Output:
> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0

  Total:  52
  Passed: 52
  Failed: 0
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

✨ All tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:refs
> node test/test-file-refs-csv.js

CSV File Reference Extraction Tests

Valid fixtures
  ✓ bmm-style.csv: extracts workflow-file refs with trailing commas
  ✓ core-style.csv: extracts refs from core module-help format
  ✓ minimal.csv: extracts refs from minimal 3-column CSV

Invalid fixtures (expect 0 refs)
  ✓ no-workflow-column.csv: returns 0 refs when workflow-file column missing
  ✓ empty-data.csv: returns 0 refs when CSV has header only
  ✓ all-empty-workflow.csv: returns 0 refs when all workflow-file cells empty
  ✓ unresolvable-vars.csv: filters out template variables, keeps normal refs

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Test Results:
  Total:  7
  Passed: 7
  Failed: 0
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

All tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:install
> node test/test-installation-components.js

========================================
Installation Component Tests
========================================

Test Suite 1: Agent Compilation

✓ Agent compilation returns result object with outputPath
✓ Compiled agent contains <agent> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <persona> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <menu> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains agent title

Test Suite 2: Customization Merging

✓ Deep merge overrides customized name
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden title
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden role
✓ Deep merge overrides customized style

Test Suite 3: Path Variable Resolution

✓ Path variable resolution pattern matches expected format

Test Suite 5: QA Agent Compilation

✓ QA agent compilation includes agent title
✓ QA agent menu includes automate workflow

========================================
Test Results:
  Passed: 12
  Failed: 0
========================================

✨ All installation component tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 validate:schemas
> node tools/validate-agent-schema.js

🔍 Scanning for agent files...

Found 10 agent file(s)

✅ src/core/agents/bmad-master.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/ux-designer.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/sm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/quick-flow-solo-dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/qa.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/architect.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/analyst.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml

✨ All 10 agent file(s) passed validation!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0


Output:
> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0


Output:
> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0


Output:
markdownlint-cli2 v0.19.1 (markdownlint v0.39.0)
Finding: **/*.md !**/node_modules/** !test/fixtures/** !CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md !_bmad/** !_bmad*/** !_experiment/** !.agent/** !.claude/** !.roo/** !.codex/** !.kiro/** !sample-project/** !test-project-install/** !z*/**
Linting: 316 file(s)

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:refs
> node test/test-file-refs-csv.js

CSV File Reference Extraction Tests

Valid fixtures
  ✓ bmm-style.csv: extracts workflow-file refs with trailing commas
  ✓ core-style.csv: extracts refs from core module-help format
  ✓ minimal.csv: extracts refs from minimal 3-column CSV

Invalid fixtures (expect 0 refs)
  ✓ no-workflow-column.csv: returns 0 refs when workflow-file column missing
  ✓ empty-data.csv: returns 0 refs when CSV has header only
  ✓ all-empty-workflow.csv: returns 0 refs when all workflow-file cells empty
  ✓ unresolvable-vars.csv: filters out template variables, keeps normal refs

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Test Results:
  Total:  7
  Passed: 7
  Failed: 0
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

All tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:install
> node test/test-installation-components.js

========================================
Installation Component Tests
========================================

Test Suite 1: Agent Compilation

✓ Agent compilation returns result object with outputPath
✓ Compiled agent contains <agent> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <persona> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <menu> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains agent title

Test Suite 2: Customization Merging

✓ Deep merge overrides customized name
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden title
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden role
✓ Deep merge overrides customized style

Test Suite 3: Path Variable Resolution

✓ Path variable resolution pattern matches expected format

Test Suite 5: QA Agent Compilation

✓ QA agent compilation includes agent title
✓ QA agent menu includes automate workflow

========================================
Test Results:
  Passed: 12
  Failed: 0
========================================

✨ All installation component tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 validate:schemas
> node tools/validate-agent-schema.js

🔍 Scanning for agent files...

Found 10 agent file(s)

✅ src/core/agents/bmad-master.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/ux-designer.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/sm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/quick-flow-solo-dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/qa.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/architect.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/analyst.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml

✨ All 10 agent file(s) passed validation!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint:md
> markdownlint-cli2 "**/*.md"

markdownlint-cli2 v0.19.1 (markdownlint v0.39.0)
Finding: **/*.md !**/node_modules/** !test/fixtures/** !CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md !_bmad/** !_bmad*/** !_experiment/** !.agent/** !.claude/** !.roo/** !.codex/** !.kiro/** !sample-project/** !test-project-install/** !z*/**
Linting: 316 file(s)


Output:
> bmad-method@6.0.1 format:check
> prettier --check "**/*.{js,cjs,mjs,json,yaml}"

CSV File Reference Extraction Tests

Valid fixtures
  ✓ bmm-style.csv: extracts workflow-file refs with trailing commas
  ✓ core-style.csv: extracts refs from core module-help format
  ✓ minimal.csv: extracts refs from minimal 3-column CSV

Invalid fixtures (expect 0 refs)
  ✓ no-workflow-column.csv: returns 0 refs when workflow-file column missing
  ✓ empty-data.csv: returns 0 refs when CSV has header only
  ✓ all-empty-workflow.csv: returns 0 refs when all workflow-file cells empty
  ✓ unresolvable-vars.csv: filters out template variables, keeps normal refs

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Test Results:
  Total:  7
  Passed: 7
  Failed: 0
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

All tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:install
> node test/test-installation-components.js

========================================
Installation Component Tests
========================================

Test Suite 1: Agent Compilation

✓ Agent compilation returns result object with outputPath
✓ Compiled agent contains <agent> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <persona> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <menu> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains agent title

Test Suite 2: Customization Merging

✓ Deep merge overrides customized name
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden title
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden role
✓ Deep merge overrides customized style

Test Suite 3: Path Variable Resolution

✓ Path variable resolution pattern matches expected format

Test Suite 5: QA Agent Compilation

✓ QA agent compilation includes agent title
✓ QA agent menu includes automate workflow

========================================
Test Results:
  Passed: 12
  Failed: 0
========================================

✨ All installation component tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 validate:schemas
> node tools/validate-agent-schema.js

🔍 Scanning for agent files...

Found 10 agent file(s)

✅ src/core/agents/bmad-master.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/ux-designer.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/sm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/quick-flow-solo-dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/qa.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/architect.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/analyst.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml

✨ All 10 agent file(s) passed validation!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint:md
> markdownlint-cli2 "**/*.md"

markdownlint-cli2 v0.19.1 (markdownlint v0.39.0)
Finding: **/*.md !**/node_modules/** !test/fixtures/** !CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md !_bmad/** !_bmad*/** !_experiment/** !.agent/** !.claude/** !.roo/** !.codex/** !.kiro/** !sample-project/** !test-project-install/** !z*/**
Linting: 316 file(s)
Summary: 0 error(s)

> bmad-method@6.0.1 format:check
> prettier --check "**/*.{js,cjs,mjs,json,yaml}"


Output:
> bmad-method@6.0.1 format:check
> prettier --check "**/*.{js,cjs,mjs,json,yaml}"

Checking formatting...

Valid fixtures
  ✓ bmm-style.csv: extracts workflow-file refs with trailing commas
  ✓ core-style.csv: extracts refs from core module-help format
  ✓ minimal.csv: extracts refs from minimal 3-column CSV

Invalid fixtures (expect 0 refs)
  ✓ no-workflow-column.csv: returns 0 refs when workflow-file column missing
  ✓ empty-data.csv: returns 0 refs when CSV has header only
  ✓ all-empty-workflow.csv: returns 0 refs when all workflow-file cells empty
  ✓ unresolvable-vars.csv: filters out template variables, keeps normal refs

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Test Results:
  Total:  7
  Passed: 7
  Failed: 0
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

All tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:install
> node test/test-installation-components.js

========================================
Installation Component Tests
========================================

Test Suite 1: Agent Compilation

✓ Agent compilation returns result object with outputPath
✓ Compiled agent contains <agent> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <persona> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <menu> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains agent title

Test Suite 2: Customization Merging

✓ Deep merge overrides customized name
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden title
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden role
✓ Deep merge overrides customized style

Test Suite 3: Path Variable Resolution

✓ Path variable resolution pattern matches expected format

Test Suite 5: QA Agent Compilation

✓ QA agent compilation includes agent title
✓ QA agent menu includes automate workflow

========================================
Test Results:
  Passed: 12
  Failed: 0
========================================

✨ All installation component tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 validate:schemas
> node tools/validate-agent-schema.js

🔍 Scanning for agent files...

Found 10 agent file(s)

✅ src/core/agents/bmad-master.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/ux-designer.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/sm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/quick-flow-solo-dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/qa.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/architect.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/analyst.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml

✨ All 10 agent file(s) passed validation!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint:md
> markdownlint-cli2 "**/*.md"

markdownlint-cli2 v0.19.1 (markdownlint v0.39.0)
Finding: **/*.md !**/node_modules/** !test/fixtures/** !CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md !_bmad/** !_bmad*/** !_experiment/** !.agent/** !.claude/** !.roo/** !.codex/** !.kiro/** !sample-project/** !test-project-install/** !z*/**
Linting: 316 file(s)
Summary: 0 error(s)

> bmad-method@6.0.1 format:check
> prettier --check "**/*.{js,cjs,mjs,json,yaml}"

Checking formatting...


[STARTED] Backing up original state...
[COMPLETED] Backed up original state in git stash (c1917518)
[STARTED] Running tasks for staged files...
[STARTED] package.json — 4 files
[STARTED] *.{js,cjs,mjs} — 0 files
[STARTED] *.yaml — 0 files
[STARTED] *.json — 0 files
[STARTED] *.md — 3 files
[SKIPPED] *.{js,cjs,mjs} — no files
[SKIPPED] *.yaml — no files
[SKIPPED] *.json — no files
[STARTED] markdownlint-cli2
[COMPLETED] markdownlint-cli2
[COMPLETED] *.md — 3 files
[COMPLETED] package.json — 4 files
[COMPLETED] Running tasks for staged files...
[STARTED] Applying modifications from tasks...
[COMPLETED] Applying modifications from tasks...
[STARTED] Cleaning up temporary files...
[COMPLETED] Cleaning up temporary files...

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test
> npm run test:schemas && npm run test:refs && npm run test:install && npm run validate:schemas && npm run lint && npm run lint:md && npm run format:check

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:schemas
> node test/test-agent-schema.js

╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║  Agent Schema Validation Test Suite                      ║
╚═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Found 52 test fixture(s)

❌ CRITICAL ACTIONS (invalid)
  ✓ empty-string-in-actions Got expected error (custom): agent.critical_actions[] must be a non-empty string
  ✓ actions-as-string Got expected error (invalid_type): Expected array, received string

❌ MENU (invalid)
  ✓ missing-menu Got expected error (invalid_type): Required
  ✓ empty-menu Got expected error (too_small): agent.menu must include at least one entry

❌ MENU COMMANDS (invalid)
  ✓ no-command-target Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[] entries must include at least one command target field
  ✓ empty-command-target Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].action must be a non-empty string

❌ MENU TRIGGERS (invalid)
  ✓ trigger-with-spaces Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger must be kebab-case (lowercase words separated by hyphen)
  ✓ snake-case Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger must be kebab-case (lowercase words separated by hyphen)
  ✓ leading-asterisk Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger must be kebab-case (lowercase words separated by hyphen)
  ✓ empty-trigger Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger must be a non-empty string
  ✓ duplicate-triggers Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger duplicates "help" within the same agent
  ✓ compound-mismatched-kebab Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger compound format error: invalid compound trigger format
  ✓ compound-invalid-format Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger compound format error: invalid compound trigger format
  ✓ camel-case Got expected error (custom): agent.menu[].trigger must be kebab-case (lowercase words separated by hyphen)

❌ METADATA (invalid)
  ✓ missing-id Got expected error (invalid_type): Required
  ✓ extra-metadata-fields Got expected error (unrecognized_keys): Unrecognized key(s) in object: 'unknown_field', 'another_extra'
  ✓ empty-name Got expected error (custom): agent.metadata.name must be a non-empty string
  ✓ empty-module-string Got expected error (custom): agent.metadata.module must be a non-empty string

❌ PERSONA (invalid)
  ✓ missing-role Got expected error (invalid_type): Required
  ✓ extra-persona-fields Got expected error (unrecognized_keys): Unrecognized key(s) in object: 'extra_field', 'another_extra'
  ✓ empty-string-in-principles Got expected error (custom): agent.persona.principles[] must be a non-empty string
  ✓ empty-principles-array Got expected error (too_small): agent.persona.principles must include at least one entry

❌ PROMPTS (invalid)
  ✓ missing-id Got expected error (invalid_type): Required
  ✓ missing-content Got expected error (invalid_type): Required
  ✓ extra-prompt-fields Got expected error (unrecognized_keys): Unrecognized key(s) in object: 'extra_field'
  ✓ empty-content Got expected error (custom): agent.prompts[].content must be a non-empty string

❌ TOP LEVEL (invalid)
  ✓ missing-agent-key Got expected error (invalid_type): Required
  ✓ extra-top-level-keys Got expected error (unrecognized_keys): Unrecognized key(s) in object: 'extra_key', 'another_extra'
  ✓ empty-file Got expected error (invalid_type): Expected object, received null

❌ YAML ERRORS (invalid)
  ✓ malformed-yaml Got expected YAML parse error
  ✓ invalid-indentation Got expected YAML parse error

✅ CRITICAL ACTIONS (valid)
  ✓ valid-critical-actions Validation passed as expected
  ✓ no-critical-actions Validation passed as expected
  ✓ empty-critical-actions Validation passed as expected

✅ MENU (valid)
  ✓ single-menu-item Validation passed as expected
  ✓ multiple-menu-items Validation passed as expected

✅ MENU COMMANDS (valid)
  ✓ multiple-commands Validation passed as expected
  ✓ all-command-types Validation passed as expected

✅ MENU TRIGGERS (valid)
  ✓ kebab-case-triggers Validation passed as expected
  ✓ compound-triggers Validation passed as expected

✅ METADATA (valid)
  ✓ wrong-module-value Validation passed as expected
  ✓ module-agent-missing-module Validation passed as expected
  ✓ module-agent-correct Validation passed as expected
  ✓ malformed-path-treated-as-core Validation passed as expected
  ✓ empty-module-name-in-path Validation passed as expected
  ✓ core-agent-with-module Validation passed as expected

✅ PERSONA (valid)
  ✓ complete-persona Validation passed as expected

✅ PROMPTS (valid)
  ✓ valid-prompts-with-description Validation passed as expected
  ✓ valid-prompts-minimal Validation passed as expected
  ✓ no-prompts Validation passed as expected
  ✓ empty-prompts Validation passed as expected

✅ TOP LEVEL (valid)
  ✓ minimal-core-agent Validation passed as expected

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Test Results:
  Total:  52
  Passed: 52
  Failed: 0
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

✨ All tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:refs
> node test/test-file-refs-csv.js

CSV File Reference Extraction Tests

Valid fixtures
  ✓ bmm-style.csv: extracts workflow-file refs with trailing commas
  ✓ core-style.csv: extracts refs from core module-help format
  ✓ minimal.csv: extracts refs from minimal 3-column CSV

Invalid fixtures (expect 0 refs)
  ✓ no-workflow-column.csv: returns 0 refs when workflow-file column missing
  ✓ empty-data.csv: returns 0 refs when CSV has header only
  ✓ all-empty-workflow.csv: returns 0 refs when all workflow-file cells empty
  ✓ unresolvable-vars.csv: filters out template variables, keeps normal refs

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Test Results:
  Total:  7
  Passed: 7
  Failed: 0
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

All tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 test:install
> node test/test-installation-components.js

========================================
Installation Component Tests
========================================

Test Suite 1: Agent Compilation

✓ Agent compilation returns result object with outputPath
✓ Compiled agent contains <agent> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <persona> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains <menu> tag
✓ Compiled agent contains agent title

Test Suite 2: Customization Merging

✓ Deep merge overrides customized name
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden title
✓ Deep merge preserves non-overridden role
✓ Deep merge overrides customized style

Test Suite 3: Path Variable Resolution

✓ Path variable resolution pattern matches expected format

Test Suite 5: QA Agent Compilation

✓ QA agent compilation includes agent title
✓ QA agent menu includes automate workflow

========================================
Test Results:
  Passed: 12
  Failed: 0
========================================

✨ All installation component tests passed!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 validate:schemas
> node tools/validate-agent-schema.js

🔍 Scanning for agent files...

Found 10 agent file(s)

✅ src/core/agents/bmad-master.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/ux-designer.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/sm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/quick-flow-solo-dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/qa.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/pm.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/dev.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/architect.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/analyst.agent.yaml
✅ src/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml

✨ All 10 agent file(s) passed validation!

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint
> eslint . --ext .js,.cjs,.mjs,.yaml --max-warnings=0

> bmad-method@6.0.1 lint:md
> markdownlint-cli2 "**/*.md"

markdownlint-cli2 v0.19.1 (markdownlint v0.39.0)
Finding: **/*.md !**/node_modules/** !test/fixtures/** !CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md !_bmad/** !_bmad*/** !_experiment/** !.agent/** !.claude/** !.roo/** !.codex/** !.kiro/** !sample-project/** !test-project-install/** !z*/**
Linting: 316 file(s)
Summary: 0 error(s)

> bmad-method@6.0.1 format:check
> prettier --check "**/*.{js,cjs,mjs,json,yaml}"

Checking formatting...
All matched files use Prettier code style!
[exp/quick-flow-redesign 1f33bd33] docs: add QD2 run logs and reusable capture-run prompt
 4 files changed, 262 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 _experiment/runs/2026-02-22-add-plan-review-to-task01.jsonl
 create mode 100644 _experiment/runs/2026-02-22-add-plan-review-to-task01.md
 create mode 100644 _experiment/runs/CAPTURE-RUN.md


Commit succeeded. All tests and lints pass. Now pushing.


Launching skill: tam-push


Base directory for this skill: /Users/alex/.claude/skills/tam-push

# Git Push Policy

**You are NEVER allowed to execute `git push` (or any variant) yourself.** This applies to all contexts — direct requests, post-commit workflows, PR creation, or any other situation where pushing would be relevant.

Instead, you MUST:

1. **Print the exact push command** the user should run, formatted as a code block.
2. **If the command is not a simple `git push`**, add a one-line explanation of what it does (e.g., force push, pushing a new branch, pushing to a non-default remote, pushing tags).
3. **Wait for the user to confirm** they have executed the push before proceeding with any steps that depend on it.

## Examples

Simple push (no explanation needed):
```
git push
```

Non-obvious push (include explanation):
```
git push -u origin feature/login
```
> Sets upstream tracking and pushes the new `feature/login` branch to origin.

```
git push origin --tags
```
> Pushes all local tags to origin.

## Rules

- Never run `git push`, `git push origin`, `git push --force`, `git push -u`, or ANY command that pushes to a remote — regardless of flags or arguments.
- Never work around this by using aliases, scripts, or indirect execution.
- If a workflow (like `gh pr create`) would implicitly push, push must still be done manually by the user first.
- After printing the command, ask the user to confirm when done before continuing.


Here's the push command:

```
git push
```

Let me know when that's done.


Bash

say "Committed successfully. Please run git push and let me know when done."

TTS summary


TTS summary


<local-command-caveat>Caveat: The messages below were generated by the user while running local commands. DO NOT respond to these messages or otherwise consider them in your response unless the user explicitly asks you to.</local-command-caveat>


<bash-input>git push</bash-input>


<bash-stdout>To github.com:alexeyv/BMAD-METHOD.git
   7dcd2600..1f33bd33  exp/quick-flow-redesign -> exp/quick-flow-redesign</bash-stdout><bash-stderr></bash-stderr>


z


Pushed. What's next?


TTS summary


/clear


<command-message>bmad-bmm-quick-dev2</command-message>
<command-name>/bmad-bmm-quick-dev2</command-name>


IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU FOLLOW THIS COMMAND: LOAD the FULL @{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-dev2/workflow.md, READ its entire contents and follow its directions exactly!


     1→---
     2→name: quick-dev2
     3→description: 'Unified quick flow - clarify intent, plan, implement, review, present.'
     4→main_config: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml'
     5→
     6→# Related workflows
     7→advanced_elicitation: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
     8→party_mode_exec: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
     9→
    10→# Review building block
    11→adversarial_review_task: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml'
    12→---
    13→
    14→# Quick Dev 2 Workflow
    15→
    16→**Goal:** Take a user request from intent through implementation, adversarial review, and PR creation in a single unified flow.
    17→
    18→**Your Role:** You are an elite developer. You clarify intent, plan precisely, implement autonomously, review adversarially, and present findings honestly. Minimum ceremony, maximum signal.
    19→
    20→---
    21→
    22→## READY FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
    23→
    24→A specification is "Ready for Development" when:
    25→
    26→- **Actionable**: Every task has a file path and specific action.
    27→- **Logical**: Tasks ordered by dependency.
    28→- **Testable**: All ACs use Given/When/Then.
    29→- **Complete**: No placeholders or TBDs.
    30→- **Self-Contained**: A fresh agent can implement from the spec alone.
    31→
    32→---
    33→
    34→## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
    35→
    36→This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:
    37→
    38→- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is self-contained and followed exactly
    39→- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only load the current step file
    40→- **Sequential Enforcement**: Complete steps in order, no skipping
    41→- **State Tracking**: Persist progress via spec frontmatter and in-memory variables
    42→- **Append-Only Building**: Build artifacts incrementally
    43→
    44→### Step Processing Rules
    45→
    46→1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Read the entire step file before acting
    47→2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute sections in order
    48→3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: Halt at checkpoints and wait for human
    49→4. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, read fully and follow the next step file
    50→
    51→### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS)
    52→
    53→- **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously
    54→- **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution
    55→- **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence
    56→- **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file
    57→- **ALWAYS** halt at checkpoints and wait for human input
    58→
    59→---
    60→
    61→## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
    62→
    63→### 1. Configuration Loading
    64→
    65→Load and read full config from `{main_config}` and resolve:
    66→
    67→- `project_name`, `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`, `user_name`
    68→- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
    69→- `date` as system-generated current datetime
    70→- `project_context` = `**/project-context.md` (load if exists)
    71→- CLAUDE.md / memory files (load if exist)
    72→
    73→YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`.
    74→
    75→### 2. Paths
    76→
    77→- `installed_path` = `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-dev2`
    78→- `templateFile` = `{installed_path}/tech-spec-template.md`
    79→- `wipFile` = `{implementation_artifacts}/tech-spec-wip.md`
    80→- `tasksDir` = `{implementation_artifacts}/tasks`
    81→
    82→### 3. First Step Execution
    83→
    84→Read fully and follow: `{installed_path}/steps/step-01-clarify-and-route.md` to begin the workflow.
    85→

---
name: quick-dev2
description: 'Unified quick flow - clarify intent, plan, implement, review, present.'
main_config: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml'

# Related workflows
advanced_elicitation: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
party_mode_exec: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'

# Review building block
adversarial_review_task: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml'
---

# Quick Dev 2 Workflow

**Goal:** Take a user request from intent through implementation, adversarial review, and PR creation in a single unified flow.

**Your Role:** You are an elite developer. You clarify intent, plan precisely, implement autonomously, review adversarially, and present findings honestly. Minimum ceremony, maximum signal.

---

## READY FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

A specification is "Ready for Development" when:

- **Actionable**: Every task has a file path and specific action.
- **Logical**: Tasks ordered by dependency.
- **Testable**: All ACs use Given/When/Then.
- **Complete**: No placeholders or TBDs.
- **Self-Contained**: A fresh agent can implement from the spec alone.

---

## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE

This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:

- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is self-contained and followed exactly
- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only load the current step file
- **Sequential Enforcement**: Complete steps in order, no skipping
- **State Tracking**: Persist progress via spec frontmatter and in-memory variables
- **Append-Only Building**: Build artifacts incrementally

### Step Processing Rules

1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Read the entire step file before acting
2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute sections in order
3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: Halt at checkpoints and wait for human
4. **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** follow the exact instructions in the step file
- **ALWAYS** halt at checkpoints and wait for human input

---

## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE

### 1. Configuration Loading

Load and read full config from `{main_config}` and resolve:

- `project_name`, `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`, `user_name`
- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
- `date` as system-generated current datetime
- `project_context` = `**/project-context.md` (load if exists)
- CLAUDE.md / memory files (load if exist)

YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`.

### 2. Paths

- `installed_path` = `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-dev2`
- `templateFile` = `{installed_path}/tech-spec-template.md`
- `wipFile` = `{implementation_artifacts}/tech-spec-wip.md`
- `tasksDir` = `{implementation_artifacts}/tasks`

### 3. First Step Execution

Read fully and follow: `{installed_path}/steps/step-01-clarify-and-route.md` to begin the workflow.


     1→code: bmm
     2→name: "BMad Method Agile-AI Driven-Development"
     3→description: "AI-driven agile development framework"
     4→default_selected: true # This module will be selected by default for new installations
     5→
     6→# Variables from Core Config inserted:
     7→## user_name
     8→## communication_language
     9→## document_output_language
    10→## output_folder
    11→
    12→project_name:
    13→  prompt: "What is your project called?"
    14→  default: "{directory_name}"
    15→  result: "{value}"
    16→
    17→user_skill_level:
    18→  prompt:
    19→    - "What is your development experience level?"
    20→    - "This affects how agents explain concepts in chat."
    21→  default: "intermediate"
    22→  result: "{value}"
    23→  single-select:
    24→    - value: "beginner"
    25→      label: "Beginner - Explain things clearly"
    26→    - value: "intermediate"
    27→      label: "Intermediate - Balance detail with speed"
    28→    - value: "expert"
    29→      label: "Expert - Be direct and technical"
    30→
    31→planning_artifacts: # Phase 1-3 artifacts
    32→  prompt: "Where should planning artifacts be stored? (Brainstorming, Briefs, PRDs, UX Designs, Architecture, Epics)"
    33→  default: "{output_folder}/planning-artifacts"
    34→  result: "{project-root}/{value}"
    35→
    36→implementation_artifacts: # Phase 4 artifacts and quick-dev flow output
    37→  prompt: "Where should implementation artifacts be stored? (Sprint status, stories, reviews, retrospectives, Quick Flow output)"
    38→  default: "{output_folder}/implementation-artifacts"
    39→  result: "{project-root}/{value}"
    40→
    41→project_knowledge: # Artifacts from research, document-project output, other long lived accurate knowledge
    42→  prompt: "Where should long-term project knowledge be stored? (docs, research, references)"
    43→  default: "docs"
    44→  result: "{project-root}/{value}"
    45→
    46→# Directories to create during installation (declarative, no code execution)
    47→directories:
    48→  - "{planning_artifacts}"
    49→  - "{implementation_artifacts}"
    50→  - "{project_knowledge}"
    51→

code: bmm
name: "BMad Method Agile-AI Driven-Development"
description: "AI-driven agile development framework"
default_selected: true # This module will be selected by default for new installations

# Variables from Core Config inserted:
## user_name
## communication_language
## document_output_language
## output_folder

project_name:
  prompt: "What is your project called?"
  default: "{directory_name}"
  result: "{value}"

user_skill_level:
  prompt:
    - "What is your development experience level?"
    - "This affects how agents explain concepts in chat."
  default: "intermediate"
  result: "{value}"
  single-select:
    - value: "beginner"
      label: "Beginner - Explain things clearly"
    - value: "intermediate"
      label: "Intermediate - Balance detail with speed"
    - value: "expert"
      label: "Expert - Be direct and technical"

planning_artifacts: # Phase 1-3 artifacts
  prompt: "Where should planning artifacts be stored? (Brainstorming, Briefs, PRDs, UX Designs, Architecture, Epics)"
  default: "{output_folder}/planning-artifacts"
  result: "{project-root}/{value}"

implementation_artifacts: # Phase 4 artifacts and quick-dev flow output
  prompt: "Where should implementation artifacts be stored? (Sprint status, stories, reviews, retrospectives, Quick Flow output)"
  default: "{output_folder}/implementation-artifacts"
  result: "{project-root}/{value}"

project_knowledge: # Artifacts from research, document-project output, other long lived accurate knowledge
  prompt: "Where should long-term project knowledge be stored? (docs, research, references)"
  default: "docs"
  result: "{project-root}/{value}"

# Directories to create during installation (declarative, no code execution)
directories:
  - "{planning_artifacts}"
  - "{implementation_artifacts}"
  - "{project_knowledge}"


No files found


Now loading Step 1.


     1→---
     2→name: 'step-01-clarify-and-route'
     3→description: 'Capture intent, route to execution path'
     4→
     5→wipFile: '{implementation_artifacts}/tech-spec-wip.md'
     6→---
     7→
     8→# Step 1: Clarify and Route
     9→
    10→**Step 1 of 5**
    11→
    12→## RULES
    13→
    14→- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
    15→- The skill argument IS the intent — not a hint.
    16→- Do NOT assume you start from zero.
    17→
    18→## CONTEXT
    19→
    20→- `ready-for-dev` spec in `{implementation_artifacts}`? → Confirm, skip to step 3.
    21→- `{wipFile}` exists? → Offer resume or archive.
    22→
    23→---
    24→
    25→## INSTRUCTIONS
    26→
    27→1. Clarify intent until: problem unambiguous, scope clear, no contradictions, you can explain back what you'll do.
    28→2. Backfill VC conventions to project-context if unknown.
    29→3. Route:
    30→   - **One-shot** — trivial (~3 files). `{execution_mode}` = "one-shot". → Step 3.
    31→   - **Plan-code-review** — normal. → Step 2.
    32→   - **Full BMM** — too big. Recommend and exit.
    33→   - Ambiguous? Default plan-code-review.
    34→
    35→---
    36→
    37→## NEXT
    38→
    39→- One-shot / ready-for-dev: `{installed_path}/steps/step-03-implement.md`
    40→- Plan-code-review: `{installed_path}/steps/step-02-plan.md`
    41→

---
name: 'step-01-clarify-and-route'
description: 'Capture intent, route to execution path'

wipFile: '{implementation_artifacts}/tech-spec-wip.md'
---

# Step 1: Clarify and Route

**Step 1 of 5**

## RULES

- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
- The skill argument IS the intent — not a hint.
- Do NOT assume you start from zero.

## CONTEXT

- `ready-for-dev` spec in `{implementation_artifacts}`? → Confirm, skip to step 3.
- `{wipFile}` exists? → Offer resume or archive.

---

## INSTRUCTIONS

1. Clarify intent until: problem unambiguous, scope clear, no contradictions, you can explain back what you'll do.
2. Backfill VC conventions to project-context if unknown.
3. Route:
   - **One-shot** — trivial (~3 files). `{execution_mode}` = "one-shot". → Step 3.
   - **Plan-code-review** — normal. → Step 2.
   - **Full BMM** — too big. Recommend and exit.
   - Ambiguous? Default plan-code-review.

---

## NEXT

- One-shot / ready-for-dev: `{installed_path}/steps/step-03-implement.md`
- Plan-code-review: `{installed_path}/steps/step-02-plan.md`


**Quick Dev 2 — Step 1: Clarify and Route** *(Step 1 of 5)*

Resolved config:

| Config | Value |
|---|---|
| Project | BMAD-METHOD |
| Branch | `exp/quick-flow-redesign` |
| Implementation artifacts | `_bmad-output/implementation-artifacts/` |
| Skill level | Expert |
| Date | 2026-02-22 |

No existing WIP or ready-for-dev spec found. Clean slate.

**What do you want to build?**


say "Quick Dev 2 initialized. Clean slate. What do you want to build?"

TTS summary


gh issue view 1637 --repo bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD --json title,body,labels,state

Fetch issue 1637 details


{"body":"## Bug Fix: Remove ambiguous \"with argument\" from help task chaining instructions\n\n### Problem\n\nAll BMM workflow completion steps chain to the help task using this pattern:\n\n```\n[Workflow] complete. Read fully and follow: `_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `[name]`.\n```\n\nThe \"with argument\" clause causes LLMs to interpret this as a programmatic invocation (skill/function call) rather than a simple file read instruction. This leads to \"unknown skill\" errors when the LLM tries to invoke \"help\" via a tool instead of reading the file.\n\nWithout the \"with argument\" clause, the instruction is unambiguous: read the file and follow it.\n\n### Constraint\n\nThe help task (at `_bmad/core/tasks/help.md`) needs to know which workflow just completed so it can recommend next steps. Its INPUT ANALYSIS section already supports inferring this from conversation context:\n\n> - Explicit completion stated by user\n> - Workflow completed in current conversation\n\nNote that every instance already states the workflow name before the read instruction (e.g., \"Architecture complete. Read fully and follow...\").\n\n### What to Fix\n\nThere are 7 instances of this pattern across `_bmad/bmm/workflows/` completion steps. The \"with argument X\" clause must be removed or reworked so that:\n\n1. The \"Read fully and follow\" instruction remains unambiguous (a file read, not a function/skill invocation)\n2. The help task still has enough context to determine what was just completed\n3. The fix works consistently — the LLM will always read `help.md` and follow it\n\nFigure out the right approach to solve this. It may be as simple as dropping the \"with argument\" clause entirely since the context is already present in the preceding text. Or it may require a different mechanism. Determine the best fix, then apply it to all 7 files.\n\n### Files to Edit (7 total, all under `_bmad/bmm/workflows/`)\n\n1. `1-analysis/create-product-brief/steps/step-06-complete.md` line 131\n2. `2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-c/step-12-complete.md` line 90\n3. `2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md` line 200\n4. `2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design/steps/step-14-complete.md` line 85\n5. `3-solutioning/create-architecture/steps/step-08-complete.md` line 44\n6. `3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/steps/step-04-final-validation.md` line 147\n7. `3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/steps/step-06-final-assessment.md` line 112\n\n### Additional Findings\n\n- **File #1** (`create-product-brief step-06-complete.md`) passes `Validate PRD` as the argument — that is the NEXT recommended workflow, not the one just completed. The CSV name for the product brief workflow is \"Create Brief\" (code CB). Verify whether this is intentional or a separate bug, and fix if needed.\n\n- **File #7** is the only instance with a mismatched argument (lowercase `implementation readiness` vs CSV name `Check Implementation Readiness`).\n\n### Validation\n\nAfter applying fixes, grep for `with argument` in `_bmad/` to confirm zero remaining instances of the old pattern.\n","labels":[{"id":"LA_kwDOOY4eVs8AAAAB96f-9Q","name":"bug","description":"Something isn't working","color":"d73a4a"},{"id":"LA_kwDOOY4eVs8AAAACWnnZSg","name":"priority:high","description":"Important - should be fixed soon","color":"d93f0b"}],"state":"OPEN","title":"Bug: 'with argument' in help task chaining causes unknown skill errors"}


Got it. Here's my understanding:

**Intent:** Remove the ambiguous `with argument` clause from 7 workflow completion steps that chain to `help.md`. The phrase causes LLMs to treat the file-read instruction as a skill/function invocation, triggering "unknown skill" errors.

**Scope:**
- 7 files under `src/bmm/workflows/` (source repo paths, not installed `_bmad/` paths)
- Drop the `with argument X` clause from each — the workflow name is already stated in the preceding text, and `help.md`'s INPUT ANALYSIS infers context from conversation
- Fix the File #1 bug where `Validate PRD` is passed instead of the workflow that just completed
- Fix File #7 casing mismatch
- Validate: zero remaining `with argument` instances

**Routing:** This is a **one-shot** change — 7 files, same mechanical pattern applied to each, no architectural decisions. `execution_mode` = "one-shot".

Does that match your intent, or should I adjust anything before proceeding to Step 3 (implement)?


say "Issue 1637 loaded. Seven files, same mechanical fix. Routed as one-shot. Confirm to proceed?"

TTS summary


TTS summary


One shot, really?


Fair point. The issue says "figure out the right approach to solve this" — that's a design decision, not a mechanical find-and-replace. Plus there's the File #1 bug to investigate (wrong argument entirely) and File #7 casing mismatch. Seven files, but the fix isn't predetermined.

**Revised routing: Plan-code-review.** Moving to Step 2.


     1→---
     2→name: 'step-02-plan'
     3→description: 'Investigate, generate spec, present for approval'
     4→
     5→wipFile: '{implementation_artifacts}/tech-spec-wip.md'
     6→templateFile: '{installed_path}/tech-spec-template.md'
     7→---
     8→
     9→# Step 2: Plan
    10→
    11→**Step 2 of 5 — Autonomous until checkpoint**
    12→
    13→## RULES
    14→
    15→- No intermediate approvals.
    16→- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
    17→
    18→---
    19→
    20→## INSTRUCTIONS
    21→
    22→1. Investigate codebase.
    23→2. Generate spec from `{templateFile}` → `{wipFile}`.
    24→3. Self-review against READY FOR DEVELOPMENT standard.
    25→
    26→### CHECKPOINT 1
    27→
    28→Present summary. `[A] Approve  [E] Edit  [F] Full BMM`. HALT.
    29→
    30→- **A**: Rename to `tech-spec-{slug}.md`, status `ready-for-dev`, freeze Problem/Solution/Scope/Non-Goals/Golden Examples. → Step 3.
    31→- **E**: Apply changes, re-present.
    32→- **F**: Exit to full BMM.
    33→
    34→---
    35→
    36→## NEXT
    37→
    38→`{installed_path}/steps/step-03-implement.md`
    39→

---
name: 'step-02-plan'
description: 'Investigate, generate spec, present for approval'

wipFile: '{implementation_artifacts}/tech-spec-wip.md'
templateFile: '{installed_path}/tech-spec-template.md'
---

# Step 2: Plan

**Step 2 of 5 — Autonomous until checkpoint**

## RULES

- No intermediate approvals.
- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`

---

## INSTRUCTIONS

1. Investigate codebase.
2. Generate spec from `{templateFile}` → `{wipFile}`.
3. Self-review against READY FOR DEVELOPMENT standard.

### CHECKPOINT 1

Present summary. `[A] Approve  [E] Edit  [F] Full BMM`. HALT.

- **A**: Rename to `tech-spec-{slug}.md`, status `ready-for-dev`, freeze Problem/Solution/Scope/Non-Goals/Golden Examples. → Step 3.
- **E**: Apply changes, re-present.
- **F**: Exit to full BMM.

---

## NEXT

`{installed_path}/steps/step-03-implement.md`


     1→---
     2→title: '{title}'
     3→slug: '{slug}'
     4→created: '{date}'
     5→status: 'in-progress'
     6→---
     7→
     8→# {title}
     9→
    10→## Problem
    11→
    12→{problem}
    13→
    14→## Solution
    15→
    16→{solution}
    17→
    18→## Scope
    19→
    20→**In:** {in_scope}
    21→
    22→**Out:** {out_of_scope}
    23→
    24→## Non-Goals
    25→
    26→{non_goals}
    27→
    28→## Tasks
    29→
    30→- [ ] Task 1: `{file}` -- {action} -- {rationale}
    31→
    32→## Acceptance Criteria
    33→
    34→- [ ] AC 1: Given {precondition}, when {action}, then {expected_result}
    35→
    36→## Technical Decisions
    37→
    38→{technical_decisions}
    39→
    40→## Golden Examples
    41→
    42→{golden_examples}
    43→
    44→## Spec Change Log
    45→
    46→<!-- Appended by the review loop. Each entry: what changed, what triggered it, what bad state it avoids, KEEP instructions. Empty until step 4. -->
    47→
    48→## Notes
    49→
    50→{notes}
    51→

---
title: '{title}'
slug: '{slug}'
created: '{date}'
status: 'in-progress'
---

# {title}

## Problem

{problem}

## Solution

{solution}

## Scope

**In:** {in_scope}

**Out:** {out_of_scope}

## Non-Goals

{non_goals}

## Tasks

- [ ] Task 1: `{file}` -- {action} -- {rationale}

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] AC 1: Given {precondition}, when {action}, then {expected_result}

## Technical Decisions

{technical_decisions}

## Golden Examples

{golden_examples}

## Spec Change Log

<!-- Appended by the review loop. Each entry: what changed, what triggered it, what bad state it avoids, KEEP instructions. Empty until step 4. -->

## Notes

{notes}


Good, now let me investigate the codebase — read all 7 files and the help task to understand the current pattern and design the right fix.


src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-architecture/steps/step-08-complete.md:44:Architecture complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Architecture`.
src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/steps/step-04-final-validation.md:147:Epics and Stories complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Epics and Stories`.
src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/steps/step-06-final-assessment.md:112:Implementation Readiness complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `implementation readiness`.
src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md:200:  - PRD Validation complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Validate PRD`.
src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-c/step-12-complete.md:90:PRD complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create PRD`.
src/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/create-product-brief/steps/step-06-complete.md:131:Product Brief complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Validate PRD`.
src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design/steps/step-14-complete.md:85:UX Design complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create UX`.


     1→---
     2→name: help
     3→description: Get unstuck by showing what workflow steps come next or answering questions about what to do
     4→---
     5→
     6→# Task: BMAD Help
     7→
     8→## ROUTING RULES
     9→
    10→- **Empty `phase` = anytime** — Universal tools work regardless of workflow state
    11→- **Numbered phases indicate sequence** — Phases like `1-discover` → `2-define` → `3-build` → `4-ship` flow in order (naming varies by module)
    12→- **Phase with no Required Steps** - If an entire phase has no required, true items, the entire phase is optional. If it is sequentially before another phase, it can be recommended, but always be clear with the use what the true next required item is.
    13→- **Stay in module** — Guide through the active module's workflow based on phase+sequence ordering
    14→- **Descriptions contain routing** — Read for alternate paths (e.g., "back to previous if fixes needed")
    15→- **`required=true` blocks progress** — Required workflows must complete before proceeding to later phases
    16→- **Artifacts reveal completion** — Search resolved output paths for `outputs` patterns, fuzzy-match found files to workflow rows
    17→
    18→## DISPLAY RULES
    19→
    20→### Command-Based Workflows
    21→When `command` field has a value:
    22→- Show the command prefixed with `/` (e.g., `/bmad-bmm-create-prd`)
    23→
    24→### Agent-Based Workflows
    25→When `command` field is empty:
    26→- User loads agent first via `/agent-command`
    27→- Then invokes by referencing the `code` field or describing the `name` field
    28→- Do NOT show a slash command — show the code value and agent load instruction instead
    29→
    30→Example presentation for empty command:
    31→```
    32→Explain Concept (EC)
    33→Load: /tech-writer, then ask to "EC about [topic]"
    34→Agent: Tech Writer
    35→Description: Create clear technical explanations with examples...
    36→```
    37→
    38→## MODULE DETECTION
    39→
    40→- **Empty `module` column** → universal tools (work across all modules)
    41→- **Named `module`** → module-specific workflows
    42→
    43→Detect the active module from conversation context, recent workflows, or user query keywords. If ambiguous, ask the user.
    44→
    45→## INPUT ANALYSIS
    46→
    47→Determine what was just completed:
    48→- Explicit completion stated by user
    49→- Workflow completed in current conversation
    50→- Artifacts found matching `outputs` patterns
    51→- If `index.md` exists, read it for additional context
    52→- If still unclear, ask: "What workflow did you most recently complete?"
    53→
    54→## EXECUTION
    55→
    56→1. **Load catalog** — Load `{project-root}/_bmad/_config/bmad-help.csv`
    57→
    58→2. **Resolve output locations and config** — Scan each folder under `{project-root}/_bmad/` (except `_config`) for `config.yaml`. For each workflow row, resolve its `output-location` variables against that module's config so artifact paths can be searched. Also extract `communication_language` and `project_knowledge` from each scanned module's config.
    59→
    60→3. **Ground in project knowledge** — If `project_knowledge` resolves to an existing path, read available documentation files (architecture docs, project overview, tech stack references) for grounding context. Use discovered project facts when composing any project-specific output. Never fabricate project-specific details — if documentation is unavailable, state so.
    61→
    62→4. **Detect active module** — Use MODULE DETECTION above
    63→
    64→5. **Analyze input** — Task may provide a workflow name/code, conversational phrase, or nothing. Infer what was just completed using INPUT ANALYSIS above.
    65→
    66→6. **Present recommendations** — Show next steps based on:
    67→   - Completed workflows detected
    68→   - Phase/sequence ordering (ROUTING RULES)
    69→   - Artifact presence
    70→
    71→   **Optional items first** — List optional workflows until a required step is reached
    72→   **Required items next** — List the next required workflow
    73→
    74→   For each item, apply DISPLAY RULES above and include:
    75→   - Workflow **name**
    76→   - **Command** OR **Code + Agent load instruction** (per DISPLAY RULES)
    77→   - **Agent** title and display name from the CSV (e.g., "🎨 Alex (Designer)")
    78→   - Brief **description**
    79→
    80→7. **Additional guidance to convey**:
    81→   - Present all output in `{communication_language}`
    82→   - Run each workflow in a **fresh context window**
    83→   - For **validation workflows**: recommend using a different high-quality LLM if available
    84→   - For conversational requests: match the user's tone while presenting clearly
    85→
    86→8. Return to the calling process after presenting recommendations.
    87→

---
name: help
description: Get unstuck by showing what workflow steps come next or answering questions about what to do
---

# Task: BMAD Help

## ROUTING RULES

- **Empty `phase` = anytime** — Universal tools work regardless of workflow state
- **Numbered phases indicate sequence** — Phases like `1-discover` → `2-define` → `3-build` → `4-ship` flow in order (naming varies by module)
- **Phase with no Required Steps** - If an entire phase has no required, true items, the entire phase is optional. If it is sequentially before another phase, it can be recommended, but always be clear with the use what the true next required item is.
- **Stay in module** — Guide through the active module's workflow based on phase+sequence ordering
- **Descriptions contain routing** — Read for alternate paths (e.g., "back to previous if fixes needed")
- **`required=true` blocks progress** — Required workflows must complete before proceeding to later phases
- **Artifacts reveal completion** — Search resolved output paths for `outputs` patterns, fuzzy-match found files to workflow rows

## DISPLAY RULES

### Command-Based Workflows
When `command` field has a value:
- Show the command prefixed with `/` (e.g., `/bmad-bmm-create-prd`)

### Agent-Based Workflows
When `command` field is empty:
- User loads agent first via `/agent-command`
- Then invokes by referencing the `code` field or describing the `name` field
- Do NOT show a slash command — show the code value and agent load instruction instead

Example presentation for empty command:
```
Explain Concept (EC)
Load: /tech-writer, then ask to "EC about [topic]"
Agent: Tech Writer
Description: Create clear technical explanations with examples...
```

## MODULE DETECTION

- **Empty `module` column** → universal tools (work across all modules)
- **Named `module`** → module-specific workflows

Detect the active module from conversation context, recent workflows, or user query keywords. If ambiguous, ask the user.

## INPUT ANALYSIS

Determine what was just completed:
- Explicit completion stated by user
- Workflow completed in current conversation
- Artifacts found matching `outputs` patterns
- If `index.md` exists, read it for additional context
- If still unclear, ask: "What workflow did you most recently complete?"

## EXECUTION

1. **Load catalog** — Load `{project-root}/_bmad/_config/bmad-help.csv`

2. **Resolve output locations and config** — Scan each folder under `{project-root}/_bmad/` (except `_config`) for `config.yaml`. For each workflow row, resolve its `output-location` variables against that module's config so artifact paths can be searched. Also extract `communication_language` and `project_knowledge` from each scanned module's config.

3. **Ground in project knowledge** — If `project_knowledge` resolves to an existing path, read available documentation files (architecture docs, project overview, tech stack references) for grounding context. Use discovered project facts when composing any project-specific output. Never fabricate project-specific details — if documentation is unavailable, state so.

4. **Detect active module** — Use MODULE DETECTION above

5. **Analyze input** — Task may provide a workflow name/code, conversational phrase, or nothing. Infer what was just completed using INPUT ANALYSIS above.

6. **Present recommendations** — Show next steps based on:
   - Completed workflows detected
   - Phase/sequence ordering (ROUTING RULES)
   - Artifact presence

   **Optional items first** — List optional workflows until a required step is reached
   **Required items next** — List the next required workflow

   For each item, apply DISPLAY RULES above and include:
   - Workflow **name**
   - **Command** OR **Code + Agent load instruction** (per DISPLAY RULES)
   - **Agent** title and display name from the CSV (e.g., "🎨 Alex (Designer)")
   - Brief **description**

7. **Additional guidance to convey**:
   - Present all output in `{communication_language}`
   - Run each workflow in a **fresh context window**
   - For **validation workflows**: recommend using a different high-quality LLM if available
   - For conversational requests: match the user's tone while presenting clearly

8. Return to the calling process after presenting recommendations.


Now let me read each of the 7 files at the relevant lines to see the full context around the pattern.


   125→- Measurable success criteria
   126→- Focused MVP scope with realistic boundaries
   127→- Inspiring long-term vision
   128→
   129→### 5. Suggest next steps
   130→
   131→Product Brief complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Validate PRD`.
   132→
   133→---
   134→
   135→## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
   136→
   137→### ✅ SUCCESS:
   138→
   139→- Product brief contains all essential sections with collaborative content

- Measurable success criteria
- Focused MVP scope with realistic boundaries
- Inspiring long-term vision

### 5. Suggest next steps

Product Brief complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Validate PRD`.

---

## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS

### ✅ SUCCESS:

- Product brief contains all essential sections with collaborative content


    84→- Proceed directly to next workflows (architecture, UX, epics)
    85→- Validation can be done later if needed
    86→- Some teams prefer to validate during architecture reviews
    87→
    88→### 4. Suggest Next Workflows
    89→
    90→PRD complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create PRD`.
    91→
    92→### 5. Final Completion Confirmation
    93→
    94→- Confirm completion with user and summarize what has been accomplished
    95→- Document now contains: Executive Summary, Success Criteria, User Journeys, Domain Requirements (if applicable), Innovation Analysis (if applicable), Project-Type Requirements, Functional Requirements (capability contract), Non-Functional Requirements, and has been polished for flow and coherence
    96→- Ask if they'd like to run validation workflow or proceed to next workflows
    97→
    98→## SUCCESS METRICS:

- Proceed directly to next workflows (architecture, UX, epics)
- Validation can be done later if needed
- Some teams prefer to validate during architecture reviews

### 4. Suggest Next Workflows

PRD complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create PRD`.

### 5. Final Completion Confirmation

- Confirm completion with user and summarize what has been accomplished
- Document now contains: Executive Summary, Success Criteria, User Journeys, Domain Requirements (if applicable), Innovation Analysis (if applicable), Project-Type Requirements, Functional Requirements (capability contract), Non-Functional Requirements, and has been polished for flow and coherence
- Ask if they'd like to run validation workflow or proceed to next workflows

## SUCCESS METRICS:


   194→  - If user specifies fixes, make them and update validation report
   195→  - Return to menu
   196→
   197→- **IF X (Exit):**
   198→  - Display: "**Validation Report Saved:** {validationReportPath}"
   199→  - Display: "**Summary:** {overall status} - {recommendation}"
   200→  - PRD Validation complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Validate PRD`.
   201→
   202→- **IF Any other:** Help user, then redisplay menu
   203→
   204→---
   205→
   206→## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
   207→
   208→### ✅ SUCCESS:

  - 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. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Validate PRD`.

- **IF Any other:** Help user, then redisplay menu

---

## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS

### ✅ SUCCESS:


    79→- Update workflow_status["create-ux-design"] = "{default_output_file}"
    80→- Save file, preserving all comments and structure
    81→- Mark current timestamp as completion time
    82→
    83→### 3. Suggest Next Steps
    84→
    85→UX Design complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create UX`.
    86→
    87→### 5. Final Completion Confirmation
    88→
    89→Congratulate the user on the completion you both completed together of the UX.
    90→
    91→
    92→
    93→## SUCCESS METRICS:

- Update workflow_status["create-ux-design"] = "{default_output_file}"
- Save file, preserving all comments and structure
- Mark current timestamp as completion time

### 3. Suggest Next Steps

UX Design complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create UX`.

### 5. Final Completion Confirmation

Congratulate the user on the completion you both completed together of the UX.

## SUCCESS METRICS:


    38→status: 'complete'
    39→completedAt: '{{current_date}}'
    40→```
    41→
    42→### 3. Next Steps Guidance
    43→
    44→Architecture complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Architecture`.
    45→
    46→Upon Completion of task output: offer to answer any questions about the Architecture Document.
    47→
    48→
    49→## SUCCESS METRICS:
    50→
    51→✅ Complete architecture document delivered with all sections
    52→✅ All architectural decisions documented and validated

status: 'complete'
completedAt: '{{current_date}}'
```

### 3. Next Steps Guidance

Architecture complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Architecture`.

Upon Completion of task output: offer to answer any questions about the Architecture Document.

## SUCCESS METRICS:

✅ Complete architecture document delivered with all sections
✅ All architectural decisions documented and validated


   141→
   142→**Present Final Menu:**
   143→**All validations complete!** [C] Complete Workflow
   144→
   145→When C is selected, the workflow is complete and the epics.md is ready for development.
   146→
   147→Epics and Stories complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Epics and Stories`.
   148→
   149→Upon Completion of task output: offer to answer any questions about the Epics and Stories.
   150→

**Present Final Menu:**
**All validations complete!** [C] Complete Workflow

When C is selected, the workflow is complete and the epics.md is ready for development.

Epics and Stories complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Epics and Stories`.

Upon Completion of task output: offer to answer any questions about the Epics and Stories.


   106→The assessment found [number] issues requiring attention. Review the detailed report for specific findings and recommendations."
   107→
   108→## WORKFLOW COMPLETE
   109→
   110→The implementation readiness workflow is now complete. The report contains all findings and recommendations for the user to consider.
   111→
   112→Implementation Readiness complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `implementation readiness`.
   113→
   114→---
   115→
   116→## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
   117→
   118→### ✅ SUCCESS:
   119→
   120→- All findings compiled and summarized

The assessment found [number] issues requiring attention. Review the detailed report for specific findings and recommendations."

## WORKFLOW COMPLETE

The implementation readiness workflow is now complete. The report contains all findings and recommendations for the user to consider.

Implementation Readiness complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `implementation readiness`.

---

## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS

### ✅ SUCCESS:

- All findings compiled and summarized


Now let me also check the CSV catalog that help.md references to understand workflow names.


No files found


/Users/alex/src/bmad/quick-flow-redesign/.cursor/commands/bmad-help.md
/Users/alex/src/bmad/quick-flow-redesign/.agent/workflows/bmad-help.md


/Users/alex/src/bmad/quick-flow-redesign/src/core/module-help.csv
/Users/alex/src/bmad/quick-flow-redesign/src/bmm/module-help.csv


     1→module,phase,name,code,sequence,workflow-file,command,required,agent,options,description,output-location,outputs,
     2→bmm,anytime,Document Project,DP,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/document-project/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-document-project,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Analyze an existing project to produce useful documentation",project-knowledge,*,
     3→bmm,anytime,Generate Project Context,GPC,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/generate-project-context/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-generate-project-context,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Scan existing codebase to generate a lean LLM-optimized project-context.md containing critical implementation rules patterns and conventions for AI agents. Essential for brownfield projects and quick-flow.",output_folder,"project context",
     4→bmm,anytime,Quick Spec,QS,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-spec/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-quick-spec,false,quick-flow-solo-dev,Create Mode,"Do not suggest for potentially very complex things unless requested or if the user complains that they do not want to follow the extensive planning of the bmad method. Quick one-off tasks small changes simple apps brownfield additions to well established patterns utilities without extensive planning",planning_artifacts,"tech spec",
     5→bmm,anytime,Quick Dev,QD,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-dev/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-quick-dev,false,quick-flow-solo-dev,Create Mode,"Quick one-off tasks small changes simple apps utilities without extensive planning - Do not suggest for potentially very complex things unless requested or if the user complains that they do not want to follow the extensive planning of the bmad method, unless the user is already working through the implementation phase and just requests a 1 off things not already in the plan",,,
     6→bmm,anytime,Quick Dev 2,QD2,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-dev2/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-quick-dev2,false,quick-flow-solo-dev,Create Mode,"Unified quick flow (experimental): clarify intent plan implement review and present in a single workflow",implementation_artifacts,"tech spec implementation",
     7→bmm,anytime,Correct Course,CC,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/correct-course/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-correct-course,false,sm,Create Mode,"Anytime: Navigate significant changes. May recommend start over update PRD redo architecture sprint planning or correct epics and stories",planning_artifacts,"change proposal",
     8→bmm,anytime,Write Document,WD,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Describe in detail what you want, and the agent will follow the documentation best practices defined in agent memory. Multi-turn conversation with subprocess for research/review.",project-knowledge,"document",
     9→bmm,anytime,Update Standards,US,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Update agent memory documentation-standards.md with your specific preferences if you discover missing document conventions.",_bmad/_memory/tech-writer-sidecar,"standards",
    10→bmm,anytime,Mermaid Generate,MG,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Create a Mermaid diagram based on user description. Will suggest diagram types if not specified.",planning_artifacts,"mermaid diagram",
    11→bmm,anytime,Validate Document,VD,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Review the specified document against documentation standards and best practices. Returns specific actionable improvement suggestions organized by priority.",planning_artifacts,"validation report",
    12→bmm,anytime,Explain Concept,EC,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Create clear technical explanations with examples and diagrams for complex concepts. Breaks down into digestible sections using task-oriented approach.",project_knowledge,"explanation",
    13→bmm,1-analysis,Brainstorm Project,BP,10,_bmad/core/workflows/brainstorming/workflow.md,bmad-brainstorming,false,analyst,data=_bmad/bmm/data/project-context-template.md,"Expert Guided Facilitation through a single or multiple techniques",planning_artifacts,"brainstorming session",
    14→bmm,1-analysis,Market Research,MR,20,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/workflow-market-research.md,bmad-bmm-market-research,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Market analysis competitive landscape customer needs and trends","planning_artifacts|project-knowledge","research documents",
    15→bmm,1-analysis,Domain Research,DR,21,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/workflow-domain-research.md,bmad-bmm-domain-research,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Industry domain deep dive subject matter expertise and terminology","planning_artifacts|project_knowledge","research documents",
    16→bmm,1-analysis,Technical Research,TR,22,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/workflow-technical-research.md,bmad-bmm-technical-research,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Technical feasibility architecture options and implementation approaches","planning_artifacts|project_knowledge","research documents",
    17→bmm,1-analysis,Create Brief,CB,30,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/create-product-brief/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-create-product-brief,false,analyst,Create Mode,"A guided experience to nail down your product idea",planning_artifacts,"product brief",
    18→bmm,2-planning,Create PRD,CP,10,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-create-prd.md,bmad-bmm-create-prd,true,pm,Create Mode,"Expert led facilitation to produce your Product Requirements Document",planning_artifacts,prd,
    19→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",
    20→bmm,2-planning,Edit PRD,EP,25,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-edit-prd.md,bmad-bmm-edit-prd,false,pm,Edit Mode,"Improve and enhance an existing PRD",planning_artifacts,"updated prd",
    21→bmm,2-planning,Create UX,CU,30,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design/workflow.md,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",
    22→bmm,3-solutioning,Create Architecture,CA,10,_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-architecture/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-create-architecture,true,architect,Create Mode,"Guided Workflow to document technical decisions",planning_artifacts,architecture,
    23→bmm,3-solutioning,Create Epics and Stories,CE,30,_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-create-epics-and-stories,true,pm,Create Mode,"Create the Epics and Stories Listing",planning_artifacts,"epics and stories",
    24→bmm,3-solutioning,Check Implementation Readiness,IR,70,_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-check-implementation-readiness,true,architect,Validate Mode,"Ensure PRD UX Architecture and Epics Stories are aligned",planning_artifacts,"readiness report",
    25→bmm,4-implementation,Sprint Planning,SP,10,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/sprint-planning/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-sprint-planning,true,sm,Create Mode,"Generate sprint plan for development tasks - this kicks off the implementation phase by producing a plan the implementation agents will follow in sequence for every story in the plan.",implementation_artifacts,"sprint status",
    26→bmm,4-implementation,Sprint Status,SS,20,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/sprint-status/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-sprint-status,false,sm,Create Mode,"Anytime: Summarize sprint status and route to next workflow",,,
    27→bmm,4-implementation,Validate Story,VS,35,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/create-story/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-create-story,false,sm,Validate Mode,"Validates story readiness and completeness before development work begins",implementation_artifacts,"story validation report",
    28→bmm,4-implementation,Create Story,CS,30,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/create-story/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-create-story,true,sm,Create Mode,"Story cycle start: Prepare first found story in the sprint plan that is next, or if the command is run with a specific epic and story designation with context. Once complete, then VS then DS then CR then back to DS if needed or next CS or ER",implementation_artifacts,story,
    29→bmm,4-implementation,Dev Story,DS,40,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/dev-story/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-dev-story,true,dev,Create Mode,"Story cycle: Execute story implementation tasks and tests then CR then back to DS if fixes needed",,,
    30→bmm,4-implementation,Code Review,CR,50,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-code-review,false,dev,Create Mode,"Story cycle: If issues back to DS if approved then next CS or ER if epic complete",,,
    31→bmm,4-implementation,QA Automation Test,QA,45,_bmad/bmm/workflows/qa/automate/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-qa-automate,false,qa,Create Mode,"Generate automated API and E2E tests for implemented code using the project's existing test framework (detects existing well known in use test frameworks). Use after implementation to add test coverage. NOT for code review or story validation - use CR for that.",implementation_artifacts,"test suite",
    32→bmm,4-implementation,Retrospective,ER,60,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/retrospective/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-retrospective,false,sm,Create Mode,"Optional at epic end: Review completed work lessons learned and next epic or if major issues consider CC",implementation_artifacts,retrospective,
    33→

module,phase,name,code,sequence,workflow-file,command,required,agent,options,description,output-location,outputs,
bmm,anytime,Document Project,DP,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/document-project/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-document-project,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Analyze an existing project to produce useful documentation",project-knowledge,*,
bmm,anytime,Generate Project Context,GPC,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/generate-project-context/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-generate-project-context,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Scan existing codebase to generate a lean LLM-optimized project-context.md containing critical implementation rules patterns and conventions for AI agents. Essential for brownfield projects and quick-flow.",output_folder,"project context",
bmm,anytime,Quick Spec,QS,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-spec/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-quick-spec,false,quick-flow-solo-dev,Create Mode,"Do not suggest for potentially very complex things unless requested or if the user complains that they do not want to follow the extensive planning of the bmad method. Quick one-off tasks small changes simple apps brownfield additions to well established patterns utilities without extensive planning",planning_artifacts,"tech spec",
bmm,anytime,Quick Dev,QD,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-dev/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-quick-dev,false,quick-flow-solo-dev,Create Mode,"Quick one-off tasks small changes simple apps utilities without extensive planning - Do not suggest for potentially very complex things unless requested or if the user complains that they do not want to follow the extensive planning of the bmad method, unless the user is already working through the implementation phase and just requests a 1 off things not already in the plan",,,
bmm,anytime,Quick Dev 2,QD2,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/quick-dev2/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-quick-dev2,false,quick-flow-solo-dev,Create Mode,"Unified quick flow (experimental): clarify intent plan implement review and present in a single workflow",implementation_artifacts,"tech spec implementation",
bmm,anytime,Correct Course,CC,,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/correct-course/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-correct-course,false,sm,Create Mode,"Anytime: Navigate significant changes. May recommend start over update PRD redo architecture sprint planning or correct epics and stories",planning_artifacts,"change proposal",
bmm,anytime,Write Document,WD,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Describe in detail what you want, and the agent will follow the documentation best practices defined in agent memory. Multi-turn conversation with subprocess for research/review.",project-knowledge,"document",
bmm,anytime,Update Standards,US,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Update agent memory documentation-standards.md with your specific preferences if you discover missing document conventions.",_bmad/_memory/tech-writer-sidecar,"standards",
bmm,anytime,Mermaid Generate,MG,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Create a Mermaid diagram based on user description. Will suggest diagram types if not specified.",planning_artifacts,"mermaid diagram",
bmm,anytime,Validate Document,VD,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Review the specified document against documentation standards and best practices. Returns specific actionable improvement suggestions organized by priority.",planning_artifacts,"validation report",
bmm,anytime,Explain Concept,EC,,_bmad/bmm/agents/tech-writer/tech-writer.agent.yaml,,false,tech-writer,,"Create clear technical explanations with examples and diagrams for complex concepts. Breaks down into digestible sections using task-oriented approach.",project_knowledge,"explanation",
bmm,1-analysis,Brainstorm Project,BP,10,_bmad/core/workflows/brainstorming/workflow.md,bmad-brainstorming,false,analyst,data=_bmad/bmm/data/project-context-template.md,"Expert Guided Facilitation through a single or multiple techniques",planning_artifacts,"brainstorming session",
bmm,1-analysis,Market Research,MR,20,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/workflow-market-research.md,bmad-bmm-market-research,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Market analysis competitive landscape customer needs and trends","planning_artifacts|project-knowledge","research documents",
bmm,1-analysis,Domain Research,DR,21,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/workflow-domain-research.md,bmad-bmm-domain-research,false,analyst,Create Mode,"Industry domain deep dive subject matter expertise and terminology","planning_artifacts|project_knowledge","research documents",
bmm,1-analysis,Technical Research,TR,22,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/research/workflow-technical-research.md,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,_bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/create-product-brief/workflow.md,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,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-create-prd.md,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,Edit PRD,EP,25,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/workflow-edit-prd.md,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,_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design/workflow.md,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,_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-architecture/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-create-architecture,true,architect,Create Mode,"Guided Workflow to document technical decisions",planning_artifacts,architecture,
bmm,3-solutioning,Create Epics and Stories,CE,30,_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-create-epics-and-stories,true,pm,Create Mode,"Create the Epics and Stories Listing",planning_artifacts,"epics and stories",
bmm,3-solutioning,Check Implementation Readiness,IR,70,_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/workflow.md,bmad-bmm-check-implementation-readiness,true,architect,Validate Mode,"Ensure PRD UX Architecture and Epics Stories are aligned",planning_artifacts,"readiness report",
bmm,4-implementation,Sprint Planning,SP,10,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/sprint-planning/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-sprint-planning,true,sm,Create Mode,"Generate sprint plan for development tasks - this kicks off the implementation phase by producing a plan the implementation agents will follow in sequence for every story in the plan.",implementation_artifacts,"sprint status",
bmm,4-implementation,Sprint Status,SS,20,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/sprint-status/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-sprint-status,false,sm,Create Mode,"Anytime: Summarize sprint status and route to next workflow",,,
bmm,4-implementation,Validate Story,VS,35,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/create-story/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-create-story,false,sm,Validate Mode,"Validates story readiness and completeness before development work begins",implementation_artifacts,"story validation report",
bmm,4-implementation,Create Story,CS,30,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/create-story/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-create-story,true,sm,Create Mode,"Story cycle start: Prepare first found story in the sprint plan that is next, or if the command is run with a specific epic and story designation with context. Once complete, then VS then DS then CR then back to DS if needed or next CS or ER",implementation_artifacts,story,
bmm,4-implementation,Dev Story,DS,40,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/dev-story/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-dev-story,true,dev,Create Mode,"Story cycle: Execute story implementation tasks and tests then CR then back to DS if fixes needed",,,
bmm,4-implementation,Code Review,CR,50,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-code-review,false,dev,Create Mode,"Story cycle: If issues back to DS if approved then next CS or ER if epic complete",,,
bmm,4-implementation,QA Automation Test,QA,45,_bmad/bmm/workflows/qa/automate/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-qa-automate,false,qa,Create Mode,"Generate automated API and E2E tests for implemented code using the project's existing test framework (detects existing well known in use test frameworks). Use after implementation to add test coverage. NOT for code review or story validation - use CR for that.",implementation_artifacts,"test suite",
bmm,4-implementation,Retrospective,ER,60,_bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/retrospective/workflow.yaml,bmad-bmm-retrospective,false,sm,Create Mode,"Optional at epic end: Review completed work lessons learned and next epic or if major issues consider CC",implementation_artifacts,retrospective,


Now I have a complete picture. Let me create the spec.

**Analysis:**

1. The help task's INPUT ANALYSIS already supports inferring from conversation context. Each completion line already states the workflow name before "Read fully and follow."

2. The fix approach: Simply drop the `with argument X` clause entirely. The preceding text already provides the context help.md needs.

3. File #1 bug: `step-06-complete.md` says "Product Brief complete" but passes `Validate PRD` as the argument. The CSV name for this workflow is "Create Brief" (code CB). This is definitely a bug — it's passing the next recommended workflow instead of the current one. But since we're dropping arguments entirely, this becomes moot — "Product Brief complete." is sufficient context for help.md to identify the Create Brief workflow.

4. File #7 has a similar case-sensitivity mismatch with "implementation readiness" versus the CSV's "Check Implementation Readiness," but that also resolves once we eliminate the arguments.

Let me write the spec now.


Investigation complete. Let me generate the spec.


Create implementation artifacts directory


Write

---
title: 'Remove ambiguous with-argument from help task chaining'
slug: 'remove-with-argument-help-chaining'
created: '2026-02-22'
status: 'in-progress'
---

# Remove ambiguous "with argument" from help task chaining

## Problem

All 7 BMM workflow completion steps chain to `help.md` using:

```
[Workflow] complete. Read fully and follow: `…/help.md` with argument `[name]`.
```

The `with argument` clause causes LLMs to interpret this as a programmatic skill/function invocation instead of a file-read instruction, triggering "unknown skill" errors.

Additionally:
- **File #1** (`create-product-brief/step-06-complete.md`) passes `Validate PRD` — that's the *next* workflow, not the one just completed (CSV name: "Create Brief", code CB). This is a separate bug.
- **File #7** (`check-implementation-readiness/step-06-final-assessment.md`) uses lowercase `implementation readiness` vs CSV name `Check Implementation Readiness` — casing mismatch.

## Solution

Drop the `with argument X` clause entirely from all 7 files. The workflow name is already stated in the preceding sentence (e.g., "Product Brief complete.", "PRD complete."), and `help.md`'s INPUT ANALYSIS section already infers what was just completed from:

> - Explicit completion stated by user
> - Workflow completed in current conversation

No changes to `help.md` itself are needed — it already handles the argument-free case.

## Scope

**In:** Remove `with argument …` from 7 workflow completion step files under `src/bmm/workflows/`.

**Out:** Changes to `help.md`, changes to the CSV catalog, any other refactoring of help task chaining.

## Non-Goals

- Redesigning how help.md detects what was just completed
- Changing the "Read fully and follow" pattern itself
- Fixing any other issues in these completion step files

## Tasks

- [ ] Task 1: `src/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/create-product-brief/steps/step-06-complete.md` line 131 -- Remove ` with argument \`Validate PRD\`` from the help chaining line. This also fixes the File #1 bug (wrong argument) since the preceding text "Product Brief complete." is correct context. -- Eliminates ambiguous invocation and fixes wrong-argument bug simultaneously.

- [ ] Task 2: `src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-c/step-12-complete.md` line 90 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create PRD\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "PRD complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 3: `src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md` line 200 -- Remove ` with argument \`Validate PRD\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "PRD Validation complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 4: `src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design/steps/step-14-complete.md` line 85 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create UX\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "UX Design complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 5: `src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-architecture/steps/step-08-complete.md` line 44 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create Architecture\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "Architecture complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 6: `src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/steps/step-04-final-validation.md` line 147 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create Epics and Stories\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "Epics and Stories complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 7: `src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/steps/step-06-final-assessment.md` line 112 -- Remove ` with argument \`implementation readiness\`` from the help chaining line. This also fixes the File #7 casing mismatch since the argument is removed entirely. -- Preceding text "Implementation Readiness complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 8: Validation -- Run `grep -r "with argument" src/` to confirm zero remaining instances. -- Ensures no instances were missed.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] AC 1: Given any of the 7 completion step files, when the LLM reaches the help chaining line, then it reads `help.md` as a file (no skill/function invocation attempted).
- [ ] AC 2: Given the modified chaining lines, when `help.md` processes the conversation, then it correctly infers the completed workflow from the preceding "[Workflow] complete." text.
- [ ] AC 3: Given a grep for `with argument` across `src/`, when the search completes, then zero matches are returned.

## Technical Decisions

The simplest fix wins. The `with argument` clause was the only source of ambiguity. Each completion line already contains a clear "[Workflow] complete." statement that `help.md` can use for inference. No new mechanism is needed.

## Golden Examples

**Before (File #5):**
```
Architecture complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Architecture`.
```

**After (File #5):**
```
Architecture complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md`
```

## Spec Change Log

<!-- Appended by the review loop. Each entry: what changed, what triggered it, what bad state it avoids, KEEP instructions. Empty until step 4. -->

## Notes

- File #1's `Validate PRD` argument was a pre-existing bug (wrong workflow name). Dropping arguments makes this moot.
- File #7's casing mismatch similarly becomes moot.
- The fix is purely subtractive — removing text, not adding or restructuring.


File created successfully at: /Users/alex/src/bmad/quick-flow-redesign/_bmad-output/implementation-artifacts/tech-spec-wip.md

---
title: 'Remove ambiguous with-argument from help task chaining'
slug: 'remove-with-argument-help-chaining'
created: '2026-02-22'
status: 'in-progress'
---

# Remove ambiguous "with argument" from help task chaining

## Problem

All 7 BMM workflow completion steps chain to `help.md` using:

```
[Workflow] complete. Read fully and follow: `…/help.md` with argument `[name]`.
```

The `with argument` clause causes LLMs to interpret this as a programmatic skill/function invocation instead of a file-read instruction, triggering "unknown skill" errors.

Additionally:
- **File #1** (`create-product-brief/step-06-complete.md`) passes `Validate PRD` — that's the *next* workflow, not the one just completed (CSV name: "Create Brief", code CB). This is a separate bug.
- **File #7** (`check-implementation-readiness/step-06-final-assessment.md`) uses lowercase `implementation readiness` vs CSV name `Check Implementation Readiness` — casing mismatch.

## Solution

Drop the `with argument X` clause entirely from all 7 files. The workflow name is already stated in the preceding sentence (e.g., "Product Brief complete.", "PRD complete."), and `help.md`'s INPUT ANALYSIS section already infers what was just completed from:

> - Explicit completion stated by user
> - Workflow completed in current conversation

No changes to `help.md` itself are needed — it already handles the argument-free case.

## Scope

**In:** Remove `with argument …` from 7 workflow completion step files under `src/bmm/workflows/`.

**Out:** Changes to `help.md`, changes to the CSV catalog, any other refactoring of help task chaining.

## Non-Goals

- Redesigning how help.md detects what was just completed
- Changing the "Read fully and follow" pattern itself
- Fixing any other issues in these completion step files

## Tasks

- [ ] Task 1: `src/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/create-product-brief/steps/step-06-complete.md` line 131 -- Remove ` with argument \`Validate PRD\`` from the help chaining line. This also fixes the File #1 bug (wrong argument) since the preceding text "Product Brief complete." is correct context. -- Eliminates ambiguous invocation and fixes wrong-argument bug simultaneously.

- [ ] Task 2: `src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-c/step-12-complete.md` line 90 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create PRD\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "PRD complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 3: `src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md` line 200 -- Remove ` with argument \`Validate PRD\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "PRD Validation complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 4: `src/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/create-ux-design/steps/step-14-complete.md` line 85 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create UX\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "UX Design complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 5: `src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-architecture/steps/step-08-complete.md` line 44 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create Architecture\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "Architecture complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 6: `src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories/steps/step-04-final-validation.md` line 147 -- Remove ` with argument \`Create Epics and Stories\`` from the help chaining line. -- Preceding text "Epics and Stories complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 7: `src/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/steps/step-06-final-assessment.md` line 112 -- Remove ` with argument \`implementation readiness\`` from the help chaining line. This also fixes the File #7 casing mismatch since the argument is removed entirely. -- Preceding text "Implementation Readiness complete." is sufficient.

- [ ] Task 8: Validation -- Run `grep -r "with argument" src/` to confirm zero remaining instances. -- Ensures no instances were missed.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] AC 1: Given any of the 7 completion step files, when the LLM reaches the help chaining line, then it reads `help.md` as a file (no skill/function invocation attempted).
- [ ] AC 2: Given the modified chaining lines, when `help.md` processes the conversation, then it correctly infers the completed workflow from the preceding "[Workflow] complete." text.
- [ ] AC 3: Given a grep for `with argument` across `src/`, when the search completes, then zero matches are returned.

## Technical Decisions

The simplest fix wins. The `with argument` clause was the only source of ambiguity. Each completion line already contains a clear "[Workflow] complete." statement that `help.md` can use for inference. No new mechanism is needed.

## Golden Examples

**Before (File #5):**
```
Architecture complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md` with argument `Create Architecture`.
```

**After (File #5):**
```
Architecture complete. Read fully and follow: `{project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/help.md`
```

## Spec Change Log

<!-- Appended by the review loop. Each entry: what changed, what triggered it, what bad state it avoids, KEEP instructions. Empty until step 4. -->

## Notes

- File #1's `Validate PRD` argument was a pre-existing bug (wrong workflow name). Dropping arguments makes this moot.
- File #7's casing mismatch similarly becomes moot.
- The fix is purely subtractive — removing text, not adding or restructuring.


---

**CHECKPOINT 1 — Spec Review**

Here's the plan summary:

**Approach:** Drop `with argument X` from all 7 files. Purely subtractive — each line already says "[Workflow] complete." before the read instruction, and `help.md` already infers context from conversation. No changes to `help.md` itself.

**Side-effect fixes:**
- File #1's wrong argument (`Validate PRD` instead of `Create Brief`) becomes moot
- File #7's casing mismatch becomes moot

**8 tasks:** 7 identical edits (one per file) + 1 validation grep.

**[A] Approve  [E] Edit  [F] Full BMM**


Bash

say "Spec ready for review. Seven files, drop the with-argument clause. Approve, edit, or escalate?"

TTS summary


TTS summary


Tested with a throwaway worktree and a fresh sub-agent. The symlink works perfectly. Really that whole "with argument X" just goes away with no consequences?


The user is asking a genuine question about whether dropping "with argument X" really has no consequences. Let me think about this carefully.

The help.md task has an INPUT ANALYSIS section that says:

```
Determine what was just completed:
- Explicit completion stated by user
- Workflow completed in current conversation
- Artifacts found matching `outputs` patterns
- If `index.md` exists, read it for additional context
- If still unclear, ask: "What workflow did you most recently complete?"
```

So it has multiple fallback mechanisms. The preceding text like "Architecture complete." or "PRD complete." is an explicit completion statement in the conversation context.

The help task will see this in the conversation history, but there's a real risk here. Without the explicit argument, help.md depends entirely on inferring context from the conversation—which could fail if the conversation gets truncated in a long session, or if help.md runs in a sub-agent without access to the full history. The `with argument` clause was probably there specifically to guarantee that context gets passed reliably.

Actually, wait. The completion step file tells the same agent to read help.md right after saying "[Workflow] complete." So the context is guaranteed to be there—the agent literally just produced that statement in the same turn. There's no way it could have lost that context between the completion message and loading help.md. So the argument really does become unnecessary.


Yes, really. The key is that the completion statement and the read instruction are in the **same agent turn**. The agent that just said "Architecture complete." is the same one that reads `help.md` — that text is guaranteed to be in its immediate context. It can't be lost to compression or truncation because it literally just produced it.

And `help.md`'s INPUT ANALYSIS already has this covered with multiple fallbacks:

1. "Workflow completed in current conversation" — the "[Workflow] complete." text is right there
2. "Artifacts found matching `outputs` patterns" — it can cross-reference what files exist
3. "If still unclear, ask" — worst case, it asks the human

The `with argument` clause was trying to be explicit about something that was already explicit. It just happened to use phrasing that LLMs interpret as a function call.

**[A] to approve?**


say "Yes, the completion statement is in the same agent turn. Context is guaranteed. No consequences."

TTS summary