# Investigation Plan for PR #826

**Date:** 2025-10-28  
**PR:** #826 - Feature/enhanced product planning  
**Branch:** main (target)  
**Type:** Documentation addition

---

## Executive Summary

PR #826 proposes adding a single documentation file (`high-level-product-plan.md`) to the repository root. Unlike PR #821, this is a straightforward documentation addition with no code changes, no architectural divergence, and no schema conflicts.

**Key Characteristics:**

- Single file addition (147 lines)
- Pure markdown documentation
- Generic product planning checklist
- No dependencies on existing BMAD structure
- No code or configuration changes

---

## Potential Issues to Investigate

### 1. **Placement & Organization** (High Priority)

- **Question:** Should a generic product planning guide live at repository root?
- **Concern:** Repository root is typically reserved for core project files (README, LICENSE, CONTRIBUTING, etc.)
- **Alternative locations:**
  - `docs/planning/` or `docs/guides/`
  - `docs/product-planning.md`
  - As part of existing workflow/template documentation

### 2. **Relevance to BMAD Method** (Medium Priority)

- **Question:** How does this generic checklist relate to BMAD's AI-driven agile methodology?
- **Concern:** Content is generic (could apply to any software project), not BMAD-specific
- **Considerations:**
  - Does it integrate with existing BMAD workflows?
  - Should it reference BMAD agents, modules, or CLI?
  - Could it be enhanced to leverage BMAD's unique value?

### 3. **Duplication & Overlap** (Medium Priority)

- **Question:** Does existing BMAD documentation already cover these topics?
- **Check against:**
  - `PRD.md` - Product Requirements Document
  - `docs/` directory contents
  - Existing module documentation
  - Workflow templates

### 4. **Completeness & Quality** (Low Priority)

- **Question:** Is the content complete, accurate, and well-structured?
- **Review:**
  - Markdown formatting and lint compliance
  - Content accuracy and best practices
  - Missing sections or considerations
  - Links and references

### 5. **Naming & Conventions** (Low Priority)

- **Question:** Does filename follow repository conventions?
- **Check:**
  - Kebab-case vs other conventions in root
  - Descriptive vs generic naming
  - Consistency with existing doc files

---

## Investigation Phases

### Phase 1: Context & Placement Review (1-2 hours)

- Survey repository root files and identify patterns
- Review `docs/` directory structure
- Check existing planning/workflow documentation
- Determine ideal location for this type of content

### Phase 2: Content Analysis (1-2 hours)

- Compare with existing BMAD documentation
- Identify overlaps or gaps
- Assess BMAD-specific applicability
- Evaluate content quality and accuracy

### Phase 3: Integration Assessment (1 hour)

- Determine how this fits with BMAD workflows
- Identify opportunities to link to BMAD agents/modules
- Consider whether content should be BMAD-enhanced

### Phase 4: Recommendation & Fix (1 hour)

- Accept as-is, relocate, or request enhancements
- Prepare suggested changes if needed
- Draft PR comment with feedback

---

## Decision Framework

### Scenario A: Accept with Relocation

**If:** Content is valuable but misplaced  
**Action:** Suggest moving to `docs/planning/product-planning.md` or similar  
**Effort:** Minimal (path change in PR)

### Scenario B: Accept with Enhancements

**If:** Content is good but could be BMAD-specific  
**Action:** Suggest BMAD integration opportunities (link to agents, CLI, workflows)  
**Effort:** Low to Medium (content additions)

### Scenario C: Accept as Documentation Reference

**If:** Content is useful generic reference  
**Action:** Accept but recommend clear positioning as "general reference" vs "BMAD method"  
**Effort:** Minimal (clarifying note)

### Scenario D: Decline Politely

**If:** Content duplicates existing docs or doesn't fit BMAD scope  
**Action:** Thank contributor, explain rationale, suggest alternatives  
**Effort:** Minimal (polite rejection)

---

## Timeline Estimate

- **Phase 1 (Context):** 1-2 hours
- **Phase 2 (Content):** 1-2 hours
- **Phase 3 (Integration):** 1 hour
- **Phase 4 (Recommendation):** 1 hour

**Total:** 4-6 hours (significantly lighter than PR #821)

---

## Success Criteria

1. ✅ Clear understanding of where this content fits in BMAD
2. ✅ Identification of any overlaps with existing docs
3. ✅ Recommendation on placement/enhancement/acceptance
4. ✅ Constructive feedback prepared for contributor
5. ✅ Decision aligned with BMAD's documentation strategy

---

## Key Differences from PR #821

| Aspect      | PR #821                  | PR #826                   |
| ----------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------- |
| Type        | Code + structure         | Documentation only        |
| Complexity  | 152 files, 27K lines     | 1 file, 147 lines         |
| Integration | Architectural divergence | Simple placement question |
| Risk        | High (dual systems)      | Low (doc addition)        |
| Effort      | 22-34 hours              | 4-6 hours                 |

This is a straightforward documentation review, not a deep architectural investigation.