cfedecbd53
## 📚 Complete Documentation Restructure **BMM Documentation Hub Created:** - New centralized documentation system at `src/modules/bmm/docs/` - 18 comprehensive guides organized by topic (7000+ lines total) - Clear learning paths for greenfield, brownfield, and quick spec flows - Professional technical writing standards throughout **New Documentation:** - `README.md` - Complete documentation hub with navigation - `quick-start.md` - 15-minute getting started guide - `agents-guide.md` - Comprehensive 12-agent reference (45 min read) - `party-mode.md` - Multi-agent collaboration guide (20 min read) - `scale-adaptive-system.md` - Deep dive on Levels 0-4 (42 min read) - `brownfield-guide.md` - Existing codebase development (53 min read) - `quick-spec-flow.md` - Rapid Level 0-1 development (26 min read) - `workflows-analysis.md` - Phase 1 workflows (12 min read) - `workflows-planning.md` - Phase 2 workflows (19 min read) - `workflows-solutioning.md` - Phase 3 workflows (13 min read) - `workflows-implementation.md` - Phase 4 workflows (33 min read) - `workflows-testing.md` - Testing & QA workflows (29 min read) - `workflow-architecture-reference.md` - Architecture workflow deep-dive - `workflow-document-project-reference.md` - Document-project workflow reference - `enterprise-agentic-development.md` - Team collaboration patterns - `faq.md` - Comprehensive Q&A covering all topics - `glossary.md` - Complete terminology reference - `troubleshooting.md` - Common issues and solutions **Documentation Improvements:** - Removed all version/date footers (git handles versioning) - Agent customization docs now include full rebuild process - Cross-referenced links between all guides - Reading time estimates for all major docs - Consistent professional formatting and structure **Consolidated & Streamlined:** - Module README (`src/modules/bmm/README.md`) streamlined to lean signpost - Root README polished with better hierarchy and clear CTAs - Moved docs from root `docs/` to module-specific locations - Better separation of user docs vs. developer reference ## 🤖 New Agent: Paige (Documentation Guide) **Role:** Technical documentation specialist and information architect **Expertise:** - Professional technical writing standards - Documentation structure and organization - Information architecture and navigation - User-focused content design - Style guide enforcement **Status:** Work in progress - Paige will evolve as documentation needs grow **Integration:** - Listed in agents-guide.md, glossary.md, FAQ - Available for all phases (documentation is continuous) - Can be customized like all BMM agents ## 🔧 Additional Changes - Updated agent manifest with Paige - Updated workflow manifest with new documentation workflows - Fixed workflow-to-agent mappings across all guides - Improved root README with clearer Quick Start section - Better module structure explanations - Enhanced community links with Discord channel names **Total Impact:** - 18 new/restructured documentation files - 7000+ lines of professional technical documentation - Complete navigation system with cross-references - Clear learning paths for all user types - Foundation for knowledge base (coming in beta) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| README.md | ||
| checklist.md | ||
| instructions.md | ||
| workflow.yaml | ||
README.md
| last-redoc-date |
|---|
| 2025-10-01 |
Correct Course Workflow
The correct-course workflow is v6's adaptive response mechanism for stories that encounter issues during development or review, enabling intelligent course correction without restarting from scratch. Run by the Scrum Master (SM) or Team Lead, this workflow analyzes why a story is blocked or has issues, determines whether the story scope needs adjustment, requirements need clarification, technical approach needs revision, or the story needs to be split or reconsidered. This represents the agile principle of embracing change even late in the development cycle, but doing so in a structured way that captures learning and maintains project coherence.
Unlike simply abandoning failed work or blindly pushing forward, correct-course provides a systematic approach to diagnosing issues and determining appropriate remediation. The workflow examines the original story specification, what was actually implemented, what issues arose during development or review, and the broader epic context to recommend the best path forward. This might involve clarifying requirements, adjusting acceptance criteria, revising technical approach, splitting the story into smaller pieces, or even determining the story should be deprioritized.
The critical value of this workflow is that it prevents thrashing—endless cycles of implementation and rework without clear direction. By stepping back to analyze what went wrong and charting a clear path forward, the correct-course workflow enables teams to learn from difficulties and adapt intelligently rather than stubbornly proceeding with a flawed approach.
Usage
# Analyze issues and recommend course correction
bmad run correct-course
The workflow should be run when:
- Review identifies critical issues requiring rethinking
- Developer encounters blocking issues during implementation
- Acceptance criteria prove infeasible or unclear
- Technical approach needs significant revision
- Story scope needs adjustment based on discoveries
Inputs
Required Context:
- Story Document: Original story specification
- Implementation Attempts: Code changes and approaches tried
- Review Feedback: Issues and concerns identified
- Epic Context: Overall epic goals and current progress
- Technical Constraints: Architecture decisions and limitations discovered
Analysis Focus:
- Root cause of issues or blockages
- Feasibility of current story scope
- Clarity of requirements and acceptance criteria
- Appropriateness of technical approach
- Whether story should be split or revised
Outputs
Primary Deliverable:
- Course Correction Report (
[story-id]-correction.md): Analysis and recommendations including:- Issue root cause analysis
- Impact assessment on epic and project
- Recommended corrective actions with rationale
- Revised story specification if applicable
- Updated acceptance criteria if needed
- Technical approach adjustments
- Timeline and effort implications
Possible Outcomes:
- Clarify Requirements: Update story with clearer acceptance criteria
- Revise Scope: Adjust story scope to be more achievable
- Split Story: Break into multiple smaller stories
- Change Approach: Recommend different technical approach
- Deprioritize: Determine story should be deferred or cancelled
- Unblock: Identify and address blocking dependencies
Artifacts:
- Updated story document if revision needed
- New story documents if splitting story
- Updated epic backlog reflecting changes
- Lessons learned for retrospective