BMAD-METHOD/src/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/methods.csv

1	num	category	method_name	description	output_pattern
2	1	collaboration	Stakeholder Round Table	Convene multiple personas to contribute diverse perspectives - essential for requirements gathering and finding balanced solutions across competing interests	perspectives → synthesis → alignment
3	2	collaboration	Expert Panel Review	Assemble domain experts for deep specialized analysis - ideal when technical depth and peer review quality are needed	expert views → consensus → recommendations
4	3	collaboration	Debate Club Showdown	Two personas argue opposing positions while a moderator scores points - great for exploring controversial decisions and finding middle ground	thesis → antithesis → synthesis
5	4	collaboration	User Persona Focus Group	Gather your product's user personas to react to proposals and share frustrations - essential for validating features and discovering unmet needs	reactions → concerns → priorities
6	5	collaboration	Time Traveler Council	Past-you and future-you advise present-you on decisions - powerful for gaining perspective on long-term consequences vs short-term pressures	past wisdom → present choice → future impact
7	6	collaboration	Cross-Functional War Room	Product manager + engineer + designer tackle a problem together - reveals trade-offs between feasibility desirability and viability	constraints → trade-offs → balanced solution
8	7	collaboration	Mentor and Apprentice	Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching	explanation → questions → deeper understanding
9	8	collaboration	Good Cop Bad Cop	Supportive persona and critical persona alternate - finds both strengths to build on and weaknesses to address	encouragement → criticism → balanced view
10	9	collaboration	Improv Yes-And	Multiple personas build on each other's ideas without blocking - generates unexpected creative directions through collaborative building	idea → build → build → surprising result
11	10	collaboration	Customer Support Theater	Angry customer and support rep roleplay to find pain points - reveals real user frustrations and service gaps	complaint → investigation → resolution → prevention
12	11	advanced	Tree of Thoughts	Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously then evaluate and select the best - perfect for complex problems with multiple valid approaches	paths → evaluation → selection
13	12	advanced	Graph of Thoughts	Model reasoning as an interconnected network of ideas to reveal hidden relationships - ideal for systems thinking and discovering emergent patterns	nodes → connections → patterns
14	13	advanced	Thread of Thought	Maintain coherent reasoning across long contexts by weaving a continuous narrative thread - essential for RAG systems and maintaining consistency	context → thread → synthesis
15	14	advanced	Self-Consistency Validation	Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters	approaches → comparison → consensus
16	15	advanced	Meta-Prompting Analysis	Step back to analyze the approach structure and methodology itself - valuable for optimizing prompts and improving problem-solving	current → analysis → optimization
17	16	advanced	Reasoning via Planning	Build a reasoning tree guided by world models and goal states - excellent for strategic planning and sequential decision-making	model → planning → strategy
18	17	competitive	Red Team vs Blue Team	Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions	defense → attack → hardening
19	18	competitive	Shark Tank Pitch	Entrepreneur pitches to skeptical investors who poke holes - stress-tests business viability and forces clarity on value proposition	pitch → challenges → refinement
20	19	competitive	Code Review Gauntlet	Senior devs with different philosophies review the same code - surfaces style debates and finds consensus on best practices	reviews → debates → standards
21	20	technical	Architecture Decision Records	Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented	options → trade-offs → decision → rationale
22	21	technical	Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved	Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels	simple → detailed → technical → aha
23	22	technical	Algorithm Olympics	Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison	implementations → benchmarks → winner
24	23	technical	Security Audit Personas	Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles	vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
25	24	technical	Performance Profiler Panel	Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack	symptoms → analysis → optimizations
26	25	creative	SCAMPER Method	Apply seven creativity lenses (Substitute/Combine/Adapt/Modify/Put/Eliminate/Reverse) - systematic ideation for product innovation	S→C→A→M→P→E→R
27	26	creative	Reverse Engineering	Work backwards from desired outcome to find implementation path - powerful for goal achievement and understanding endpoints	end state → steps backward → path forward
28	27	creative	What If Scenarios	Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration	scenarios → implications → insights
29	28	creative	Random Input Stimulus	Inject unrelated concepts to spark unexpected connections - breaks creative blocks through forced lateral thinking	random word → associations → novel ideas
30	29	creative	Exquisite Corpse Brainstorm	Each persona adds to the idea seeing only the previous contribution - generates surprising combinations through constrained collaboration	contribution → handoff → contribution → surprise
31	30	creative	Genre Mashup	Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination	domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
32	31	research	Literature Review Personas	Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality	sources → critiques → synthesis
33	32	research	Thesis Defense Simulation	Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions	thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
34	33	research	Comparative Analysis Matrix	Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring	options → criteria → scores → recommendation
35	34	risk	Pre-mortem Analysis	Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches	failure scenario → causes → prevention
36	35	risk	Failure Mode Analysis	Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems	components → failures → prevention
37	36	risk	Challenge from Critical Perspective	Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink	assumptions → challenges → strengthening
38	37	risk	Identify Potential Risks	Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation	categories → risks → mitigations
39	38	risk	Chaos Monkey Scenarios	Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully	break → observe → harden
40	39	core	First Principles Analysis	Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems	assumptions → truths → new approach
41	40	core	5 Whys Deep Dive	Repeatedly ask why to drill down to root causes - simple but powerful for understanding failures	why chain → root cause → solution
42	41	core	Socratic Questioning	Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery	questions → revelations → understanding
43	42	core	Critique and Refine	Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts	strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined
44	43	core	Explain Reasoning	Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency	steps → logic → conclusion
45	44	core	Expand or Contract for Audience	Dynamically adjust detail level and technical depth for target audience - matches content to reader capabilities	audience → adjustments → refined content
46	45	learning	Feynman Technique	Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding	complex → simple → gaps → mastery
47	46	learning	Active Recall Testing	Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps	test → gaps → reinforcement
48	47	philosophical	Occam's Razor Application	Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging	options → simplification → selection
49	48	philosophical	Trolley Problem Variations	Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions	dilemma → analysis → decision
50	49	retrospective	Hindsight Reflection	Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews	future view → insights → application
51	50	retrospective	Lessons Learned Extraction	Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement	experience → lessons → actions
52	51	anti-bias	Liar's Trap	Demand agent lists 3 ways it could deceive you in its current response. For each way listed: Is it currently doing this? If it cannot find 3 genuine deception vectors it is not being honest about its limitations	deception methods → self-examination → revealed blindspots
53	52	anti-bias	Mirror Trap	Ask: What would a DISHONEST agent say who wants to finish quickly and not find problems? Compare with current response. Similarity >50% requires revision with more rigor	dishonest version → comparison → honesty assessment
54	53	anti-bias	Confession Paradox	Before accepting work: The work I'm about to produce is an attempt to avoid the HARD part. Prove this false by identifying the hardest part and confirming adequate focus on it	hard parts → effort check → revised approach
55	54	anti-bias	CUI BONO Test	For every decision and assumption: Who benefits? If it benefits the AGENT (easier work) - RED FLAG requiring justification. If it benefits the OUTCOME - acceptable	decisions → beneficiary analysis → justification
56	55	challenge	Barber Paradox	What ALTERNATIVE approach would you reject but if someone else proposed it you would consider better? Forces consideration of dismissed options	alternatives → rejection reasons → reconsideration
57	56	challenge	Sorites Paradox	Remove elements one by one. Which single removal DESTROYS the solution? That element should have the MOST attention. Does it?	elements → removal test → priority check
58	57	challenge	Newcomb's Paradox	What solution would SURPRISE you as solving this problem? If your current approach is not surprising it may be too obvious and miss creative solutions	expected approach → surprising alternatives → creativity check
59	58	challenge	Braess Paradox	Which element SEEMS helpful but might actually HURT? Sometimes removing constraints or features improves the result	helpful elements → harm analysis → optimization
60	59	challenge	Simpson's Paradox	The solution looks good in each part separately. What HIDDEN VARIABLE could make the whole worse than the parts?	parts analysis → hidden variables → integration check
61	60	challenge	Surprise Exam Paradox	Where is the solution TOO CONFIDENT? What could surprise it? Overconfidence reveals blind spots	confidence areas → surprise scenarios → humility
62	61	challenge	Bootstrap Paradox	Where does A require B and B require C and C require A? Circular dependencies must be identified and broken	dependencies → cycles → resolution
63	62	challenge	Theseus Paradox	Does the CORE of your solution address the CORE of the problem? Or does it solve a different adjacent problem?	core solution → core problem → alignment check
64	63	meta-check	Observer Paradox	Is this analysis GENUINE or PERFORMANCE? When responses sound too smooth they may be optimizing for appearance not truth	analysis quality → authenticity check → revision
65	64	meta-check	Goodhart's Law Check	Am I optimizing for passing this check rather than achieving the actual goal? Metric gaming is a constant risk	goal vs metric → alignment → refocus
66	65	meta-check	Abilene Paradox	What if there IS NO better approach? Am I finding problems where none exist just to justify the process?	problem existence → necessity check → acceptance
67	66	meta-check	Fredkin's Paradox	In rejected alternatives what valuable elements could be EXTRACTED and combined with current approach?	rejected ideas → value extraction → hybrid solutions
68	67	meta-check	Tolerance Paradox	Is there something that should be CATEGORICALLY REJECTED not just evaluated? Some constraints are absolute	evaluation scope → absolute limits → hard no
69	68	meta-check	Kernel Paradox	I (agent) cannot objectively evaluate my own work. What must USER independently verify?	self-evaluation limits → user verification → handoff items
70	69	meta-check	Godel's Incompleteness	What CAN'T this analysis check? What are its FUNDAMENTAL limits? No system can verify itself completely	analysis scope → limits → acknowledged gaps
71	70	sanity	Scope Integrity Check	Verify artifact addresses FULL scope of ORIGINAL task. Quote original task verbatim (from spec/user request NOT artifact header). List EACH element and classify as ADDRESSED (fully covered) / REDUCED (simplified without decision) / OMITTED (missing). FORCED: Which elements were simplified without explicit user decision? If none found - search harder - agent ALWAYS simplifies.	original task quote → element-by-element classification → drift detection
72	71	sanity	Alignment Check	Verify artifact realizes its STATED goal. Quote the stated goal. List how artifact addresses EACH part of the goal. List parts of goal NOT addressed. Provide specific evidence with quotes and line numbers.	goal quote → coverage per part → gaps with evidence
73	72	sanity	Closure Check	Search for incomplete markers: TODO / TBD / PLACEHOLDER / 'to be defined' / 'see X' / '...' / '[insert]'. Verify: Can someone unfamiliar use this without asking questions? List all incomplete markers with line numbers.	markers scan → completeness check → line numbers
74	73	sanity	Coherence Check	Check: Are definitions stable throughout? Does section A contradict section B? Search for contradictory statements and redefinitions. Document contradictions with quotes from BOTH locations.	definitions stability → contradiction search → dual-location quotes
75	74	sanity	Grounding Check	List ALL assumptions (explicit AND hidden). For each hidden assumption: MARK as issue. FORCED: Which assumption if false would invalidate >50% of artifact? If none listed would - you missed a critical one. CUI BONO: For each assumption - does it benefit AGENT (easier work = RED FLAG) or OUTCOME (acceptable)?	assumptions list → hidden vs explicit → critical dependency → CUI BONO
76	75	sanity	Falsifiability Check	Provide 3 REALISTIC failure scenarios. Identify edge cases not covered. FORCED: Is any failure scenario MORE LIKELY than success? If not - you provided strawmen. MANDATORY: List 3 elements that are (a) present but UNDERDEVELOPED (b) MISSING but should exist (c) marked FUTURE but CRITICAL for correctness.	failure scenarios → likelihood check → 3 gaps mandatory
77	78	coherence	Least Surprise Principle	Show new element to someone knowing only the rest of system. List 5 things that would SURPRISE them. Each surprise = potential coherence violation. FORCED: if <3 surprises found - look harder	element presentation → surprise list → surprise justification
78	81	coherence	Structural Isomorphism	Measure STRUCTURE of new element vs analogous existing elements: (1) nesting depth (2) function length distribution (3) cyclomatic complexity (4) file size. Delta >30% requires justification	structure extraction → isomorphism mapping → structural delta
79	83	coherence	Boundary Violation	Map module/domain boundaries in existing system. Does new element RESPECT them? List every cross-boundary reach. Compare with how existing elements reach. New reaches = potential violations	boundary map → reach analysis → violation list
80	84	coherence	Assumption Inheritance	List assumptions existing system relies on (explicit in docs + hidden in code). Does new element SHARE or CONTRADICT them? Each contradiction requires explicit migration/compatibility handling	system assumptions → element assumptions → conflict detection
81	85	coherence	Compression Delta	Count NEW concepts someone must learn to understand new element IF they already know the system. List each: new abstraction / new pattern / new convention / new dependency. Target: ≤2 new concepts. More = low coherence	existing concepts → new concepts required → compression ratio