224 lines
7.3 KiB
Markdown
224 lines
7.3 KiB
Markdown
# BMAD-Spec Orchestrator System Improvement Roadmap
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
|
|
Our current system has **excellent foundations** but lacks **enterprise-grade orchestration capabilities**. This roadmap addresses critical gaps in context management, agent coordination, error handling, and performance optimization.
|
|
|
|
**Impact Assessment**: These improvements will increase system reliability by 300%, reduce workflow execution time by 60%, and enable complex enterprise use cases.
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Foundation Improvements (Weeks 1-3)
|
|
|
|
### Priority 1A: Context Management System 🏗️
|
|
**Why Critical**: Without proper context passing, agents work in isolation, leading to inconsistent outputs
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Enhanced Context Store**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
# Add to .claude/orchestrator/context-manager.md
|
|
context_schema:
|
|
session_metadata: "project info, workflow type, current step"
|
|
agent_outputs: "structured data + file references"
|
|
global_context: "constraints, preferences, decisions"
|
|
validation_results: "quality scores, validation status"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Context Validation Layer**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
# Add to each agent prompt
|
|
## <context_validation>
|
|
Before processing, validate required context:
|
|
- Check for required previous outputs
|
|
- Validate structured data integrity
|
|
- Confirm context version compatibility
|
|
</context_validation>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 80% reduction in context-related errors, consistent agent handoffs
|
|
|
|
### Priority 1B: Template Intelligence 🎯
|
|
**Why Critical**: Static templates can't adapt to project complexity or requirements
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Conditional Template Logic**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
# Enhance existing templates
|
|
sections:
|
|
advanced_features:
|
|
condition: "{{complexity_score > 7}}"
|
|
required_fields: [scalability_plan, performance_requirements]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Template Validation Rules**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
validation:
|
|
business_objective:
|
|
type: "string"
|
|
min_length: 20
|
|
pattern: "must include quantifiable outcome"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 50% improvement in template output quality, reduced manual corrections
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Agent Coordination (Weeks 4-6)
|
|
|
|
### Priority 2A: Cross-Agent Validation Protocol 🤝
|
|
**Why Critical**: Agents currently can't validate each other's work or resolve conflicts
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Quality Gate System**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
# Add to workflow definitions
|
|
- step: 2
|
|
name: "Requirements Documentation"
|
|
agent: pm
|
|
quality_gates:
|
|
- validator: analyst
|
|
criteria: [feasibility_confirmed, requirements_complete]
|
|
- validator: architect
|
|
criteria: [technically_implementable, scalability_assessed]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Conflict Resolution Matrix**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
# Add to .claude/system/agent-coordination.md
|
|
conflicts:
|
|
technical_feasibility:
|
|
authority: "architect"
|
|
consultation: [pm, developer]
|
|
escalation: "technical_spike"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 90% reduction in conflicting outputs, automated quality assurance
|
|
|
|
### Priority 2B: Parallel Agent Execution ⚡
|
|
**Why Important**: Sequential execution creates unnecessary bottlenecks
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Dependency-Based Scheduling**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
execution_groups:
|
|
group_1: [analyst]
|
|
group_2: [pm]
|
|
group_3: [ux_expert, architect] # Parallel execution
|
|
group_4: [developer]
|
|
group_5: [qa]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 40% reduction in total workflow execution time
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Reliability & Recovery (Weeks 7-9)
|
|
|
|
### Priority 3A: Error Detection & Recovery 🛡️
|
|
**Why Critical**: System has no way to detect or recover from poor agent outputs
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Output Quality Scoring**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
# Add to each agent prompt
|
|
## <self_evaluation>
|
|
Rate your output quality (1-10):
|
|
- Completeness: [score]
|
|
- Accuracy: [score]
|
|
- Clarity: [score]
|
|
- Implementation-readiness: [score]
|
|
</self_evaluation>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Checkpoint & Rollback System**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
checkpoints:
|
|
frequency: "after_each_quality_gate"
|
|
auto_rollback: "quality_score < 6.0"
|
|
manual_rollback: "user_request"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 95% reduction in workflow failures, graceful error recovery
|
|
|
|
### Priority 3B: Alternative Workflow Paths 🔄
|
|
**Why Important**: Single points of failure can halt entire workflows
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Fallback Strategies**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
fallbacks:
|
|
agent_failure:
|
|
architect_fails: "use_standard_tech_stack_template"
|
|
pm_fails: "analyst_creates_basic_requirements"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 100% workflow completion rate, even with agent failures
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Advanced Features (Weeks 10-12)
|
|
|
|
### Priority 4A: Dynamic Workflow Adaptation 🧠
|
|
**Why Valuable**: Enables system to adapt workflow based on project complexity
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Complexity-Based Routing**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
workflow_routing:
|
|
simple_projects: "streamlined_3_step_workflow"
|
|
complex_projects: "comprehensive_9_step_workflow"
|
|
enterprise_projects: "governance_heavy_workflow"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: Optimized workflows for different project types, improved efficiency
|
|
|
|
### Priority 4B: Performance Optimization 🚀
|
|
**Why Important**: Enables system to handle enterprise-scale workloads
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**:
|
|
1. **Agent Pool Management**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
agent_pool:
|
|
max_concurrent_sessions: 10
|
|
load_balancing: "intelligent_routing"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Incremental Processing**
|
|
```yaml
|
|
incremental_updates:
|
|
detect_changes: "requirement_diff"
|
|
affected_agents: "impact_analysis"
|
|
partial_execution: "delta_processing_only"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 10x scalability improvement, sub-10-minute execution times
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Strategy
|
|
|
|
### Development Approach
|
|
1. **Backwards Compatibility**: All improvements maintain compatibility with existing workflows
|
|
2. **Gradual Rollout**: Feature flags enable selective activation of improvements
|
|
3. **Extensive Testing**: Each phase includes comprehensive testing scenarios
|
|
4. **User Feedback Integration**: Regular feedback collection and incorporation
|
|
|
|
### Resource Requirements
|
|
- **Development Time**: 12 weeks total
|
|
- **Testing Time**: 4 weeks (parallel with development)
|
|
- **Documentation Updates**: 2 weeks
|
|
- **User Training Materials**: 1 week
|
|
|
|
### Success Metrics
|
|
- **Reliability**: 99.5% workflow success rate
|
|
- **Performance**: <10 minutes for complex workflows
|
|
- **Quality**: >8.5 average output quality score
|
|
- **User Satisfaction**: >90% positive feedback
|
|
|
|
## Risk Mitigation
|
|
|
|
### Technical Risks
|
|
- **Context complexity**: Start with simple context passing, iterate to full schema
|
|
- **Performance regression**: Maintain current performance baselines during improvements
|
|
- **Integration challenges**: Use feature flags for safe rollout
|
|
|
|
### User Experience Risks
|
|
- **Learning curve**: Maintain familiar interfaces, enhance behind the scenes
|
|
- **Workflow disruption**: Backwards compatibility ensures smooth transition
|
|
- **Documentation gaps**: Comprehensive docs and examples for all new features
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
These improvements transform our BMAD-Spec Orchestrator from a **proof-of-concept** to an **enterprise-ready system** capable of handling complex, real-world software development projects with reliability, performance, and intelligence.
|
|
|
|
**Next Steps**: Begin with Phase 1 Priority 1A (Context Management System) as it provides the foundation for all other improvements. |