ✅ Feedback is incorporated effectively
+- 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
+- Reviews are conducted by qualified reviewers
-- ✅ Stakeholder validation is comprehensive
+- Stakeholder validation is comprehensive
-- ✅ Technical feasibility is assessed
+- Technical feasibility is assessed
-- ✅ Review findings are addressed
+- 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
+- All relevant stakeholders are identified and engaged
-- ✅ Communication is effective and appropriate
+- Communication is effective and appropriate
-- ✅ Feedback is actively sought and incorporated
+- Feedback is actively sought and incorporated
-- ✅ Stakeholder relationships are maintained
+- 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
+- Persona roles and responsibilities are understood
-- ✅ Communication channels are effective
+- Communication channels are effective
-- ✅ Work coordination is smooth
+- Work coordination is smooth
-- ✅ Conflicts are resolved constructively
+- 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 is documented and accessible
-- ✅ Knowledge transfer is effective
+- Knowledge transfer is effective
-- ✅ Mentoring is provided as needed
+- Mentoring is provided as needed
-- ✅ Organizational knowledge is enhanced
+- 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
+- Self-assessment is performed regularly
-- ✅ Quality issues are identified and addressed
+- Quality issues are identified and addressed
-- ✅ Improvement opportunities are pursued
+- Improvement opportunities are pursued
-- ✅ Lessons learned are documented and shared
+- 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
+- Reviews are conducted by qualified peers
-- ✅ Review process is systematic and thorough
+- Review process is systematic and thorough
-- ✅ Findings are documented and addressed
+- Findings are documented and addressed
-- ✅ Follow-up ensures completion
+- 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
+- Appropriate stakeholders are involved
-- ✅ Validation process is comprehensive
+- Validation process is comprehensive
-- ✅ Feedback is gathered and addressed
+- Feedback is gathered and addressed
-- ✅ Changes are validated and documented
+- Changes are validated and documented
 
 ## Continuous Improvement
 

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
+### Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE
-**Status**: ✅ DONE  
+**Status**: DONE  
 **Completed**: Current Date
 
-### ✅ Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
+### Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
-**Status**: ✅ DONE  
+**Status**: DONE  
 **Completed**: Current Date  
 **Deliverables**:
-- ✅ PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
+- PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
-- ✅ PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
+- PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
-- ✅ PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
+- PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
 
-### ✅ Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
+### Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
-**Status**: ✅ DONE  
+**Status**: DONE  
 **Completed**: Current Date  
 **Deliverables**:
-- ✅ System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
+- System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
-- ✅ System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
+- System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
-- ✅ System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
+- System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
 
 **Acceptance Criteria Met**:
-- ✅ Create System Architect Comprehensive Guide
+- Create System Architect Comprehensive Guide
-- ✅ Create System Architect Integration Guide  
+- Create System Architect Integration Guide  
-- ✅ Create System Architect Quick Start Guide
+- Create System Architect Quick Start Guide
-- ✅ Validate documentation follows template standards
+- 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
+1. Complete Product Manager documentation package
-2. ✅ Complete System Architect documentation package
+2. Complete System Architect documentation package
 3. 🔄 Create Product Owner (Sarah) documentation package
 
 ---

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
+- Developer persona documentation completed
-- ✅ Development workflows documented
+- Development workflows documented
-- ✅ Template library established
+- Template library established
-- ✅ Quality standards defined
+- Quality standards defined
-- ✅ Integration points established
+- 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 Architect persona documentation completed
-- ✅ Design workflows documented
+- Design workflows documented
-- ✅ Template library established
+- Template library established
-- ✅ Quality standards defined
+- Quality standards defined
-- ✅ Integration points established
+- 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
+- Complete Developer documentation package with 7 new/enhanced documents
-- ✅ Comprehensive developer workflow mapping with 3 distinct modes
+- Comprehensive developer workflow mapping with 3 distinct modes
-- ✅ Detailed quality standards with 6 dimensions and measurement framework
+- Detailed quality standards with 6 dimensions and measurement framework
-- ✅ Success metrics framework with 5 categories and 25 specific metrics
+- Success metrics framework with 5 categories and 25 specific metrics
 
 ## Next Steps
 - Complete Story 4.3: Scrum Master Documentation Package (7 points)

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 1]
-- ✅ [Best practice 2]
+- [Best practice 2]
-- ✅ [Best practice 3]
+- [Best practice 3]
 
 ### Don'ts
 - ❌ [What to avoid 1]

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)
+Code follows established style guidelines (ESLint passed)
-✅ All tests pass (Unit: 15/15, Integration: 8/8, E2E: 3/3)
+All tests pass (Unit: 15/15, Integration: 8/8, E2E: 3/3)
-✅ Test coverage exceeds 80% threshold (Current: 92%)
+Test coverage exceeds 80% threshold (Current: 92%)
-✅ Security scan passed (No high-severity vulnerabilities)
+Security scan passed (No high-severity vulnerabilities)
-✅ Performance benchmarks met (Login response < 200ms)
+Performance benchmarks met (Login response < 200ms)
-✅ Documentation updated (API docs, component docs)
+Documentation updated (API docs, component docs)
-✅ Accessibility requirements met (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance)
+Accessibility requirements met (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance)
 
 Definition of Done Validation:
-✅ All acceptance criteria implemented and tested
+All acceptance criteria implemented and tested
-✅ Code reviewed and approved by senior developer
+Code reviewed and approved by senior developer
-✅ Integration with existing authentication system verified
+Integration with existing authentication system verified
-✅ Error handling and edge cases covered
+Error handling and edge cases covered
-✅ Security best practices implemented
+Security best practices implemented
-✅ User experience validated with UX team
+User experience validated with UX team
-✅ Ready for deployment to staging environment
+Ready for deployment to staging environment
 
 Story Status: Ready for Review ✅
 ```

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 |
+| ❌ Manual coordination between roles | Automated orchestration |
-| ❌ Context switching between tools | ✅ Unified AI-driven workflow |
+| ❌ Context switching between tools | Unified AI-driven workflow |
-| ❌ Inconsistent deliverable quality | ✅ Template-driven standardization |
+| ❌ Inconsistent deliverable quality | Template-driven standardization |
-| ❌ Knowledge silos | ✅ Shared context across all personas |
+| ❌ Knowledge silos | Shared context across all personas |
-| ❌ Time-consuming handoffs | ✅ Seamless persona transitions |
+| ❌ Time-consuming handoffs | Seamless persona transitions |
 
 ### Key Benefits
 

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)

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
+### Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE
-**Status**: ✅ DONE  
+**Status**: DONE  
 **Completed**: Current Date
 
-### ✅ Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
+### Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
-**Status**: ✅ DONE  
+**Status**: DONE  
 **Completed**: Current Date  
 **Deliverables**:
-- ✅ PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
+- PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
-- ✅ PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
+- PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
-- ✅ PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
+- PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
 
-### ✅ Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
+### Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
-**Status**: ✅ DONE  
+**Status**: DONE  
 **Completed**: Current Date  
 **Deliverables**:
-- ✅ System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
+- System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
-- ✅ System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
+- System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
-- ✅ System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
+- System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
 
-### ✅ Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
+### Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
-**Status**: ✅ DONE  
+**Status**: DONE  
 **Completed**: Current Date  
 **Deliverables**:
-- ✅ Product Owner Comprehensive Guide (docs/po-comprehensive-guide.md)
+- Product Owner Comprehensive Guide (docs/po-comprehensive-guide.md)
-- ✅ Product Owner Integration Guide (docs/po-integration-guide.md)
+- Product Owner Integration Guide (docs/po-integration-guide.md)
-- ✅ Product Owner Quick Start Guide (docs/po-quickstart.md)
+- Product Owner Quick Start Guide (docs/po-quickstart.md)
 
 **Acceptance Criteria Met**:
-- ✅ Create Product Owner Comprehensive Guide
+- Create Product Owner Comprehensive Guide
-- ✅ Create Product Owner Integration Guide  
+- Create Product Owner Integration Guide  
-- ✅ Create Product Owner Quick Start Guide
+- Create Product Owner Quick Start Guide
-- ✅ Validate documentation follows template standards
+- 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
+1. Complete Product Manager documentation package
-2. ✅ Complete System Architect documentation package
+2. Complete System Architect documentation package
-3. ✅ Complete Product Owner documentation package
+3. Complete Product Owner documentation package
 4. ⏳ Begin Story 1.3: Create IDE-Specific Setup Guides (5 points)
 
 ---

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/README.md` - Architecture documentation overview
-- ✅ Created `docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md` - High-level system architecture
+- 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)

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

examples/dashboard-component-example.md

@@ -65,26 +65,26 @@ We ran the component through our quality assurance process:
 
 ### Accessibility Testing
 
-- ✅ Semantic HTML structure
+- Semantic HTML structure
-- ✅ ARIA labels for interactive elements
+- ARIA labels for interactive elements
-- ✅ Proper focus management
+- Proper focus management
-- ✅ Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards
+- Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards
-- ✅ Screen reader compatibility
+- Screen reader compatibility
 
 ### Responsive Testing
 
-- ✅ Mobile layout (320px+)
+- Mobile layout (320px+)
-- ✅ Tablet layout (768px+)
+- Tablet layout (768px+)
-- ✅ Desktop layout (1024px+)
+- Desktop layout (1024px+)
-- ✅ Touch-friendly targets
+- Touch-friendly targets
-- ✅ Proper content reflow
+- Proper content reflow
 
 ### Performance Testing
 
-- ✅ Optimized rendering
+- Optimized rendering
-- ✅ Proper loading states
+- Proper loading states
-- ✅ Efficient state management
+- Efficient state management
-- ✅ Minimal bundle size impact
+- Minimal bundle size impact
 
 ## Step 6: Final Implementation
 

web-build-sample/examples.txt

@@ -70,32 +70,32 @@ const ProductCard: React.FC<ProductCardProps> = ({ 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

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