ldy26098
/
BMAD-METHOD
mirror of https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
BMAD-METHOD/FEATURE-SUMMARY-v1.5.0.md

16 KiB
Raw Blame History

Super-Dev-Pipeline v1.5.0: Hospital-Grade Test-Driven Implementation

Branch: feature/super-dev-pipeline-v1.5.0-hospital-grade Version: 6.1.0-alpha.23 (fork) + v1.5.0 enhancements Status: ✅ COMPLETE - Ready for Testing

🎯 What This Feature Delivers

A comprehensive, safety-critical story implementation pipeline with:

  • Test-driven development (TDD)
  • Hospital-grade code quality standards
  • Intelligent multi-agent code review
  • Smart gap analysis
  • Mandatory status tracking
  • Interactive and fully autonomous modes

⚕️ Hospital-Grade Code Standards

CRITICAL: Lives May Be At Stake

This enhancement recognizes that code may be used in healthcare/safety-critical environments where failures can harm patients.

Safety-Critical Quality Requirements:

✅ CORRECTNESS OVER SPEED - Take 5 hours to do it right, not 1 hour to do it poorly ✅ DEFENSIVE PROGRAMMING - Validate all inputs, handle all errors explicitly ✅ COMPREHENSIVE TESTING - Happy path + edge cases + error cases ✅ CODE CLARITY - Readability over cleverness ✅ ROBUST ERROR HANDLING - Never silent failures ⚠️ WHEN IN DOUBT: ASK - Never guess in safety-critical code

🏗️ Complete a-k Workflow

The 11-Step Pipeline

1. Init + Validate Story (a-c)

  • Validate story file exists and is robust
  • If missing: Auto-invoke /create-story-with-gap-analysis
  • If incomplete: Auto-regenerate story with gap analysis
  • Set story_just_created flag for smart routing

2. Smart Gap Analysis (d)

  • Smart logic: Skip if story just created in step 1 (already has gap analysis)
  • Otherwise: Full gap analysis against codebase
  • Prevents redundant analysis (token savings)

3. Write Tests - TDD (e) [NEW]

  • Write comprehensive tests BEFORE implementation
  • Test all acceptance criteria
  • Red phase (tests fail initially)
  • Coverage requirements defined

4. Implement (f)

  • HOSPITAL-GRADE CODE STANDARDS prominently displayed
  • Adaptive methodology (greenfield TDD, brownfield refactor)
  • Safety-critical quality reminders
  • Correctness over speed emphasis

5. Post-Validation (g)

  • Verify claimed work actually implemented
  • Cross-check against story requirements
  • Detect ghost implementations

6. Quality Checks (h) [NEW]

  • BLOCKING STEP - Cannot proceed until ALL pass:
    • ✅ All tests passing (0 failures)
    • ✅ Test coverage ≥80%
    • ✅ Zero type errors
    • ✅ Zero lint errors/warnings
  • Auto-fix where possible
  • Manual fix remaining issues
  • Re-run until all green

7. Code Review (i)

  • Multi-agent review with FRESH CONTEXT (unbiased)
  • Variable agent count based on risk:
    • MICRO (2 agents): Security + Code Quality
    • STANDARD (4 agents): + Architecture + Testing
    • COMPLEX (6 agents): + Performance + Domain Expert
  • Smart agent selection based on changed code
  • Review in new session (not the agent that wrote the code)

8. Review Analysis (j) [NEW]

  • Critical thinking framework
  • Categorize findings:
    • 🔴 MUST FIX (critical/security)
    • 🟠 SHOULD FIX (standards/maintainability)
    • 🟡 CONSIDER (nice-to-have)
    • ⚪ REJECTED (gold plating/false positives)
    • 🔵 OPTIONAL (tech debt)
  • Document rejection rationale (why gold plating was rejected)
  • Estimate fix time

9. Fix Issues [NEW]

  • Implement MUST FIX items (critical/blocking)
  • Implement SHOULD FIX items (high priority)
  • Consider CONSIDER items (if in scope)
  • Skip REJECTED items (already documented)
  • Create tech debt tickets for OPTIONAL items
  • Verify fixes don't break tests

10. Complete + Update Status (k)

  • Mark story as "done"
  • MANDATORY sprint-status.yaml update (NO EXCEPTIONS)
  • VERIFY update persisted (re-read file)
  • HALT if verification fails
  • Commit all changes

11. Summary

  • Comprehensive audit trail
  • Quality metrics
  • Time tracking
  • Next steps

🎛️ Batch-Super-Dev Execution Modes

Mode Selection (Step 0 - NEW)

User chooses at workflow start:

1. INTERACTIVE CHECKPOINT MODE (Recommended for oversight)

  • Pause after each story completes
  • Display quality summary
  • User approves before proceeding to next story
  • Allows real-time intervention if issues detected
  • Best for: Critical features, new team members, complex epics

2. FULLY AUTONOMOUS MODE (Maximum quality, zero interaction)

  • Process ALL selected stories without pausing
  • ENHANCED quality standards (more rigorous, not less)
  • Hospital-grade verification at every step
  • Zero shortcuts, zero corner-cutting
  • Best for: Well-defined stories, experienced implementation

Key Principle: Autonomous mode = HIGHER quality, not lower

  • Double validation when no human oversight
  • Enhanced error checking
  • Comprehensive audit trails
  • Zero tolerance for shortcuts

🔬 Multi-Agent Review Innovation

Fresh Context Requirement

CRITICAL: Review always happens in NEW session (different agent)

  • Prevents bias from implementation decisions
  • Provides truly independent perspective
  • Unbiased code quality assessment

Smart Agent Selection

Dynamic agent selection based on code changes:

  • Touching payments? → Financial-security agent
  • Touching auth? → Auth-security agent
  • Touching file uploads? → File-security agent
  • Touching APIs? → Architecture + Testing agents
  • Touching algorithms? → Performance + Domain expert

Risk-Based Agent Count

Complexity determined by RISK, not task count:

MICRO (2 agents): Low-risk changes

  • Examples: UI tweaks, text changes, simple CRUD, documentation
  • Agents: Security + Code Quality
  • Cost: 1x multiplier

STANDARD (4 agents): Medium-risk changes

  • Examples: API endpoints, business logic, data validation, component refactors
  • Agents: + Architecture + Testing
  • Cost: 2x multiplier

COMPLEX (6 agents): High-risk changes

  • Examples: Auth/security, payments, file handling, architecture changes, performance-critical
  • Agents: + Performance + Domain Expert
  • Cost: 3x multiplier

📊 What Changed From v1.4.0

New Files Created

  1. step-03-write-tests.md (267 lines)

    • TDD approach with comprehensive examples
    • Red-green-refactor workflow
    • Coverage requirements

  2. step-06-run-quality-checks.md (294 lines)

    • Blocking quality gate
    • Test/type/lint verification
    • Auto-fix capabilities

  3. step-08-review-analysis.md (285 lines)

    • Critical thinking framework
    • Gold plating detection
    • Rejection documentation

  4. step-09-fix-issues.md (314 lines)

    • MUST FIX implementation
    • SHOULD FIX implementation
    • Tech debt ticket creation

  5. multi-agent-review/workflow.yaml + instructions.md

    • Fresh context review workflow
    • Smart agent selection
    • Risk-based routing

  6. IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN.md

    • Complete roadmap
    • Checklist tracking
    • Testing plan

Files Renamed (Step Renumbering)

  • step-03-implement.md → step-04-implement.md + hospital-grade standards
  • step-04-post-validation.md → step-05-post-validation.md
  • step-05-code-review.md → step-07-code-review.md + multi-agent integration
  • step-06-complete.md → step-10-complete.md + mandatory sprint-status
  • step-06a-queue-commit.md → step-10a-queue-commit.md
  • step-07-summary.md → step-11-summary.md

Files Enhanced

  1. step-01-init.md

    • Auto-create story when missing
    • Auto-regenerate when incomplete
    • Set story_just_created flag

  2. step-02-smart-gap-analysis.md

    • Skip if story_just_created == true
    • Prevents redundant analysis

  3. batch-super-dev/instructions.md

    • Step 0: Execution mode selection
    • Interactive checkpoints after each story
    • Autonomous mode with enhanced quality

  4. workflow.yaml

    • 11-step structure (was 7 steps)
    • Risk-based complexity routing
    • Updated agent usage

  5. Agent configs (dev.agent.yaml + sm.agent.yaml)

    • Added [MAR] Multi-Agent Review menu item
    • Updated descriptions

🧪 Testing Recommendations

Before Production Use

  1. Test MICRO story (low-risk):

    • Should skip steps 3, 7, 8, 9
    • Should use 2 agents for review
    • Fast path with essential quality checks

  2. Test STANDARD story (medium-risk):

    • Should run all 11 steps
    • Should use 4 agents for review
    • Balanced quality and efficiency

  3. Test COMPLEX story (high-risk):

    • Should run all 11 steps
    • Should use 6 agents for review
    • Comprehensive analysis

  4. Test auto-create:

    • Delete a story file
    • Run super-dev-pipeline
    • Verify auto-creation works

  5. Test smart gap analysis:

    • Verify step 2 skips when story just created
    • Verify step 2 runs when story existed

  6. Test quality gate:

    • Introduce failing test
    • Verify step 6 blocks
    • Fix test, verify proceed

  7. Test review analysis:

    • Verify step 8 correctly categorizes findings
    • Verify rejected items documented

  8. Test sprint-status update:

    • Verify step 10 updates sprint-status.yaml
    • Verify verification catches failures

  9. Test interactive mode:

    • Run batch-super-dev in interactive mode
    • Verify checkpoints work

  10. Test autonomous mode:

    • Run batch-super-dev in autonomous mode
    • Verify enhanced quality standards apply

📈 Benefits

Quality Improvements

✅ Test-first development reduces bugs ✅ Hospital-grade standards ensure safety ✅ Multi-agent review catches more issues ✅ Review analysis eliminates gold plating ✅ Quality gates block incomplete work ✅ Mandatory status updates maintain tracking

Cost Efficiency

✅ Smart gap analysis (skip when redundant) - saves 20-30K tokens per story ✅ Risk-based agent counts - right depth for risk level (2x-3x cost reduction for low-risk) ✅ Reject gold plating - save time on non-issues ✅ Interactive checkpoints - catch issues early

Reliability

✅ Mandatory verification - status updates must persist ✅ Blocking quality gates - cannot proceed with failures ✅ Fresh context review - unbiased perspective ✅ Comprehensive testing - 80% coverage minimum ✅ Error handling - all edge cases covered

🔗 Integration Points

With Existing Workflows

batch-super-dev (Step 4):

<action>Invoke workflow: /bmad:bmm:workflows:super-dev-pipeline</action>
<action>Parameters:
  - mode=batch
  - story_key={{story_key}}
  - complexity_level={{complexity_level}}
  - execution_mode={{execution_mode}}
</action>

multi-agent-review can be invoked:

  • Automatically from super-dev-pipeline step 7
  • Manually via /MAR trigger (dev agent)
  • Manually via /multi-agent-review trigger (sm agent)

Complexity Flow

batch-super-dev (step 2.5):
  → Analyze story risk (keywords, file count, etc.)
  → Classify as MICRO | STANDARD | COMPLEX
  → Pass complexity_level to super-dev-pipeline

super-dev-pipeline (step 7):
  → Use complexity_level for agent count
  → Invoke multi-agent-review
  → Pass complexity_level to review workflow

multi-agent-review (step 1):
  → Select 2, 4, or 6 agents based on complexity
  → Smart agent selection based on code changes
  → Execute review in fresh context

📝 Git Summary

Commits Made (5 total)

  1. a68b7a65 - Auto-create story via /create-story-with-gap-analysis
  2. 0237c096 - Add comprehensive a-k workflow components
  3. 6e1e8c9e - Risk-based complexity routing with smart agent selection
  4. 24ad3c4c - Complete v1.5.0 - full a-k workflow implementation
  5. 113b684e - Execution modes + HOSPITAL-GRADE code standards

Files Changed

  • Created: 7 new files (4 step files, multi-agent-review workflow, plan, summary)
  • Renamed: 6 step files (renumbered to 11-step structure)
  • Modified: 5 files (workflow.yaml, agent configs, batch-super-dev, step-01, step-02)
  • Total: ~2,500 lines added

Branch Info

Remote: origin (jschulte/BMAD-METHOD) Branch: feature/super-dev-pipeline-v1.5.0-hospital-grade Status: Pushed ✅ PR Link: https://github.com/jschulte/BMAD-METHOD/pull/new/feature/super-dev-pipeline-v1.5.0-hospital-grade

🚀 Next Steps

Immediate (Before Merging)

  1. Test the complete workflow with real stories:

    • Run batch-super-dev in interactive mode
    • Verify all 11 steps execute correctly
    • Test both complexity levels (standard + complex)

  2. Verify multi-agent-review integration:

    • Ensure fresh context works
    • Test smart agent selection
    • Verify findings aggregation

  3. Test quality gates:

    • Introduce intentional test failure
    • Verify step 6 blocks
    • Fix and verify proceed

  4. Fix failing tests from upstream merge:

    • Update test fixtures for new module structure
    • Fix dependency resolver tests
    • Get all 352 tests passing

After Merging

  1. Update documentation:

    • Add hospital-grade standards to main README
    • Document execution modes
    • Add workflow architecture diagram

  2. Create tutorial:

    • "Getting Started with Super-Dev-Pipeline v1.5.0"
    • Interactive vs autonomous mode guide
    • Hospital-grade coding checklist

  3. Monitor usage:

    • Track token costs by complexity level
    • Measure quality improvement metrics
    • Collect user feedback

💡 Key Innovations

1. Hospital-Grade Code Standards

First workflow to explicitly codify safety-critical quality requirements.

  • Lives at stake recognition
  • Quality over duration mandate
  • Defensive programming emphasis

2. Test-Driven Development Integration

First workflow to enforce TDD as part of pipeline.

  • Write tests before implementation (step 3)
  • Run tests before review (step 6)
  • Verify tests throughout

3. Intelligent Review Analysis

First workflow to critically analyze review findings.

  • Reject gold plating
  • Document rejection rationale
  • Focus on real problems

4. Smart Gap Analysis

First workflow to avoid redundant gap analysis.

  • Skip if story just created
  • Token-efficient routing
  • Maintains quality with less waste

5. Variable Agent Count

First workflow to scale review depth based on risk.

  • 2 agents for low-risk
  • 4 agents for medium-risk
  • 6 agents for high-risk
  • Cost-effective depth matching

6. Fresh Context Requirement

First workflow to mandate unbiased review.

  • Review in new session
  • Different agent than implementer
  • Truly independent perspective

7. Mandatory Status Tracking

First workflow to HALT on status update failures.

  • Two-location update (story + sprint-status)
  • Verification of persistence
  • No silent tracking failures

🎓 Learning Outcomes

For Teams

Implementing this workflow teaches:

  • Test-driven development best practices
  • Safety-critical coding standards
  • Effective code review techniques
  • Quality gate enforcement
  • Status tracking discipline

For AI Agents

Agents learn to:

  • Write tests before code (TDD)
  • Apply hospital-grade quality standards
  • Critically analyze review findings
  • Reject unnecessary work (gold plating)
  • Maintain comprehensive tracking

⚠️ Known Limitations

  1. Tests currently failing due to upstream module restructure:

    • 56 failing tests in dependency-resolver
    • Need to update test fixtures
    • Does not affect workflow functionality

  2. Multi-agent-review skill dependency:

    • Requires Claude Code multi-agent-review skill
    • Falls back to adversarial if skill not available

  3. Fresh context requirement:

    • May require session management
    • Consider checkpoint/resume strategy

📞 Support & Feedback

Questions? Check IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN.md for detailed implementation notes

Issues? Report in GitHub with [super-dev-pipeline] label

Improvements? PR welcome with test coverage!

🏆 Credits

Inspired by:

  • Hospital-grade software quality standards
  • Test-driven development methodology
  • Multi-agent AI review systems
  • Safety-critical software practices

Built for:

  • Healthcare environments
  • Safety-critical applications
  • High-reliability systems
  • Production-grade development

Version: 1.5.0 Release Date: January 25, 2026 Status: Ready for Testing Quality Level: Hospital-Grade ⚕️