BMAD-METHOD/bmad-agent/tasks/inter-persona-feedback-task.md

Inter-Persona Feedback Task

Purpose

Create systematic feedback loops between BMAD personas to improve handoffs, reduce friction, and optimize the overall workflow through collaborative learning.

When to Execute

• At each persona transition point in the workflow
• After completing collaborative phases involving multiple personas
• When handoff issues or communication problems are identified
• During periodic methodology optimization reviews

Feedback Loop Framework

1. Upstream Feedback (To Previous Persona)

Output Quality Assessment:

• Was the deliverable complete and accurate for its intended purpose?
• How well did it address the requirements and constraints provided?
• What information was missing that would have improved efficiency?

Usability Feedback:

• How easy was it to understand and work with the provided deliverable?
• Were there format, structure, or presentation issues?
• What would make the handoff smoother and more effective?

Context Transfer Evaluation:

• Was sufficient context provided for effective continuation?
• Were assumptions and decisions clearly documented?
• What additional background information would have been helpful?

2. Downstream Feedback (To Next Persona)

Preparation for Handoff:

• What does the next persona need to know for optimal performance?
• Are there specific constraints, preferences, or requirements to highlight?
• What potential issues or challenges should be anticipated?

Quality Expectations:

• What level of detail and completeness is expected in outputs?
• Are there specific formats or structures that work best?
• What are the most common issues to avoid in deliverables?

Success Criteria Communication:

• How will the next persona know they've successfully completed their phase?
• What validation or review processes should be followed?
• Who are the key stakeholders for approval or feedback?

3. Collaborative Improvement Opportunities

Workflow Optimization:

• Which steps in the handoff process could be streamlined?
• Are there redundant activities that could be eliminated?
• Where could parallel work or collaboration improve efficiency?

Communication Enhancement:

• What communication patterns work best between these personas?
• How can misunderstandings or ambiguities be prevented?
• What information should be shared proactively vs. on-demand?

Tool and Template Improvements:

• Which templates or frameworks facilitate better collaboration?
• What tools or formats improve information transfer?
• How can deliverable structures be optimized for handoffs?

Persona-Specific Feedback Patterns

Analyst → PM Feedback Loop

Analyst Provides:

• Quality of project brief for PRD development
• Completeness of market research and user insights
• Clarity of problem definition and opportunity sizing

PM Provides:

• Effectiveness of brief structure for requirements gathering
• Missing information that would improve PRD quality
• Suggestions for research focus areas or methodologies

PM → Architect Feedback Loop

PM Provides:

• Technical clarity needed in PRD for architecture design
• Priority ranking effectiveness for architectural decisions
• Completeness of non-functional requirements

Architect Provides:

• PRD clarity for technical planning
• Feasibility concerns or constraint identification
• Suggestions for better technical requirement articulation

Architect → Design Architect Feedback Loop

Architect Provides:

• Technical constraints for frontend design
• Integration requirements and system boundaries
• Performance or scalability considerations for UI/UX

Design Architect Provides:

• User experience implications of architectural decisions
• Frontend technical requirements and constraints
• Suggestions for better architecture-design integration

Design Architect → PO Feedback Loop

Design Architect Provides:

• UI/UX specification completeness for validation
• Frontend architecture clarity for story creation
• Design system requirements and guidelines

PO Provides:

• Specification usability for story development
• Missing details needed for development planning
• Alignment assessment with overall product vision

PO → SM Feedback Loop

PO Provides:

• Story quality and implementability assessment
• Prioritization effectiveness and sequencing logic
• Validation criteria and acceptance standards

SM Provides:

• Story structure effectiveness for development planning
• Missing details needed for sprint planning
• Feedback on epic breakdown and story sizing

SM → Dev Feedback Loop

SM Provides:

• Story clarity and completeness for implementation
• Context needed for development decisions
• Success criteria and testing requirements

Dev Provides:

• Story implementability and technical feasibility
• Missing technical details or specifications
• Suggestions for better story structure and clarity

Feedback Collection Process

1. Immediate Handoff Feedback

At each persona transition:

• Quick assessment of deliverable quality and usability
• Identification of immediate issues or gaps
• Communication of urgent concerns or requirements

2. Phase Completion Feedback

After completing work with handed-off deliverables:

• Comprehensive evaluation of input quality and effectiveness
• Analysis of how inputs affected output quality and efficiency
• Specific suggestions for improvement

3. Retrospective Feedback

During methodology reviews:

• Pattern analysis across multiple handoffs
• Identification of systemic issues or improvements
• Strategic recommendations for workflow optimization

Feedback Implementation

1. Immediate Corrections

• Quick fixes to current deliverables if critical issues identified
• Clarifications or additional information provision
• Real-time adjustments to approach or focus

2. Process Improvements

• Updates to persona instructions based on feedback
• Template or framework modifications
• Workflow sequence or timing adjustments

3. Methodology Evolution

• Systematic integration of feedback into BMAD framework
• Documentation of improved practices and patterns
• Training or guidance updates for persona optimization

Feedback Quality Standards

Constructive Focus

• Specific, actionable suggestions rather than general criticism
• Focus on improvement opportunities rather than blame
• Balance of positive reinforcement with constructive feedback

Evidence-Based

• Concrete examples of issues or successes
• Quantified impacts where possible (time, quality, satisfaction)
• Clear cause-and-effect relationships identified

Forward-Looking

• Emphasis on preventing future issues
• Suggestions for process enhancement
• Contribution to overall methodology improvement

Success Metrics

Handoff Efficiency

• Reduced time for persona transitions
• Decreased need for clarification or additional information
• Improved first-pass success rate for deliverables

Output Quality

• Higher consistency in deliverable standards
• Better alignment between persona outputs and requirements
• Reduced iteration cycles needed for acceptable quality

Collaborative Effectiveness

• Improved satisfaction ratings for inter-persona collaboration
• Enhanced understanding of each persona's needs and constraints
• Better overall workflow integration and smoothness

Integration with Self-Improvement Framework

This feedback system directly supports the BMAD framework's evolution by:

• Creating continuous learning opportunities between personas
• Identifying optimization opportunities at transition points
• Providing data for methodology improvement decisions
• Facilitating collaborative enhancement of the overall system

Execute this task consistently to ensure seamless collaboration and continuous improvement across all BMAD personas.