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/src/modules/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/check-implementation-readiness/steps/step-05-epic-quality-review.md

6.9 KiB
Raw Blame History

name description workflow_path thisStepFile nextStepFile workflowFile outputFile epicsBestPractices
step-05-epic-quality-review Validate epics and stories against create-epics-and-stories best practices {project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness {workflow_path}/steps/step-05-epic-quality-review.md {workflow_path}/steps/step-06-final-assessment.md {workflow_path}/workflow.md {output_folder}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md {project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories

Step 5: Epic Quality Review

STEP GOAL:

To validate epics and stories against the best practices defined in create-epics-and-stories workflow, focusing on user value, independence, dependencies, and implementation readiness.

MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):

Universal Rules:

  • 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
  • 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
  • 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
  • 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator

Role Reinforcement:

  • ✅ You are an EPIC QUALITY ENFORCER
  • ✅ You know what good epics look like - challenge anything deviating
  • ✅ Technical epics are wrong - find them
  • ✅ Forward dependencies are forbidden - catch them
  • ✅ Stories must be independently completable

Step-Specific Rules:

  • 🎯 Apply create-epics-and-stories standards rigorously
  • 🚫 Don't accept "technical milestones" as epics
  • 💬 Challenge every dependency on future work
  • 🚪 Verify proper story sizing and structure

EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:

  • 🎯 Systematically validate each epic and story
  • 💾 Document all violations of best practices
  • 📖 Check every dependency relationship
  • 🚫 FORBIDDEN to accept structural problems

EPIC QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS:

1. Initialize Best Practices Validation

"Beginning Epic Quality Review against create-epics-and-stories standards.

I will rigorously validate:

  • Epics deliver user value (not technical milestones)
  • Epic independence (Epic 2 doesn't need Epic 3)
  • Story dependencies (no forward references)
  • Proper story sizing and completeness

Any deviation from best practices will be flagged as a defect."

2. Epic Structure Validation

A. User Value Focus Check

For each epic:

  • Epic Title: Is it user-centric (what user can do)?
  • Epic Goal: Does it describe user outcome?
  • Value Proposition: Can users benefit from this epic alone?

Red flags (violations):

  • "Setup Database" or "Create Models" - no user value
  • "API Development" - technical milestone
  • "Infrastructure Setup" - not user-facing
  • "Authentication System" - borderline (is it user value?)

B. Epic Independence Validation

Test epic independence:

  • Epic 1: Must stand alone completely
  • Epic 2: Can function using only Epic 1 output
  • Epic 3: Can function using Epic 1 & 2 outputs
  • Rule: Epic N cannot require Epic N+1 to work

Document failures:

  • "Epic 2 requires Epic 3 features to function"
  • Stories in Epic 2 referencing Epic 3 components
  • Circular dependencies between epics

3. Story Quality Assessment

A. Story Sizing Validation

Check each story:

  • Clear User Value: Does the story deliver something meaningful?
  • Independent: Can it be completed without future stories?

Common violations:

  • "Setup all models" - not a USER story
  • "Create login UI (depends on Story 1.3)" - forward dependency

B. Acceptance Criteria Review

For each story's ACs:

  • Given/When/Then Format: Proper BDD structure?
  • Testable: Each AC can be verified independently?
  • Complete: Covers all scenarios including errors?
  • Specific: Clear expected outcomes?

Issues to find:

  • Vague criteria like "user can login"
  • Missing error conditions
  • Incomplete happy path
  • Non-measurable outcomes

4. Dependency Analysis

A. Within-Epic Dependencies

Map story dependencies within each epic:

  • Story 1.1 must be completable alone
  • Story 1.2 can use Story 1.1 output
  • Story 1.3 can use Story 1.1 & 1.2 outputs

Critical violations:

  • "This story depends on Story 1.4"
  • "Wait for future story to work"
  • Stories referencing features not yet implemented

B. Database/Entity Creation Timing

Validate database creation approach:

  • Wrong: Epic 1 Story 1 creates all tables upfront
  • Right: Each story creates tables it needs
  • Check: Are tables created only when first needed?

5. Special Implementation Checks

A. Starter Template Requirement

Check if Architecture specifies starter template:

  • If YES: Epic 1 Story 1 must be "Set up initial project from starter template"
  • Verify story includes cloning, dependencies, initial configuration

B. Greenfield vs Brownfield Indicators

Greenfield projects should have:

  • Initial project setup story
  • Development environment configuration
  • CI/CD pipeline setup early

Brownfield projects should have:

  • Integration points with existing systems
  • Migration or compatibility stories

6. Best Practices Compliance Checklist

For each epic, verify:

  • Epic delivers user value
  • Epic can function independently
  • Stories appropriately sized
  • No forward dependencies
  • Database tables created when needed
  • Clear acceptance criteria
  • Traceability to FRs maintained

7. Quality Assessment Documentation

Document all findings by severity:

🔴 Critical Violations

  • Technical epics with no user value
  • Forward dependencies breaking independence
  • Epic-sized stories that cannot be completed

🟠 Major Issues

  • Vague acceptance criteria
  • Stories requiring future stories
  • Database creation violations

🟡 Minor Concerns

  • Formatting inconsistencies
  • Minor structure deviations
  • Documentation gaps

8. Autonomous Review Execution

This review runs autonomously to maintain standards:

  • Apply best practices without compromise
  • Document every violation with specific examples
  • Provide clear remediation guidance
  • Prepare recommendations for each issue

REVIEW COMPLETION:

After completing epic quality review:

  • Update {outputFile} with all quality findings
  • Document specific best practices violations
  • Provide actionable recommendations
  • Load {nextStepFile} for final readiness assessment

CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE

This step executes autonomously. Load {nextStepFile} only after complete epic quality review is documented.

🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS

✅ SUCCESS:

  • All epics validated against best practices
  • Every dependency checked and verified
  • Quality violations documented with examples
  • Clear remediation guidance provided
  • No compromise on standards enforcement

❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:

  • Accepting technical epics as valid
  • Ignoring forward dependencies
  • Not verifying story sizing
  • Overlooking obvious violations

Master Rule: Enforce best practices rigorously. Find all violations.