From a136713dc97f06276e36be1f0a4565092032a145 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alex Verkhovsky Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 16:22:01 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] refactor(skills): convert validate-prd to native skill directory Move validate-prd from a workflow entry in create-prd manifest to a self-contained skill at src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/. Update pm.agent.yaml and module-help.csv to use skill: URI. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --- src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml | 2 +- src/bmm/module-help.csv | 2 +- .../bmad-validate-prd/SKILL.md | 6 + .../bmad-skill-manifest.yaml | 1 + .../data/domain-complexity.csv | 15 + .../bmad-validate-prd/data/prd-purpose.md | 197 +++++++++++++ .../bmad-validate-prd/data/project-types.csv | 11 + .../steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md | 226 +++++++++++++++ .../steps-v/step-v-02-format-detection.md | 191 +++++++++++++ .../steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md | 209 ++++++++++++++ .../steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md | 174 ++++++++++++ .../step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md | 214 ++++++++++++++ .../step-v-05-measurability-validation.md | 228 +++++++++++++++ .../step-v-06-traceability-validation.md | 217 ++++++++++++++ ...-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md | 205 ++++++++++++++ .../step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md | 243 ++++++++++++++++ .../step-v-09-project-type-validation.md | 263 +++++++++++++++++ .../steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md | 209 ++++++++++++++ .../step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md | 265 ++++++++++++++++++ .../step-v-12-completeness-validation.md | 242 ++++++++++++++++ .../steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md | 232 +++++++++++++++ .../bmad-validate-prd/workflow.md | 62 ++++ .../create-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml | 4 - .../create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md | 1 + 24 files changed, 3413 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/SKILL.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/domain-complexity.csv create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/prd-purpose.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/project-types.csv create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02-format-detection.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-06-traceability-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-09-project-type-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-12-completeness-validation.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/workflow.md delete mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml diff --git a/src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml b/src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml index 707d17da6..b9e5c4ed3 100644 --- a/src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml +++ b/src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ agent: description: "[CP] Create PRD: Expert led facilitation to produce your Product Requirements Document" - trigger: VP or fuzzy match on validate-prd - exec: "{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md" + exec: "skill:bmad-validate-prd" description: "[VP] Validate PRD: Validate a Product Requirements Document is comprehensive, lean, well organized and cohesive" - trigger: EP or fuzzy match on edit-prd diff --git a/src/bmm/module-help.csv b/src/bmm/module-help.csv index df5118a58..d88ce3278 100644 --- a/src/bmm/module-help.csv +++ b/src/bmm/module-help.csv @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ bmm,1-analysis,Domain Research,DR,21,skill:bmad-domain-research,bmad-bmm-domain- bmm,1-analysis,Technical Research,TR,22,skill:bmad-technical-research,bmad-bmm-technical-research,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Technical feasibility architecture options and implementation approaches","planning_artifacts|project_knowledge","research documents", bmm,1-analysis,Create Brief,CB,30,skill:bmad-create-product-brief,bmad-bmm-create-product-brief,false,analyst,Create Mode,"A guided experience to nail down your product idea",planning_artifacts,"product brief", bmm,2-planning,Create PRD,CP,10,skill:bmad-create-prd,bmad-bmm-create-prd,true,pm,Create Mode,"Expert led facilitation to produce your Product Requirements Document",planning_artifacts,prd, -bmm,2-planning,Validate PRD,VP,20,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md,bmad-bmm-validate-prd,false,pm,Validate Mode,"Validate PRD is comprehensive lean well organized and cohesive",planning_artifacts,"prd validation report", +bmm,2-planning,Validate PRD,VP,20,skill:bmad-validate-prd,bmad-bmm-validate-prd,false,pm,Validate Mode,"Validate PRD is comprehensive lean well organized and cohesive",planning_artifacts,"prd validation report", bmm,2-planning,Edit PRD,EP,25,skill:bmad-edit-prd,bmad-bmm-edit-prd,false,pm,Edit Mode,"Improve and enhance an existing PRD",planning_artifacts,"updated prd", bmm,2-planning,Create UX,CU,30,skill:bmad-create-ux-design,bmad-bmm-create-ux-design,false,ux-designer,Create Mode,"Guidance through realizing the plan for your UX, strongly recommended if a UI is a primary piece of the proposed project",planning_artifacts,"ux design", bmm,3-solutioning,Create Architecture,CA,10,skill:bmad-create-architecture,bmad-bmm-create-architecture,true,architect,Create Mode,"Guided Workflow to document technical decisions",planning_artifacts,architecture, diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/SKILL.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7c9eb0bd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +--- +name: bmad-validate-prd +description: 'Validate a PRD against standards. Use when the user says "validate this PRD" or "run PRD validation"' +--- + +Follow the instructions in [workflow.md](workflow.md). diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d0f08abdb --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +type: skill diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/domain-complexity.csv b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/domain-complexity.csv new file mode 100644 index 000000000..60a7b503f --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/domain-complexity.csv @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +domain,signals,complexity,key_concerns,required_knowledge,suggested_workflow,web_searches,special_sections +healthcare,"medical,diagnostic,clinical,FDA,patient,treatment,HIPAA,therapy,pharma,drug",high,"FDA approval;Clinical validation;HIPAA compliance;Patient safety;Medical device classification;Liability","Regulatory pathways;Clinical trial design;Medical standards;Data privacy;Integration requirements","domain-research","FDA software medical device guidance {date};HIPAA compliance software requirements;Medical software standards {date};Clinical validation software","clinical_requirements;regulatory_pathway;validation_methodology;safety_measures" +fintech,"payment,banking,trading,investment,crypto,wallet,transaction,KYC,AML,funds,fintech",high,"Regional compliance;Security standards;Audit requirements;Fraud prevention;Data protection","KYC/AML requirements;PCI DSS;Open banking;Regional laws (US/EU/APAC);Crypto regulations","domain-research","fintech regulations {date};payment processing compliance {date};open banking API standards;cryptocurrency regulations {date}","compliance_matrix;security_architecture;audit_requirements;fraud_prevention" +govtech,"government,federal,civic,public sector,citizen,municipal,voting",high,"Procurement rules;Security clearance;Accessibility (508);FedRAMP;Privacy;Transparency","Government procurement;Security frameworks;Accessibility standards;Privacy laws;Open data requirements","domain-research","government software procurement {date};FedRAMP compliance requirements;section 508 accessibility;government security standards","procurement_compliance;security_clearance;accessibility_standards;transparency_requirements" +edtech,"education,learning,student,teacher,curriculum,assessment,K-12,university,LMS",medium,"Student privacy (COPPA/FERPA);Accessibility;Content moderation;Age verification;Curriculum standards","Educational privacy laws;Learning standards;Accessibility requirements;Content guidelines;Assessment validity","domain-research","educational software privacy {date};COPPA FERPA compliance;WCAG education requirements;learning management standards","privacy_compliance;content_guidelines;accessibility_features;curriculum_alignment" +aerospace,"aircraft,spacecraft,aviation,drone,satellite,propulsion,flight,radar,navigation",high,"Safety certification;DO-178C compliance;Performance validation;Simulation accuracy;Export controls","Aviation standards;Safety analysis;Simulation validation;ITAR/export controls;Performance requirements","domain-research + technical-model","DO-178C software certification;aerospace simulation standards {date};ITAR export controls software;aviation safety requirements","safety_certification;simulation_validation;performance_requirements;export_compliance" +automotive,"vehicle,car,autonomous,ADAS,automotive,driving,EV,charging",high,"Safety standards;ISO 26262;V2X communication;Real-time requirements;Certification","Automotive standards;Functional safety;V2X protocols;Real-time systems;Testing requirements","domain-research","ISO 26262 automotive software;automotive safety standards {date};V2X communication protocols;EV charging standards","safety_standards;functional_safety;communication_protocols;certification_requirements" +scientific,"research,algorithm,simulation,modeling,computational,analysis,data science,ML,AI",medium,"Reproducibility;Validation methodology;Peer review;Performance;Accuracy;Computational resources","Scientific method;Statistical validity;Computational requirements;Domain expertise;Publication standards","technical-model","scientific computing best practices {date};research reproducibility standards;computational modeling validation;peer review software","validation_methodology;accuracy_metrics;reproducibility_plan;computational_requirements" +legaltech,"legal,law,contract,compliance,litigation,patent,attorney,court",high,"Legal ethics;Bar regulations;Data retention;Attorney-client privilege;Court system integration","Legal practice rules;Ethics requirements;Court filing systems;Document standards;Confidentiality","domain-research","legal technology ethics {date};law practice management software requirements;court filing system standards;attorney client privilege technology","ethics_compliance;data_retention;confidentiality_measures;court_integration" +insuretech,"insurance,claims,underwriting,actuarial,policy,risk,premium",high,"Insurance regulations;Actuarial standards;Data privacy;Fraud detection;State compliance","Insurance regulations by state;Actuarial methods;Risk modeling;Claims processing;Regulatory reporting","domain-research","insurance software regulations {date};actuarial standards software;insurance fraud detection;state insurance compliance","regulatory_requirements;risk_modeling;fraud_detection;reporting_compliance" +energy,"energy,utility,grid,solar,wind,power,electricity,oil,gas",high,"Grid compliance;NERC standards;Environmental regulations;Safety requirements;Real-time operations","Energy regulations;Grid standards;Environmental compliance;Safety protocols;SCADA systems","domain-research","energy sector software compliance {date};NERC CIP standards;smart grid requirements;renewable energy software standards","grid_compliance;safety_protocols;environmental_compliance;operational_requirements" +process_control,"industrial automation,process control,PLC,SCADA,DCS,HMI,operational technology,OT,control system,cyberphysical,MES,historian,instrumentation,I&C,P&ID",high,"Functional safety;OT cybersecurity;Real-time control requirements;Legacy system integration;Process safety and hazard analysis;Environmental compliance and permitting;Engineering authority and PE requirements","Functional safety standards;OT security frameworks;Industrial protocols;Process control architecture;Plant reliability and maintainability","domain-research + technical-model","IEC 62443 OT cybersecurity requirements {date};functional safety software requirements {date};industrial process control architecture;ISA-95 manufacturing integration","functional_safety;ot_security;process_requirements;engineering_authority" +building_automation,"building automation,BAS,BMS,HVAC,smart building,lighting control,fire alarm,fire protection,fire suppression,life safety,elevator,access control,DDC,energy management,sequence of operations,commissioning",high,"Life safety codes;Building energy standards;Multi-trade coordination and interoperability;Commissioning and ongoing operational performance;Indoor environmental quality and occupant comfort;Engineering authority and PE requirements","Building automation protocols;HVAC and mechanical controls;Fire alarm, fire protection, and life safety design;Commissioning process and sequence of operations;Building codes and energy standards","domain-research","smart building software architecture {date};BACnet integration best practices;building automation cybersecurity {date};ASHRAE building standards","life_safety;energy_compliance;commissioning_requirements;engineering_authority" +gaming,"game,player,gameplay,level,character,multiplayer,quest",redirect,"REDIRECT TO GAME WORKFLOWS","Game design","game-brief","NA","NA" +general,"",low,"Standard requirements;Basic security;User experience;Performance","General software practices","continue","software development best practices {date}","standard_requirements" \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/prd-purpose.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/prd-purpose.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..755230be7 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/prd-purpose.md @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ +# BMAD PRD Purpose + +**The PRD is the top of the required funnel that feeds all subsequent product development work in rhw BMad Method.** + +--- + +## What is a BMAD PRD? + +A dual-audience document serving: +1. **Human Product Managers and builders** - Vision, strategy, stakeholder communication +2. **LLM Downstream Consumption** - UX Design → Architecture → Epics → Development AI Agents + +Each successive document becomes more AI-tailored and granular. + +--- + +## Core Philosophy: Information Density + +**High Signal-to-Noise Ratio** + +Every sentence must carry information weight. LLMs consume precise, dense content efficiently. + +**Anti-Patterns (Eliminate These):** +- ❌ "The system will allow users to..." → ✅ "Users can..." +- ❌ "It is important to note that..." → ✅ State the fact directly +- ❌ "In order to..." → ✅ "To..." +- ❌ Conversational filler and padding → ✅ Direct, concise statements + +**Goal:** Maximum information per word. Zero fluff. + +--- + +## The Traceability Chain + +**PRD starts the chain:** +``` +Vision → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements → (future: User Stories) +``` + +**In the PRD, establish:** +- Vision → Success Criteria alignment +- Success Criteria → User Journey coverage +- User Journey → Functional Requirement mapping +- All requirements traceable to user needs + +**Why:** Each downstream artifact (UX, Architecture, Epics, Stories) must trace back to documented user needs and business objectives. This chain ensures we build the right thing. + +--- + +## What Makes Great Functional Requirements? + +### FRs are Capabilities, Not Implementation + +**Good FR:** "Users can reset their password via email link" +**Bad FR:** "System sends JWT via email and validates with database" (implementation leakage) + +**Good FR:** "Dashboard loads in under 2 seconds for 95th percentile" +**Bad FR:** "Fast loading time" (subjective, unmeasurable) + +### SMART Quality Criteria + +**Specific:** Clear, precisely defined capability +**Measurable:** Quantifiable with test criteria +**Attainable:** Realistic within constraints +**Relevant:** Aligns with business objectives +**Traceable:** Links to source (executive summary or user journey) + +### FR Anti-Patterns + +**Subjective Adjectives:** +- ❌ "easy to use", "intuitive", "user-friendly", "fast", "responsive" +- ✅ Use metrics: "completes task in under 3 clicks", "loads in under 2 seconds" + +**Implementation Leakage:** +- ❌ Technology names, specific libraries, implementation details +- ✅ Focus on capability and measurable outcomes + +**Vague Quantifiers:** +- ❌ "multiple users", "several options", "various formats" +- ✅ "up to 100 concurrent users", "3-5 options", "PDF, DOCX, TXT formats" + +**Missing Test Criteria:** +- ❌ "The system shall provide notifications" +- ✅ "The system shall send email notifications within 30 seconds of trigger event" + +--- + +## What Makes Great Non-Functional Requirements? + +### NFRs Must Be Measurable + +**Template:** +``` +"The system shall [metric] [condition] [measurement method]" +``` + +**Examples:** +- ✅ "The system shall respond to API requests in under 200ms for 95th percentile as measured by APM monitoring" +- ✅ "The system shall maintain 99.9% uptime during business hours as measured by cloud provider SLA" +- ✅ "The system shall support 10,000 concurrent users as measured by load testing" + +### NFR Anti-Patterns + +**Unmeasurable Claims:** +- ❌ "The system shall be scalable" → ✅ "The system shall handle 10x load growth through horizontal scaling" +- ❌ "High availability required" → ✅ "99.9% uptime as measured by cloud provider SLA" + +**Missing Context:** +- ❌ "Response time under 1 second" → ✅ "API response time under 1 second for 95th percentile under normal load" + +--- + +## Domain-Specific Requirements + +**Auto-Detect and Enforce Based on Project Context** + +Certain industries have mandatory requirements that must be present: + +- **Healthcare:** HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules, PHI encryption, audit logging, MFA +- **Fintech:** PCI-DSS Level 1, AML/KYC compliance, SOX controls, financial audit trails +- **GovTech:** NIST framework, Section 508 accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA), FedRAMP, data residency +- **E-Commerce:** PCI-DSS for payments, inventory accuracy, tax calculation by jurisdiction + +**Why:** Missing these requirements in the PRD means they'll be missed in architecture and implementation, creating expensive rework. During PRD creation there is a step to cover this - during validation we want to make sure it was covered. For this purpose steps will utilize a domain-complexity.csv and project-types.csv. + +--- + +## Document Structure (Markdown, Human-Readable) + +### Required Sections +1. **Executive Summary** - Vision, differentiator, target users +2. **Success Criteria** - Measurable outcomes (SMART) +3. **Product Scope** - MVP, Growth, Vision phases +4. **User Journeys** - Comprehensive coverage +5. **Domain Requirements** - Industry-specific compliance (if applicable) +6. **Innovation Analysis** - Competitive differentiation (if applicable) +7. **Project-Type Requirements** - Platform-specific needs +8. **Functional Requirements** - Capability contract (FRs) +9. **Non-Functional Requirements** - Quality attributes (NFRs) + +### Formatting for Dual Consumption + +**For Humans:** +- Clear, professional language +- Logical flow from vision to requirements +- Easy for stakeholders to review and approve + +**For LLMs:** +- ## Level 2 headers for all main sections (enables extraction) +- Consistent structure and patterns +- Precise, testable language +- High information density + +--- + +## Downstream Impact + +**How the PRD Feeds Next Artifacts:** + +**UX Design:** +- User journeys → interaction flows +- FRs → design requirements +- Success criteria → UX metrics + +**Architecture:** +- FRs → system capabilities +- NFRs → architecture decisions +- Domain requirements → compliance architecture +- Project-type requirements → platform choices + +**Epics & Stories (created after architecture):** +- FRs → user stories (1 FR could map to 1-3 stories potentially) +- Acceptance criteria → story acceptance tests +- Priority → sprint sequencing +- Traceability → stories map back to vision + +**Development AI Agents:** +- Precise requirements → implementation clarity +- Test criteria → automated test generation +- Domain requirements → compliance enforcement +- Measurable NFRs → performance targets + +--- + +## Summary: What Makes a Great BMAD PRD? + +✅ **High Information Density** - Every sentence carries weight, zero fluff +✅ **Measurable Requirements** - All FRs and NFRs are testable with specific criteria +✅ **Clear Traceability** - Each requirement links to user need and business objective +✅ **Domain Awareness** - Industry-specific requirements auto-detected and included +✅ **Zero Anti-Patterns** - No subjective adjectives, implementation leakage, or vague quantifiers +✅ **Dual Audience Optimized** - Human-readable AND LLM-consumable +✅ **Markdown Format** - Professional, clean, accessible to all stakeholders + +--- + +**Remember:** The PRD is the foundation. Quality here ripples through every subsequent phase. A dense, precise, well-traced PRD makes UX design, architecture, epic breakdown, and AI development dramatically more effective. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/project-types.csv b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/project-types.csv new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6f71c513a --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/data/project-types.csv @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +project_type,detection_signals,key_questions,required_sections,skip_sections,web_search_triggers,innovation_signals +api_backend,"API,REST,GraphQL,backend,service,endpoints","Endpoints needed?;Authentication method?;Data formats?;Rate limits?;Versioning?;SDK needed?","endpoint_specs;auth_model;data_schemas;error_codes;rate_limits;api_docs","ux_ui;visual_design;user_journeys","framework best practices;OpenAPI standards","API composition;New protocol" +mobile_app,"iOS,Android,app,mobile,iPhone,iPad","Native or cross-platform?;Offline needed?;Push notifications?;Device features?;Store compliance?","platform_reqs;device_permissions;offline_mode;push_strategy;store_compliance","desktop_features;cli_commands","app store guidelines;platform requirements","Gesture innovation;AR/VR features" +saas_b2b,"SaaS,B2B,platform,dashboard,teams,enterprise","Multi-tenant?;Permission model?;Subscription tiers?;Integrations?;Compliance?","tenant_model;rbac_matrix;subscription_tiers;integration_list;compliance_reqs","cli_interface;mobile_first","compliance requirements;integration guides","Workflow automation;AI agents" +developer_tool,"SDK,library,package,npm,pip,framework","Language support?;Package managers?;IDE integration?;Documentation?;Examples?","language_matrix;installation_methods;api_surface;code_examples;migration_guide","visual_design;store_compliance","package manager best practices;API design patterns","New paradigm;DSL creation" +cli_tool,"CLI,command,terminal,bash,script","Interactive or scriptable?;Output formats?;Config method?;Shell completion?","command_structure;output_formats;config_schema;scripting_support","visual_design;ux_principles;touch_interactions","CLI design patterns;shell integration","Natural language CLI;AI commands" +web_app,"website,webapp,browser,SPA,PWA","SPA or MPA?;Browser support?;SEO needed?;Real-time?;Accessibility?","browser_matrix;responsive_design;performance_targets;seo_strategy;accessibility_level","native_features;cli_commands","web standards;WCAG guidelines","New interaction;WebAssembly use" +game,"game,player,gameplay,level,character","REDIRECT TO USE THE BMad Method Game Module Agent and Workflows - HALT","game-brief;GDD","most_sections","game design patterns","Novel mechanics;Genre mixing" +desktop_app,"desktop,Windows,Mac,Linux,native","Cross-platform?;Auto-update?;System integration?;Offline?","platform_support;system_integration;update_strategy;offline_capabilities","web_seo;mobile_features","desktop guidelines;platform requirements","Desktop AI;System automation" +iot_embedded,"IoT,embedded,device,sensor,hardware","Hardware specs?;Connectivity?;Power constraints?;Security?;OTA updates?","hardware_reqs;connectivity_protocol;power_profile;security_model;update_mechanism","visual_ui;browser_support","IoT standards;protocol specs","Edge AI;New sensors" +blockchain_web3,"blockchain,crypto,DeFi,NFT,smart contract","Chain selection?;Wallet integration?;Gas optimization?;Security audit?","chain_specs;wallet_support;smart_contracts;security_audit;gas_optimization","traditional_auth;centralized_db","blockchain standards;security patterns","Novel tokenomics;DAO structure" \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e10611c8e --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-01-discovery' +description: 'Document Discovery & Confirmation - Handle fresh context validation, confirm PRD path, discover input documents' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-02-format-detection.md' +advancedElicitationTask: 'skill:bmad-advanced-elicitation' +partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/bmad-party-mode/workflow.md' +prdPurpose: '../data/prd-purpose.md' +--- + +# Step 1: Document Discovery & Confirmation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Handle fresh context validation by confirming PRD path, discovering and loading input documents from frontmatter, and initializing the validation report. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response +- ✅ You bring systematic validation expertise and analytical rigor +- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and specific PRD context + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on discovering PRD and input documents, not validating yet +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform any validation checks in this step +- 💬 Approach: Systematic discovery with clear reporting to user +- 🚪 This is the setup step - get everything ready for validation + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Discover and confirm PRD to validate +- 💾 Load PRD and all input documents from frontmatter +- 📖 Initialize validation report next to PRD +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until user confirms setup + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD path (user-specified or discovered), workflow configuration +- Focus: Document discovery and setup only +- Limits: Don't perform validation, don't skip discovery +- Dependencies: Configuration loaded from PRD workflow.md initialization + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Load PRD Purpose and Standards + +Load and read the complete file at: +`{prdPurpose}` + +This file contains the BMAD PRD philosophy, standards, and validation criteria that will guide all validation checks. Internalize this understanding - it defines what makes a great BMAD PRD. + +### 2. Discover PRD to Validate + +**If PRD path provided as invocation parameter:** +- Use provided path + +**If no PRD path provided, auto-discover:** +- Search `{planning_artifacts}` for files matching `*prd*.md` +- Also check for sharded PRDs: `{planning_artifacts}/*prd*/*.md` + +**If exactly ONE PRD found:** +- Use it automatically +- Inform user: "Found PRD: {discovered_path} — using it for validation." + +**If MULTIPLE PRDs found:** +- List all discovered PRDs with numbered options +- "I found multiple PRDs. Which one would you like to validate?" +- Wait for user selection + +**If NO PRDs found:** +- "I couldn't find any PRD files in {planning_artifacts}. Please provide the path to the PRD file you want to validate." +- Wait for user to provide PRD path. + +### 3. Validate PRD Exists and Load + +Once PRD path is provided: + +- Check if PRD file exists at specified path +- If not found: "I cannot find a PRD at that path. Please check the path and try again." +- If found: Load the complete PRD file including frontmatter + +### 4. Extract Frontmatter and Input Documents + +From the loaded PRD frontmatter, extract: + +- `inputDocuments: []` array (if present) +- Any other relevant metadata (classification, date, etc.) + +**If no inputDocuments array exists:** +Note this and proceed with PRD-only validation + +### 5. Load Input Documents + +For each document listed in `inputDocuments`: + +- Attempt to load the document +- Track successfully loaded documents +- Note any documents that fail to load + +**Build list of loaded input documents:** +- Product Brief (if present) +- Research documents (if present) +- Other reference materials (if present) + +### 6. Ask About Additional Reference Documents + +"**I've loaded the following documents from your PRD frontmatter:** + +{list loaded documents with file names} + +**Are there any additional reference documents you'd like me to include in this validation?** + +These could include: +- Additional research or context documents +- Project documentation not tracked in frontmatter +- Standards or compliance documents +- Competitive analysis or benchmarks + +Please provide paths to any additional documents, or type 'none' to proceed." + +**Load any additional documents provided by user.** + +### 7. Initialize Validation Report + +Create validation report at: `{validationReportPath}` + +**Initialize with frontmatter:** +```yaml +--- +validationTarget: '{prd_path}' +validationDate: '{current_date}' +inputDocuments: [list of all loaded documents] +validationStepsCompleted: [] +validationStatus: IN_PROGRESS +--- +``` + +**Initial content:** +```markdown +# PRD Validation Report + +**PRD Being Validated:** {prd_path} +**Validation Date:** {current_date} + +## Input Documents + +{list all documents loaded for validation} + +## Validation Findings + +[Findings will be appended as validation progresses] +``` + +### 8. Present Discovery Summary + +"**Setup Complete!** + +**PRD to Validate:** {prd_path} + +**Input Documents Loaded:** +- PRD: {prd_name} ✓ +- Product Brief: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none found){/if} +- Research: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none found){/if} +- Additional References: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none){/if} + +**Validation Report:** {validationReportPath} + +**Ready to begin validation.**" + +### 9. Present MENU OPTIONS + +Display: **Select an Option:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Format Detection + +#### EXECUTION RULES: + +- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu +- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C' +- User can ask questions or add more documents - always respond and redisplay menu + +#### Menu Handling Logic: + +- IF A: Read fully and follow: {advancedElicitationTask}, and when finished redisplay the menu +- IF P: Read fully and follow: {partyModeWorkflow}, and when finished redisplay the menu +- IF C: Read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} to begin format detection +- IF user provides additional document: Load it, update report, redisplay summary +- IF Any other: help user, then redisplay menu + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- PRD path discovered and confirmed +- PRD file exists and loads successfully +- All input documents from frontmatter loaded +- Additional reference documents (if any) loaded +- Validation report initialized next to PRD +- User clearly informed of setup status +- Menu presented and user input handled correctly + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Proceeding with non-existent PRD file +- Not loading input documents from frontmatter +- Creating validation report in wrong location +- Proceeding without user confirming setup +- Not handling missing input documents gracefully + +**Master Rule:** Complete discovery and setup BEFORE validation. This step ensures everything is in place for systematic validation checks. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02-format-detection.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02-format-detection.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a354b5aff --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02-format-detection.md @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-02-format-detection' +description: 'Format Detection & Structure Analysis - Classify PRD format and route appropriately' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-03-density-validation.md' +altStepFile: './step-v-02b-parity-check.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 2: Format Detection & Structure Analysis + +## STEP GOAL: + +Detect if PRD follows BMAD format and route appropriately - classify as BMAD Standard / BMAD Variant / Non-Standard, with optional parity check for non-standard formats. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response +- ✅ You bring systematic validation expertise and pattern recognition +- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on detecting format and classifying structure +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step +- 💬 Approach: Analytical and systematic, clear reporting of findings +- 🚪 This is a branch step - may route to parity check for non-standard PRDs + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Analyze PRD structure systematically +- 💾 Append format findings to validation report +- 📖 Route appropriately based on format classification +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip format detection or proceed without classification + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file loaded in step 1, validation report initialized +- Focus: Format detection and classification only +- Limits: Don't perform other validation, don't skip classification +- Dependencies: Step 1 completed - PRD loaded and report initialized + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Extract PRD Structure + +Load the complete PRD file and extract: + +**All Level 2 (##) headers:** +- Scan through entire PRD document +- Extract all ## section headers +- List them in order + +**PRD frontmatter:** +- Extract classification.domain if present +- Extract classification.projectType if present +- Note any other relevant metadata + +### 2. Check for BMAD PRD Core Sections + +Check if the PRD contains the following BMAD PRD core sections: + +1. **Executive Summary** (or variations: ## Executive Summary, ## Overview, ## Introduction) +2. **Success Criteria** (or: ## Success Criteria, ## Goals, ## Objectives) +3. **Product Scope** (or: ## Product Scope, ## Scope, ## In Scope, ## Out of Scope) +4. **User Journeys** (or: ## User Journeys, ## User Stories, ## User Flows) +5. **Functional Requirements** (or: ## Functional Requirements, ## Features, ## Capabilities) +6. **Non-Functional Requirements** (or: ## Non-Functional Requirements, ## NFRs, ## Quality Attributes) + +**Count matches:** +- How many of these 6 core sections are present? +- Which specific sections are present? +- Which are missing? + +### 3. Classify PRD Format + +Based on core section count, classify: + +**BMAD Standard:** +- 5-6 core sections present +- Follows BMAD PRD structure closely + +**BMAD Variant:** +- 3-4 core sections present +- Generally follows BMAD patterns but may have structural differences +- Missing some sections but recognizable as BMAD-style + +**Non-Standard:** +- Fewer than 3 core sections present +- Does not follow BMAD PRD structure +- May be completely custom format, legacy format, or from another framework + +### 4. Report Format Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Format Detection + +**PRD Structure:** +[List all ## Level 2 headers found] + +**BMAD Core Sections Present:** +- Executive Summary: [Present/Missing] +- Success Criteria: [Present/Missing] +- Product Scope: [Present/Missing] +- User Journeys: [Present/Missing] +- Functional Requirements: [Present/Missing] +- Non-Functional Requirements: [Present/Missing] + +**Format Classification:** [BMAD Standard / BMAD Variant / Non-Standard] +**Core Sections Present:** [count]/6 +``` + +### 5. Route Based on Format Classification + +**IF format is BMAD Standard or BMAD Variant:** + +Display: "**Format Detected:** {classification} + +Proceeding to systematic validation checks..." + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-03-density-validation.md) + +**IF format is Non-Standard (< 3 core sections):** + +Display: "**Format Detected:** Non-Standard PRD + +This PRD does not follow BMAD standard structure (only {count}/6 core sections present). + +You have options:" + +Present MENU OPTIONS below for user selection + +### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS (Non-Standard PRDs Only) + +**[A] Parity Check** - Analyze gaps and estimate effort to reach BMAD PRD parity +**[B] Validate As-Is** - Proceed with validation using current structure +**[C] Exit** - Exit validation and review format findings + +#### EXECUTION RULES: + +- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input +- Only proceed based on user selection + +#### Menu Handling Logic: + +- IF A (Parity Check): Read fully and follow: {altStepFile} (step-v-02b-parity-check.md) +- IF B (Validate As-Is): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} +- IF C (Exit): Display format findings summary and exit validation +- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- All ## Level 2 headers extracted successfully +- BMAD core sections checked systematically +- Format classified correctly based on section count +- Findings reported to validation report +- BMAD Standard/Variant PRDs proceed directly to next validation step +- Non-Standard PRDs pause and present options to user +- User can choose parity check, validate as-is, or exit + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not extracting all headers before classification +- Incorrect format classification +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not pausing for non-standard PRDs +- Proceeding without user decision for non-standard formats + +**Master Rule:** Format detection determines validation path. Non-standard PRDs require user choice before proceeding. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..604265a9a --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-02b-parity-check' +description: 'Document Parity Check - Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-03-density-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 2B: Document Parity Check + +## STEP GOAL: + +Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity, presenting user with options for how to proceed. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response +- ✅ You bring BMAD PRD standards expertise and gap analysis +- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on analyzing gaps and estimating parity effort +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step +- 💬 Approach: Systematic gap analysis with clear recommendations +- 🚪 This is an optional branch step - user chooses next action + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Analyze each BMAD PRD section for gaps +- 💾 Append parity analysis to validation report +- 📖 Present options and await user decision +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: Non-standard PRD from step 2, validation report in progress +- Focus: Parity analysis only - what's missing, what's needed +- Limits: Don't perform validation checks, don't auto-proceed +- Dependencies: Step 2 classified PRD as non-standard and user chose parity check + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Analyze Each BMAD PRD Section + +For each of the 6 BMAD PRD core sections, analyze: + +**Executive Summary:** +- Does PRD have vision/overview? +- Is problem statement clear? +- Are target users identified? +- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete] + +**Success Criteria:** +- Are measurable goals defined? +- Is success clearly defined? +- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete] + +**Product Scope:** +- Is scope clearly defined? +- Are in-scope items listed? +- Are out-of-scope items listed? +- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete] + +**User Journeys:** +- Are user types/personas identified? +- Are user flows documented? +- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete] + +**Functional Requirements:** +- Are features/capabilities listed? +- Are requirements structured? +- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete] + +**Non-Functional Requirements:** +- Are quality attributes defined? +- Are performance/security/etc. requirements documented? +- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete] + +### 2. Estimate Effort to Reach Parity + +For each missing or incomplete section, estimate: + +**Effort Level:** +- Minimal - Section exists but needs minor enhancements +- Moderate - Section missing but content exists elsewhere in PRD +- Significant - Section missing, requires new content creation + +**Total Parity Effort:** +- Based on individual section estimates +- Classify overall: Quick / Moderate / Substantial effort + +### 3. Report Parity Analysis to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Parity Analysis (Non-Standard PRD) + +### Section-by-Section Gap Analysis + +**Executive Summary:** +- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +- Gap: [specific gap description] +- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant] + +**Success Criteria:** +- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +- Gap: [specific gap description] +- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant] + +**Product Scope:** +- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +- Gap: [specific gap description] +- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant] + +**User Journeys:** +- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +- Gap: [specific gap description] +- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant] + +**Functional Requirements:** +- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +- Gap: [specific gap description] +- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant] + +**Non-Functional Requirements:** +- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +- Gap: [specific gap description] +- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant] + +### Overall Parity Assessment + +**Overall Effort to Reach BMAD Standard:** [Quick/Moderate/Substantial] +**Recommendation:** [Brief recommendation based on analysis] +``` + +### 4. Present Parity Analysis and Options + +Display: + +"**Parity Analysis Complete** + +Your PRD is missing {count} of 6 core BMAD PRD sections. The overall effort to reach BMAD standard is: **{effort level}** + +**Quick Summary:** +[2-3 sentence summary of key gaps] + +**Recommendation:** +{recommendation from analysis} + +**How would you like to proceed?**" + +### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS + +**[C] Continue Validation** - Proceed with validation using current structure +**[E] Exit & Review** - Exit validation and review parity report +**[S] Save & Exit** - Save parity report and exit + +#### EXECUTION RULES: + +- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input +- Only proceed based on user selection + +#### Menu Handling Logic: + +- IF C (Continue): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} +- IF E (Exit): Display parity summary and exit validation +- IF S (Save): Confirm saved, display summary, exit +- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- All 6 BMAD PRD sections analyzed for gaps +- Effort estimates provided for each gap +- Overall parity effort assessed correctly +- Parity analysis reported to validation report +- Clear summary presented to user +- User can choose to continue validation, exit, or save report + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not analyzing all 6 sections systematically +- Missing effort estimates +- Not reporting parity analysis to validation report +- Auto-proceeding without user decision +- Unclear recommendations + +**Master Rule:** Parity check informs user of gaps and effort, but user decides whether to proceed with validation or address gaps first. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d00478c10 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-03-density-validation' +description: 'Information Density Check - Scan for anti-patterns that violate information density principles' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 3: Information Density Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Validate PRD meets BMAD information density standards by scanning for conversational filler, wordy phrases, and redundant expressions that violate conciseness principles. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and attention to detail +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on information density anti-patterns +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning and categorization +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Scan PRD for density anti-patterns systematically +- 💾 Append density findings to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file, validation report with format findings +- Focus: Information density validation only +- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Step 2 completed - format classification done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:** + +"Perform information density validation on this PRD: + +1. Load the PRD file +2. Scan for the following anti-patterns: + - Conversational filler phrases (examples: 'The system will allow users to...', 'It is important to note that...', 'In order to') + - Wordy phrases (examples: 'Due to the fact that', 'In the event of', 'For the purpose of') + - Redundant phrases (examples: 'Future plans', 'Absolutely essential', 'Past history') +3. Count violations by category with line numbers +4. Classify severity: Critical (>10 violations), Warning (5-10), Pass (<5) + +Return structured findings with counts and examples." + +### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable) + +If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly: + +**Scan for conversational filler patterns:** +- "The system will allow users to..." +- "It is important to note that..." +- "In order to" +- "For the purpose of" +- "With regard to" +- Count occurrences and note line numbers + +**Scan for wordy phrases:** +- "Due to the fact that" (use "because") +- "In the event of" (use "if") +- "At this point in time" (use "now") +- "In a manner that" (use "how") +- Count occurrences and note line numbers + +**Scan for redundant phrases:** +- "Future plans" (just "plans") +- "Past history" (just "history") +- "Absolutely essential" (just "essential") +- "Completely finish" (just "finish") +- Count occurrences and note line numbers + +### 3. Classify Severity + +**Calculate total violations:** +- Conversational filler count +- Wordy phrases count +- Redundant phrases count +- Total = sum of all categories + +**Determine severity:** +- **Critical:** Total > 10 violations +- **Warning:** Total 5-10 violations +- **Pass:** Total < 5 violations + +### 4. Report Density Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Information Density Validation + +**Anti-Pattern Violations:** + +**Conversational Filler:** {count} occurrences +[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers] + +**Wordy Phrases:** {count} occurrences +[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers] + +**Redundant Phrases:** {count} occurrences +[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers] + +**Total Violations:** {total} + +**Severity Assessment:** [Critical/Warning/Pass] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "PRD requires significant revision to improve information density. Every sentence should carry weight without filler." +[If Warning] "PRD would benefit from reducing wordiness and eliminating filler phrases." +[If Pass] "PRD demonstrates good information density with minimal violations." +``` + +### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Information Density Validation Complete** + +Severity: {Critical/Warning/Pass} + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- PRD scanned for all three anti-pattern categories +- Violations counted with line numbers +- Severity classified correctly +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not scanning all anti-pattern categories +- Missing severity classification +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Pausing for user input (should auto-proceed) +- Not attempting subprocess architecture + +**Master Rule:** Information density validation runs autonomously. Scan, classify, report, auto-proceed. No user interaction needed. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..60ad8684f --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation' +description: 'Product Brief Coverage Check - Validate PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if used as input)' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-05-measurability-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +productBrief: '{product_brief_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 4: Product Brief Coverage Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Validate that PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if brief was used as input), mapping brief content to PRD sections and identifying gaps. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and traceability expertise +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on Product Brief coverage (conditional on brief existence) +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Systematic mapping and gap analysis +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Check if Product Brief exists in input documents +- 💬 If no brief: Skip this check and report "N/A - No Product Brief" +- 🎯 If brief exists: Map brief content to PRD sections +- 💾 Append coverage findings to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file, input documents from step 1, validation report +- Focus: Product Brief coverage only (conditional) +- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, conditional execution +- Dependencies: Step 1 completed - input documents loaded + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Check for Product Brief + +Check if Product Brief was loaded in step 1's inputDocuments: + +**IF no Product Brief found:** +Append to validation report: +```markdown +## Product Brief Coverage + +**Status:** N/A - No Product Brief was provided as input +``` + +Display: "**Product Brief Coverage: Skipped** (No Product Brief provided) + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} + +**IF Product Brief exists:** Continue to step 2 below + +### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:** + +"Perform Product Brief coverage validation: + +1. Load the Product Brief +2. Extract key content: + - Vision statement + - Target users/personas + - Problem statement + - Key features + - Goals/objectives + - Differentiators + - Constraints +3. For each item, search PRD for corresponding coverage +4. Classify coverage: Fully Covered / Partially Covered / Not Found / Intentionally Excluded +5. Note any gaps with severity: Critical / Moderate / Informational + +Return structured coverage map with classifications." + +### 3. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable) + +If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly: + +**Extract from Product Brief:** +- Vision: What is this product? +- Users: Who is it for? +- Problem: What problem does it solve? +- Features: What are the key capabilities? +- Goals: What are the success criteria? +- Differentiators: What makes it unique? + +**For each item, search PRD:** +- Scan Executive Summary for vision +- Check User Journeys or user personas +- Look for problem statement +- Review Functional Requirements for features +- Check Success Criteria section +- Search for differentiators + +**Classify coverage:** +- **Fully Covered:** Content present and complete +- **Partially Covered:** Content present but incomplete +- **Not Found:** Content missing from PRD +- **Intentionally Excluded:** Content explicitly out of scope + +### 4. Assess Coverage and Severity + +**For each gap (Partially Covered or Not Found):** +- Is this Critical? (Core vision, primary users, main features) +- Is this Moderate? (Secondary features, some goals) +- Is this Informational? (Nice-to-have features, minor details) + +**Note:** Some exclusions may be intentional (valid scoping decisions) + +### 5. Report Coverage Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Product Brief Coverage + +**Product Brief:** {brief_file_name} + +### Coverage Map + +**Vision Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded] +[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content] + +**Target Users:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded] +[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content] + +**Problem Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded] +[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content] + +**Key Features:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded] +[If gap: List specific features with severity] + +**Goals/Objectives:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded] +[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content] + +**Differentiators:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded] +[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content] + +### Coverage Summary + +**Overall Coverage:** [percentage or qualitative assessment] +**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any] +**Moderate Gaps:** [count] [list if any] +**Informational Gaps:** [count] [list if any] + +**Recommendation:** +[If critical gaps exist] "PRD should be revised to cover critical Product Brief content." +[If moderate gaps] "Consider addressing moderate gaps for complete coverage." +[If minimal gaps] "PRD provides good coverage of Product Brief content." +``` + +### 6. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Product Brief Coverage Validation Complete** + +Overall Coverage: {assessment} + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-05-measurability-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- Checked for Product Brief existence correctly +- If no brief: Reported "N/A" and skipped gracefully +- If brief exists: Mapped all key brief content to PRD sections +- Coverage classified appropriately (Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded) +- Severity assessed for gaps (Critical/Moderate/Informational) +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not checking for brief existence before attempting validation +- If brief exists: not mapping all key content areas +- Missing coverage classifications +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** Product Brief coverage is conditional - skip if no brief, validate thoroughly if brief exists. Always auto-proceed. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a97187184 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-05-measurability-validation' +description: 'Measurability Validation - Validate that all requirements (FRs and NFRs) are measurable and testable' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-06-traceability-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 5: Measurability Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Validate that all Functional Requirements (FRs) and Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) are measurable, testable, and follow proper format without implementation details. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and requirements engineering expertise +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR and NFR measurability +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Systematic requirement-by-requirement analysis +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Extract all FRs and NFRs from PRD +- 💾 Validate each for measurability and format +- 📖 Append findings to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file, validation report +- Focus: FR and NFR measurability only +- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Steps 2-4 completed - initial validation checks done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:** + +"Perform measurability validation on this PRD: + +**Functional Requirements (FRs):** +1. Extract all FRs from Functional Requirements section +2. Check each FR for: + - '[Actor] can [capability]' format compliance + - No subjective adjectives (easy, fast, simple, intuitive, etc.) + - No vague quantifiers (multiple, several, some, many, etc.) + - No implementation details (technology names, library names, data structures unless capability-relevant) +3. Document violations with line numbers + +**Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs):** +1. Extract all NFRs from Non-Functional Requirements section +2. Check each NFR for: + - Specific metrics with measurement methods + - Template compliance (criterion, metric, measurement method, context) + - Context included (why this matters, who it affects) +3. Document violations with line numbers + +Return structured findings with violation counts and examples." + +### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable) + +If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly: + +**Functional Requirements Analysis:** + +Extract all FRs and check each for: + +**Format compliance:** +- Does it follow "[Actor] can [capability]" pattern? +- Is actor clearly defined? +- Is capability actionable and testable? + +**No subjective adjectives:** +- Scan for: easy, fast, simple, intuitive, user-friendly, responsive, quick, efficient (without metrics) +- Note line numbers + +**No vague quantifiers:** +- Scan for: multiple, several, some, many, few, various, number of +- Note line numbers + +**No implementation details:** +- Scan for: React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, Docker, Kubernetes, Redux, etc. +- Unless capability-relevant (e.g., "API consumers can access...") +- Note line numbers + +**Non-Functional Requirements Analysis:** + +Extract all NFRs and check each for: + +**Specific metrics:** +- Is there a measurable criterion? (e.g., "response time < 200ms", not "fast response") +- Can this be measured or tested? + +**Template compliance:** +- Criterion defined? +- Metric specified? +- Measurement method included? +- Context provided? + +### 3. Tally Violations + +**FR Violations:** +- Format violations: count +- Subjective adjectives: count +- Vague quantifiers: count +- Implementation leakage: count +- Total FR violations: sum + +**NFR Violations:** +- Missing metrics: count +- Incomplete template: count +- Missing context: count +- Total NFR violations: sum + +**Total violations:** FR violations + NFR violations + +### 4. Report Measurability Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Measurability Validation + +### Functional Requirements + +**Total FRs Analyzed:** {count} + +**Format Violations:** {count} +[If violations exist, list examples with line numbers] + +**Subjective Adjectives Found:** {count} +[If found, list examples with line numbers] + +**Vague Quantifiers Found:** {count} +[If found, list examples with line numbers] + +**Implementation Leakage:** {count} +[If found, list examples with line numbers] + +**FR Violations Total:** {total} + +### Non-Functional Requirements + +**Total NFRs Analyzed:** {count} + +**Missing Metrics:** {count} +[If missing, list examples with line numbers] + +**Incomplete Template:** {count} +[If incomplete, list examples with line numbers] + +**Missing Context:** {count} +[If missing, list examples with line numbers] + +**NFR Violations Total:** {total} + +### Overall Assessment + +**Total Requirements:** {FRs + NFRs} +**Total Violations:** {FR violations + NFR violations} + +**Severity:** [Critical if >10 violations, Warning if 5-10, Pass if <5] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "Many requirements are not measurable or testable. Requirements must be revised to be testable for downstream work." +[If Warning] "Some requirements need refinement for measurability. Focus on violating requirements above." +[If Pass] "Requirements demonstrate good measurability with minimal issues." +``` + +### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Measurability Validation Complete** + +Total Violations: {count} ({severity}) + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-06-traceability-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- All FRs extracted and analyzed for measurability +- All NFRs extracted and analyzed for measurability +- Violations documented with line numbers +- Severity assessed correctly +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not analyzing all FRs and NFRs +- Missing line numbers for violations +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not assessing severity +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** Requirements must be testable to be useful. Validate every requirement for measurability, document violations, auto-proceed. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-06-traceability-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-06-traceability-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..84bf9cce9 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-06-traceability-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-06-traceability-validation' +description: 'Traceability Validation - Validate the traceability chain from vision → success → journeys → FRs is intact' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 6: Traceability Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Validate the traceability chain from Executive Summary → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements is intact, ensuring every requirement traces back to a user need or business objective. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and traceability matrix expertise +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on traceability chain validation +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Systematic chain validation and orphan detection +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Build and validate traceability matrix +- 💾 Identify broken chains and orphan requirements +- 📖 Append findings to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file, validation report +- Focus: Traceability chain validation only +- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Steps 2-5 completed - initial validations done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:** + +"Perform traceability validation on this PRD: + +1. Extract content from Executive Summary (vision, goals) +2. Extract Success Criteria +3. Extract User Journeys (user types, flows, outcomes) +4. Extract Functional Requirements (FRs) +5. Extract Product Scope (in-scope items) + +**Validate chains:** +- Executive Summary → Success Criteria: Does vision align with defined success? +- Success Criteria → User Journeys: Are success criteria supported by user journeys? +- User Journeys → Functional Requirements: Does each FR trace back to a user journey? +- Scope → FRs: Do MVP scope FRs align with in-scope items? + +**Identify orphans:** +- FRs not traceable to any user journey or business objective +- Success criteria not supported by user journeys +- User journeys without supporting FRs + +Build traceability matrix and identify broken chains and orphan FRs. + +Return structured findings with chain status and orphan list." + +### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable) + +If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly: + +**Step 1: Extract key elements** +- Executive Summary: Note vision, goals, objectives +- Success Criteria: List all criteria +- User Journeys: List user types and their flows +- Functional Requirements: List all FRs +- Product Scope: List in-scope items + +**Step 2: Validate Executive Summary → Success Criteria** +- Does Executive Summary mention the success dimensions? +- Are Success Criteria aligned with vision? +- Note any misalignment + +**Step 3: Validate Success Criteria → User Journeys** +- For each success criterion, is there a user journey that achieves it? +- Note success criteria without supporting journeys + +**Step 4: Validate User Journeys → FRs** +- For each user journey/flow, are there FRs that enable it? +- List FRs with no clear user journey origin +- Note orphan FRs (requirements without traceable source) + +**Step 5: Validate Scope → FR Alignment** +- Does MVP scope align with essential FRs? +- Are in-scope items supported by FRs? +- Note misalignments + +**Step 6: Build traceability matrix** +- Map each FR to its source (journey or business objective) +- Note orphan FRs +- Identify broken chains + +### 3. Tally Traceability Issues + +**Broken chains:** +- Executive Summary → Success Criteria gaps: count +- Success Criteria → User Journeys gaps: count +- User Journeys → FRs gaps: count +- Scope → FR misalignments: count + +**Orphan elements:** +- Orphan FRs (no traceable source): count +- Unsupported success criteria: count +- User journeys without FRs: count + +**Total issues:** Sum of all broken chains and orphans + +### 4. Report Traceability Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Traceability Validation + +### Chain Validation + +**Executive Summary → Success Criteria:** [Intact/Gaps Identified] +{If gaps: List specific misalignments} + +**Success Criteria → User Journeys:** [Intact/Gaps Identified] +{If gaps: List unsupported success criteria} + +**User Journeys → Functional Requirements:** [Intact/Gaps Identified] +{If gaps: List journeys without supporting FRs} + +**Scope → FR Alignment:** [Intact/Misaligned] +{If misaligned: List specific issues} + +### Orphan Elements + +**Orphan Functional Requirements:** {count} +{List orphan FRs with numbers} + +**Unsupported Success Criteria:** {count} +{List unsupported criteria} + +**User Journeys Without FRs:** {count} +{List journeys without FRs} + +### Traceability Matrix + +{Summary table showing traceability coverage} + +**Total Traceability Issues:** {total} + +**Severity:** [Critical if orphan FRs exist, Warning if gaps, Pass if intact] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "Orphan requirements exist - every FR must trace back to a user need or business objective." +[If Warning] "Traceability gaps identified - strengthen chains to ensure all requirements are justified." +[If Pass] "Traceability chain is intact - all requirements trace to user needs or business objectives." +``` + +### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Traceability Validation Complete** + +Total Issues: {count} ({severity}) + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- All traceability chains validated systematically +- Orphan FRs identified with numbers +- Broken chains documented +- Traceability matrix built +- Severity assessed correctly +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not validating all traceability chains +- Missing orphan FR detection +- Not building traceability matrix +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** Every requirement should trace to a user need or business objective. Orphan FRs indicate broken traceability that must be fixed. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..923f99691 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,205 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation' +description: 'Implementation Leakage Check - Ensure FRs and NFRs don\'t include implementation details' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 7: Implementation Leakage Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Ensure Functional Requirements and Non-Functional Requirements don't include implementation details - they should specify WHAT, not HOW. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and separation of concerns expertise +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on implementation leakage detection +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning for technology and implementation terms +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Scan FRs and NFRs for implementation terms +- 💾 Distinguish capability-relevant vs leakage +- 📖 Append findings to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file, validation report +- Focus: Implementation leakage detection only +- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Steps 2-6 completed - initial validations done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:** + +"Perform implementation leakage validation on this PRD: + +**Scan for:** +1. Technology names (React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, GCP, Azure, Docker, Kubernetes, etc.) +2. Library names (Redux, axios, lodash, Express, Django, Rails, Spring, etc.) +3. Data structures (JSON, XML, CSV) unless relevant to capability +4. Architecture patterns (MVC, microservices, serverless) unless business requirement +5. Protocol names (HTTP, REST, GraphQL, WebSockets) - check if capability-relevant + +**For each term found:** +- Is this capability-relevant? (e.g., 'API consumers can access...' - API is capability) +- Or is this implementation detail? (e.g., 'React component for...' - implementation) + +Document violations with line numbers and explanation. + +Return structured findings with leakage counts and examples." + +### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable) + +If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly: + +**Implementation leakage terms to scan for:** + +**Frontend Frameworks:** +React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Solid, Next.js, Nuxt, etc. + +**Backend Frameworks:** +Express, Django, Rails, Spring, Laravel, FastAPI, etc. + +**Databases:** +PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Redis, DynamoDB, Cassandra, etc. + +**Cloud Platforms:** +AWS, GCP, Azure, Cloudflare, Vercel, Netlify, etc. + +**Infrastructure:** +Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, etc. + +**Libraries:** +Redux, Zustand, axios, fetch, lodash, jQuery, etc. + +**Data Formats:** +JSON, XML, YAML, CSV (unless capability-relevant) + +**For each term found in FRs/NFRs:** +- Determine if it's capability-relevant or implementation leakage +- Example: "API consumers can access data via REST endpoints" - API/REST is capability +- Example: "React components fetch data using Redux" - implementation leakage + +**Count violations and note line numbers** + +### 3. Tally Implementation Leakage + +**By category:** +- Frontend framework leakage: count +- Backend framework leakage: count +- Database leakage: count +- Cloud platform leakage: count +- Infrastructure leakage: count +- Library leakage: count +- Other implementation details: count + +**Total implementation leakage violations:** sum + +### 4. Report Implementation Leakage Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Implementation Leakage Validation + +### Leakage by Category + +**Frontend Frameworks:** {count} violations +{If violations, list examples with line numbers} + +**Backend Frameworks:** {count} violations +{If violations, list examples with line numbers} + +**Databases:** {count} violations +{If violations, list examples with line numbers} + +**Cloud Platforms:** {count} violations +{If violations, list examples with line numbers} + +**Infrastructure:** {count} violations +{If violations, list examples with line numbers} + +**Libraries:** {count} violations +{If violations, list examples with line numbers} + +**Other Implementation Details:** {count} violations +{If violations, list examples with line numbers} + +### Summary + +**Total Implementation Leakage Violations:** {total} + +**Severity:** [Critical if >5 violations, Warning if 2-5, Pass if <2] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "Extensive implementation leakage found. Requirements specify HOW instead of WHAT. Remove all implementation details - these belong in architecture, not PRD." +[If Warning] "Some implementation leakage detected. Review violations and remove implementation details from requirements." +[If Pass] "No significant implementation leakage found. Requirements properly specify WHAT without HOW." + +**Note:** API consumers, GraphQL (when required), and other capability-relevant terms are acceptable when they describe WHAT the system must do, not HOW to build it. +``` + +### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Implementation Leakage Validation Complete** + +Total Violations: {count} ({severity}) + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- Scanned FRs and NFRs for all implementation term categories +- Distinguished capability-relevant from implementation leakage +- Violations documented with line numbers and explanations +- Severity assessed correctly +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not scanning all implementation term categories +- Not distinguishing capability-relevant from leakage +- Missing line numbers for violations +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** Requirements specify WHAT, not HOW. Implementation details belong in architecture documents, not PRDs. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..562697eda --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,243 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation' +description: 'Domain Compliance Validation - Validate domain-specific requirements are present for high-complexity domains' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-09-project-type-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +domainComplexityData: '../data/domain-complexity.csv' +--- + +# Step 8: Domain Compliance Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Validate domain-specific requirements are present for high-complexity domains (Healthcare, Fintech, GovTech, etc.), ensuring regulatory and compliance requirements are properly documented. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring domain expertise and compliance knowledge +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on domain-specific compliance requirements +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Conditional validation based on domain classification +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Check classification.domain from PRD frontmatter +- 💬 If low complexity (general): Skip detailed checks +- 🎯 If high complexity: Validate required special sections +- 💾 Append compliance findings to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file with frontmatter classification, validation report +- Focus: Domain compliance only (conditional on domain complexity) +- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, conditional execution +- Dependencies: Steps 2-7 completed - format and requirements validation done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Load Domain Complexity Data + +Load and read the complete file at: +`{domainComplexityData}` (../data/domain-complexity.csv) + +This CSV contains: +- Domain classifications and complexity levels (high/medium/low) +- Required special sections for each domain +- Key concerns and requirements for regulated industries + +Internalize this data - it drives which domains require special compliance sections. + +### 2. Extract Domain Classification + +From PRD frontmatter, extract: +- `classification.domain` - what domain is this PRD for? + +**If no domain classification found:** +Treat as "general" (low complexity) and proceed to step 4 + +### 2. Determine Domain Complexity + +**Low complexity domains (skip detailed checks):** +- General +- Consumer apps (standard e-commerce, social, productivity) +- Content websites +- Business tools (standard) + +**High complexity domains (require special sections):** +- Healthcare / Healthtech +- Fintech / Financial services +- GovTech / Public sector +- EdTech (educational records, accredited courses) +- Legal tech +- Other regulated domains + +### 3. For High-Complexity Domains: Validate Required Special Sections + +**Attempt subprocess validation:** + +"Perform domain compliance validation for {domain}: + +Based on {domain} requirements, check PRD for: + +**Healthcare:** +- Clinical Requirements section +- Regulatory Pathway (FDA, HIPAA, etc.) +- Safety Measures +- HIPAA Compliance (data privacy, security) +- Patient safety considerations + +**Fintech:** +- Compliance Matrix (SOC2, PCI-DSS, GDPR, etc.) +- Security Architecture +- Audit Requirements +- Fraud Prevention measures +- Financial transaction handling + +**GovTech:** +- Accessibility Standards (WCAG 2.1 AA, Section 508) +- Procurement Compliance +- Security Clearance requirements +- Data residency requirements + +**Other regulated domains:** +- Check for domain-specific regulatory sections +- Compliance requirements +- Special considerations + +For each required section: +- Is it present in PRD? +- Is it adequately documented? +- Note any gaps + +Return compliance matrix with presence/adequacy assessment." + +**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):** +- Manually check for required sections based on domain +- List present sections and missing sections +- Assess adequacy of documentation + +### 5. For Low-Complexity Domains: Skip Detailed Checks + +Append to validation report: +```markdown +## Domain Compliance Validation + +**Domain:** {domain} +**Complexity:** Low (general/standard) +**Assessment:** N/A - No special domain compliance requirements + +**Note:** This PRD is for a standard domain without regulatory compliance requirements. +``` + +Display: "**Domain Compliance Validation Skipped** + +Domain: {domain} (low complexity) + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} + +### 6. Report Compliance Findings (High-Complexity Domains) + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Domain Compliance Validation + +**Domain:** {domain} +**Complexity:** High (regulated) + +### Required Special Sections + +**{Section 1 Name}:** [Present/Missing/Adequate] +{If missing or inadequate: Note specific gaps} + +**{Section 2 Name}:** [Present/Missing/Adequate] +{If missing or inadequate: Note specific gaps} + +[Continue for all required sections] + +### Compliance Matrix + +| Requirement | Status | Notes | +|-------------|--------|-------| +| {Requirement 1} | [Met/Partial/Missing] | {Notes} | +| {Requirement 2} | [Met/Partial/Missing] | {Notes} | +[... continue for all requirements] + +### Summary + +**Required Sections Present:** {count}/{total} +**Compliance Gaps:** {count} + +**Severity:** [Critical if missing regulatory sections, Warning if incomplete, Pass if complete] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "PRD is missing required domain-specific compliance sections. These are essential for {domain} products." +[If Warning] "Some domain compliance sections are incomplete. Strengthen documentation for full compliance." +[If Pass] "All required domain compliance sections are present and adequately documented." +``` + +### 7. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Domain Compliance Validation Complete** + +Domain: {domain} ({complexity}) +Compliance Status: {status} + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-09-project-type-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- Domain classification extracted correctly +- Complexity assessed appropriately +- Low complexity domains: Skipped with clear "N/A" documentation +- High complexity domains: All required sections checked +- Compliance matrix built with status for each requirement +- Severity assessed correctly +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not checking domain classification before proceeding +- Performing detailed checks on low complexity domains +- For high complexity: missing required section checks +- Not building compliance matrix +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** Domain compliance is conditional. High-complexity domains require special sections - low complexity domains skip these checks. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-09-project-type-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-09-project-type-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..aea41d924 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-09-project-type-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,263 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-09-project-type-validation' +description: 'Project-Type Compliance Validation - Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-10-smart-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +projectTypesData: '../data/project-types.csv' +--- + +# Step 9: Project-Type Compliance Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented - different project types (api_backend, web_app, mobile_app, etc.) have different required and excluded sections. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring project type expertise and architectural knowledge +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on project-type compliance +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Validate required sections present, excluded sections absent +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Check classification.projectType from PRD frontmatter +- 🎯 Validate required sections for that project type are present +- 🎯 Validate excluded sections for that project type are absent +- 💾 Append compliance findings to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file with frontmatter classification, validation report +- Focus: Project-type compliance only +- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Steps 2-8 completed - domain and requirements validation done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Load Project Types Data + +Load and read the complete file at: +`{projectTypesData}` (../data/project-types.csv) + +This CSV contains: +- Detection signals for each project type +- Required sections for each project type +- Skip/excluded sections for each project type +- Innovation signals + +Internalize this data - it drives what sections must be present or absent for each project type. + +### 2. Extract Project Type Classification + +From PRD frontmatter, extract: +- `classification.projectType` - what type of project is this? + +**Common project types:** +- api_backend +- web_app +- mobile_app +- desktop_app +- data_pipeline +- ml_system +- library_sdk +- infrastructure +- other + +**If no projectType classification found:** +Assume "web_app" (most common) and note in findings + +### 3. Determine Required and Excluded Sections from CSV Data + +**From loaded project-types.csv data, for this project type:** + +**Required sections:** (from required_sections column) +These MUST be present in the PRD + +**Skip sections:** (from skip_sections column) +These MUST NOT be present in the PRD + +**Example mappings from CSV:** +- api_backend: Required=[endpoint_specs, auth_model, data_schemas], Skip=[ux_ui, visual_design] +- mobile_app: Required=[platform_reqs, device_permissions, offline_mode], Skip=[desktop_features, cli_commands] +- cli_tool: Required=[command_structure, output_formats, config_schema], Skip=[visual_design, ux_principles, touch_interactions] +- etc. + +### 4. Validate Against CSV-Based Requirements + +**Based on project type, determine:** + +**api_backend:** +- Required: Endpoint Specs, Auth Model, Data Schemas, API Versioning +- Excluded: UX/UI sections, mobile-specific sections + +**web_app:** +- Required: User Journeys, UX/UI Requirements, Responsive Design +- Excluded: None typically + +**mobile_app:** +- Required: Mobile UX, Platform specifics (iOS/Android), Offline mode +- Excluded: Desktop-specific sections + +**desktop_app:** +- Required: Desktop UX, Platform specifics (Windows/Mac/Linux) +- Excluded: Mobile-specific sections + +**data_pipeline:** +- Required: Data Sources, Data Transformation, Data Sinks, Error Handling +- Excluded: UX/UI sections + +**ml_system:** +- Required: Model Requirements, Training Data, Inference Requirements, Model Performance +- Excluded: UX/UI sections (unless ML UI) + +**library_sdk:** +- Required: API Surface, Usage Examples, Integration Guide +- Excluded: UX/UI sections, deployment sections + +**infrastructure:** +- Required: Infrastructure Components, Deployment, Monitoring, Scaling +- Excluded: Feature requirements (this is infrastructure, not product) + +### 4. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +"Perform project-type compliance validation for {projectType}: + +**Check that required sections are present:** +{List required sections for this project type} +For each: Is it present in PRD? Is it adequately documented? + +**Check that excluded sections are absent:** +{List excluded sections for this project type} +For each: Is it absent from PRD? (Should not be present) + +Build compliance table showing: +- Required sections: [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +- Excluded sections: [Absent/Present] (Present = violation) + +Return compliance table with findings." + +**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):** +- Manually check PRD for required sections +- Manually check PRD for excluded sections +- Build compliance table + +### 5. Build Compliance Table + +**Required sections check:** +- For each required section: Present / Missing / Incomplete +- Count: Required sections present vs total required + +**Excluded sections check:** +- For each excluded section: Absent / Present (violation) +- Count: Excluded sections present (violations) + +**Total compliance score:** +- Required: {present}/{total} +- Excluded violations: {count} + +### 6. Report Project-Type Compliance Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Project-Type Compliance Validation + +**Project Type:** {projectType} + +### Required Sections + +**{Section 1}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps} + +**{Section 2}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete] +{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps} + +[Continue for all required sections] + +### Excluded Sections (Should Not Be Present) + +**{Section 1}:** [Absent/Present] ✓ +{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}} + +**{Section 2}:** [Absent/Present] ✓ +{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}} + +[Continue for all excluded sections] + +### Compliance Summary + +**Required Sections:** {present}/{total} present +**Excluded Sections Present:** {violations} (should be 0) +**Compliance Score:** {percentage}% + +**Severity:** [Critical if required sections missing, Warning if incomplete, Pass if complete] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "PRD is missing required sections for {projectType}. Add missing sections to properly specify this type of project." +[If Warning] "Some required sections for {projectType} are incomplete. Strengthen documentation." +[If Pass] "All required sections for {projectType} are present. No excluded sections found." +``` + +### 7. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Project-Type Compliance Validation Complete** + +Project Type: {projectType} +Compliance: {score}% + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-10-smart-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- Project type extracted correctly (or default assumed) +- Required sections validated for presence and completeness +- Excluded sections validated for absence +- Compliance table built with status for all sections +- Severity assessed correctly +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not checking project type before proceeding +- Missing required section checks +- Missing excluded section checks +- Not building compliance table +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** Different project types have different requirements. API PRDs don't need UX sections - validate accordingly. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0c44b00da --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-10-smart-validation' +description: 'SMART Requirements Validation - Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 10: SMART Requirements Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable), ensuring high-quality requirements. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring requirements engineering expertise and quality assessment +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR quality assessment using SMART framework +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step +- 💬 Approach: Score each FR on SMART criteria (1-5 scale) +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Extract all FRs from PRD +- 🎯 Score each FR on SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable) +- 💾 Flag FRs with score < 3 in any category +- 📖 Append scoring table and suggestions to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: PRD file, validation report +- Focus: FR quality assessment only using SMART framework +- Limits: Don't validate NFRs or other aspects, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Steps 2-9 completed - comprehensive validation checks done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Extract All Functional Requirements + +From the PRD's Functional Requirements section, extract: +- All FRs with their FR numbers (FR-001, FR-002, etc.) +- Count total FRs + +### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:** + +"Perform SMART requirements validation on these Functional Requirements: + +{List all FRs} + +**For each FR, score on SMART criteria (1-5 scale):** + +**Specific (1-5):** +- 5: Clear, unambiguous, well-defined +- 3: Somewhat clear but could be more specific +- 1: Vague, ambiguous, unclear + +**Measurable (1-5):** +- 5: Quantifiable metrics, testable +- 3: Partially measurable +- 1: Not measurable, subjective + +**Attainable (1-5):** +- 5: Realistic, achievable with constraints +- 3: Probably achievable but uncertain +- 1: Unrealistic, technically infeasible + +**Relevant (1-5):** +- 5: Clearly aligned with user needs and business objectives +- 3: Somewhat relevant but connection unclear +- 1: Not relevant, doesn't align with goals + +**Traceable (1-5):** +- 5: Clearly traces to user journey or business objective +- 3: Partially traceable +- 1: Orphan requirement, no clear source + +**For each FR with score < 3 in any category:** +- Provide specific improvement suggestions + +Return scoring table with all FR scores and improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs." + +**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):** +- Manually score each FR on SMART criteria +- Note FRs with low scores +- Provide improvement suggestions + +### 3. Build Scoring Table + +For each FR: +- FR number +- Specific score (1-5) +- Measurable score (1-5) +- Attainable score (1-5) +- Relevant score (1-5) +- Traceable score (1-5) +- Average score +- Flag if any category < 3 + +**Calculate overall FR quality:** +- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 3 +- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 4 +- Average score across all FRs and categories + +### 4. Report SMART Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## SMART Requirements Validation + +**Total Functional Requirements:** {count} + +### Scoring Summary + +**All scores ≥ 3:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total}) +**All scores ≥ 4:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total}) +**Overall Average Score:** {average}/5.0 + +### Scoring Table + +| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag | +|------|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----------|--------|------| +| FR-001 | {s1} | {m1} | {a1} | {r1} | {t1} | {avg1} | {X if any <3} | +| FR-002 | {s2} | {m2} | {a2} | {r2} | {t2} | {avg2} | {X if any <3} | +[Continue for all FRs] + +**Legend:** 1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent +**Flag:** X = Score < 3 in one or more categories + +### Improvement Suggestions + +**Low-Scoring FRs:** + +**FR-{number}:** {specific suggestion for improvement} +[For each FR with score < 3 in any category] + +### Overall Assessment + +**Severity:** [Critical if >30% flagged FRs, Warning if 10-30%, Pass if <10%] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "Many FRs have quality issues. Revise flagged FRs using SMART framework to improve clarity and testability." +[If Warning] "Some FRs would benefit from SMART refinement. Focus on flagged requirements above." +[If Pass] "Functional Requirements demonstrate good SMART quality overall." +``` + +### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**SMART Requirements Validation Complete** + +FR Quality: {percentage}% with acceptable scores ({severity}) + +**Proceeding to next validation check...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- All FRs extracted from PRD +- Each FR scored on all 5 SMART criteria (1-5 scale) +- FRs with scores < 3 flagged for improvement +- Improvement suggestions provided for low-scoring FRs +- Scoring table built with all FR scores +- Overall quality assessment calculated +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not scoring all FRs on all SMART criteria +- Missing improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs +- Not building scoring table +- Not calculating overall quality metrics +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** FRs should be high-quality, not just present. SMART framework provides objective quality measure. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f5be09bad --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation' +description: 'Holistic Quality Assessment - Assess PRD as cohesive, compelling document - is it a good PRD?' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-12-completeness-validation.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +advancedElicitationTask: 'skill:bmad-advanced-elicitation' +--- + +# Step 11: Holistic Quality Assessment + +## STEP GOAL: + +Assess the PRD as a cohesive, compelling document - evaluating document flow, dual audience effectiveness (humans and LLMs), BMAD PRD principles compliance, and overall quality rating. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and document quality expertise +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed +- ✅ Uses Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on holistic document quality assessment +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate individual components (done in previous steps) +- 💬 Approach: Multi-perspective evaluation using Advanced Elicitation +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Use Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective assessment +- 🎯 Evaluate document flow, dual audience, BMAD principles +- 💾 Append comprehensive assessment to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: Complete PRD file, validation report with findings from steps 1-10 +- Focus: Holistic quality - the WHOLE document +- Limits: Don't re-validate individual components, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Steps 1-10 completed - all systematic checks done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Attempt Sub-Process with Advanced Elicitation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess using Advanced Elicitation:** + +"Perform holistic quality assessment on this PRD using multi-perspective evaluation: + +**Read fully and follow the Advanced Elicitation workflow:** +{advancedElicitationTask} + +**Evaluate the PRD from these perspectives:** + +**1. Document Flow & Coherence:** +- Read entire PRD +- Evaluate narrative flow - does it tell a cohesive story? +- Check transitions between sections +- Assess consistency - is it coherent throughout? +- Evaluate readability - is it clear and well-organized? + +**2. Dual Audience Effectiveness:** + +**For Humans:** +- Executive-friendly: Can executives understand vision and goals quickly? +- Developer clarity: Do developers have clear requirements to build from? +- Designer clarity: Do designers understand user needs and flows? +- Stakeholder decision-making: Can stakeholders make informed decisions? + +**For LLMs:** +- Machine-readable structure: Is the PRD structured for LLM consumption? +- UX readiness: Can an LLM generate UX designs from this? +- Architecture readiness: Can an LLM generate architecture from this? +- Epic/Story readiness: Can an LLM break down into epics and stories? + +**3. BMAD PRD Principles Compliance:** +- Information density: Every sentence carries weight? +- Measurability: Requirements testable? +- Traceability: Requirements trace to sources? +- Domain awareness: Domain-specific considerations included? +- Zero anti-patterns: No filler or wordiness? +- Dual audience: Works for both humans and LLMs? +- Markdown format: Proper structure and formatting? + +**4. Overall Quality Rating:** +Rate the PRD on 5-point scale: +- Excellent (5/5): Exemplary, ready for production use +- Good (4/5): Strong with minor improvements needed +- Adequate (3/5): Acceptable but needs refinement +- Needs Work (2/5): Significant gaps or issues +- Problematic (1/5): Major flaws, needs substantial revision + +**5. Top 3 Improvements:** +Identify the 3 most impactful improvements to make this a great PRD + +Return comprehensive assessment with all perspectives, rating, and top 3 improvements." + +**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool or Advanced Elicitation unavailable):** +- Perform holistic assessment directly in current context +- Read complete PRD +- Evaluate document flow, coherence, transitions +- Assess dual audience effectiveness +- Check BMAD principles compliance +- Assign overall quality rating +- Identify top 3 improvements + +### 2. Synthesize Assessment + +**Compile findings from multi-perspective evaluation:** + +**Document Flow & Coherence:** +- Overall assessment: [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic] +- Key strengths: [list] +- Key weaknesses: [list] + +**Dual Audience Effectiveness:** +- For Humans: [assessment] +- For LLMs: [assessment] +- Overall dual audience score: [1-5] + +**BMAD Principles Compliance:** +- Principles met: [count]/7 +- Principles with issues: [list] + +**Overall Quality Rating:** [1-5 with label] + +**Top 3 Improvements:** +1. [Improvement 1] +2. [Improvement 2] +3. [Improvement 3] + +### 3. Report Holistic Quality Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Holistic Quality Assessment + +### Document Flow & Coherence + +**Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic] + +**Strengths:** +{List key strengths} + +**Areas for Improvement:** +{List key weaknesses} + +### Dual Audience Effectiveness + +**For Humans:** +- Executive-friendly: [assessment] +- Developer clarity: [assessment] +- Designer clarity: [assessment] +- Stakeholder decision-making: [assessment] + +**For LLMs:** +- Machine-readable structure: [assessment] +- UX readiness: [assessment] +- Architecture readiness: [assessment] +- Epic/Story readiness: [assessment] + +**Dual Audience Score:** {score}/5 + +### BMAD PRD Principles Compliance + +| Principle | Status | Notes | +|-----------|--------|-------| +| Information Density | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} | +| Measurability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} | +| Traceability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} | +| Domain Awareness | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} | +| Zero Anti-Patterns | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} | +| Dual Audience | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} | +| Markdown Format | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} | + +**Principles Met:** {count}/7 + +### Overall Quality Rating + +**Rating:** {rating}/5 - {label} + +**Scale:** +- 5/5 - Excellent: Exemplary, ready for production use +- 4/5 - Good: Strong with minor improvements needed +- 3/5 - Adequate: Acceptable but needs refinement +- 2/5 - Needs Work: Significant gaps or issues +- 1/5 - Problematic: Major flaws, needs substantial revision + +### Top 3 Improvements + +1. **{Improvement 1}** + {Brief explanation of why and how} + +2. **{Improvement 2}** + {Brief explanation of why and how} + +3. **{Improvement 3}** + {Brief explanation of why and how} + +### Summary + +**This PRD is:** {one-sentence overall assessment} + +**To make it great:** Focus on the top 3 improvements above. +``` + +### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Holistic Quality Assessment Complete** + +Overall Rating: {rating}/5 - {label} + +**Proceeding to final validation checks...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-12-completeness-validation.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- Advanced Elicitation used for multi-perspective evaluation (or graceful degradation) +- Document flow & coherence assessed +- Dual audience effectiveness evaluated (humans and LLMs) +- BMAD PRD principles compliance checked +- Overall quality rating assigned (1-5 scale) +- Top 3 improvements identified +- Comprehensive assessment reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to next validation step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not using Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation +- Missing document flow assessment +- Missing dual audience evaluation +- Not checking all BMAD principles +- Not assigning overall quality rating +- Missing top 3 improvements +- Not reporting comprehensive assessment to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** This evaluates the WHOLE document, not just components. Answers "Is this a good PRD?" and "What would make it great?" diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-12-completeness-validation.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-12-completeness-validation.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..00c477981 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-12-completeness-validation.md @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-12-completeness-validation' +description: 'Completeness Check - Final comprehensive completeness check before report generation' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +nextStepFile: './step-v-13-report-complete.md' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}' +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +--- + +# Step 12: Completeness Validation + +## STEP GOAL: + +Final comprehensive completeness check - validate no template variables remain, each section has required content, section-specific completeness, and frontmatter is properly populated. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue +- ✅ You bring attention to detail and completeness verification +- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on completeness verification +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate quality (done in step 11) or other aspects +- 💬 Approach: Systematic checklist-style verification +- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Check template completeness (no variables remaining) +- 🎯 Validate content completeness (each section has required content) +- 🎯 Validate section-specific completeness +- 🎯 Validate frontmatter completeness +- 💾 Append completeness matrix to validation report +- 📖 Display "Proceeding to final step..." and load next step +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: Complete PRD file, frontmatter, validation report +- Focus: Completeness verification only (final gate) +- Limits: Don't assess quality, don't pause for user input +- Dependencies: Steps 1-11 completed - all validation checks done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation + +**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:** + +"Perform completeness validation on this PRD - final gate check: + +**1. Template Completeness:** +- Scan PRD for any remaining template variables +- Look for: {variable}, {{variable}}, {placeholder}, [placeholder], etc. +- List any found with line numbers + +**2. Content Completeness:** +- Executive Summary: Has vision statement? ({key content}) +- Success Criteria: All criteria measurable? ({metrics present}) +- Product Scope: In-scope and out-of-scope defined? ({both present}) +- User Journeys: User types identified? ({users listed}) +- Functional Requirements: FRs listed with proper format? ({FRs present}) +- Non-Functional Requirements: NFRs with metrics? ({NFRs present}) + +For each section: Is required content present? (Yes/No/Partial) + +**3. Section-Specific Completeness:** +- Success Criteria: Each has specific measurement method? +- User Journeys: Cover all user types? +- Functional Requirements: Cover MVP scope? +- Non-Functional Requirements: Each has specific criteria? + +**4. Frontmatter Completeness:** +- stepsCompleted: Populated? +- classification: Present (domain, projectType)? +- inputDocuments: Tracked? +- date: Present? + +Return completeness matrix with status for each check." + +**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):** +- Manually scan for template variables +- Manually check each section for required content +- Manually verify frontmatter fields +- Build completeness matrix + +### 2. Build Completeness Matrix + +**Template Completeness:** +- Template variables found: count +- List if any found + +**Content Completeness by Section:** +- Executive Summary: Complete / Incomplete / Missing +- Success Criteria: Complete / Incomplete / Missing +- Product Scope: Complete / Incomplete / Missing +- User Journeys: Complete / Incomplete / Missing +- Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing +- Non-Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing +- Other sections: [List completeness] + +**Section-Specific Completeness:** +- Success criteria measurable: All / Some / None +- Journeys cover all users: Yes / Partial / No +- FRs cover MVP scope: Yes / Partial / No +- NFRs have specific criteria: All / Some / None + +**Frontmatter Completeness:** +- stepsCompleted: Present / Missing +- classification: Present / Missing +- inputDocuments: Present / Missing +- date: Present / Missing + +**Overall completeness:** +- Sections complete: X/Y +- Critical gaps: [list if any] + +### 3. Report Completeness Findings to Validation Report + +Append to validation report: + +```markdown +## Completeness Validation + +### Template Completeness + +**Template Variables Found:** {count} +{If count > 0, list variables with line numbers} +{If count = 0, note: No template variables remaining ✓} + +### Content Completeness by Section + +**Executive Summary:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing] +{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps} + +**Success Criteria:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing] +{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps} + +**Product Scope:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing] +{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps} + +**User Journeys:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing] +{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps} + +**Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing] +{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps} + +**Non-Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing] +{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps} + +### Section-Specific Completeness + +**Success Criteria Measurability:** [All/Some/None] measurable +{If Some or None, note which criteria lack metrics} + +**User Journeys Coverage:** [Yes/Partial/No] - covers all user types +{If Partial or No, note missing user types} + +**FRs Cover MVP Scope:** [Yes/Partial/No] +{If Partial or No, note scope gaps} + +**NFRs Have Specific Criteria:** [All/Some/None] +{If Some or None, note which NFRs lack specificity} + +### Frontmatter Completeness + +**stepsCompleted:** [Present/Missing] +**classification:** [Present/Missing] +**inputDocuments:** [Present/Missing] +**date:** [Present/Missing] + +**Frontmatter Completeness:** {complete_fields}/4 + +### Completeness Summary + +**Overall Completeness:** {percentage}% ({complete_sections}/{total_sections}) + +**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any] +**Minor Gaps:** [count] [list if any] + +**Severity:** [Critical if template variables exist or critical sections missing, Warning if minor gaps, Pass if complete] + +**Recommendation:** +[If Critical] "PRD has completeness gaps that must be addressed before use. Fix template variables and complete missing sections." +[If Warning] "PRD has minor completeness gaps. Address minor gaps for complete documentation." +[If Pass] "PRD is complete with all required sections and content present." +``` + +### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed + +Display: "**Completeness Validation Complete** + +Overall Completeness: {percentage}% ({severity}) + +**Proceeding to final step...**" + +Without delay, read fully and follow: {nextStepFile} (step-v-13-report-complete.md) + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- Scanned for template variables systematically +- Validated each section for required content +- Validated section-specific completeness (measurability, coverage, scope) +- Validated frontmatter completeness +- Completeness matrix built with all checks +- Severity assessed correctly +- Findings reported to validation report +- Auto-proceeds to final step +- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not scanning for template variables +- Missing section-specific completeness checks +- Not validating frontmatter +- Not building completeness matrix +- Not reporting findings to validation report +- Not auto-proceeding + +**Master Rule:** Final gate to ensure document is complete before presenting findings. Template variables or critical gaps must be fixed. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..decc5579a --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ +--- +name: 'step-v-13-report-complete' +description: 'Validation Report Complete - Finalize report, summarize findings, present to user, offer next steps' + +# File references (ONLY variables used in this step) +validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}' +prdFile: '{prd_file_path}' +--- + +# Step 13: Validation Report Complete + +## STEP GOAL: + +Finalize validation report, summarize all findings from steps 1-12, present summary to user conversationally, and offer actionable next steps. + +## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST): + +### Universal Rules: + +- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input +- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action +- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read +- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` +- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}` + +### Role Reinforcement: + +- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist +- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role +- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response +- ✅ You bring synthesis and summary expertise +- ✅ This is the FINAL step - requires user interaction + +### Step-Specific Rules: + +- 🎯 Focus ONLY on summarizing findings and presenting options +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform additional validation +- 💬 Approach: Conversational summary with clear next steps +- 🚪 This is the final step - no next step after this + +## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS: + +- 🎯 Load complete validation report +- 🎯 Summarize all findings from steps 1-12 +- 🎯 Update report frontmatter with final status +- 💬 Present summary to user conversationally +- 💬 Offer menu options for next actions +- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection + +## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES: + +- Available context: Complete validation report with findings from all validation steps +- Focus: Summary and presentation only (no new validation) +- Limits: Don't add new findings, just synthesize existing +- Dependencies: Steps 1-12 completed - all validation checks done + +## MANDATORY SEQUENCE + +**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change. + +### 1. Load Complete Validation Report + +Read the entire validation report from {validationReportPath} + +Extract all findings from: +- Format Detection (Step 2) +- Parity Analysis (Step 2B, if applicable) +- Information Density (Step 3) +- Product Brief Coverage (Step 4) +- Measurability (Step 5) +- Traceability (Step 6) +- Implementation Leakage (Step 7) +- Domain Compliance (Step 8) +- Project-Type Compliance (Step 9) +- SMART Requirements (Step 10) +- Holistic Quality (Step 11) +- Completeness (Step 12) + +### 2. Update Report Frontmatter with Final Status + +Update validation report frontmatter: + +```yaml +--- +validationTarget: '{prd_path}' +validationDate: '{current_date}' +inputDocuments: [list of documents] +validationStepsCompleted: ['step-v-01-discovery', 'step-v-02-format-detection', 'step-v-03-density-validation', 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation', 'step-v-05-measurability-validation', 'step-v-06-traceability-validation', 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation', 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation', 'step-v-09-project-type-validation', 'step-v-10-smart-validation', 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation', 'step-v-12-completeness-validation'] +validationStatus: COMPLETE +holisticQualityRating: '{rating from step 11}' +overallStatus: '{Pass/Warning/Critical based on all findings}' +--- +``` + +### 3. Create Summary of Findings + +**Overall Status:** +- Determine from all validation findings +- **Pass:** All critical checks pass, minor warnings acceptable +- **Warning:** Some issues found but PRD is usable +- **Critical:** Major issues that prevent PRD from being fit for purpose + +**Quick Results Table:** +- Format: [classification] +- Information Density: [severity] +- Measurability: [severity] +- Traceability: [severity] +- Implementation Leakage: [severity] +- Domain Compliance: [status] +- Project-Type Compliance: [compliance score] +- SMART Quality: [percentage] +- Holistic Quality: [rating/5] +- Completeness: [percentage] + +**Critical Issues:** List from all validation steps +**Warnings:** List from all validation steps +**Strengths:** List positives from all validation steps + +**Holistic Quality Rating:** From step 11 +**Top 3 Improvements:** From step 11 + +**Recommendation:** Based on overall status + +### 4. Present Summary to User Conversationally + +Display: + +"**✓ PRD Validation Complete** + +**Overall Status:** {Pass/Warning/Critical} + +**Quick Results:** +{Present quick results table with key findings} + +**Critical Issues:** {count or "None"} +{If any, list briefly} + +**Warnings:** {count or "None"} +{If any, list briefly} + +**Strengths:** +{List key strengths} + +**Holistic Quality:** {rating}/5 - {label} + +**Top 3 Improvements:** +1. {Improvement 1} +2. {Improvement 2} +3. {Improvement 3} + +**Recommendation:** +{Based on overall status: +- Pass: "PRD is in good shape. Address minor improvements to make it great." +- Warning: "PRD is usable but has issues that should be addressed. Review warnings and improve where needed." +- Critical: "PRD has significant issues that should be fixed before use. Focus on critical issues above."} + +**What would you like to do next?**" + +### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS + +Display: + +**[R] Review Detailed Findings** - Walk through validation report section by section +**[E] Use Edit Workflow** - Use validation report with Edit workflow for systematic improvements +**[F] Fix Simpler Items** - Immediate fixes for simple issues (anti-patterns, leakage, missing headers) +**[X] Exit** - Exit and Suggest Next Steps. + +#### EXECUTION RULES: + +- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu +- Only proceed based on user selection + +#### Menu Handling Logic: + +- **IF R (Review Detailed Findings):** + - Walk through validation report section by section + - Present findings from each validation step + - Allow user to ask questions + - After review, return to menu + +- **IF E (Use Edit Workflow):** + - Explain: "The Edit workflow (steps-e/) can use this validation report to systematically address issues. Edit mode will guide you through discovering what to edit, reviewing the PRD, and applying targeted improvements." + - Offer: "Would you like to launch Edit mode now? It will help you fix validation findings systematically." + - If yes: Read fully and follow: steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md + - If no: Return to menu + +- **IF F (Fix Simpler Items):** + - Offer immediate fixes for: + - Template variables (fill in with appropriate content) + - Conversational filler (remove wordy phrases) + - Implementation leakage (remove technology names from FRs/NFRs) + - Missing section headers (add ## headers) + - Ask: "Which simple fixes would you like me to make?" + - If user specifies fixes, make them and update validation report + - Return to menu + +- **IF X (Exit):** + - Display: "**Validation Report Saved:** {validationReportPath}" + - Display: "**Summary:** {overall status} - {recommendation}" + - PRD Validation complete. Invoke the `bmad-help` skill. + +- **IF Any other:** Help user, then redisplay menu + +--- + +## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS + +### ✅ SUCCESS: + +- Complete validation report loaded successfully +- All findings from steps 1-12 summarized +- Report frontmatter updated with final status +- Overall status determined correctly (Pass/Warning/Critical) +- Quick results table presented +- Critical issues, warnings, and strengths listed +- Holistic quality rating included +- Top 3 improvements presented +- Clear recommendation provided +- Menu options presented with clear explanations +- User can review findings, get help, or exit + +### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE: + +- Not loading complete validation report +- Missing summary of findings +- Not updating report frontmatter +- Not determining overall status +- Missing menu options +- Unclear next steps + +**Master Rule:** User needs clear summary and actionable next steps. Edit workflow is best for complex issues; immediate fixes available for simpler ones. diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/workflow.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/workflow.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3de6ff24f --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/bmad-validate-prd/workflow.md @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +--- +main_config: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml' +validateWorkflow: './steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md' +--- + +# PRD Validate Workflow + +**Goal:** Validate existing PRDs against BMAD standards through comprehensive review. + +**Your Role:** Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist. + +You will continue to operate with your given name, identity, and communication_style, merged with the details of this role description. + +## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE + +This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution: + +### Core Principles + +- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is a self contained instruction file that is a part of an overall workflow that must be followed exactly +- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only the current step file is in memory - never load future step files until told to do so +- **Sequential Enforcement**: Sequence within the step files must be completed in order, no skipping or optimization allowed +- **State Tracking**: Document progress in output file frontmatter using `stepsCompleted` array when a workflow produces a document +- **Append-Only Building**: Build documents by appending content as directed to the output file + +### Step Processing Rules + +1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Always read the entire step file before taking any action +2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute all numbered sections in order, never deviate +3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: If a menu is presented, halt and wait for user selection +4. **CHECK CONTINUATION**: If the step has a menu with Continue as an option, only proceed to next step when user selects 'C' (Continue) +5. **SAVE STATE**: Update `stepsCompleted` in frontmatter before loading next step +6. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, read fully and follow the next step file + +### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS) + +- 🛑 **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously +- 📖 **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution +- 🚫 **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence +- 💾 **ALWAYS** update frontmatter of output files when writing the final output for a specific step +- 🎯 **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file +- ⏸️ **ALWAYS** halt at menus and wait for user input +- 📋 **NEVER** create mental todo lists from future steps + +## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE + +### 1. Configuration Loading + +Load and read full config from {main_config} and resolve: + +- `project_name`, `output_folder`, `planning_artifacts`, `user_name` +- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level` +- `date` as system-generated current datetime + +✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the configured `{communication_language}`. +✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS WRITE all artifact and document content in `{document_output_language}`. + +### 2. Route to Validate Workflow + +"**Validate Mode: Validating an existing PRD against BMAD standards.**" + +Then read fully and follow: `{validateWorkflow}` (steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md) diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml deleted file mode 100644 index f7eed5f7b..000000000 --- a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4 +0,0 @@ -workflow-validate-prd.md: - canonicalId: bmad-validate-prd - type: workflow - description: "Validate a PRD against standards. Use when the user says 'validate this PRD' or 'run PRD validation'" diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md index 6c38a086c..86ccc7d05 100644 --- a/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-validate-prd.md @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ --- name: validate-prd description: 'Validate a PRD against standards. Use when the user says "validate this PRD" or "run PRD validation"' +standalone: false main_config: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml' validateWorkflow: './steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md' ---