Merge 4d48b0dbe1 into be7e07cc1a

- Disable high_level_summary to stop PR description modifications
- Disable commit_status to stop GitHub status checks
- Disable issue_enrichment.auto_enrich to stop auto-commenting on issues

These settings complement the existing review_status: false and
auto_review.enabled: false to ensure CodeRabbit only responds
when explicitly tagged with @coderabbitai review.

.coderabbit.yaml

@@ -4,9 +4,10 @@ language: "en-US"
 early_access: true
 reviews:
   profile: chill
-  high_level_summary: true
+  high_level_summary: false # don't post summary until explicitly invoked
   request_changes_workflow: false
   review_status: false
+  commit_status: false # don't set commit status until explicitly invoked
   collapse_walkthrough: false
   poem: false
   auto_review:
@@ -33,4 +34,7 @@ reviews:
         Flag any process.exit() without error message.
 chat:
   auto_reply: true # Response to mentions in comments, a la @coderabbit review
+issue_enrichment:
+  auto_enrich:
+    enabled: false # don't auto-comment on issues
 

docs/ring-of-fire-sessions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
+# BMad Method PR #1: Ring of Fire (ROF) Sessions
+
+**Feature Type**: Core workflow enhancement
+**Status**: Draft for community review
+**Origin**: tellingCube project (masemIT e.U.)
+**Author**: Mario Semper (@sempre)
+**Date**: 2025-11-23
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+**Ring of Fire (ROF) Sessions** enable multi-agent collaborative sessions that run in parallel to the user's main workflow, allowing users to delegate complex multi-perspective analysis while continuing other work.
+
+---
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+Current BMad Method requires **sequential agent interaction**. When users need multiple agents to collaborate on a complex topic, they must:
+- Manually orchestrate each agent conversation
+- Stay in the loop for every exchange
+- Wait for sequential responses before proceeding
+- Context-switch constantly between tasks
+
+This creates **bottlenecks** and prevents **parallel work streams**.
+
+---
+
+## Proposed Solution: Ring of Fire Sessions
+
+A new command pattern that enables **scoped multi-agent collaboration sessions** that run while the user continues other work.
+
+### Command Syntax
+
+```bash
+*rof "<topic>" --agents <agent-list> [--report brief|detailed|live]
+```
+
+### Example Usage
+
+```bash
+*rof "API Refactoring Strategy" --agents dev,architect,qa --report brief
+```
+
+**What happens**:
+1. Dev, Architect, and QA agents enter a collaborative session
+2. They analyze the topic together (code review, design discussion, testing concerns)
+3. When agents need tool access (read files, run commands), they request user approval
+4. User continues working on other tasks in parallel
+5. Session ends with consolidated report (brief: just recommendations, detailed: full transcript)
+
+---
+
+## Key Features
+
+### 1. User-Controlled Scope
+- **Small**: 2 agents, 5-minute quick discussion
+- **Large**: 10 agents, 2-hour deep analysis
+- User decides granularity based on complexity
+
+### 2. Approval-Gated Tool Access
+- Agents can **discuss** freely within the session
+- When agents need **tools** (read files, execute commands, make changes), they:
+  - Pause the session
+  - Request user approval
+  - Resume after user decision
+
+**Why**: Maintains user control, prevents runaway agent actions
+
+### 3. Flexible Reporting
+
+| Mode | Description | Use Case |
+|------|-------------|----------|
+| `brief` | Final recommendations only | "Just tell me what to do" |
+| `detailed` | Full transcript + recommendations | "Show me the reasoning" |
+| `live` | Real-time updates as agents discuss | "I want to observe" |
+
+**Default**: `brief` with Q&A available
+
+### 4. Parallel Workflows
+- User works on **Task A** while ROF session tackles **Task B**
+- No context-switching overhead
+- Efficient use of time
+
+---
+
+## Use Cases
+
+### 1. Architecture Reviews
+```bash
+*rof "Evaluate microservices vs monolith for new feature" --agents architect,dev,qa
+```
+**Agents collaborate on**: Design trade-offs, implementation complexity, testing implications
+
+### 2. Code Refactoring
+```bash
+*rof "Refactor authentication module" --agents dev,architect --report detailed
+```
+**Agents collaborate on**: Current code analysis, refactoring approach, migration strategy
+
+### 3. Feature Planning
+```bash
+*rof "Plan user notifications feature" --agents pm,ux,dev --report brief
+```
+**Agents collaborate on**: Requirements, UX flow, technical feasibility, timeline
+
+### 4. Quality Gates
+```bash
+*rof "Investigate test failures in CI/CD" --agents qa,dev --report live
+```
+**Agents collaborate on**: Root cause analysis, fix recommendations, regression prevention
+
+### 5. Documentation Sprints
+```bash
+*rof "Document API endpoints" --agents dev,pm,ux
+```
+**Agents collaborate on**: Technical accuracy, user-friendly examples, completeness
+
+---
+
+## User Experience Flow
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+    User->>River: *rof "Topic" --agents dev,architect
+    River->>Dev: Join ROF session
+    River->>Architect: Join ROF session
+    River->>User: Session started, continue your work
+
+    Dev->>Architect: Discuss approach
+    Architect->>Dev: Suggest alternatives
+
+    Dev->>User: Need to read auth.ts - approve?
+    User->>Dev: Approved
+    Dev->>Architect: After reading file...
+
+    Architect->>Dev: Recommendation
+    Dev->>River: Session complete
+    River->>User: Brief report: [Recommendations]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Considerations
+
+### Technical Requirements
+- **Session state management**: Track active ROF sessions, participating agents
+- **Agent context sharing**: Agents share knowledge within session scope
+- **User approval workflow**: Clear prompt for tool requests
+- **Report generation**: Brief/detailed/live output formatting
+- **Workflow integration**: Link ROF findings to existing workflow plans/todos
+
+### Open Questions for Community
+
+1. **Integration**: Core BMad feature or plugin/extension?
+2. **Concurrency**: How to handle file conflicts if multiple agents want to edit?
+3. **Cost Model**: Guidance for LLM call budgeting with multiple agents?
+4. **Session Limits**: Recommended max agents/duration?
+5. **Agent Communication**: Free-form discussion or structured turn-taking?
+
+---
+
+## Real-World Validation
+
+**Origin Project**: tellingCube (BI dashboard, masemIT e.U.)
+
+**Validation Scenario**:
+- **Topic**: "Next steps for tellingCube after validation test"
+- **Agents**: River (orchestrator), Mary (analyst), Winston (architect)
+- **Report Mode**: Brief
+- **Outcome**: Successfully analyzed post-validation roadmap with 3 scenarios (GO/CHANGE/NO-GO), delivered consolidated recommendations in 5 minutes
+
+**User Feedback (Mario Semper)**:
+> "This is exactly what I needed - I wanted multiple perspectives without having to orchestrate every conversation. The brief report gave me actionable next steps immediately."
+
+**Documentation**: `docs/_masemIT/readme.md` in tellingCube repository
+
+---
+
+## Proposed Documentation Structure
+
+```
+.bmad-core/
+  features/
+    ring-of-fire.md              # Feature specification
+
+docs/
+  guides/
+    using-rof-sessions.md        # User guide with examples
+
+  architecture/
+    agent-collaboration.md       # Technical design
+    rof-session-management.md    # State handling approach
+```
+
+---
+
+## Benefits
+
+✅ **Unlocks parallel workflows** - User productivity gains
+✅ **Reduces context-switching** - Cognitive load reduction
+✅ **Enables complex analysis** - Multi-perspective insights
+✅ **Maintains user control** - Approval gates for tools
+✅ **Scales flexibly** - From quick checks to deep dives
+
+---
+
+## Comparison to Existing Patterns
+
+| Feature | Standard Agent Use | ROF Session |
+|---------|-------------------|-------------|
+| Agent collaboration | Sequential (one at a time) | Parallel (multiple simultaneously) |
+| User involvement | Required for every exchange | Only for approvals |
+| Parallel work | No (user waits) | Yes (user continues tasks) |
+| Output | Chat transcript | Consolidated report |
+| Use case | Single-perspective tasks | Multi-perspective analysis |
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+1. **Community feedback** on approach and open questions
+2. **Technical design** refinement (state management, agent communication)
+3. **Prototype implementation** in BMad core or as extension
+4. **Beta testing** with real projects (beyond tellingCube)
+5. **Documentation** completion with examples
+
+---
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### Alt 1: "Breakout Session"
+- **Pros**: Clear meeting metaphor
+- **Cons**: Less evocative, doesn't convey "continuous collaborative space"
+
+### Alt 2: "Agent Huddle"
+- **Pros**: Short, casual
+- **Cons**: Implies quick/informal only
+
+### Alt 3: "Lagerfeuer" (original German name)
+- **Pros**: Warm, campfire metaphor
+- **Cons**: Poor i18n, hard to pronounce/remember for non-German speakers
+
+**Chosen**: **Ring of Fire** - evokes continuous collaboration circle, internationally understood, memorable, shortcut "ROF" works well
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- **Source Project**: tellingCube (https://github.com/masemIT/telling-cube) [if public]
+- **Documentation**: `docs/_masemIT/readme.md`
+- **Discussion**: [Link to BMad community discussion if applicable]
+
+---
+
+**Contribution ready for review.** Feedback welcome! 🔥

package-lock.json

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 {
   "name": "bmad-method",
-  "version": "6.0.0-alpha.15",
+  "version": "6.0.0-alpha.16",
   "lockfileVersion": 3,
   "requires": true,
   "packages": {
     "": {
       "name": "bmad-method",
-      "version": "6.0.0-alpha.15",
+      "version": "6.0.0-alpha.16",
       "license": "MIT",
       "dependencies": {
         "@kayvan/markdown-tree-parser": "^1.6.1",

src/modules/bmm/docs/test-architecture.md

@@ -26,14 +26,17 @@ graph TB
     subgraph Phase3["<b>Phase 3: SOLUTIONING</b>"]
         Architecture["<b>Architect: *architecture</b>"]
         EpicsStories["<b>PM/Architect: *create-epics-and-stories</b>"]
+        TestDesignSys["<b>TEA: *test-design (system-level)</b>"]
         Framework["<b>TEA: *framework</b>"]
         CI["<b>TEA: *ci</b>"]
         GateCheck["<b>Architect: *implementation-readiness</b>"]
         Architecture --> EpicsStories
+        Architecture --> TestDesignSys
+        TestDesignSys --> Framework
         EpicsStories --> Framework
         Framework --> CI
         CI --> GateCheck
-        Phase3Note["<b>Epics created AFTER architecture,</b><br/><b>then test infrastructure setup</b>"]
+        Phase3Note["<b>Epics created AFTER architecture,</b><br/><b>then system-level test design and test infrastructure setup</b>"]
         EpicsStories -.-> Phase3Note
     end
 
@@ -93,12 +96,17 @@ graph TB
 - **Documentation** (Optional for brownfield): Prerequisite using `*document-project`
 - **Phase 1** (Optional): Discovery/Analysis (`*brainstorm`, `*research`, `*product-brief`)
 - **Phase 2** (Required): Planning (`*prd` creates PRD with FRs/NFRs)
-- **Phase 3** (Track-dependent): Solutioning (`*architecture` → `*create-epics-and-stories` → TEA: `*framework`, `*ci` → `*implementation-readiness`)
+- **Phase 3** (Track-dependent): Solutioning (`*architecture` → `*test-design` (system-level) → `*create-epics-and-stories` → TEA: `*framework`, `*ci` → `*implementation-readiness`)
 - **Phase 4** (Required): Implementation (`*sprint-planning` → per-epic: `*test-design` → per-story: dev workflows)
 
-**TEA workflows:** `*framework` and `*ci` run once in Phase 3 after architecture. `*test-design` runs per-epic in Phase 4. Output: `test-design-epic-N.md`.
+**TEA workflows:** `*framework` and `*ci` run once in Phase 3 after architecture. `*test-design` is **dual-mode**:
 
-Quick Flow track skips Phase 1 and 3. BMad Method and Enterprise use all phases based on project needs.
+- **System-level (Phase 3):** Run immediately after architecture/ADR drafting to produce `test-design-system.md` (testability review, ADR → test mapping, Architecturally Significant Requirements (ASRs), environment needs). Feeds the implementation-readiness gate.
+- **Epic-level (Phase 4):** Run per-epic to produce `test-design-epic-N.md` (risk, priorities, coverage plan).
+
+Quick Flow track skips Phases 1 and 3.
+BMad Method and Enterprise use all phases based on project needs.
+When an ADR or architecture draft is produced, run `*test-design` in **system-level** mode before the implementation-readiness gate. This ensures the ADR has an attached testability review and ADR → test mapping. Keep the test-design updated if ADRs change.
 
 ### Why TEA is Different from Other BMM Agents
 

src/modules/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/workflow.yaml

@@ -24,8 +24,14 @@ variables:
 
 # Output configuration
 # Note: Actual output file determined dynamically based on mode detection
-# - System-Level (Phase 3): {output_folder}/test-design-system.md
-# - Epic-Level (Phase 4): {output_folder}/test-design-epic-{epic_num}.md
+# Declared outputs for new workflow format
+outputs:
+  - id: system-level
+    description: "System-level testability review (Phase 3)"
+    path: "{output_folder}/test-design-system.md"
+  - id: epic-level
+    description: "Epic-level test plan (Phase 4)"
+    path: "{output_folder}/test-design-epic-{epic_num}.md"
 default_output_file: "{output_folder}/test-design-epic-{epic_num}.md"
 
 # Required tools