BMAD-METHOD/docs/learn/module-14-agentic-development/lesson-02-documenting-decis...

5.0 KiB

Module 14: Agentic Development

Lesson 2: Evaluation and Feedback

Staying in control as the agent builds


The Step Is Done. Now What?

The agent completed a step. You have output — code, a component, a visual.

Now is the most important moment: evaluation.

This is where you, the designer, earn your keep. The AI builds fast. You decide if what it built is right.


The Evaluation Cycle

After every step:

1. Compare to Intent

Does the output match what you asked for?

  • Check against the specification
  • Check against the test protocol
  • Look at it with fresh eyes — not just technically correct, but does it feel right?

2. Give Feedback

Tell the agent specifically what's wrong or right. The more precise your feedback, the better the next iteration.

3. Update the Plan

Based on what you learned, adjust:

  • Reprioritize — this task turned out to be more important
  • Add tasks — something new emerged
  • Remove tasks — this is no longer needed
  • Split tasks — this was too big, break it down
  • Shuffle order — the sequence should change

Giving Effective Feedback

Bad Feedback

"This doesn't look right."

The agent doesn't know what "right" means. It will guess, probably wrong.

Good Feedback

"The spacing between the form fields is too tight. The spec says 16px between fields, this looks like 8px. Also, the submit button should be full-width, not centered at 200px."

Specific. Referenced to spec. Actionable.

Better Feedback

"Two issues:

  1. Field spacing: spec says 16px gap, implementation has 8px. Fix to 16px.
  2. Submit button: spec says full-width (100%), implementation is 200px centered. Fix to 100%.

Everything else looks correct. Proceed to next step after fixing."

Numbered. Clear priority. Confirms what's correct too.


What to Evaluate

Against Specification

Check Question
Content Does text match spec exactly?
Layout Are elements positioned correctly?
States Are all states present and correct?
Behavior Do interactions work as specified?
Styling Do colors, fonts, spacing match tokens?

Against Intent

Not everything is in the spec. Use your design judgment:

  • Does the visual hierarchy feel right?
  • Is the flow natural?
  • Would a user understand this immediately?
  • Does it match the persona's needs?

Against Quality

  • Accessibility: contrast, focus states, touch targets
  • Responsiveness: does it work on all sizes?
  • Performance: is it smooth?

Re-evaluating the Plan

After evaluation, open the Design Log and update the task list.

Before step 3:

## Tasks
1. [x] Create form layout
2. [x] Add validation
3. [ ] Implement error states
4. [ ] Loading and success states
5. [ ] Responsive adjustments
6. [ ] Accessibility pass

After step 3 revealed mobile layout issues:

## Tasks
1. [x] Create form layout
2. [x] Add validation
3. [x] Implement error states
4. [ ] Fix mobile layout for error messages    ← NEW
5. [ ] Loading and success states
6. [ ] Responsive adjustments
7. [ ] Accessibility pass
8. [ ] Revisit password strength on mobile     ← NEW (from step 2 learning)

The plan grows and shrinks. That's normal.


When Output Is Wrong

Three common situations:

1. Spec Divergence

The output doesn't match the spec.

Action: Point to the specific spec section. Ask the agent to fix it.

"The spec says the error message appears below the field, but it's rendering as a toast notification. Fix to inline below-field as per spec section 4.2."

2. Spec Was Wrong

Building revealed the spec needs updating.

Action: Update the spec first, then continue building.

"The spec says inline validation on keypress, but that's too aggressive. Updating spec to blur-based validation. Continue with updated approach."

3. Better Idea

The agent or you discovered a better approach during building.

Action: Document the improvement, update spec, continue.

"The agent suggested a shake animation on error instead of just red text. That's better UX. Updating spec to include shake. Document as intentional improvement."


The Evaluation Mindset

Think of yourself as a creative director reviewing work:

  • Be specific — point to exact elements
  • Be decisive — approve or reject, don't waffle
  • Be efficient — one round of feedback per step, not five
  • Confirm what's right — not just what's wrong
  • Think strategically — does this serve the user, the persona, the business goal?

What's Next

In the next lesson, you'll learn what to do when things go wrong — when the agent can't solve the problem and you need to troubleshoot or escalate.


Continue to Lesson 3: When You Get Stuck →


← Back to Lesson 1 | Back to Module Overview

Part of Module 14: Agentic Development