fix(quick-dev): improve review trail mention in presentation step

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-analyst/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-analyst
 displayName: Mary
 title: Business Analyst

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-architect/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-architect
 displayName: Winston
 title: Architect

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-dev/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-dev
 displayName: Amelia
 title: Developer Agent

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-pm/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-pm
 displayName: John
 title: Product Manager

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-qa/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-qa
 displayName: Quinn
 title: QA Engineer

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-quick-flow-solo-dev/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-quick-flow-solo-dev
 displayName: Barry
 title: Quick Flow Solo Dev

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-sm/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-sm
 displayName: Bob
 title: Scrum Master

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-tech-writer/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-tech-writer
 displayName: Paige
 title: Technical Writer

src/bmm/agents/bmad-agent-ux-designer/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-type: skill
+type: agent
 name: bmad-agent-ux-designer
 displayName: Sally
 title: UX Designer

src/bmm/agents/bmad-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+analyst.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-analyst
+  type: agent
+  description: "Business Analyst for market research, competitive analysis, and requirements elicitation"
+
+architect.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-architect
+  type: agent
+  description: "Architect for distributed systems, cloud infrastructure, and API design"
+
+dev.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-dev
+  type: agent
+  description: "Developer Agent for story execution, test-driven development, and code implementation"
+
+pm.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-pm
+  type: agent
+  description: "Product Manager for PRD creation, requirements discovery, and stakeholder alignment"
+
+qa.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-qa
+  type: agent
+  description: "QA Engineer for test automation, API testing, and E2E testing"
+
+quick-flow-solo-dev.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-quick-flow-solo-dev
+  type: agent
+  description: "Quick Flow Solo Dev for rapid spec creation and lean implementation"
+
+sm.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-sm
+  type: agent
+  description: "Scrum Master for sprint planning, story preparation, and agile ceremonies"
+
+ux-designer.agent.yaml:
+  canonicalId: bmad-ux-designer
+  type: agent
+  description: "UX Designer for user research, interaction design, and UI patterns"

src/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/bmad-quick-dev-new-preview/step-05-present.md

@@ -10,16 +10,11 @@
 
 ## INSTRUCTIONS
 
-### Generate Suggested Review Order
+### Generate Review Trail
 
-Determine what changed:
+Before committing, append a `## Review Trail` section to `{spec_file}` **after the last existing section**. This is a post-implementation artifact — do not modify the Code Map.
 
-- **Plan-code-review:** Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter and construct the diff of all changes since that commit.
+Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter. Construct the diff of all changes since `{baseline_commit}`. If `{baseline_commit}` is missing or `NO_VCS`, use best-effort analysis of the working tree.
-- **One-shot:** No baseline exists. Use the files you created or modified during implementation.
-
-**Plan-code-review:** Append the review order as a `## Suggested Review Order` section to `{spec_file}` **after the last existing section**. Do not modify the Code Map.
-
-**One-shot:** Display the review order directly in conversation output.
 
 Build the trail as an ordered sequence of **stops** — clickable `path:line` references with brief framing — optimized for a human reviewer reading top-down to understand the change:
 
@@ -27,34 +22,26 @@ Build the trail as an ordered sequence of **stops** — clickable `path:line` re
 2. **Lead with the entry point** — the single highest-leverage file:line a reviewer should look at first to grasp the design intent.
 3. **Inside each concern**, order stops from most important / architecturally interesting to supporting. Lightly bias toward higher-risk or boundary-crossing stops.
 4. **End with peripherals** — tests, config, types, and other supporting changes come last.
-5. **Every code reference is a clickable `vscode://file/` link.** Format each stop as a markdown link: `[short-name:line](vscode://file/absolute/path:line:1)`. Use the file's basename (or shortest unambiguous suffix) as the link text.
+5. **Every code reference uses `path:line` format** so editors auto-link them.
 6. **Each stop gets one ultra-concise line of framing** (≤15 words) — why this approach was chosen here and what it achieves in the context of the change. No paragraphs.
 
-Format each stop as framing first, link on the next indented line:
+Format:
 
 ```markdown
-## Suggested Review Order
+## Review Trail
 
-**{Concern name}**
+### {Concern Name}
+- `path/to/file.ts:42` — {one-line framing}
+- `path/to/other.ts:17` — {one-line framing}
 
-- {one-line framing}
+### {Next Concern}
-  [`file.ts:42`](vscode://file/absolute/path/to/file.ts:42:1)
+- `path/to/file.ts:88` — {one-line framing}
-
-- {one-line framing}
-  [`other.ts:17`](vscode://file/absolute/path/to/other.ts:17:1)
-
-**{Next concern}**
-
-- {one-line framing}
-  [`file.ts:88`](vscode://file/absolute/path/to/file.ts:88:1)
 ```
 
-When there is only one concern, omit the bold label — just list the stops directly.
-
 ### Commit and Present
 
-1. **Plan-code-review:** Change `{spec_file}` status to `done` in the frontmatter.
+1. Change `{spec_file}` status to `done` in the frontmatter.
-2. If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the spec title (plan-code-review) or the intent (one-shot).
+2. If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the spec title.
-3. Display summary of your work to the user, including the commit hash if one was created. Advise on how to review the changes — for plan-code-review, mention that `{spec_file}` now contains a Suggested Review Order. Offer to push and/or create a pull request.
+3. Display summary of your work to the user, including the commit hash if one was created. Advise on how to review the changes — mention that `{spec_file}` now contains a Review Trail with clickable `path:line` stops sequenced by concern for easy top-down navigation. Offer to push and/or create a pull request.
 
 Workflow complete.