Merge 92498ebb52 into 2302d9cdc5

Syncs French translation with commit 1040c3c (fix: correctly resolve
output_folder paths outside project root #2132).

Co-authored-by: Brian <bmadcode@gmail.com>

docs/fr/how-to/non-interactive-installation.md

@@ -37,7 +37,19 @@ Nécessite [Node.js](https://nodejs.org) v20+ et `npx` (inclus avec npm).
 | `--user-name <nom>` | Nom à utiliser par les agents | Nom d'utilisateur système |
 | `--communication-language <langue>` | Langue de communication des agents | Anglais |
 | `--document-output-language <langue>` | Langue de sortie des documents | Anglais |
-| `--output-folder <chemin>` | Chemin du dossier de sortie | _bmad-output |
+| `--output-folder <chemin>` | Chemin du dossier de sortie (voir les règles de résolution ci-dessous) | `_bmad-output` |
+
+#### Résolution du chemin du dossier de sortie
+
+La valeur passée à `--output-folder` (ou saisie de manière interactive) est résolue selon ces règles :
+
+| Type d'entrée                 | Exemple                    | Résolu comme                                                 |
+|-------------------------------|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
+| Chemin relatif (par défaut)   | `_bmad-output`             | `<racine-du-projet>/_bmad-output`                            |
+| Chemin relatif avec traversée | `../../shared-outputs`     | Chemin absolu normalisé — ex. `/Users/me/shared-outputs`     |
+| Chemin absolu                 | `/Users/me/shared-outputs` | Utilisé tel quel — la racine du projet n'est **pas** ajoutée |
+
+Le chemin résolu est ce que les agents et les workflows vont utiliser lors de l'écriture des fichiers de sortie. L'utilisation d'un chemin absolu ou d'un chemin relatif avec traversée vous permet de diriger tous les artefacts générés vers un répertoire en dehors de l'arborescence de votre projet — utile pour les configurations partagées ou les monorepos.
 
 ### Autres options
 
@@ -141,6 +153,7 @@ Les valeurs invalides entraîneront soit :
 
 :::tip[Bonnes pratiques]
 - Utilisez des chemins absolus pour `--directory` pour éviter toute ambiguïté
+- Utilisez un chemin absolu pour `--output-folder` lorsque vous souhaitez que les artefacts soient écrits en dehors de l'arborescence du projet (ex. un répertoire de sorties partagé dans un monorepo)
 - Testez les options localement avant de les utiliser dans des pipelines CI/CD
 - Combinez avec `-y` pour des installations vraiment sans surveillance
 - Utilisez `--debug` si vous rencontrez des problèmes lors de l'installation

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-01-clarify-and-route.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 wipFile: '{implementation_artifacts}/spec-wip.md'
 deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md'
-spec_file: '' # set at runtime for plan-code-review before leaving this step
+spec_file: '' # set at runtime for both routes before leaving this step
 ---
 
 # Step 1: Clarify and Route
@@ -52,11 +52,13 @@ Never ask extra questions if you already understand what the user intends.
    - On **K**: Proceed as-is.
 5. Route — choose exactly one:
 
+   Derive a valid kebab-case slug from the clarified intent. If the intent references a tracking identifier (story number, issue number, ticket ID), lead the slug with it (e.g. `3-2-digest-delivery`, `gh-47-fix-auth`). If `{implementation_artifacts}/spec-{slug}.md` already exists, append `-2`, `-3`, etc. Set `spec_file` = `{implementation_artifacts}/spec-{slug}.md`.
+
    **a) One-shot** — zero blast radius: no plausible path by which this change causes unintended consequences elsewhere. Clear intent, no architectural decisions.
+
    **EARLY EXIT** → `./step-oneshot.md`
 
    **b) Plan-code-review** — everything else. When uncertain whether blast radius is truly zero, choose this path.
-   1. Derive a valid kebab-case slug from the clarified intent. If the intent references a tracking identifier (story number, issue number, ticket ID), lead the slug with it (e.g. `3-2-digest-delivery`, `gh-47-fix-auth`). If `{implementation_artifacts}/spec-{slug}.md` already exists, append `-2`, `-3`, etc. Set `spec_file` = `{implementation_artifacts}/spec-{slug}.md`.
 
 
 ## NEXT

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-oneshot.md

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ---
 deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md'
+spec_file: '' # set by step-01 before entering this step
 ---
 
 # Step One-Shot: Implement, Review, Present
@@ -29,19 +30,31 @@ Deduplicate all review findings. Three categories only:
 
 If a finding is caused by this change but too significant for a trivial patch, HALT and present it to the human for decision before proceeding.
 
+### Generate Spec Trace
+
+Set `{title}` = a concise title derived from the clarified intent.
+
+Write `{spec_file}` using `./spec-template.md`. Fill only these sections — delete all others:
+
+1. **Frontmatter** — set `title: '{title}'`, `type`, `created`, `status: 'done'`. Add `route: 'one-shot'`.
+2. **Title and Intent** — `# {title}` heading and `## Intent` with **Problem** and **Approach** lines. Reuse the summary you already generated for the terminal.
+3. **Suggested Review Order** — append after Intent. Build using the same convention as `./step-05-present.md` § "Generate Suggested Review Order" (spec-file-relative links, concern-based ordering, ultra-concise framing).
+
 ### Commit
 
 If version control is available and the tree is dirty, create a local commit with a conventional message derived from the intent. If VCS is unavailable, skip.
 
 ### Present
 
-1. Open all changed files in the user's editor so they can review the code directly:
+1. Open the spec in the user's editor so they can click through the Suggested Review Order:
-   - Resolve two sets of absolute paths: (1) the repository root (`git rev-parse --show-toplevel` — returns the worktree root when in a worktree, project root otherwise; if this fails, fall back to the current working directory), (2) each changed file. Run `code -r "{absolute-root}" <absolute-changed-file-paths>` — the root first so VS Code opens in the right context, then each changed file. Always double-quote paths to handle spaces and special characters.
+   - Resolve two absolute paths: (1) the repository root (`git rev-parse --show-toplevel` — returns the worktree root when in a worktree, project root otherwise; if this fails, fall back to the current working directory), (2) `{spec_file}`. Run `code -r "{absolute-root}" "{absolute-spec-file}"` — the root first so VS Code opens in the right context, then the spec file. Always double-quote paths to handle spaces and special characters.
-   - If `code` is not available (command fails), skip gracefully and list the file paths instead.
+   - If `code` is not available (command fails), skip gracefully and tell the user the spec file path instead.
 2. Display a summary in conversation output, including:
    - The commit hash (if one was created).
-   - List of files changed with one-line descriptions. Use CWD-relative paths with `:line` notation (e.g., `src/path/file.ts:42`) for terminal clickability. No leading `/`.
+   - List of files changed with one-line descriptions. Any file paths shown in conversation/terminal output must use CWD-relative format (no leading `/`) with `:line` notation (e.g., `src/path/file.ts:42`) for terminal clickability — this differs from spec-file links which use spec-file-relative paths.
    - Review findings breakdown: patches applied, items deferred, items rejected. If all findings were rejected, say so.
+   - A note that the spec is open in their editor (or the file path if it couldn't be opened). Mention that `{spec_file}` now contains a Suggested Review Order.
+   - **Navigation tip:** "Ctrl+click (Cmd+click on macOS) the links in the Suggested Review Order to jump to each stop."
 3. Offer to push and/or create a pull request.
 
 HALT and wait for human input.

src/core-skills/bmad-advanced-elicitation/methods.csv

@@ -1,51 +1,70 @@
 num,category,method_name,description,output_pattern
-1,collaboration,Stakeholder Round Table,Convene multiple personas to contribute diverse perspectives - essential for requirements gathering and finding balanced solutions across competing interests,perspectives → synthesis → alignment
+1,advanced,Tree of Thoughts,Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously then evaluate and select the best - perfect for complex problems with multiple valid approaches,paths → evaluation → selection
-2,collaboration,Expert Panel Review,Assemble domain experts for deep specialized analysis - ideal when technical depth and peer review quality are needed,expert views → consensus → recommendations
+2,advanced,Graph of Thoughts,Model reasoning as an interconnected network of ideas to reveal hidden relationships - ideal for systems thinking and discovering emergent patterns,nodes → connections → patterns
-3,collaboration,Debate Club Showdown,Two personas argue opposing positions while a moderator scores points - great for exploring controversial decisions and finding middle ground,thesis → antithesis → synthesis
+3,advanced,Thread of Thought,Maintain coherent reasoning across long contexts by weaving a continuous narrative thread - essential for RAG systems and maintaining consistency,context → thread → synthesis
-4,collaboration,User Persona Focus Group,Gather your product's user personas to react to proposals and share frustrations - essential for validating features and discovering unmet needs,reactions → concerns → priorities
+4,advanced,Self-Consistency Validation,Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters,approaches → comparison → consensus
-5,collaboration,Time Traveler Council,Past-you and future-you advise present-you on decisions - powerful for gaining perspective on long-term consequences vs short-term pressures,past wisdom → present choice → future impact
+5,advanced,Meta-Prompting Analysis,Step back to analyze the approach structure and methodology itself - valuable for optimizing prompts and improving problem-solving,current → analysis → optimization
-6,collaboration,Cross-Functional War Room,Product manager + engineer + designer tackle a problem together - reveals trade-offs between feasibility desirability and viability,constraints → trade-offs → balanced solution
+6,advanced,Reasoning via Planning,Build a reasoning tree guided by world models and goal states - excellent for strategic planning and sequential decision-making,model → planning → strategy
-7,collaboration,Mentor and Apprentice,Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching,explanation → questions → deeper understanding
+7,advanced,Chain-of-Thought Scaffolding,Force explicit intermediate reasoning steps before any conclusion — prevents intuitive leaps that skip flawed logic,premise → step → step → conclusion
-8,collaboration,Good Cop Bad Cop,Supportive persona and critical persona alternate - finds both strengths to build on and weaknesses to address,encouragement → criticism → balanced view
+8,advanced,Few-Shot Exemplar Priming,Provide 2-3 worked examples of the desired reasoning pattern before the real task — aligns output format and depth through demonstration,examples → pattern recognition → application
-9,collaboration,Improv Yes-And,Multiple personas build on each other's ideas without blocking - generates unexpected creative directions through collaborative building,idea → build → build → surprising result
+9,collaboration,Stakeholder Round Table,Convene multiple personas to contribute diverse perspectives - essential for requirements gathering and finding balanced solutions across competing interests,perspectives → synthesis → alignment
-10,collaboration,Customer Support Theater,Angry customer and support rep roleplay to find pain points - reveals real user frustrations and service gaps,complaint → investigation → resolution → prevention
+10,collaboration,Expert Panel Review,Assemble domain experts for deep specialized analysis - ideal when technical depth and peer review quality are needed,expert views → consensus → recommendations
-11,advanced,Tree of Thoughts,Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously then evaluate and select the best - perfect for complex problems with multiple valid approaches,paths → evaluation → selection
+11,collaboration,Debate Club Showdown,Two personas argue opposing positions while a moderator scores points - great for exploring controversial decisions and finding middle ground,thesis → antithesis → synthesis
-12,advanced,Graph of Thoughts,Model reasoning as an interconnected network of ideas to reveal hidden relationships - ideal for systems thinking and discovering emergent patterns,nodes → connections → patterns
+12,collaboration,User Persona Focus Group,Gather your product's user personas to react to proposals and share frustrations - essential for validating features and discovering unmet needs,reactions → concerns → priorities
-13,advanced,Thread of Thought,Maintain coherent reasoning across long contexts by weaving a continuous narrative thread - essential for RAG systems and maintaining consistency,context → thread → synthesis
+13,collaboration,Time Traveler Council,Past-you and future-you advise present-you on decisions - powerful for gaining perspective on long-term consequences vs short-term pressures,past wisdom → present choice → future impact
-14,advanced,Self-Consistency Validation,Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters,approaches → comparison → consensus
+14,collaboration,Cross-Functional War Room,Product manager + engineer + designer tackle a problem together - reveals trade-offs between feasibility desirability and viability,constraints → trade-offs → balanced solution
-15,advanced,Meta-Prompting Analysis,Step back to analyze the approach structure and methodology itself - valuable for optimizing prompts and improving problem-solving,current → analysis → optimization
+15,collaboration,Mentor and Apprentice,Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching,explanation → questions → deeper understanding
-16,advanced,Reasoning via Planning,Build a reasoning tree guided by world models and goal states - excellent for strategic planning and sequential decision-making,model → planning → strategy
+16,collaboration,Good Cop Bad Cop,Supportive persona and critical persona alternate - finds both strengths to build on and weaknesses to address,encouragement → criticism → balanced view
-17,competitive,Red Team vs Blue Team,Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions,defense → attack → hardening
+17,collaboration,Improv Yes-And,Multiple personas build on each other's ideas without blocking - generates unexpected creative directions through collaborative building,idea → build → build → surprising result
-18,competitive,Shark Tank Pitch,Entrepreneur pitches to skeptical investors who poke holes - stress-tests business viability and forces clarity on value proposition,pitch → challenges → refinement
+18,collaboration,Customer Support Theater,Angry customer and support rep roleplay to find pain points - reveals real user frustrations and service gaps,complaint → investigation → resolution → prevention
-19,competitive,Code Review Gauntlet,Senior devs with different philosophies review the same code - surfaces style debates and finds consensus on best practices,reviews → debates → standards
+19,collaboration,Six Thinking Hats,Rotate through six modes (facts - feelings - caution - optimism - creativity - process) to ensure a group covers every angle without crosstalk,white → red → black → yellow → green → blue
-20,technical,Architecture Decision Records,Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented,options → trade-offs → decision → rationale
+20,collaboration,Delphi Method,Experts give independent estimates - see anonymized results - then revise — converges on calibrated group judgment while avoiding anchoring bias,independent estimates → reveal → revise → converge
-21,technical,Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved,Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels,simple → detailed → technical → aha
+21,competitive,Red Team vs Blue Team,Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions,defense → attack → hardening
-22,technical,Algorithm Olympics,Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison,implementations → benchmarks → winner
+22,competitive,Shark Tank Pitch,Entrepreneur pitches to skeptical investors who poke holes - stress-tests business viability and forces clarity on value proposition,pitch → challenges → refinement
-23,technical,Security Audit Personas,Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles,vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
+23,competitive,Code Review Gauntlet,Senior devs with different philosophies review the same code - surfaces style debates and finds consensus on best practices,reviews → debates → standards
-24,technical,Performance Profiler Panel,Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack,symptoms → analysis → optimizations
+24,core,First Principles Analysis,Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems,assumptions → truths → new approach
-25,creative,SCAMPER Method,Apply seven creativity lenses (Substitute/Combine/Adapt/Modify/Put/Eliminate/Reverse) - systematic ideation for product innovation,S→C→A→M→P→E→R
+25,core,5 Whys Deep Dive,Repeatedly ask why to drill down to root causes - simple but powerful for understanding failures,why chain → root cause → solution
-26,creative,Reverse Engineering,Work backwards from desired outcome to find implementation path - powerful for goal achievement and understanding endpoints,end state → steps backward → path forward
+26,core,Socratic Questioning,Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery,questions → revelations → understanding
-27,creative,What If Scenarios,Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration,scenarios → implications → insights
+27,core,Critique and Refine,Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts,strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined
-28,creative,Random Input Stimulus,Inject unrelated concepts to spark unexpected connections - breaks creative blocks through forced lateral thinking,random word → associations → novel ideas
+28,core,Explain Reasoning,Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency,steps → logic → conclusion
-29,creative,Exquisite Corpse Brainstorm,Each persona adds to the idea seeing only the previous contribution - generates surprising combinations through constrained collaboration,contribution → handoff → contribution → surprise
+29,core,Expand or Contract for Audience,Dynamically adjust detail level and technical depth for target audience - matches content to reader capabilities,audience → adjustments → refined content
-30,creative,Genre Mashup,Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination,domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
+30,core,Second-Order Thinking,Think beyond immediate consequences to anticipate cascading effects and long-term implications - essential for strategic decisions where first-order solutions create hidden downstream problems,action → consequences → second-order effects → informed choice
-31,research,Literature Review Personas,Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality,sources → critiques → synthesis
+31,core,Inversion Analysis,Flip the problem by asking what would guarantee failure instead of how to succeed - reveals hidden obstacles and blind spots by approaching challenges from the opposite direction,goal → invert → failure paths → avoidance → solution
-32,research,Thesis Defense Simulation,Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions,thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
+32,core,Problem Decomposition,Break a complex problem into independent sub-problems - solve each - then reassemble — essential when a task is too large or tangled to tackle whole,whole → parts → solutions → reassembly
-33,research,Comparative Analysis Matrix,Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring,options → criteria → scores → recommendation
+33,core,Analogy Mapping,Find a well-understood parallel domain and transfer its structure to the current problem — unlocks insight by borrowing proven mental models,source domain → mapping → target insight
-34,risk,Pre-mortem Analysis,Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches,failure scenario → causes → prevention
+34,core,Steelmanning,Construct the strongest possible version of an opposing argument before responding — builds credibility and catches blind spots that strawmanning misses,opposing view → strongest form → honest rebuttal
-35,risk,Failure Mode Analysis,Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems,components → failures → prevention
+35,creative,SCAMPER Method,Apply seven creativity lenses (Substitute/Combine/Adapt/Modify/Put/Eliminate/Reverse) - systematic ideation for product innovation,S→C→A→M→P→E→R
-36,risk,Challenge from Critical Perspective,Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink,assumptions → challenges → strengthening
+36,creative,Reverse Engineering,Work backwards from desired outcome to find implementation path - powerful for goal achievement and understanding endpoints,end state → steps backward → path forward
-37,risk,Identify Potential Risks,Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation,categories → risks → mitigations
+37,creative,What If Scenarios,Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration,scenarios → implications → insights
-38,risk,Chaos Monkey Scenarios,Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully,break → observe → harden
+38,creative,Random Input Stimulus,Inject unrelated concepts to spark unexpected connections - breaks creative blocks through forced lateral thinking,random word → associations → novel ideas
-39,core,First Principles Analysis,Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems,assumptions → truths → new approach
+39,creative,Exquisite Corpse Brainstorm,Each persona adds to the idea seeing only the previous contribution - generates surprising combinations through constrained collaboration,contribution → handoff → contribution → surprise
-40,core,5 Whys Deep Dive,Repeatedly ask why to drill down to root causes - simple but powerful for understanding failures,why chain → root cause → solution
+40,creative,Genre Mashup,Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination,domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
-41,core,Socratic Questioning,Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery,questions → revelations → understanding
+41,creative,Constraint Injection,Deliberately add an artificial limitation (budget - time - technology) to force novel solutions — creativity thrives under pressure,add constraint → forced creativity → remove constraint → evaluate
-42,core,Critique and Refine,Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts,strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined
+42,creative,Morphological Analysis,List independent parameters of a problem - enumerate options for each - then systematically combine — ensures you don't miss non-obvious configurations,parameters → options grid → combinations → evaluation
-43,core,Explain Reasoning,Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency,steps → logic → conclusion
+43,framing,Abstraction Laddering,"Move up (""why?"") for strategic clarity or down (""how?"") for tactical detail — ensures you're solving at the right altitude",concrete ↔ abstract → right level
-44,core,Expand or Contract for Audience,Dynamically adjust detail level and technical depth for target audience - matches content to reader capabilities,audience → adjustments → refined content
+44,framing,Reframe the Question,Challenge whether the stated problem is the real problem — often the question itself is wrong and a better framing unlocks an easy answer,stated problem → reframe → true problem → solution
-45,learning,Feynman Technique,Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding,complex → simple → gaps → mastery
+45,framing,Stakeholder Lens Rotation,Serially adopt each stakeholder's world-view to see the same situation differently — reveals whose needs are being overlooked,perspective A → B → C → gaps found
-46,learning,Active Recall Testing,Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps,test → gaps → reinforcement
+46,learning,Feynman Technique,Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding,complex → simple → gaps → mastery
-47,philosophical,Occam's Razor Application,Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging,options → simplification → selection
+47,learning,Active Recall Testing,Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps,test → gaps → reinforcement
-48,philosophical,Trolley Problem Variations,Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions,dilemma → analysis → decision
+48,learning,Deliberate Practice Loop,Identify a specific sub-skill - drill it with immediate feedback - adjust - repeat — targeted improvement beats general repetition,isolate → drill → feedback → adjust → repeat
-49,retrospective,Hindsight Reflection,Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews,future view → insights → application
+49,philosophical,Occam's Razor Application,Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging,options → simplification → selection
-50,retrospective,Lessons Learned Extraction,Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement,experience → lessons → actions
+50,philosophical,Trolley Problem Variations,Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions,dilemma → analysis → decision
+51,research,Literature Review Personas,Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality,sources → critiques → synthesis
+52,research,Thesis Defense Simulation,Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions,thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
+53,research,Comparative Analysis Matrix,Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring,options → criteria → scores → recommendation
+54,research,Source Triangulation,Require at least three independent source types (quantitative - qualitative - expert) before accepting a claim — guards against single-source bias,claim → source A → source B → source C → confidence rating
+55,retrospective,Hindsight Reflection,Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews,future view → insights → application
+56,retrospective,Lessons Learned Extraction,Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement,experience → lessons → actions
+57,risk,Pre-mortem Analysis,Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches,failure scenario → causes → prevention
+58,risk,Failure Mode Analysis,Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems,components → failures → prevention
+59,risk,Challenge from Critical Perspective,Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink,assumptions → challenges → strengthening
+60,risk,Identify Potential Risks,Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation,categories → risks → mitigations
+61,risk,Chaos Monkey Scenarios,Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully,break → observe → harden
+62,risk,Assumption Audit,Explicitly list every assumption underlying a plan - rate each by confidence and impact - then stress-test the weakest — prevents building on shaky foundations,list → rate → stress-test → shore up
+63,risk,Cascading Failure Simulation,Trace how one component's failure propagates through dependencies — reveals hidden coupling and single points of failure,trigger failure → trace propagation → find amplifiers → decouple
+64,technical,Architecture Decision Records,Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented,options → trade-offs → decision → rationale
+65,technical,Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved,Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels,simple → detailed → technical → aha
+66,technical,Algorithm Olympics,Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison,implementations → benchmarks → winner
+67,technical,Security Audit Personas,Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles,vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
+68,technical,Performance Profiler Panel,Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack,symptoms → analysis → optimizations
+69,technical,Boundary & Edge Case Sweep,Systematically test extremes - zeros - nulls - maximums - and type mismatches — catches the failures that happy-path thinking always misses,inputs → boundaries → edge cases → failures found

src/core-skills/bmad-party-mode/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: 'Orchestrates group discussions between installed BMAD agents, enab
 
 # Party Mode
 
-Facilitate roundtable discussions where BMAD agents participate as **real subagents** — each spawned independently via the Agent tool so they think for themselves. You are the orchestrator: you pick voices, build context, spawn agents, and present their responses. You never generate agent responses yourself.
+Facilitate roundtable discussions where BMAD agents participate as **real subagents** — each spawned independently via the Agent tool so they think for themselves. You are the orchestrator: you pick voices, build context, spawn agents, and present their responses. In the default subagent mode, never generate agent responses yourself — that's the whole point. In `--solo` mode, you roleplay all agents directly.
 
 ## Why This Matters
 
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Party mode accepts optional arguments when invoked:
 
 1. **Parse arguments** — check for `--model` and `--solo` flags from the user's invocation.
 
-2. Load config from `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` and resolve:
+2. Load config from `{project-root}/_bmad/core/config.yaml` and resolve:
   - Use `{user_name}` for greeting
   - Use `{communication_language}` for all communications
 
@@ -88,9 +88,11 @@ You are {displayName} ({title}), a BMAD agent in a collaborative roundtable disc
 
 ### 3. Present Responses
 
-Collect all agent responses and present them to the user as-is. Don't summarize, edit, or reorder them. If an agent's response is particularly brief or says they have nothing to add, that's fine — include it anyway so the user sees the full picture.
+Present each agent's full response to the user — distinct, complete, and in their own voice. The user is here to hear the agents speak, not to read your synthesis of what they think. Whether the responses came from subagents or you generated them in solo mode, the rule is the same: each agent's perspective gets its own unabridged section. Never blend, paraphrase, or condense agent responses into a summary.
 
-After presenting, you can optionally add a brief orchestrator note if it would help — like flagging a clear disagreement worth exploring, or noting an agent whose perspective might be relevant but wasn't included this round.
+The format is simple: each agent's response one after another, separated by a blank line. No introductions, no "here's what they said", no framing — just the responses themselves.
+
+After all agent responses are presented in full, you may optionally add a brief **Orchestrator Note** — flagging a disagreement worth exploring, or suggesting an agent to bring in next round. Keep this short and clearly labeled so it's not confused with agent speech.
 
 ### 4. Handle Follow-ups