ldy26098
/
BMAD-METHOD
mirror of https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
BMAD-METHOD/.patch/826/plan.md

5.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

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.