162 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
162 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
# Investigation Plan for PR #826
|
|
|
|
**Date:** 2025-10-28
|
|
**PR:** #826 - Feature/enhanced product planning
|
|
**Branch:** main (target)
|
|
**Type:** Documentation addition
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
|
|
PR #826 proposes adding a single documentation file (`high-level-product-plan.md`) to the repository root. Unlike PR #821, this is a straightforward documentation addition with no code changes, no architectural divergence, and no schema conflicts.
|
|
|
|
**Key Characteristics:**
|
|
|
|
- Single file addition (147 lines)
|
|
- Pure markdown documentation
|
|
- Generic product planning checklist
|
|
- No dependencies on existing BMAD structure
|
|
- No code or configuration changes
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Potential Issues to Investigate
|
|
|
|
### 1. **Placement & Organization** (High Priority)
|
|
|
|
- **Question:** Should a generic product planning guide live at repository root?
|
|
- **Concern:** Repository root is typically reserved for core project files (README, LICENSE, CONTRIBUTING, etc.)
|
|
- **Alternative locations:**
|
|
- `docs/planning/` or `docs/guides/`
|
|
- `docs/product-planning.md`
|
|
- As part of existing workflow/template documentation
|
|
|
|
### 2. **Relevance to BMAD Method** (Medium Priority)
|
|
|
|
- **Question:** How does this generic checklist relate to BMAD's AI-driven agile methodology?
|
|
- **Concern:** Content is generic (could apply to any software project), not BMAD-specific
|
|
- **Considerations:**
|
|
- Does it integrate with existing BMAD workflows?
|
|
- Should it reference BMAD agents, modules, or CLI?
|
|
- Could it be enhanced to leverage BMAD's unique value?
|
|
|
|
### 3. **Duplication & Overlap** (Medium Priority)
|
|
|
|
- **Question:** Does existing BMAD documentation already cover these topics?
|
|
- **Check against:**
|
|
- `PRD.md` - Product Requirements Document
|
|
- `docs/` directory contents
|
|
- Existing module documentation
|
|
- Workflow templates
|
|
|
|
### 4. **Completeness & Quality** (Low Priority)
|
|
|
|
- **Question:** Is the content complete, accurate, and well-structured?
|
|
- **Review:**
|
|
- Markdown formatting and lint compliance
|
|
- Content accuracy and best practices
|
|
- Missing sections or considerations
|
|
- Links and references
|
|
|
|
### 5. **Naming & Conventions** (Low Priority)
|
|
|
|
- **Question:** Does filename follow repository conventions?
|
|
- **Check:**
|
|
- Kebab-case vs other conventions in root
|
|
- Descriptive vs generic naming
|
|
- Consistency with existing doc files
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Investigation Phases
|
|
|
|
### Phase 1: Context & Placement Review (1-2 hours)
|
|
|
|
- Survey repository root files and identify patterns
|
|
- Review `docs/` directory structure
|
|
- Check existing planning/workflow documentation
|
|
- Determine ideal location for this type of content
|
|
|
|
### Phase 2: Content Analysis (1-2 hours)
|
|
|
|
- Compare with existing BMAD documentation
|
|
- Identify overlaps or gaps
|
|
- Assess BMAD-specific applicability
|
|
- Evaluate content quality and accuracy
|
|
|
|
### Phase 3: Integration Assessment (1 hour)
|
|
|
|
- Determine how this fits with BMAD workflows
|
|
- Identify opportunities to link to BMAD agents/modules
|
|
- Consider whether content should be BMAD-enhanced
|
|
|
|
### Phase 4: Recommendation & Fix (1 hour)
|
|
|
|
- Accept as-is, relocate, or request enhancements
|
|
- Prepare suggested changes if needed
|
|
- Draft PR comment with feedback
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision Framework
|
|
|
|
### Scenario A: Accept with Relocation
|
|
|
|
**If:** Content is valuable but misplaced
|
|
**Action:** Suggest moving to `docs/planning/product-planning.md` or similar
|
|
**Effort:** Minimal (path change in PR)
|
|
|
|
### Scenario B: Accept with Enhancements
|
|
|
|
**If:** Content is good but could be BMAD-specific
|
|
**Action:** Suggest BMAD integration opportunities (link to agents, CLI, workflows)
|
|
**Effort:** Low to Medium (content additions)
|
|
|
|
### Scenario C: Accept as Documentation Reference
|
|
|
|
**If:** Content is useful generic reference
|
|
**Action:** Accept but recommend clear positioning as "general reference" vs "BMAD method"
|
|
**Effort:** Minimal (clarifying note)
|
|
|
|
### Scenario D: Decline Politely
|
|
|
|
**If:** Content duplicates existing docs or doesn't fit BMAD scope
|
|
**Action:** Thank contributor, explain rationale, suggest alternatives
|
|
**Effort:** Minimal (polite rejection)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Timeline Estimate
|
|
|
|
- **Phase 1 (Context):** 1-2 hours
|
|
- **Phase 2 (Content):** 1-2 hours
|
|
- **Phase 3 (Integration):** 1 hour
|
|
- **Phase 4 (Recommendation):** 1 hour
|
|
|
|
**Total:** 4-6 hours (significantly lighter than PR #821)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Success Criteria
|
|
|
|
1. ✅ Clear understanding of where this content fits in BMAD
|
|
2. ✅ Identification of any overlaps with existing docs
|
|
3. ✅ Recommendation on placement/enhancement/acceptance
|
|
4. ✅ Constructive feedback prepared for contributor
|
|
5. ✅ Decision aligned with BMAD's documentation strategy
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Key Differences from PR #821
|
|
|
|
| Aspect | PR #821 | PR #826 |
|
|
| ----------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------- |
|
|
| Type | Code + structure | Documentation only |
|
|
| Complexity | 152 files, 27K lines | 1 file, 147 lines |
|
|
| Integration | Architectural divergence | Simple placement question |
|
|
| Risk | High (dual systems) | Low (doc addition) |
|
|
| Effort | 22-34 hours | 4-6 hours |
|
|
|
|
This is a straightforward documentation review, not a deep architectural investigation.
|