Initial commit: Brachnha Insight project setup

- Next.js 14+ with App Router and TypeScript
- Tailwind CSS and ShadCN UI styling
- Zustand state management
- Dexie.js for IndexedDB (local-first data)
- Auth.js v5 for authentication
- BMAD framework integration

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/data/domain-complexity.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+domain,signals,complexity,key_concerns,required_knowledge,suggested_workflow,web_searches,special_sections
+healthcare,"medical,diagnostic,clinical,FDA,patient,treatment,HIPAA,therapy,pharma,drug",high,"FDA approval;Clinical validation;HIPAA compliance;Patient safety;Medical device classification;Liability","Regulatory pathways;Clinical trial design;Medical standards;Data privacy;Integration requirements","domain-research","FDA software medical device guidance {date};HIPAA compliance software requirements;Medical software standards {date};Clinical validation software","clinical_requirements;regulatory_pathway;validation_methodology;safety_measures"
+fintech,"payment,banking,trading,investment,crypto,wallet,transaction,KYC,AML,funds,fintech",high,"Regional compliance;Security standards;Audit requirements;Fraud prevention;Data protection","KYC/AML requirements;PCI DSS;Open banking;Regional laws (US/EU/APAC);Crypto regulations","domain-research","fintech regulations {date};payment processing compliance {date};open banking API standards;cryptocurrency regulations {date}","compliance_matrix;security_architecture;audit_requirements;fraud_prevention"
+govtech,"government,federal,civic,public sector,citizen,municipal,voting",high,"Procurement rules;Security clearance;Accessibility (508);FedRAMP;Privacy;Transparency","Government procurement;Security frameworks;Accessibility standards;Privacy laws;Open data requirements","domain-research","government software procurement {date};FedRAMP compliance requirements;section 508 accessibility;government security standards","procurement_compliance;security_clearance;accessibility_standards;transparency_requirements"
+edtech,"education,learning,student,teacher,curriculum,assessment,K-12,university,LMS",medium,"Student privacy (COPPA/FERPA);Accessibility;Content moderation;Age verification;Curriculum standards","Educational privacy laws;Learning standards;Accessibility requirements;Content guidelines;Assessment validity","domain-research","educational software privacy {date};COPPA FERPA compliance;WCAG education requirements;learning management standards","privacy_compliance;content_guidelines;accessibility_features;curriculum_alignment"
+aerospace,"aircraft,spacecraft,aviation,drone,satellite,propulsion,flight,radar,navigation",high,"Safety certification;DO-178C compliance;Performance validation;Simulation accuracy;Export controls","Aviation standards;Safety analysis;Simulation validation;ITAR/export controls;Performance requirements","domain-research + technical-model","DO-178C software certification;aerospace simulation standards {date};ITAR export controls software;aviation safety requirements","safety_certification;simulation_validation;performance_requirements;export_compliance"
+automotive,"vehicle,car,autonomous,ADAS,automotive,driving,EV,charging",high,"Safety standards;ISO 26262;V2X communication;Real-time requirements;Certification","Automotive standards;Functional safety;V2X protocols;Real-time systems;Testing requirements","domain-research","ISO 26262 automotive software;automotive safety standards {date};V2X communication protocols;EV charging standards","safety_standards;functional_safety;communication_protocols;certification_requirements"
+scientific,"research,algorithm,simulation,modeling,computational,analysis,data science,ML,AI",medium,"Reproducibility;Validation methodology;Peer review;Performance;Accuracy;Computational resources","Scientific method;Statistical validity;Computational requirements;Domain expertise;Publication standards","technical-model","scientific computing best practices {date};research reproducibility standards;computational modeling validation;peer review software","validation_methodology;accuracy_metrics;reproducibility_plan;computational_requirements"
+legaltech,"legal,law,contract,compliance,litigation,patent,attorney,court",high,"Legal ethics;Bar regulations;Data retention;Attorney-client privilege;Court system integration","Legal practice rules;Ethics requirements;Court filing systems;Document standards;Confidentiality","domain-research","legal technology ethics {date};law practice management software requirements;court filing system standards;attorney client privilege technology","ethics_compliance;data_retention;confidentiality_measures;court_integration"
+insuretech,"insurance,claims,underwriting,actuarial,policy,risk,premium",high,"Insurance regulations;Actuarial standards;Data privacy;Fraud detection;State compliance","Insurance regulations by state;Actuarial methods;Risk modeling;Claims processing;Regulatory reporting","domain-research","insurance software regulations {date};actuarial standards software;insurance fraud detection;state insurance compliance","regulatory_requirements;risk_modeling;fraud_detection;reporting_compliance"
+energy,"energy,utility,grid,solar,wind,power,electricity,oil,gas",high,"Grid compliance;NERC standards;Environmental regulations;Safety requirements;Real-time operations","Energy regulations;Grid standards;Environmental compliance;Safety protocols;SCADA systems","domain-research","energy sector software compliance {date};NERC CIP standards;smart grid requirements;renewable energy software standards","grid_compliance;safety_protocols;environmental_compliance;operational_requirements"
+gaming,"game,player,gameplay,level,character,multiplayer,quest",redirect,"REDIRECT TO GAME WORKFLOWS","Game design","game-brief","NA","NA"
+general,"",low,"Standard requirements;Basic security;User experience;Performance","General software practices","continue","software development best practices {date}","standard_requirements"

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/data/prd-purpose.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+# BMAD PRD Purpose
+
+**The PRD is the top of the required funnel that feeds all subsequent product development work in rhw BMad Method.**
+
+---
+
+## What is a BMAD PRD?
+
+A dual-audience document serving:
+1. **Human Product Managers and builders** - Vision, strategy, stakeholder communication
+2. **LLM Downstream Consumption** - UX Design → Architecture → Epics → Development AI Agents
+
+Each successive document becomes more AI-tailored and granular.
+
+---
+
+## Core Philosophy: Information Density
+
+**High Signal-to-Noise Ratio**
+
+Every sentence must carry information weight. LLMs consume precise, dense content efficiently.
+
+**Anti-Patterns (Eliminate These):**
+- ❌ "The system will allow users to..." → ✅ "Users can..."
+- ❌ "It is important to note that..." → ✅ State the fact directly
+- ❌ "In order to..." → ✅ "To..."
+- ❌ Conversational filler and padding → ✅ Direct, concise statements
+
+**Goal:** Maximum information per word. Zero fluff.
+
+---
+
+## The Traceability Chain
+
+**PRD starts the chain:**
+```
+Vision → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements → (future: User Stories)
+```
+
+**In the PRD, establish:**
+- Vision → Success Criteria alignment
+- Success Criteria → User Journey coverage
+- User Journey → Functional Requirement mapping
+- All requirements traceable to user needs
+
+**Why:** Each downstream artifact (UX, Architecture, Epics, Stories) must trace back to documented user needs and business objectives. This chain ensures we build the right thing.
+
+---
+
+## What Makes Great Functional Requirements?
+
+### FRs are Capabilities, Not Implementation
+
+**Good FR:** "Users can reset their password via email link"
+**Bad FR:** "System sends JWT via email and validates with database" (implementation leakage)
+
+**Good FR:** "Dashboard loads in under 2 seconds for 95th percentile"
+**Bad FR:** "Fast loading time" (subjective, unmeasurable)
+
+### SMART Quality Criteria
+
+**Specific:** Clear, precisely defined capability
+**Measurable:** Quantifiable with test criteria
+**Attainable:** Realistic within constraints
+**Relevant:** Aligns with business objectives
+**Traceable:** Links to source (executive summary or user journey)
+
+### FR Anti-Patterns
+
+**Subjective Adjectives:**
+- ❌ "easy to use", "intuitive", "user-friendly", "fast", "responsive"
+- ✅ Use metrics: "completes task in under 3 clicks", "loads in under 2 seconds"
+
+**Implementation Leakage:**
+- ❌ Technology names, specific libraries, implementation details
+- ✅ Focus on capability and measurable outcomes
+
+**Vague Quantifiers:**
+- ❌ "multiple users", "several options", "various formats"
+- ✅ "up to 100 concurrent users", "3-5 options", "PDF, DOCX, TXT formats"
+
+**Missing Test Criteria:**
+- ❌ "The system shall provide notifications"
+- ✅ "The system shall send email notifications within 30 seconds of trigger event"
+
+---
+
+## What Makes Great Non-Functional Requirements?
+
+### NFRs Must Be Measurable
+
+**Template:**
+```
+"The system shall [metric] [condition] [measurement method]"
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+- ✅ "The system shall respond to API requests in under 200ms for 95th percentile as measured by APM monitoring"
+- ✅ "The system shall maintain 99.9% uptime during business hours as measured by cloud provider SLA"
+- ✅ "The system shall support 10,000 concurrent users as measured by load testing"
+
+### NFR Anti-Patterns
+
+**Unmeasurable Claims:**
+- ❌ "The system shall be scalable" → ✅ "The system shall handle 10x load growth through horizontal scaling"
+- ❌ "High availability required" → ✅ "99.9% uptime as measured by cloud provider SLA"
+
+**Missing Context:**
+- ❌ "Response time under 1 second" → ✅ "API response time under 1 second for 95th percentile under normal load"
+
+---
+
+## Domain-Specific Requirements
+
+**Auto-Detect and Enforce Based on Project Context**
+
+Certain industries have mandatory requirements that must be present:
+
+- **Healthcare:** HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules, PHI encryption, audit logging, MFA
+- **Fintech:** PCI-DSS Level 1, AML/KYC compliance, SOX controls, financial audit trails
+- **GovTech:** NIST framework, Section 508 accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA), FedRAMP, data residency
+- **E-Commerce:** PCI-DSS for payments, inventory accuracy, tax calculation by jurisdiction
+
+**Why:** Missing these requirements in the PRD means they'll be missed in architecture and implementation, creating expensive rework. During PRD creation there is a step to cover this - during validation we want to make sure it was covered. For this purpose steps will utilize a domain-complexity.csv and project-types.csv.
+
+---
+
+## Document Structure (Markdown, Human-Readable)
+
+### Required Sections
+1. **Executive Summary** - Vision, differentiator, target users
+2. **Success Criteria** - Measurable outcomes (SMART)
+3. **Product Scope** - MVP, Growth, Vision phases
+4. **User Journeys** - Comprehensive coverage
+5. **Domain Requirements** - Industry-specific compliance (if applicable)
+6. **Innovation Analysis** - Competitive differentiation (if applicable)
+7. **Project-Type Requirements** - Platform-specific needs
+8. **Functional Requirements** - Capability contract (FRs)
+9. **Non-Functional Requirements** - Quality attributes (NFRs)
+
+### Formatting for Dual Consumption
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Clear, professional language
+- Logical flow from vision to requirements
+- Easy for stakeholders to review and approve
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- ## Level 2 headers for all main sections (enables extraction)
+- Consistent structure and patterns
+- Precise, testable language
+- High information density
+
+---
+
+## Downstream Impact
+
+**How the PRD Feeds Next Artifacts:**
+
+**UX Design:**
+- User journeys → interaction flows
+- FRs → design requirements
+- Success criteria → UX metrics
+
+**Architecture:**
+- FRs → system capabilities
+- NFRs → architecture decisions
+- Domain requirements → compliance architecture
+- Project-type requirements → platform choices
+
+**Epics & Stories (created after architecture):**
+- FRs → user stories (1 FR could map to 1-3 stories potentially)
+- Acceptance criteria → story acceptance tests
+- Priority → sprint sequencing
+- Traceability → stories map back to vision
+
+**Development AI Agents:**
+- Precise requirements → implementation clarity
+- Test criteria → automated test generation
+- Domain requirements → compliance enforcement
+- Measurable NFRs → performance targets
+
+---
+
+## Summary: What Makes a Great BMAD PRD?
+
+✅ **High Information Density** - Every sentence carries weight, zero fluff
+✅ **Measurable Requirements** - All FRs and NFRs are testable with specific criteria
+✅ **Clear Traceability** - Each requirement links to user need and business objective
+✅ **Domain Awareness** - Industry-specific requirements auto-detected and included
+✅ **Zero Anti-Patterns** - No subjective adjectives, implementation leakage, or vague quantifiers
+✅ **Dual Audience Optimized** - Human-readable AND LLM-consumable
+✅ **Markdown Format** - Professional, clean, accessible to all stakeholders
+
+---
+
+**Remember:** The PRD is the foundation. Quality here ripples through every subsequent phase. A dense, precise, well-traced PRD makes UX design, architecture, epic breakdown, and AI development dramatically more effective.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/data/project-types.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+project_type,detection_signals,key_questions,required_sections,skip_sections,web_search_triggers,innovation_signals
+api_backend,"API,REST,GraphQL,backend,service,endpoints","Endpoints needed?;Authentication method?;Data formats?;Rate limits?;Versioning?;SDK needed?","endpoint_specs;auth_model;data_schemas;error_codes;rate_limits;api_docs","ux_ui;visual_design;user_journeys","framework best practices;OpenAPI standards","API composition;New protocol"
+mobile_app,"iOS,Android,app,mobile,iPhone,iPad","Native or cross-platform?;Offline needed?;Push notifications?;Device features?;Store compliance?","platform_reqs;device_permissions;offline_mode;push_strategy;store_compliance","desktop_features;cli_commands","app store guidelines;platform requirements","Gesture innovation;AR/VR features"
+saas_b2b,"SaaS,B2B,platform,dashboard,teams,enterprise","Multi-tenant?;Permission model?;Subscription tiers?;Integrations?;Compliance?","tenant_model;rbac_matrix;subscription_tiers;integration_list;compliance_reqs","cli_interface;mobile_first","compliance requirements;integration guides","Workflow automation;AI agents"
+developer_tool,"SDK,library,package,npm,pip,framework","Language support?;Package managers?;IDE integration?;Documentation?;Examples?","language_matrix;installation_methods;api_surface;code_examples;migration_guide","visual_design;store_compliance","package manager best practices;API design patterns","New paradigm;DSL creation"
+cli_tool,"CLI,command,terminal,bash,script","Interactive or scriptable?;Output formats?;Config method?;Shell completion?","command_structure;output_formats;config_schema;scripting_support","visual_design;ux_principles;touch_interactions","CLI design patterns;shell integration","Natural language CLI;AI commands"
+web_app,"website,webapp,browser,SPA,PWA","SPA or MPA?;Browser support?;SEO needed?;Real-time?;Accessibility?","browser_matrix;responsive_design;performance_targets;seo_strategy;accessibility_level","native_features;cli_commands","web standards;WCAG guidelines","New interaction;WebAssembly use"
+game,"game,player,gameplay,level,character","REDIRECT TO USE THE BMad Method Game Module Agent and Workflows - HALT","game-brief;GDD","most_sections","game design patterns","Novel mechanics;Genre mixing"
+desktop_app,"desktop,Windows,Mac,Linux,native","Cross-platform?;Auto-update?;System integration?;Offline?","platform_support;system_integration;update_strategy;offline_capabilities","web_seo;mobile_features","desktop guidelines;platform requirements","Desktop AI;System automation"
+iot_embedded,"IoT,embedded,device,sensor,hardware","Hardware specs?;Connectivity?;Power constraints?;Security?;OTA updates?","hardware_reqs;connectivity_protocol;power_profile;security_model;update_mechanism","visual_ui;browser_support","IoT standards;protocol specs","Edge AI;New sensors"
+blockchain_web3,"blockchain,crypto,DeFi,NFT,smart contract","Chain selection?;Wallet integration?;Gas optimization?;Security audit?","chain_specs;wallet_support;smart_contracts;security_audit;gas_optimization","traditional_auth;centralized_db","blockchain standards;security patterns","Novel tokenomics;DAO structure"

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-01-init.md

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+---
+name: 'step-01-init'
+description: 'Initialize the PRD workflow by detecting continuation state and setting up the document'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-02-discovery.md'
+continueStepFile: './step-01b-continue.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Template Reference
+prdTemplate: '../templates/prd-template.md'
+---
+
+# Step 1: Workflow Initialization
+
+**Progress: Step 1 of 11** - Next: Project Discovery
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Initialize the PRD workflow by detecting continuation state, discovering input documents, and setting up the document structure for collaborative product requirement discovery.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a product-focused PM facilitator collaborating with an expert peer
+- ✅ If you already have been given a name, communication_style and persona, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring structured thinking and facilitation skills, while the user brings domain expertise and product vision
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus only on initialization and setup - no content generation yet
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to look ahead to future steps or assume knowledge from them
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic setup with clear reporting to user
+- 🚪 Detect existing workflow state and handle continuation properly
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis of current state before taking any action
+- 💾 Initialize document structure and update frontmatter appropriately
+- Update frontmatter: add this step name to the end of the steps completed array (it should be the first entry in the steps array since this is step 1)
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until user selects 'C' (Continue)
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Variables from workflow.md are available in memory
+- Focus: Workflow initialization and document setup only
+- Limits: Don't assume knowledge from other steps or create content yet
+- Dependencies: Configuration loaded from workflow.md initialization
+
+## Sequence of Instructions (Do not deviate, skip, or optimize)
+
+### 1. Check for Existing Workflow State
+
+First, check if the output document already exists:
+
+**Workflow State Detection:**
+
+- Look for file at `{outputFile}`
+- If exists, read the complete file including frontmatter
+- If not exists, this is a fresh workflow
+
+### 2. Handle Continuation (If Document Exists)
+
+If the document exists and has frontmatter with `stepsCompleted` BUT `step-11-complete` is NOT in the list, follow the Continuation Protocol since the document is incomplete:
+
+**Continuation Protocol:**
+
+- **STOP immediately** and load `{continueStepFile}`
+- Do not proceed with any initialization tasks
+- Let step-01b handle all continuation logic
+- This is an auto-proceed situation - no user choice needed
+
+### 3. Fresh Workflow Setup (If No Document)
+
+If no document exists or no `stepsCompleted` in frontmatter:
+
+#### A. Input Document Discovery
+
+Discover and load context documents using smart discovery. Documents can be in the following locations:
+- {planning_artifacts}/**
+- {output_folder}/**
+- {product_knowledge}/**
+- docs/**
+
+Also - when searching - documents can be a single markdown file, or a folder with an index and multiple files. For Example, if searching for `*foo*.md` and not found, also search for a folder called *foo*/index.md (which indicates sharded content)
+
+Try to discover the following:
+- Product Brief (`*brief*.md`)
+- Research Documents (`/*research*.md`)
+- Project Documentation (generally multiple documents might be found for this in the `{product_knowledge}` or `docs` folder.)
+- Project Context (`**/project-context.md`)
+
+<critical>Confirm what you have found with the user, along with asking if the user wants to provide anything else. Only after this confirmation will you proceed to follow the loading rules</critical>
+
+**Loading Rules:**
+
+- Load ALL discovered files completely that the user confirmed or provided (no offset/limit)
+- If there is a project context, whatever is relevant should try to be biased in the remainder of this whole workflow process
+- For sharded folders, load ALL files to get complete picture, using the index first to potentially know the potential of each document
+- index.md is a guide to what's relevant whenever available
+- Track all successfully loaded files in frontmatter `inputDocuments` array
+
+#### B. Create Initial Document
+
+**Document Setup:**
+
+- Copy the template from `{prdTemplate}` to `{outputFile}`
+- Initialize frontmatter with proper structure including inputDocuments array.
+
+#### C. Present Initialization Results
+
+**Setup Report to User:**
+
+"Welcome {{user_name}}! I've set up your PRD workspace for {{project_name}}.
+
+**Document Setup:**
+
+- Created: `{outputFile}` from template
+- Initialized frontmatter with workflow state
+
+**Input Documents Discovered:**
+
+- Product briefs: {{briefCount}} files {if briefCount > 0}✓ loaded{else}(none found){/if}
+- Research: {{researchCount}} files {if researchCount > 0}✓ loaded{else}(none found){/if}
+- Brainstorming: {{brainstormingCount}} files {if brainstormingCount > 0}✓ loaded{else}(none found){/if}
+- Project docs: {{projectDocsCount}} files {if projectDocsCount > 0}✓ loaded (brownfield project){else}(none found - greenfield project){/if}
+
+**Files loaded:** {list of specific file names or "No additional documents found"}
+
+{if projectDocsCount > 0}
+📋 **Note:** This is a **brownfield project**. Your existing project documentation has been loaded. In the next step, I'll ask specifically about what new features or changes you want to add to your existing system.
+{/if}
+
+Do you have any other documents you'd like me to include, or shall we continue to the next step?"
+
+### 4. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display menu after setup report:
+
+"[C] Continue - Save this and move to Project Discovery (Step 2 of 11)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF C: Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted, then load, read entire {nextStepFile}, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF user provides additional files: Load them, update inputDocuments and documentCounts, redisplay report
+- IF user asks questions: Answer and redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+
+## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
+
+ONLY WHEN [C continue option] is selected and [frontmatter properly updated with this step added to stepsCompleted and documentCounts], will you then load and read fully `{nextStepFile}` to execute and begin project discovery.
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Existing workflow detected and properly handed off to step-01b
+- Fresh workflow initialized with template and proper frontmatter
+- Input documents discovered and loaded using sharded-first logic
+- All discovered files tracked in frontmatter `inputDocuments`
+- User clearly informed of brownfield vs greenfield status
+- Menu presented and user input handled correctly
+- Frontmatter updated with this step name added to stepsCompleted before proceeding
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Proceeding with fresh initialization when existing workflow exists
+- Not updating frontmatter with discovered input documents
+- **Not storing document counts in frontmatter**
+- Creating document without proper template structure
+- Not checking sharded folders first before whole files
+- Not reporting discovered documents to user clearly
+- Proceeding without user selecting 'C' (Continue)
+
+**Master Rule:** Skipping steps, optimizing sequences, or not following exact instructions is FORBIDDEN and constitutes SYSTEM FAILURE.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-01b-continue.md

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+---
+name: 'step-01b-continue'
+description: 'Resume an interrupted PRD workflow from the last completed step'
+
+# File References
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+---
+
+# Step 1B: Workflow Continuation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Resume the PRD workflow from where it was left off, ensuring smooth continuation with full context restoration.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a product-focused PM facilitator collaborating with an expert peer
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ Resume workflow from exact point where it was interrupted
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 💬 FOCUS on understanding where we left off and continuing appropriately
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to modify content completed in previous steps
+- 📖 Only reload documents that were already tracked in `inputDocuments`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis of current state before taking action
+- Update frontmatter: add this step name to the end of the steps completed array
+- 📖 Only load documents that were already tracked in `inputDocuments`
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to discover new input documents during continuation
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Current document and frontmatter are already loaded
+- Focus: Workflow state analysis and continuation logic only
+- Limits: Don't assume knowledge beyond what's in the document
+- Dependencies: Existing workflow state from previous session
+
+## Sequence of Instructions (Do not deviate, skip, or optimize)
+
+### 1. Analyze Current State
+
+**State Assessment:**
+Review the frontmatter to understand:
+
+- `stepsCompleted`: Array of completed step filenames
+- Last element of `stepsCompleted` array: The most recently completed step
+- `inputDocuments`: What context was already loaded
+- All other frontmatter variables
+
+### 2. Restore Context Documents
+
+**Context Reloading:**
+
+- For each document in `inputDocuments`, load the complete file
+- This ensures you have full context for continuation
+- Don't discover new documents - only reload what was previously processed
+
+### 3. Determine Next Step
+
+**Simplified Next Step Logic:**
+1. Get the last element from the `stepsCompleted` array (this is the filename of the last completed step, e.g., "step-03-success.md")
+2. Load that step file and read its frontmatter
+3. Extract the `nextStepFile` value from the frontmatter
+4. That's the next step to load!
+
+**Example:**
+- If `stepsCompleted = ["step-01-init.md", "step-02-discovery.md", "step-03-success.md"]`
+- Last element is `"step-03-success.md"`
+- Load `step-03-success.md`, read its frontmatter
+- Find `nextStepFile: './step-04-journeys.md'`
+- Next step to load is `./step-04-journeys.md`
+
+### 4. Handle Workflow Completion
+
+**If `stepsCompleted` array contains `"step-11-complete.md"`:**
+"Great news! It looks like we've already completed the PRD workflow for {{project_name}}.
+
+The final document is ready at `{outputFile}` with all sections completed.
+
+Would you like me to:
+
+- Review the completed PRD with you
+- Suggest next workflow steps (like architecture or epic creation)
+- Start a new PRD revision
+
+What would be most helpful?"
+
+### 5. Present Current Progress
+
+**If workflow not complete:**
+"Welcome back {{user_name}}! I'm resuming our PRD collaboration for {{project_name}}.
+
+**Current Progress:**
+- Last completed: {last step filename from stepsCompleted array}
+- Next up: {nextStepFile determined from that step's frontmatter}
+- Context documents available: {len(inputDocuments)} files
+
+**Document Status:**
+- Current PRD document is ready with all completed sections
+- Ready to continue from where we left off
+
+Does this look right, or do you want to make any adjustments before we proceed?"
+
+### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display: "**Select an Option:** [C] Continue to {next step name}"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF C: Load, read entire file, then execute the {nextStepFile} determined in step 3
+- IF Any other comments or queries: respond and redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+
+## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
+
+ONLY WHEN [C continue option] is selected and [current state confirmed], will you then load and read fully the {nextStepFile} to resume the workflow.
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All previous input documents successfully reloaded
+- Current workflow state accurately analyzed and presented
+- User confirms understanding of progress before continuation
+- Correct next step identified and prepared for loading
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Discovering new input documents instead of reloading existing ones
+- Modifying content from already completed steps
+- Failing to extract nextStepFile from the last completed step's frontmatter
+- Proceeding without user confirmation of current state
+
+**Master Rule:** Skipping steps, optimizing sequences, or not following exact instructions is FORBIDDEN and constitutes SYSTEM FAILURE.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-02-discovery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+---
+name: 'step-02-discovery'
+description: 'Discover project type, domain, and context through collaborative dialogue'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-03-success.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Data Files
+projectTypesCSV: '../data/project-types.csv'
+domainComplexityCSV: '../data/domain-complexity.csv'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 2: Project Discovery
+
+**Progress: Step 2 of 13** - Next: Product Vision
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Discover and classify the project - understand what type of product this is, what domain it operates in, and the project context (greenfield vs brownfield).
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a product-focused PM facilitator collaborating with an expert peer
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring structured thinking and facilitation skills, while the user brings domain expertise and product vision
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus on classification and understanding - no content generation yet
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to generate executive summary or vision statements (that's next steps)
+- 💬 APPROACH: Natural conversation to understand the project
+- 🎯 LOAD classification data BEFORE starting discovery conversation
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after classification complete
+- 💾 ONLY save classification to frontmatter when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update frontmatter, adding this step to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Current document and frontmatter from step 1 are available
+- Input documents already loaded are in memory (product briefs, research, brainstorming, project docs)
+- **Document counts available in frontmatter `documentCounts`**
+- Classification CSV data will be loaded in this step only
+- No executive summary or vision content yet (that's steps 2b and 2c)
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Discover and classify the project through natural conversation:
+- What type of product is this? (web app, API, mobile, etc.)
+- What domain does it operate in? (healthcare, fintech, e-commerce, etc.)
+- What's the project context? (greenfield new product vs brownfield existing system)
+- How complex is this domain? (low, medium, high)
+
+## DISCOVERY SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Check Document State
+
+Read the frontmatter from `{outputFile}` to get document counts:
+- `briefCount` - Product briefs available
+- `researchCount` - Research documents available
+- `brainstormingCount` - Brainstorming docs available
+- `projectDocsCount` - Existing project documentation
+
+**Announce your understanding:**
+
+"From step 1, I have loaded:
+- Product briefs: {{briefCount}}
+- Research: {{researchCount}}
+- Brainstorming: {{brainstormingCount}}
+- Project docs: {{projectDocsCount}}
+
+{{if projectDocsCount > 0}}This is a brownfield project - I'll focus on understanding what you want to add or change.{{else}}This is a greenfield project - I'll help you define the full product vision.{{/if}}"
+
+### 2. Load Classification Data
+
+**Attempt subprocess data lookup:**
+
+**Project Type Lookup:**
+"Your task: Lookup data in {projectTypesCSV}
+
+**Search criteria:**
+- Find row where project_type matches {{detectedProjectType}}
+
+**Return format:**
+Return ONLY the matching row as a YAML-formatted object with these fields:
+project_type, detection_signals
+
+**Do NOT return the entire CSV - only the matching row.**"
+
+**Domain Complexity Lookup:**
+"Your task: Lookup data in {domainComplexityCSV}
+
+**Search criteria:**
+- Find row where domain matches {{detectedDomain}}
+
+**Return format:**
+Return ONLY the matching row as a YAML-formatted object with these fields:
+domain, complexity, typical_concerns, compliance_requirements
+
+**Do NOT return the entire CSV - only the matching row.**"
+
+**Graceful degradation (if Task tool unavailable):**
+- Load the CSV files directly
+- Find the matching rows manually
+- Extract required fields
+- Keep in memory for intelligent classification
+
+### 3. Begin Discovery Conversation
+
+**Start with what you know:**
+
+If the user has a product brief or project docs, acknowledge them and share your understanding. Then ask clarifying questions to deepen your understanding.
+
+If this is a greenfield project with no docs, start with open-ended discovery:
+- What problem does this solve?
+- Who's it for?
+- What excites you about building this?
+
+**Listen for classification signals:**
+
+As the user describes their product, match against:
+- **Project type signals** (API, mobile, SaaS, etc.)
+- **Domain signals** (healthcare, fintech, education, etc.)
+- **Complexity indicators** (regulated industries, novel technology, etc.)
+
+### 4. Confirm Classification
+
+Once you have enough understanding, share your classification:
+
+"I'm hearing this as:
+- **Project Type:** {{detectedType}}
+- **Domain:** {{detectedDomain}}
+- **Complexity:** {{complexityLevel}}
+
+Does this sound right to you?"
+
+Let the user confirm or refine your classification.
+
+### 5. Save Classification to Frontmatter
+
+When user selects 'C', update frontmatter with classification:
+```yaml
+classification:
+  projectType: {{projectType}}
+  domain: {{domain}}
+  complexity: {{complexityLevel}}
+  projectContext: {{greenfield|brownfield}}
+```
+
+### N. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the project classification for review, then display menu:
+
+"Based on our conversation, I've discovered and classified your project.
+
+**Here's the classification:**
+
+**Project Type:** {{detectedType}}
+**Domain:** {{detectedDomain}}
+**Complexity:** {{complexityLevel}}
+**Project Context:** {{greenfield|brownfield}}
+
+**What would you like to do?**"
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Product Vision (Step 2b of 13)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current classification, process the enhanced insights that come back, ask user if they accept the improvements, if yes update classification then redisplay menu, if no keep original classification then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the current classification, process the collaborative insights, ask user if they accept the changes, if yes update classification then redisplay menu, if no keep original classification then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Save classification to {outputFile} frontmatter, add this step name to the end of stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
+
+ONLY WHEN [C continue option] is selected and [classification saved to frontmatter], will you then load and read fully `{nextStepFile}` to explore product vision.
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Document state checked and announced to user
+- Classification data loaded and used intelligently
+- Natural conversation to understand project type, domain, complexity
+- Classification validated with user before saving
+- Frontmatter updated with classification when C selected
+- User's existing documents acknowledged and built upon
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not reading documentCounts from frontmatter first
+- Skipping classification data loading
+- Generating executive summary or vision content (that's later steps!)
+- Not validating classification with user
+- Being prescriptive instead of having natural conversation
+- Proceeding without user selecting 'C'
+
+**Master Rule:** This is classification and understanding only. No content generation yet. Build on what the user already has. Have natural conversations, don't follow scripts.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-03-success.md

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+---
+name: 'step-03-success'
+description: 'Define comprehensive success criteria covering user, business, and technical success'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-04-journeys.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 3: Success Criteria Definition
+
+**Progress: Step 3 of 11** - Next: User Journey Mapping
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action - partial understanding leads to incomplete decisions
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read and understood before proceeding
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- 💬 FOCUS on defining what winning looks like for this product
+- 🎯 COLLABORATIVE discovery, not assumption-based goal setting
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after generating success criteria content
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Current document and frontmatter from previous steps are available
+- Executive Summary and Project Classification already exist in document
+- Input documents from step-01 are available (product briefs, research, brainstorming)
+- No additional data files needed for this step
+- Focus on measurable, specific success criteria
+- LEVERAGE existing input documents to inform success criteria
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Define comprehensive success criteria that cover user success, business success, and technical success, using input documents as a foundation while allowing user refinement.
+
+## SUCCESS DISCOVERY SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Begin Success Definition Conversation
+
+**Check Input Documents for Success Indicators:**
+Analyze product brief, research, and brainstorming documents for success criteria already mentioned.
+
+**If Input Documents Contain Success Criteria:**
+Guide user to refine existing success criteria:
+- Acknowledge what's already documented in their materials
+- Extract key success themes from brief, research, and brainstorming
+- Help user identify gaps and areas for expansion
+- Probe for specific, measurable outcomes: When do users feel delighted/relieved/empowered?
+- Ask about emotional success moments and completion scenarios
+- Explore what "worth it" means beyond what's already captured
+
+**If No Success Criteria in Input Documents:**
+Start with user-centered success exploration:
+- Guide conversation toward defining what "worth it" means for users
+- Ask about the moment users realize their problem is solved
+- Explore specific user outcomes and emotional states
+- Identify success "aha!" moments and completion scenarios
+- Focus on user experience of success first
+
+### 2. Explore User Success Metrics
+
+Listen for specific user outcomes and help make them measurable:
+
+- Guide from vague to specific: NOT "users are happy" → "users complete [key action] within [timeframe]"
+- Ask about emotional success: "When do they feel delighted/relieved/empowered?"
+- Identify success moments: "What's the 'aha!' moment?"
+- Define completion scenarios: "What does 'done' look like for the user?"
+
+### 3. Define Business Success
+
+Transition to business metrics:
+- Guide conversation to business perspective on success
+- Explore timelines: What does 3-month success look like? 12-month success?
+- Identify key business metrics: revenue, user growth, engagement, or other measures?
+- Ask what specific metric would indicate "this is working"
+- Understand business success from their perspective
+
+### 4. Challenge Vague Metrics
+
+Push for specificity on business metrics:
+
+- "10,000 users" → "What kind of users? Doing what?"
+- "99.9% uptime" → "What's the real concern - data loss? Failed payments?"
+- "Fast" → "How fast, and what specifically needs to be fast?"
+- "Good adoption" → "What percentage adoption by when?"
+
+### 5. Connect to Product Differentiator
+
+Tie success metrics back to what makes the product special:
+- Connect success criteria to the product's unique differentiator
+- Ensure metrics reflect the specific value proposition
+- Adapt success criteria to domain context:
+  - Consumer: User love, engagement, retention
+  - B2B: ROI, efficiency, adoption
+  - Developer tools: Developer experience, community
+  - Regulated: Compliance, safety, validation
+  - GovTech: Government compliance, accessibility, procurement
+
+### 6. Smart Scope Negotiation
+
+Guide scope definition through success lens:
+- Help user distinguish MVP (must work to be useful) from growth (competitive) and vision (dream)
+- Guide conversation through three scope levels:
+  1. MVP: What's essential for proving the concept?
+  2. Growth: What makes it competitive?
+  3. Vision: What's the dream version?
+- Challenge scope creep conversationally: Could this wait until after launch? Is this essential for MVP?
+- For complex domains: Ensure compliance minimums are included in MVP
+
+### 7. Generate Success Criteria Content
+
+Prepare the content to append to the document:
+
+#### Content Structure:
+
+When saving to document, append these Level 2 and Level 3 sections:
+
+```markdown
+## Success Criteria
+
+### User Success
+
+[Content about user success criteria based on conversation]
+
+### Business Success
+
+[Content about business success metrics based on conversation]
+
+### Technical Success
+
+[Content about technical success requirements based on conversation]
+
+### Measurable Outcomes
+
+[Content about specific measurable outcomes based on conversation]
+
+## Product Scope
+
+### MVP - Minimum Viable Product
+
+[Content about MVP scope based on conversation]
+
+### Growth Features (Post-MVP)
+
+[Content about growth features based on conversation]
+
+### Vision (Future)
+
+[Content about future vision based on conversation]
+```
+
+### 8. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the success criteria content for user review, then display menu:
+
+- Show the drafted success criteria and scope definition (using structure from section 7)
+- Ask if they'd like to refine further, get other perspectives, or proceed
+- Present menu options naturally as part of the conversation
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to User Journey Mapping (Step 4 of 11)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current success criteria content, process the enhanced success metrics that come back, ask user "Accept these improvements to the success criteria? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the current success criteria, process the collaborative improvements to metrics and scope, ask user "Accept these changes to the success criteria? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Append the final content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the structure from step 7.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ User success criteria clearly identified and made measurable
+✅ Business success metrics defined with specific targets
+✅ Success criteria connected to product differentiator
+✅ Scope properly negotiated (MVP, Growth, Vision)
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Content properly appended to document when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Accepting vague success metrics without pushing for specificity
+❌ Not connecting success criteria back to product differentiator
+❌ Missing scope negotiation and leaving it undefined
+❌ Generating content without real user input on what success looks like
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
+❌ Appending content without user selecting 'C'
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## DOMAIN CONSIDERATIONS:
+
+If working in regulated domains (healthcare, fintech, govtech):
+
+- Include compliance milestones in success criteria
+- Add regulatory approval timelines to MVP scope
+- Consider audit requirements as technical success metrics
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and content is saved to document, load `./step-04-journeys.md` to map user journeys.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-04 until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu and content is saved!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-04-journeys.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: 'step-04-journeys'
+description: 'Map ALL user types that interact with the system with narrative story-based journeys'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-05-domain.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 4: User Journey Mapping
+
+**Progress: Step 4 of 11** - Next: Domain Requirements
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action - partial understanding leads to incomplete decisions
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read and understood before proceeding
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- 💬 FOCUS on mapping ALL user types that interact with the system
+- 🎯 CRITICAL: No journey = no functional requirements = product doesn't exist
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after generating journey content
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Current document and frontmatter from previous steps are available
+- Success criteria and scope already defined
+- Input documents from step-01 are available (product briefs with user personas)
+- Every human interaction with the system needs a journey
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Create compelling narrative user journeys that leverage existing personas from product briefs and identify additional user types needed for comprehensive coverage.
+
+## JOURNEY MAPPING SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Leverage Existing Users & Identify Additional Types
+
+**Check Input Documents for Existing Personas:**
+Analyze product brief, research, and brainstorming documents for user personas already defined.
+
+**If User Personas Exist in Input Documents:**
+Guide user to build on existing personas:
+- Acknowledge personas found in their product brief
+- Extract key persona details and backstories
+- Leverage existing insights about their needs
+- Prompt to identify additional user types beyond those documented
+- Suggest additional user types based on product context (admins, moderators, support, API consumers, internal ops)
+- Ask what additional user types should be considered
+
+**If No Personas in Input Documents:**
+Start with comprehensive user type discovery:
+- Guide exploration of ALL people who interact with the system
+- Consider beyond primary users: admins, moderators, support staff, API consumers, internal ops
+- Ask what user types should be mapped for this specific product
+- Ensure comprehensive coverage of all system interactions
+
+### 2. Create Narrative Story-Based Journeys
+
+For each user type, create compelling narrative journeys that tell their story:
+
+#### Narrative Journey Creation Process:
+
+**If Using Existing Persona from Input Documents:**
+Guide narrative journey creation:
+- Use persona's existing backstory from brief
+- Explore how the product changes their life/situation
+- Craft journey narrative: where do we meet them, how does product help them write their next chapter?
+
+**If Creating New Persona:**
+Guide persona creation with story framework:
+- Name: realistic name and personality
+- Situation: What's happening in their life/work that creates need?
+- Goal: What do they desperately want to achieve?
+- Obstacle: What's standing in their way?
+- Solution: How does the product solve their story?
+
+**Story-Based Journey Mapping:**
+
+Guide narrative journey creation using story structure:
+- **Opening Scene**: Where/how do we meet them? What's their current pain?
+- **Rising Action**: What steps do they take? What do they discover?
+- **Climax**: Critical moment where product delivers real value
+- **Resolution**: How does their situation improve? What's their new reality?
+
+Encourage narrative format with specific user details, emotional journey, and clear before/after contrast
+
+### 3. Guide Journey Exploration
+
+For each journey, facilitate detailed exploration:
+- What happens at each step specifically?
+- What could go wrong? What's the recovery path?
+- What information do they need to see/hear?
+- What's their emotional state at each point?
+- Where does this journey succeed or fail?
+
+### 4. Connect Journeys to Requirements
+
+After each journey, explicitly state:
+- This journey reveals requirements for specific capability areas
+- Help user see how different journeys create different feature sets
+- Connect journey needs to concrete capabilities (onboarding, dashboards, notifications, etc.)
+
+### 5. Aim for Comprehensive Coverage
+
+Guide toward complete journey set:
+
+- **Primary user** - happy path (core experience)
+- **Primary user** - edge case (different goal, error recovery)
+- **Secondary user** (admin, moderator, support, etc.)
+- **API consumer** (if applicable)
+
+Ask if additional journeys are needed to cover uncovered user types
+
+### 6. Generate User Journey Content
+
+Prepare the content to append to the document:
+
+#### Content Structure:
+
+When saving to document, append these Level 2 and Level 3 sections:
+
+```markdown
+## User Journeys
+
+[All journey narratives based on conversation]
+
+### Journey Requirements Summary
+
+[Summary of capabilities revealed by journeys based on conversation]
+```
+
+### 7. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the user journey content for review, then display menu:
+- Show the mapped user journeys (using structure from section 6)
+- Highlight how each journey reveals different capabilities
+- Ask if they'd like to refine further, get other perspectives, or proceed
+- Present menu options naturally as part of conversation
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Domain Requirements (Step 5 of 11)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current journey content, process the enhanced journey insights that come back, ask user "Accept these improvements to the user journeys? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the current journeys, process the collaborative journey improvements and additions, ask user "Accept these changes to the user journeys? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Append the final content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the structure from step 6.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ Existing personas from product briefs leveraged when available
+✅ All user types identified (not just primary users)
+✅ Rich narrative storytelling for each persona and journey
+✅ Complete story-based journey mapping with emotional arc
+✅ Journey requirements clearly connected to capabilities needed
+✅ Minimum 3-4 compelling narrative journeys covering different user types
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Content properly appended to document when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Ignoring existing personas from product briefs
+❌ Only mapping primary user journeys and missing secondary users
+❌ Creating generic journeys without rich persona details and narrative
+❌ Missing emotional storytelling elements that make journeys compelling
+❌ Missing critical decision points and failure scenarios
+❌ Not connecting journeys to required capabilities
+❌ Not having enough journey diversity (admin, support, API, etc.)
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
+❌ Appending content without user selecting 'C'
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## JOURNEY TYPES TO ENSURE:
+
+**Minimum Coverage:**
+
+1. **Primary User - Success Path**: Core experience journey
+2. **Primary User - Edge Case**: Error recovery, alternative goals
+3. **Admin/Operations User**: Management, configuration, monitoring
+4. **Support/Troubleshooting**: Help, investigation, issue resolution
+5. **API/Integration** (if applicable): Developer/technical user journey
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and content is saved to document, load `./step-05-domain.md`.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-05 until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu and content is saved!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-05-domain.md

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+---
+name: 'step-05-domain'
+description: 'Explore domain-specific requirements for complex domains (optional step)'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-06-innovation.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+domainComplexityCSV: '../data/domain-complexity.csv'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 5: Domain-Specific Requirements (Optional)
+
+**Progress: Step 5 of 13** - Next: Innovation Focus
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+For complex domains only that have a mapping in {domainComplexityCSV}, explore domain-specific constraints, compliance requirements, and technical considerations that shape the product.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a product-focused PM facilitator collaborating with an expert peer
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring structured thinking and facilitation skills, while the user brings domain expertise
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 This step is OPTIONAL - only needed for complex domains
+- 🚫 SKIP if domain complexity is "low" from step-02
+- 💬 APPROACH: Natural conversation to discover domain-specific needs
+- 🎯 Focus on constraints, compliance, and domain patterns
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check domain complexity from step-02 classification first
+- ⚠️ If complexity is "low", offer to skip this step
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after domain requirements defined (or skipped)
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Domain classification from step-02 is available
+- If complexity is low, this step may be skipped
+- Domain CSV data provides complexity reference
+- Focus on domain-specific constraints, not general requirements
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+For complex domains, explore what makes this domain special:
+- **Compliance requirements** - regulations, standards, certifications
+- **Technical constraints** - security, privacy, integration requirements
+- **Domain patterns** - common patterns, best practices, anti-patterns
+- **Risks and mitigations** - what could go wrong, how to prevent it
+
+## DOMAIN DISCOVERY SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Check Domain Complexity
+
+**Review classification from step-02:**
+
+- What's the domain complexity level? (low/medium/high)
+- What's the specific domain? (healthcare, fintech, education, etc.)
+
+**If complexity is LOW:**
+
+Offer to skip:
+"The domain complexity from our discovery is low. We may not need deep domain-specific requirements. Would you like to:
+- [C] Skip this step and move to Innovation
+- [D] Do domain exploration anyway"
+
+**If complexity is MEDIUM or HIGH:**
+
+Proceed with domain exploration.
+
+### 2. Load Domain Reference Data
+
+**Attempt subprocess data lookup:**
+
+"Your task: Lookup data in {domainComplexityCSV}
+
+**Search criteria:**
+- Find row where domain matches {{domainFromStep02}}
+
+**Return format:**
+Return ONLY the matching row as a YAML-formatted object with these fields:
+domain, complexity, typical_concerns, compliance_requirements
+
+**Do NOT return the entire CSV - only the matching row.**"
+
+**Graceful degradation (if Task tool unavailable):**
+- Load the CSV file directly
+- Find the matching row manually
+- Extract required fields
+- Understand typical concerns and compliance requirements
+
+### 3. Explore Domain-Specific Concerns
+
+**Start with what you know:**
+
+Acknowledge the domain and explore what makes it complex:
+- What regulations apply? (HIPAA, PCI-DSS, GDPR, SOX, etc.)
+- What standards matter? (ISO, NIST, domain-specific standards)
+- What certifications are needed? (security, privacy, domain-specific)
+- What integrations are required? (EMR systems, payment processors, etc.)
+
+**Explore technical constraints:**
+- Security requirements (encryption, audit logs, access control)
+- Privacy requirements (data handling, consent, retention)
+- Performance requirements (real-time, batch, latency)
+- Availability requirements (uptime, disaster recovery)
+
+### 4. Document Domain Requirements
+
+**Structure the requirements around key concerns:**
+
+```markdown
+### Compliance & Regulatory
+- [Specific requirements]
+
+### Technical Constraints
+- [Security, privacy, performance needs]
+
+### Integration Requirements
+- [Required systems and data flows]
+
+### Risk Mitigations
+- [Domain-specific risks and how to address them]
+```
+
+### 5. Validate Completeness
+
+**Check with the user:**
+
+"Are there other domain-specific concerns we should consider? For [this domain], what typically gets overlooked?"
+
+### N. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue - Save and Proceed to Innovation (Step 6 of 13)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask}, and when finished redisplay the menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow}, and when finished redisplay the menu
+- IF C: Save content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other comments or queries: help user respond then [Redisplay Menu Options](#n-present-menu-options)
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT
+
+When user selects 'C', append to `{outputFile}`:
+
+```markdown
+## Domain-Specific Requirements
+
+{{discovered domain requirements}}
+```
+
+If step was skipped, append nothing and proceed.
+
+## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
+
+ONLY WHEN [C continue option] is selected and [content saved or skipped], will you then load and read fully `{nextStepFile}` to explore innovation.
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Domain complexity checked before proceeding
+- Offered to skip if complexity is low
+- Natural conversation exploring domain concerns
+- Compliance, technical, and integration requirements identified
+- Domain-specific risks documented with mitigations
+- User validated completeness
+- Content properly saved (or step skipped) when C selected
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking domain complexity first
+- Not offering to skip for low-complexity domains
+- Missing critical compliance requirements
+- Not exploring technical constraints
+- Not asking about domain-specific risks
+- Being generic instead of domain-specific
+- Proceeding without user validation
+
+**Master Rule:** This step is OPTIONAL for simple domains. For complex domains, focus on compliance, constraints, and domain patterns. Natural conversation, not checklists.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-06-innovation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+---
+name: 'step-06-innovation'
+description: 'Detect and explore innovative aspects of the product (optional step)'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-07-project-type.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Data Files
+projectTypesCSV: '../data/project-types.csv'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 6: Innovation Discovery
+
+**Progress: Step 6 of 11** - Next: Project Type Analysis
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action - partial understanding leads to incomplete decisions
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read and understood before proceeding
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- 💬 FOCUS on detecting and exploring innovative aspects of the product
+- 🎯 OPTIONAL STEP: Only proceed if innovation signals are detected
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after generating innovation content
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Current document and frontmatter from previous steps are available
+- Project type from step-02 is available for innovation signal matching
+- Project-type CSV data will be loaded in this step
+- Focus on detecting genuine innovation, not forced creativity
+
+## OPTIONAL STEP CHECK:
+
+Before proceeding with this step, scan for innovation signals:
+
+- Listen for language like "nothing like this exists", "rethinking how X works"
+- Check for project-type innovation signals from CSV
+- Look for novel approaches or unique combinations
+- If no innovation detected, skip this step
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Detect and explore innovation patterns in the product, focusing on what makes it truly novel and how to validate the innovative aspects.
+
+## INNOVATION DISCOVERY SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Load Project-Type Innovation Data
+
+Load innovation signals specific to this project type:
+
+- Load `{projectTypesCSV}` completely
+- Find the row where `project_type` matches detected type from step-02
+- Extract `innovation_signals` (semicolon-separated list)
+- Extract `web_search_triggers` for potential innovation research
+
+### 2. Listen for Innovation Indicators
+
+Monitor conversation for both general and project-type-specific innovation signals:
+
+#### General Innovation Language:
+
+- "Nothing like this exists"
+- "We're rethinking how [X] works"
+- "Combining [A] with [B] for the first time"
+- "Novel approach to [problem]"
+- "No one has done [concept] before"
+
+#### Project-Type-Specific Signals (from CSV):
+
+Match user descriptions against innovation_signals for their project_type:
+
+- **api_backend**: "API composition;New protocol"
+- **mobile_app**: "Gesture innovation;AR/VR features"
+- **saas_b2b**: "Workflow automation;AI agents"
+- **developer_tool**: "New paradigm;DSL creation"
+
+### 3. Initial Innovation Screening
+
+Ask targeted innovation discovery questions:
+- Guide exploration of what makes the product innovative
+- Explore if they're challenging existing assumptions
+- Ask about novel combinations of technologies/approaches
+- Identify what hasn't been done before
+- Understand which aspects feel most innovative
+
+### 4. Deep Innovation Exploration (If Detected)
+
+If innovation signals are found, explore deeply:
+
+#### Innovation Discovery Questions:
+- What makes it unique compared to existing solutions?
+- What assumption are you challenging?
+- How do we validate it works?
+- What's the fallback if it doesn't?
+- Has anyone tried this before?
+
+#### Market Context Research:
+
+If relevant innovation detected, consider web search for context:
+Use `web_search_triggers` from project-type CSV:
+`[web_search_triggers] {concept} innovations {date}`
+
+### 5. Generate Innovation Content (If Innovation Detected)
+
+Prepare the content to append to the document:
+
+#### Content Structure:
+
+When saving to document, append these Level 2 and Level 3 sections:
+
+```markdown
+## Innovation & Novel Patterns
+
+### Detected Innovation Areas
+
+[Innovation patterns identified based on conversation]
+
+### Market Context & Competitive Landscape
+
+[Market context and research based on conversation]
+
+### Validation Approach
+
+[Validation methodology based on conversation]
+
+### Risk Mitigation
+
+[Innovation risks and fallbacks based on conversation]
+```
+
+### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS (Only if Innovation Detected)
+
+Present the innovation content for review, then display menu:
+- Show identified innovative aspects (using structure from section 5)
+- Highlight differentiation from existing solutions
+- Ask if they'd like to refine further, get other perspectives, or proceed
+- Present menu options naturally as part of conversation
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Project Type Analysis (Step 7 of 11)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current innovation content, process the enhanced innovation insights that come back, ask user "Accept these improvements to the innovation analysis? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the current innovation content, process the collaborative innovation exploration and ideation, ask user "Accept these changes to the innovation analysis? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Append the final content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## NO INNOVATION DETECTED:
+
+If no genuine innovation signals are found after exploration:
+- Acknowledge that no clear innovation signals were found
+- Note this is fine - many successful products are excellent executions of existing concepts
+- Ask if they'd like to try finding innovative angles or proceed
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation - Let's try to find innovative angles [C] Continue - Skip innovation section and move to Project Type Analysis (Step 7 of 11)"
+
+### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Proceed with content generation anyway, then return to menu
+- IF C: Skip this step, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+
+### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the structure from step 5.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ Innovation signals properly detected from user conversation
+✅ Project-type innovation signals used to guide discovery
+✅ Genuine innovation explored (not forced creativity)
+✅ Validation approach clearly defined for innovative aspects
+✅ Risk mitigation strategies identified
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Content properly appended to document when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Forced innovation when none genuinely exists
+❌ Not using project-type innovation signals from CSV
+❌ Missing market context research for novel concepts
+❌ Not addressing validation approach for innovative features
+❌ Creating innovation theater without real innovative aspects
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
+❌ Appending content without user selecting 'C'
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## SKIP CONDITIONS:
+
+Skip this step and load `{nextStepFile}` if:
+
+- No innovation signals detected in conversation
+- Product is incremental improvement rather than breakthrough
+- User confirms innovation exploration is not needed
+- Project-type CSV has no innovation signals for this type
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and content is saved to document (or step is skipped), load `{nextStepFile}`.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-07 until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu (or confirms step skip)!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-07-project-type.md

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+---
+name: 'step-07-project-type'
+description: 'Conduct project-type specific discovery using CSV-driven guidance'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-08-scoping.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Data Files
+projectTypesCSV: '../data/project-types.csv'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 7: Project-Type Deep Dive
+
+**Progress: Step 7 of 11** - Next: Scoping
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action - partial understanding leads to incomplete decisions
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read and understood before proceeding
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- 💬 FOCUS on project-type specific requirements and technical considerations
+- 🎯 DATA-DRIVEN: Use CSV configuration to guide discovery
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after generating project-type content
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Current document and frontmatter from previous steps are available
+- Project type from step-02 is available for configuration loading
+- Project-type CSV data will be loaded in this step
+- Focus on technical and functional requirements specific to this project type
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Conduct project-type specific discovery using CSV-driven guidance to define technical requirements.
+
+## PROJECT-TYPE DISCOVERY SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Load Project-Type Configuration Data
+
+**Attempt subprocess data lookup:**
+
+"Your task: Lookup data in {projectTypesCSV}
+
+**Search criteria:**
+- Find row where project_type matches {{projectTypeFromStep02}}
+
+**Return format:**
+Return ONLY the matching row as a YAML-formatted object with these fields:
+project_type, key_questions, required_sections, skip_sections, innovation_signals
+
+**Do NOT return the entire CSV - only the matching row.**"
+
+**Graceful degradation (if Task tool unavailable):**
+- Load the CSV file directly
+- Find the matching row manually
+- Extract required fields:
+  - `key_questions` (semicolon-separated list of discovery questions)
+  - `required_sections` (semicolon-separated list of sections to document)
+  - `skip_sections` (semicolon-separated list of sections to skip)
+  - `innovation_signals` (already explored in step-6)
+
+### 2. Conduct Guided Discovery Using Key Questions
+
+Parse `key_questions` from CSV and explore each:
+
+#### Question-Based Discovery:
+
+For each question in `key_questions` from CSV:
+
+- Ask the user naturally in conversational style
+- Listen for their response and ask clarifying follow-ups
+- Connect answers to product value proposition
+
+**Example Flow:**
+If key_questions = "Endpoints needed?;Authentication method?;Data formats?;Rate limits?;Versioning?;SDK needed?"
+
+Ask naturally:
+
+- "What are the main endpoints your API needs to expose?"
+- "How will you handle authentication and authorization?"
+- "What data formats will you support for requests and responses?"
+
+### 3. Document Project-Type Specific Requirements
+
+Based on user answers to key_questions, synthesize comprehensive requirements:
+
+#### Requirement Categories:
+
+Cover the areas indicated by `required_sections` from CSV:
+
+- Synthesize what was discovered for each required section
+- Document specific requirements, constraints, and decisions
+- Connect to product differentiator when relevant
+
+#### Skip Irrelevant Sections:
+
+Skip areas indicated by `skip_sections` from CSV to avoid wasting time on irrelevant aspects.
+
+### 4. Generate Dynamic Content Sections
+
+Parse `required_sections` list from the matched CSV row. For each section name, generate corresponding content:
+
+#### Common CSV Section Mappings:
+
+- "endpoint_specs" or "endpoint_specification" → API endpoints documentation
+- "auth_model" or "authentication_model" → Authentication approach
+- "platform_reqs" or "platform_requirements" → Platform support needs
+- "device_permissions" or "device_features" → Device capabilities
+- "tenant_model" → Multi-tenancy approach
+- "rbac_matrix" or "permission_matrix" → Permission structure
+
+#### Template Variable Strategy:
+
+- For sections matching common template variables: generate specific content
+- For sections without template matches: include in main project_type_requirements
+- Hybrid approach balances template structure with CSV-driven flexibility
+
+### 5. Generate Project-Type Content
+
+Prepare the content to append to the document:
+
+#### Content Structure:
+
+When saving to document, append these Level 2 and Level 3 sections:
+
+```markdown
+## [Project Type] Specific Requirements
+
+### Project-Type Overview
+
+[Project type summary based on conversation]
+
+### Technical Architecture Considerations
+
+[Technical architecture requirements based on conversation]
+
+[Dynamic sections based on CSV and conversation]
+
+### Implementation Considerations
+
+[Implementation specific requirements based on conversation]
+```
+
+### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the project-type content for review, then display menu:
+
+"Based on our conversation and best practices for this product type, I've documented the {project_type}-specific requirements for {{project_name}}.
+
+**Here's what I'll add to the document:**
+
+[Show the complete markdown content from section 5]
+
+**What would you like to do?**"
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Scoping (Step 8 of 11)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current project-type content, process the enhanced technical insights that come back, ask user "Accept these improvements to the technical requirements? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the current project-type requirements, process the collaborative technical expertise and validation, ask user "Accept these changes to the technical requirements? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Append the final content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the structure from previous steps.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ Project-type configuration loaded and used effectively
+✅ All key questions from CSV explored with user input
+✅ Required sections generated per CSV configuration
+✅ Skip sections properly avoided to save time
+✅ Technical requirements connected to product value
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Content properly appended to document when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Not loading or using project-type CSV configuration
+❌ Missing key questions from CSV in discovery process
+❌ Not generating required sections per CSV configuration
+❌ Documenting sections that should be skipped per CSV
+❌ Creating generic content without project-type specificity
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
+❌ Appending content without user selecting 'C'
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## PROJECT-TYPE EXAMPLES:
+
+**For api_backend:**
+
+- Focus on endpoints, authentication, data schemas, rate limiting
+- Skip visual design and user journey sections
+- Generate API specification documentation
+
+**For mobile_app:**
+
+- Focus on platform requirements, device permissions, offline mode
+- Skip API endpoint documentation unless needed
+- Generate mobile-specific technical requirements
+
+**For saas_b2b:**
+
+- Focus on multi-tenancy, permissions, integrations
+- Skip mobile-first considerations unless relevant
+- Generate enterprise-specific requirements
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and content is saved to document, load `{nextStepFile}` to define project scope.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-08 (Scoping) until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu and content is saved!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-08-scoping.md

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+---
+name: 'step-08-scoping'
+description: 'Define MVP boundaries and prioritize features across development phases'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-09-functional.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 8: Scoping Exercise - MVP & Future Features
+
+**Progress: Step 8 of 11** - Next: Functional Requirements
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action - partial understanding leads to incomplete decisions
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read and understood before proceeding
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- 💬 FOCUS on strategic scope decisions that keep projects viable
+- 🎯 EMPHASIZE lean MVP thinking while preserving long-term vision
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- 📚 Review the complete PRD document built so far
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after generating scoping decisions
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Complete PRD document built so far is available for review
+- User journeys, success criteria, and domain requirements are documented
+- Focus on strategic scope decisions, not feature details
+- Balance between user value and implementation feasibility
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Conduct comprehensive scoping exercise to define MVP boundaries and prioritize features across development phases.
+
+## SCOPING SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Review Current PRD State
+
+Analyze everything documented so far:
+- Present synthesis of established vision, success criteria, journeys
+- Assess domain and innovation focus
+- Evaluate scope implications: simple MVP, medium, or complex project
+- Ask if initial assessment feels right or if they see it differently
+
+### 2. Define MVP Strategy
+
+Facilitate strategic MVP decisions:
+- Explore MVP philosophy options: problem-solving, experience, platform, or revenue MVP
+- Ask critical questions:
+  - What's the minimum that would make users say 'this is useful'?
+  - What would make investors/partners say 'this has potential'?
+  - What's the fastest path to validated learning?
+- Guide toward appropriate MVP approach for their product
+
+### 3. Scoping Decision Framework
+
+Use structured decision-making for scope:
+
+**Must-Have Analysis:**
+- Guide identification of absolute MVP necessities
+- For each journey and success criterion, ask:
+  - Without this, does the product fail?
+  - Can this be manual initially?
+  - Is this a deal-breaker for early adopters?
+- Analyze journeys for MVP essentials
+
+**Nice-to-Have Analysis:**
+- Identify what could be added later:
+  - Features that enhance but aren't essential
+  - User types that can be added later
+  - Advanced functionality that builds on MVP
+- Ask what features could be added in versions 2, 3, etc.
+
+### 4. Progressive Feature Roadmap
+
+Create phased development approach:
+- Guide mapping of features across development phases
+- Structure as Phase 1 (MVP), Phase 2 (Growth), Phase 3 (Vision)
+- Ensure clear progression and dependencies
+
+- Core user value delivery
+- Essential user journeys
+- Basic functionality that works reliably
+
+**Phase 2: Growth**
+
+- Additional user types
+- Enhanced features
+- Scale improvements
+
+**Phase 3: Expansion**
+
+- Advanced capabilities
+- Platform features
+- New markets or use cases
+
+**Where does your current vision fit in this development sequence?**"
+
+### 5. Risk-Based Scoping
+
+Identify and mitigate scoping risks:
+
+**Technical Risks:**
+"Looking at your innovation and domain requirements:
+
+- What's the most technically challenging aspect?
+- Could we simplify the initial implementation?
+- What's the riskiest assumption about technology feasibility?"
+
+**Market Risks:**
+
+- What's the biggest market risk?
+- How does the MVP address this?
+- What learning do we need to de-risk this?"
+
+**Resource Risks:**
+
+- What if we have fewer resources than planned?
+- What's the absolute minimum team size needed?
+- Can we launch with a smaller feature set?"
+
+### 6. Generate Scoping Content
+
+Prepare comprehensive scoping section:
+
+#### Content Structure:
+
+```markdown
+## Project Scoping & Phased Development
+
+### MVP Strategy & Philosophy
+
+**MVP Approach:** {{chosen_mvp_approach}}
+**Resource Requirements:** {{mvp_team_size_and_skills}}
+
+### MVP Feature Set (Phase 1)
+
+**Core User Journeys Supported:**
+{{essential_journeys_for_mvp}}
+
+**Must-Have Capabilities:**
+{{list_of_essential_mvp_features}}
+
+### Post-MVP Features
+
+**Phase 2 (Post-MVP):**
+{{planned_growth_features}}
+
+**Phase 3 (Expansion):**
+{{planned_expansion_features}}
+
+### Risk Mitigation Strategy
+
+**Technical Risks:** {{mitigation_approach}}
+**Market Risks:** {{validation_approach}}
+**Resource Risks:** {{contingency_approach}}
+```
+
+### 7. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the scoping decisions for review, then display menu:
+- Show strategic scoping plan (using structure from step 6)
+- Highlight MVP boundaries and phased roadmap
+- Ask if they'd like to refine further, get other perspectives, or proceed
+- Present menu options naturally as part of conversation
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Functional Requirements (Step 9 of 11)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current scoping analysis, process the enhanced insights that come back, ask user if they accept the improvements, if yes update content then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the scoping context, process the collaborative insights on MVP and roadmap decisions, ask user if they accept the changes, if yes update content then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Append the final content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the structure from step 6.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ Complete PRD document analyzed for scope implications
+✅ Strategic MVP approach defined and justified
+✅ Clear MVP feature boundaries established
+✅ Phased development roadmap created
+✅ Key risks identified and mitigation strategies defined
+✅ User explicitly agrees to scope decisions
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Content properly appended to document when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Not analyzing the complete PRD before making scoping decisions
+❌ Making scope decisions without strategic rationale
+❌ Not getting explicit user agreement on MVP boundaries
+❌ Missing critical risk analysis
+❌ Not creating clear phased development approach
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and content is saved to document, load {nextStepFile}.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-09 until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu and content is saved!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-09-functional.md

@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+---
+name: 'step-09-functional'
+description: 'Synthesize all discovery into comprehensive functional requirements'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-10-nonfunctional.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 9: Functional Requirements Synthesis
+
+**Progress: Step 9 of 11** - Next: Non-Functional Requirements
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action - partial understanding leads to incomplete decisions
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read and understood before proceeding
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- 💬 FOCUS on creating comprehensive capability inventory for the product
+- 🎯 CRITICAL: This is THE CAPABILITY CONTRACT for all downstream work
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after generating functional requirements
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Current document and frontmatter from previous steps are available
+- ALL previous content (executive summary, success criteria, journeys, domain, innovation, project-type) must be referenced
+- No additional data files needed for this step
+- Focus on capabilities, not implementation details
+
+## CRITICAL IMPORTANCE:
+
+**This section defines THE CAPABILITY CONTRACT for the entire product:**
+
+- UX designers will ONLY design what's listed here
+- Architects will ONLY support what's listed here
+- Epic breakdown will ONLY implement what's listed here
+- If a capability is missing from FRs, it will NOT exist in the final product
+
+## FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS SYNTHESIS SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Understand FR Purpose and Usage
+
+Start by explaining the critical role of functional requirements:
+
+**Purpose:**
+FRs define WHAT capabilities the product must have. They are the complete inventory of user-facing and system capabilities that deliver the product vision.
+
+**Critical Properties:**
+✅ Each FR is a testable capability
+✅ Each FR is implementation-agnostic (could be built many ways)
+✅ Each FR specifies WHO and WHAT, not HOW
+✅ No UI details, no performance numbers, no technology choices
+✅ Comprehensive coverage of capability areas
+
+**How They Will Be Used:**
+
+1. UX Designer reads FRs → designs interactions for each capability
+2. Architect reads FRs → designs systems to support each capability
+3. PM reads FRs → creates epics and stories to implement each capability
+
+### 2. Review Existing Content for Capability Extraction
+
+Systematically review all previous sections to extract capabilities:
+
+**Extract From:**
+
+- Executive Summary → Core product differentiator capabilities
+- Success Criteria → Success-enabling capabilities
+- User Journeys → Journey-revealed capabilities
+- Domain Requirements → Compliance and regulatory capabilities
+- Innovation Patterns → Innovative feature capabilities
+- Project-Type Requirements → Technical capability needs
+
+### 3. Organize Requirements by Capability Area
+
+Group FRs by logical capability areas (NOT by technology or layer):
+
+**Good Grouping Examples:**
+
+- ✅ "User Management" (not "Authentication System")
+- ✅ "Content Discovery" (not "Search Algorithm")
+- ✅ "Team Collaboration" (not "WebSocket Infrastructure")
+
+**Target 5-8 Capability Areas** for typical projects.
+
+### 4. Generate Comprehensive FR List
+
+Create complete functional requirements using this format:
+
+**Format:**
+
+- FR#: [Actor] can [capability] [context/constraint if needed]
+- Number sequentially (FR1, FR2, FR3...)
+- Aim for 20-50 FRs for typical projects
+
+**Altitude Check:**
+Each FR should answer "WHAT capability exists?" NOT "HOW it's implemented?"
+
+**Examples:**
+
+- ✅ "Users can customize appearance settings"
+- ❌ "Users can toggle light/dark theme with 3 font size options stored in LocalStorage"
+
+### 5. Self-Validation Process
+
+Before presenting to user, validate the FR list:
+
+**Completeness Check:**
+
+1. "Did I cover EVERY capability mentioned in the MVP scope section?"
+2. "Did I include domain-specific requirements as FRs?"
+3. "Did I cover the project-type specific needs?"
+4. "Could a UX designer read ONLY the FRs and know what to design?"
+5. "Could an Architect read ONLY the FRs and know what to support?"
+6. "Are there any user actions or system behaviors we discussed that have no FR?"
+
+**Altitude Check:**
+
+1. "Am I stating capabilities (WHAT) or implementation (HOW)?"
+2. "Am I listing acceptance criteria or UI specifics?" (Remove if yes)
+3. "Could this FR be implemented 5 different ways?" (Good - means it's not prescriptive)
+
+**Quality Check:**
+
+1. "Is each FR clear enough that someone could test whether it exists?"
+2. "Is each FR independent (not dependent on reading other FRs to understand)?"
+3. "Did I avoid vague terms like 'good', 'fast', 'easy'?" (Use NFRs for quality attributes)
+
+### 6. Generate Functional Requirements Content
+
+Prepare the content to append to the document:
+
+#### Content Structure:
+
+When saving to document, append these Level 2 and Level 3 sections:
+
+```markdown
+## Functional Requirements
+
+### [Capability Area Name]
+
+- FR1: [Specific Actor] can [specific capability]
+- FR2: [Specific Actor] can [specific capability]
+- FR3: [Specific Actor] can [specific capability]
+
+### [Another Capability Area]
+
+- FR4: [Specific Actor] can [specific capability]
+- FR5: [Specific Actor] can [specific capability]
+
+[Continue for all capability areas discovered in conversation]
+```
+
+### 7. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the functional requirements for review, then display menu:
+- Show synthesized functional requirements (using structure from step 6)
+- Emphasize this is the capability contract for all downstream work
+- Highlight that every feature must trace back to these requirements
+- Ask if they'd like to refine further, get other perspectives, or proceed
+- Present menu options naturally as part of conversation
+
+**What would you like to do?**"
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Non-Functional Requirements (Step 10 of 11)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current FR list, process the enhanced capability coverage that comes back, ask user if they accept the additions, if yes update content then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the current FR list, process the collaborative capability validation and additions, ask user if they accept the changes, if yes update content then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Append the final content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the structure from step 6.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ All previous discovery content synthesized into FRs
+✅ FRs organized by capability areas (not technology)
+✅ Each FR states WHAT capability exists, not HOW to implement
+✅ Comprehensive coverage with 20-50 FRs typical
+✅ Altitude validation ensures implementation-agnostic requirements
+✅ Completeness check validates coverage of all discussed capabilities
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Content properly appended to document when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Missing capabilities from previous discovery sections
+❌ Organizing FRs by technology instead of capability areas
+❌ Including implementation details or UI specifics in FRs
+❌ Not achieving comprehensive coverage of discussed capabilities
+❌ Using vague terms instead of testable capabilities
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
+❌ Appending content without user selecting 'C'
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## CAPABILITY CONTRACT REMINDER:
+
+Emphasize to user: "This FR list is now binding. Any feature not listed here will not exist in the final product unless we explicitly add it. This is why it's critical to ensure completeness now."
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and content is saved to document, load {nextStepFile} to define non-functional requirements.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-10 until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu and content is saved!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-10-nonfunctional.md

@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+---
+name: 'step-10-nonfunctional'
+description: 'Define quality attributes that matter for this specific product'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-11-polish.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 10: Non-Functional Requirements
+
+**Progress: Step 10 of 12** - Next: Polish Document
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action - partial understanding leads to incomplete decisions
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure the entire file is read and understood before proceeding
+- ✅ ALWAYS treat this as collaborative discovery between PM peers
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- 💬 FOCUS on quality attributes that matter for THIS specific product
+- 🎯 SELECTIVE: Only document NFRs that actually apply to the product
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after generating NFR content
+- 💾 ONLY save when user chooses C (Continue)
+- 📖 Update output file frontmatter, adding this step name to the end of the list of stepsCompleted
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until C is selected
+
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Current document and frontmatter from previous steps are available
+- Functional requirements already defined and will inform NFRs
+- Domain and project-type context will guide which NFRs matter
+- Focus on specific, measurable quality criteria
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Define non-functional requirements that specify quality attributes for the product, focusing only on what matters for THIS specific product.
+
+## NON-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Explain NFR Purpose and Scope
+
+Start by clarifying what NFRs are and why we're selective:
+
+**NFR Purpose:**
+NFRs define HOW WELL the system must perform, not WHAT it must do. They specify quality attributes like performance, security, scalability, etc.
+
+**Selective Approach:**
+We only document NFRs that matter for THIS product. If a category doesn't apply, we skip it entirely. This prevents requirement bloat and focuses on what's actually important.
+
+### 2. Assess Product Context for NFR Relevance
+
+Evaluate which NFR categories matter based on product context:
+
+**Quick Assessment Questions:**
+
+- **Performance**: Is there user-facing impact of speed?
+- **Security**: Are we handling sensitive data or payments?
+- **Scalability**: Do we expect rapid user growth?
+- **Accessibility**: Are we serving broad public audiences?
+- **Integration**: Do we need to connect with other systems?
+- **Reliability**: Would downtime cause significant problems?
+
+### 3. Explore Relevant NFR Categories
+
+For each relevant category, conduct targeted discovery:
+
+#### Performance NFRs (If relevant):
+
+Explore performance requirements:
+- What parts of the system need to be fast for users to be successful?
+- Are there specific response time expectations?
+- What happens if performance is slower than expected?
+- Are there concurrent user scenarios we need to support?
+
+#### Security NFRs (If relevant):
+
+Explore security requirements:
+- What data needs to be protected?
+- Who should have access to what?
+- What are the security risks we need to mitigate?
+- Are there compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS)?
+
+#### Scalability NFRs (If relevant):
+
+Explore scalability requirements:
+- How many users do we expect initially? Long-term?
+- Are there seasonal or event-based traffic spikes?
+- What happens if we exceed our capacity?
+- What growth scenarios should we plan for?
+
+#### Accessibility NFRs (If relevant):
+
+Explore accessibility requirements:
+- Are we serving users with visual, hearing, or motor impairments?
+- Are there legal accessibility requirements (WCAG, Section 508)?
+- What accessibility features are most important for our users?
+
+#### Integration NFRs (If relevant):
+
+Explore integration requirements:
+- What external systems do we need to connect with?
+- Are there APIs or data formats we must support?
+- How reliable do these integrations need to be?
+
+### 4. Make NFRs Specific and Measurable
+
+For each relevant NFR category, ensure criteria are testable:
+
+**From Vague to Specific:**
+
+- NOT: "The system should be fast" → "User actions complete within 2 seconds"
+- NOT: "The system should be secure" → "All data is encrypted at rest and in transit"
+- NOT: "The system should scale" → "System supports 10x user growth with <10% performance degradation"
+
+### 5. Generate NFR Content (Only Relevant Categories)
+
+Prepare the content to append to the document:
+
+#### Content Structure (Dynamic based on relevance):
+
+When saving to document, append these Level 2 and Level 3 sections (only include sections that are relevant):
+
+```markdown
+## Non-Functional Requirements
+
+### Performance
+
+[Performance requirements based on conversation - only include if relevant]
+
+### Security
+
+[Security requirements based on conversation - only include if relevant]
+
+### Scalability
+
+[Scalability requirements based on conversation - only include if relevant]
+
+### Accessibility
+
+[Accessibility requirements based on conversation - only include if relevant]
+
+### Integration
+
+[Integration requirements based on conversation - only include if relevant]
+```
+
+### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the non-functional requirements for review, then display menu:
+- Show defined NFRs (using structure from step 5)
+- Note that only relevant categories were included
+- Emphasize NFRs specify how well the system needs to perform
+- Ask if they'd like to refine further, get other perspectives, or proceed
+- Present menu options naturally as part of conversation
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Polish Document (Step 11 of 12)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the current NFR content, process the enhanced quality attribute insights that come back, ask user if they accept the improvements, if yes update content then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the current NFR list, process the collaborative technical validation and additions, ask user if they accept the changes, if yes update content then redisplay menu, if no keep original content then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Append the final content to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', append the content directly to the document using the structure from step 5.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ Only relevant NFR categories documented (no requirement bloat)
+✅ Each NFR is specific and measurable
+✅ NFRs connected to actual user needs and business context
+✅ Vague requirements converted to testable criteria
+✅ Domain-specific compliance requirements included if relevant
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Content properly appended to document when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Documenting NFR categories that don't apply to the product
+❌ Leaving requirements vague and unmeasurable
+❌ Not connecting NFRs to actual user or business needs
+❌ Missing domain-specific compliance requirements
+❌ Creating overly prescriptive technical requirements
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu after content generation
+❌ Appending content without user selecting 'C'
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## NFR CATEGORY GUIDANCE:
+
+**Include Performance When:**
+
+- User-facing response times impact success
+- Real-time interactions are critical
+- Performance is a competitive differentiator
+
+**Include Security When:**
+
+- Handling sensitive user data
+- Processing payments or financial information
+- Subject to compliance regulations
+- Protecting intellectual property
+
+**Include Scalability When:**
+
+- Expecting rapid user growth
+- Handling variable traffic patterns
+- Supporting enterprise-scale usage
+- Planning for market expansion
+
+**Include Accessibility When:**
+
+- Serving broad public audiences
+- Subject to accessibility regulations
+- Targeting users with disabilities
+- B2B customers with accessibility requirements
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and content is saved to document, load {nextStepFile} to finalize the PRD and complete the workflow.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-11 until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu and content is saved!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-11-polish.md

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+---
+name: 'step-11-polish'
+description: 'Optimize and polish the complete PRD document for flow, coherence, and readability'
+
+# File References
+nextStepFile: './step-12-complete.md'
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+purposeFile: './data/prd-purpose.md'
+
+# Task References
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step 11: Document Polish
+
+**Progress: Step 11 of 12** - Next: Complete PRD
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- 🛑 CRITICAL: Load the ENTIRE document before making changes
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read complete step file before taking action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- ✅ This is a POLISH step - optimize existing content
+- 📋 IMPROVE flow, coherence, and readability
+- 💬 PRESERVE user's voice and intent
+- 🎯 MAINTAIN all essential information while improving presentation
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Load complete document first
+- 📝 Review for flow and coherence issues
+- ✂️ Reduce duplication while preserving essential info
+- 📖 Ensure proper ## Level 2 headers throughout
+- 💾 Save optimized document
+- ⚠️ Present A/P/C menu after polish
+- 🚫 DO NOT skip review steps
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Complete PRD document exists from all previous steps
+- Document may have duplication from progressive append
+- Sections may not flow smoothly together
+- Level 2 headers ensure document can be split if needed
+- Focus on readability and coherence
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Optimize the complete PRD document for flow, coherence, and professional presentation while preserving all essential information.
+
+## DOCUMENT POLISH SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Load Context and Document
+
+**CRITICAL:** Load the PRD purpose document first:
+
+- Read `{purposeFile}` to understand what makes a great BMAD PRD
+- Internalize the philosophy: information density, traceability, measurable requirements
+- Keep the dual-audience nature (humans + LLMs) in mind
+
+**Then Load the PRD Document:**
+
+- Read `{outputFile}` completely from start to finish
+- Understand the full document structure and content
+- Identify all sections and their relationships
+- Note areas that need attention
+
+### 2. Document Quality Review
+
+Review the entire document with PRD purpose principles in mind:
+
+**Information Density:**
+- Are there wordy phrases that can be condensed?
+- Is conversational padding present?
+- Can sentences be more direct and concise?
+
+**Flow and Coherence:**
+- Do sections transition smoothly?
+- Are there jarring topic shifts?
+- Does the document tell a cohesive story?
+- Is the progression logical for readers?
+
+**Duplication Detection:**
+- Are ideas repeated across sections?
+- Is the same information stated multiple times?
+- Can redundant content be consolidated?
+- Are there contradictory statements?
+
+**Header Structure:**
+- Are all main sections using ## Level 2 headers?
+- Is the hierarchy consistent (##, ###, ####)?
+- Can sections be easily extracted or referenced?
+- Are headers descriptive and clear?
+
+**Readability:**
+- Are sentences clear and concise?
+- Is the language consistent throughout?
+- Are technical terms used appropriately?
+- Would stakeholders find this easy to understand?
+
+### 3. Optimization Actions
+
+Make targeted improvements:
+
+**Improve Flow:**
+- Add transition sentences between sections
+- Smooth out jarring topic shifts
+- Ensure logical progression
+- Connect related concepts across sections
+
+**Reduce Duplication:**
+- Consolidate repeated information
+- Keep content in the most appropriate section
+- Use cross-references instead of repetition
+- Remove redundant explanations
+
+**Enhance Coherence:**
+- Ensure consistent terminology throughout
+- Align all sections with product differentiator
+- Maintain consistent voice and tone
+- Verify scope consistency across sections
+
+**Optimize Headers:**
+- Ensure all main sections use ## Level 2
+- Make headers descriptive and action-oriented
+- Check that headers follow consistent patterns
+- Verify headers support document navigation
+
+### 4. Preserve Critical Information
+
+**While optimizing, ensure NOTHING essential is lost:**
+
+**Must Preserve:**
+- All user success criteria
+- All functional requirements (capability contract)
+- All user journey narratives
+- All scope decisions (MVP, Growth, Vision)
+- All non-functional requirements
+- Product differentiator and vision
+- Domain-specific requirements
+- Innovation analysis (if present)
+
+**Can Consolidate:**
+- Repeated explanations of the same concept
+- Redundant background information
+- Multiple versions of similar content
+- Overlapping examples
+
+### 5. Generate Optimized Document
+
+Create the polished version:
+
+**Polishing Process:**
+1. Start with original document
+2. Apply all optimization actions
+3. Review to ensure nothing essential was lost
+4. Verify improvements enhance readability
+5. Prepare optimized version for review
+
+### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Present the polished document for review, then display menu:
+- Show what changed in the polish
+- Highlight improvements made (flow, duplication, headers)
+- Ask if they'd like to refine further, get other perspectives, or proceed
+- Present menu options naturally as part of conversation
+
+Display: "**Select:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Complete PRD (Step 12 of 12)"
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask} with the polished document, process the enhanced refinements that come back, ask user "Accept these polish improvements? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original polish then redisplay menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow} with the polished document, process the collaborative refinements to flow and coherence, ask user "Accept these polish changes? (y/n)", if yes update content with improvements then redisplay menu, if no keep original polish then redisplay menu
+- IF C: Save the polished document to {outputFile}, update frontmatter by adding this step name to the end of the stepsCompleted array, then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
+
+## APPEND TO DOCUMENT:
+
+When user selects 'C', replace the entire document content with the polished version.
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ Complete document loaded and reviewed
+✅ Flow and coherence improved
+✅ Duplication reduced while preserving essential information
+✅ All main sections use ## Level 2 headers
+✅ Transitions between sections are smooth
+✅ User's voice and intent preserved
+✅ Document is more readable and professional
+✅ A/P/C menu presented and handled correctly
+✅ Polished document saved when C selected
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Loading only partial document (leads to incomplete polish)
+❌ Removing essential information while reducing duplication
+❌ Not preserving user's voice and intent
+❌ Changing content instead of improving presentation
+❌ Not ensuring ## Level 2 headers for main sections
+❌ Making arbitrary style changes instead of coherence improvements
+❌ Not presenting A/P/C menu for user approval
+❌ Saving polished document without user selecting 'C'
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Proceeding with 'C' without fully reading and understanding the next step file
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making changes without complete understanding of document requirements
+
+## NEXT STEP:
+
+After user selects 'C' and polished document is saved, load `./step-12-complete.md` to complete the workflow.
+
+Remember: Do NOT proceed to step-12 until user explicitly selects 'C' from the A/P/C menu and polished document is saved!

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-c/step-12-complete.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+---
+name: 'step-12-complete'
+description: 'Complete the PRD workflow, update status files, and suggest next steps including validation'
+
+# File References
+outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/prd.md'
+validationFlow: '../steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md'
+---
+
+# Step 12: Workflow Completion
+
+**Final Step - Complete the PRD**
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+- ✅ THIS IS A FINAL STEP - Workflow completion required
+- 📖 CRITICAL: ALWAYS read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🛑 NO content generation - this is a wrap-up step
+- 📋 FINALIZE document and update workflow status
+- 💬 FOCUS on completion, validation options, and next steps
+- 🎯 UPDATE workflow status files with completion information
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Show your analysis before taking any action
+- 💾 Update the main workflow status file with completion information (if exists)
+- 📖 Offer validation workflow options to user
+- 🚫 DO NOT load additional steps after this one
+
+## TERMINATION STEP PROTOCOLS:
+
+- This is a FINAL step - workflow completion required
+- Update workflow status file with finalized document
+- Suggest validation and next workflow steps
+- Mark workflow as complete in status tracking
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Complete and polished PRD document is available from all previous steps
+- Workflow frontmatter shows all completed steps including polish
+- All collaborative content has been generated, saved, and optimized
+- Focus on completion, validation options, and next steps
+
+## YOUR TASK:
+
+Complete the PRD workflow, update status files, offer validation options, and suggest next steps for the project.
+
+## WORKFLOW COMPLETION SEQUENCE:
+
+### 1. Announce Workflow Completion
+
+Inform user that the PRD is complete and polished:
+- Celebrate successful completion of comprehensive PRD
+- Summarize all sections that were created
+- Highlight that document has been polished for flow and coherence
+- Emphasize document is ready for downstream work
+
+### 2. Workflow Status Update
+
+Update the main workflow status file if there is one:
+
+- Load `{status_file}` from workflow configuration (if exists)
+- Update workflow_status["prd"] = "{default_output_file}"
+- Save file, preserving all comments and structure
+- Mark current timestamp as completion time
+
+### 3. Validation Workflow Options
+
+Offer validation workflows to ensure PRD is ready for implementation:
+
+**Available Validation Workflows:**
+
+**Option 1: Check Implementation Readiness** (`{checkImplementationReadinessWorkflow}`)
+- Validates PRD has all information needed for development
+- Checks epic coverage completeness
+- Reviews UX alignment with requirements
+- Assesses epic quality and readiness
+- Identifies gaps before architecture/design work begins
+
+**When to use:** Before starting technical architecture or epic breakdown
+
+**Option 2: Skip for Now**
+- Proceed directly to next workflows (architecture, UX, epics)
+- Validation can be done later if needed
+- Some teams prefer to validate during architecture reviews
+
+### 4. Suggest Next Workflows
+
+Provide guidance on logical next workflows - strongly suggesting any of these chosen are started in a fresh context with the appropriate agent:
+
+**Typical Next Workflows:**
+
+**Immediate Next Steps:**
+
+1. **PRD Quality Validation First (Recommended):**
+   - execute the `{validationFlow}` workflow if selected or start a new chat with me and select the validate PRD menu item
+   - Ensures PRD is complete and ready
+   - Identifies any gaps or issues
+   - Validates before committing to architecture/design
+
+2. **UX Design:** `workflow create-ux-design` with the UX-Designer Agent (if UI exists)
+   - User journey insights from step-04 inform interaction design
+   - Functional requirements from step-09 define design scope
+   - Polish-optimized document provides clear design requirements
+
+3. **Technical Architecture:** `workflow create-architecture` with the Architect Agent
+   - Project-type requirements from step-07 guide technical decisions
+   - Non-functional requirements from step-10 inform architecture choices
+   - Functional requirements define system capabilities
+
+4. **Epic Breakdown:** `workflow create-epics-and-stories` with me again - but really recommend first doing a UX if needed and an architecture!
+   - Functional requirements from step-09 become epics and stories
+   - Scope definition from step-03 guides sprint planning
+   - Richer when created after UX/architecture
+
+**Strategic Considerations:**
+
+- Validation adds confidence before architecture/design investment
+- UX design and architecture can happen in parallel after validation
+- Epics/stories are richer when created after UX/architecture
+- Order depends on team preferences and project needs
+
+### 5. Final Completion Confirmation
+
+- Confirm completion with user and summarize what has been accomplished
+- Document now contains: Executive Summary, Success Criteria, User Journeys, Domain Requirements (if applicable), Innovation Analysis (if applicable), Project-Type Requirements, Functional Requirements (capability contract), Non-Functional Requirements, and has been polished for flow and coherence
+- Ask if they'd like to run validation workflow or proceed to next workflows
+
+## SUCCESS METRICS:
+
+✅ PRD document contains all required sections and has been polished
+✅ All collaborative content properly saved and optimized
+✅ Workflow status file updated with completion information (if exists)
+✅ Validation workflow options clearly presented
+✅ Clear next step guidance provided to user
+✅ Document quality validation completed
+✅ User acknowledges completion and understands next options
+
+## FAILURE MODES:
+
+❌ Not updating workflow status file with completion information (if exists)
+❌ Not offering validation workflow options
+❌ Missing clear next step guidance for user
+❌ Not confirming document completeness with user
+❌ Workflow not properly marked as complete in status tracking (if applicable)
+❌ User unclear about what happens next or what validation options exist
+
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Reading only partial step file - leads to incomplete understanding and poor decisions
+❌ **CRITICAL**: Making decisions without complete understanding of step requirements and protocols
+
+## WORKFLOW COMPLETION CHECKLIST:
+
+### Document Structure Complete:
+
+- [ ] Executive Summary with vision and differentiator
+- [ ] Success Criteria with measurable outcomes
+- [ ] Product Scope (MVP, Growth, Vision)
+- [ ] User Journeys (comprehensive coverage)
+- [ ] Domain Requirements (if applicable)
+- [ ] Innovation Analysis (if applicable)
+- [ ] Project-Type Requirements
+- [ ] Functional Requirements (capability contract)
+- [ ] Non-Functional Requirements
+- [ ] Document polished for flow and coherence
+
+### Process Complete:
+
+- [ ] All steps (including polish) completed with user confirmation
+- [ ] All content saved and optimized
+- [ ] Frontmatter properly updated
+- [ ] Workflow status file updated (if exists)
+- [ ] Validation options presented
+- [ ] Next steps clearly communicated
+
+## FINAL REMINDER to give the user:
+
+The polished PRD serves as the foundation for all subsequent product development activities. All design, architecture, and development work should trace back to the requirements and vision documented in this PRD - update it also as needed as you continue planning.
+
+**Congratulations on completing the Product Requirements Document for {{project_name}}!** 🎉

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,247 @@
+---
+name: 'step-e-01-discovery'
+description: 'Discovery & Understanding - Understand what user wants to edit and detect PRD format'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+altStepFile: './step-e-01b-legacy-conversion.md'
+prdPurpose: '{project-root}/src/modules/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/data/prd-purpose.md'
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+---
+
+# Step E-1: Discovery & Understanding
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Understand what the user wants to edit in the PRD, detect PRD format/type, check for validation report guidance, and route appropriately.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and PRD Improvement Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring analytical expertise and improvement guidance
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and edit requirements
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on discovering user intent and PRD format
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to make any edits yet
+- 💬 Approach: Inquisitive and analytical, understanding before acting
+- 🚪 This is a branch step - may route to legacy conversion
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Discover user's edit requirements
+- 🎯 Auto-detect validation reports in PRD folder (use as guide)
+- 🎯 Load validation report if provided (use as guide)
+- 🎯 Detect PRD format (BMAD/legacy)
+- 🎯 Route appropriately based on format
+- 💾 Document discoveries for next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without understanding requirements
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file to edit, optional validation report, auto-detected validation reports
+- Focus: User intent discovery and format detection only
+- Limits: Don't edit yet, don't validate yet
+- Dependencies: None - this is first edit step
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load PRD Purpose Standards
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{prdPurpose}` (data/prd-purpose.md)
+
+This file defines what makes a great BMAD PRD. Internalize this understanding - it will guide improvement recommendations.
+
+### 2. Discover PRD to Edit
+
+"**PRD Edit Workflow**
+
+Which PRD would you like to edit?
+
+Please provide the path to the PRD file you want to edit."
+
+**Wait for user to provide PRD path.**
+
+### 3. Validate PRD Exists and Load
+
+Once PRD path is provided:
+- Check if PRD file exists at specified path
+- If not found: "I cannot find a PRD at that path. Please check the path and try again."
+- If found: Load the complete PRD file including frontmatter
+
+### 4. Check for Existing Validation Report
+
+**Check if validation report exists in the PRD folder:**
+
+```bash
+# Look for most recent validation report in the PRD folder
+ls -t {prd_folder_path}/validation-report-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1
+```
+
+**If validation report found:**
+
+Display:
+"**📋 Found Validation Report**
+
+I found a validation report from {validation_date} in the PRD folder.
+
+This report contains findings from previous validation checks and can help guide our edits to fix known issues.
+
+**Would you like to:**
+- **[U] Use validation report** - Load it to guide and prioritize edits
+- **[S] Skip** - Proceed with manual edit discovery"
+
+**Wait for user input.**
+
+**IF U (Use validation report):**
+- Load the validation report file
+- Extract findings, issues, and improvement suggestions
+- Note: "Validation report loaded - will use it to guide prioritized improvements"
+- Continue to step 5
+
+**IF S (Skip) or no validation report found:**
+- Note: "Proceeding with manual edit discovery"
+- Continue to step 5
+
+**If no validation report found:**
+- Note: "No validation report found in PRD folder"
+- Continue to step 5 without asking user
+
+### 5. Ask About Validation Report
+
+"**Do you have a validation report to guide edits?**
+
+If you've run the validation workflow on this PRD, I can use that report to guide improvements and prioritize changes.
+
+Validation report path (or type 'none'):"
+
+**Wait for user input.**
+
+**If validation report path provided:**
+- Load the validation report
+- Extract findings, severity, improvement suggestions
+- Note: "Validation report loaded - will use it to guide prioritized improvements"
+
+**If no validation report:**
+- Note: "Proceeding with manual edit discovery"
+- Continue to step 6
+
+### 6. Discover Edit Requirements
+
+"**What would you like to edit in this PRD?**
+
+Please describe the changes you want to make. For example:
+- Fix specific issues (information density, implementation leakage, etc.)
+- Add missing sections or content
+- Improve structure and flow
+- Convert to BMAD format (if legacy PRD)
+- General improvements
+- Other changes
+
+**Describe your edit goals:**"
+
+**Wait for user to describe their requirements.**
+
+### 7. Detect PRD Format
+
+Analyze the loaded PRD:
+
+**Extract all ## Level 2 headers** from PRD
+
+**Check for BMAD PRD core sections:**
+1. Executive Summary
+2. Success Criteria
+3. Product Scope
+4. User Journeys
+5. Functional Requirements
+6. Non-Functional Requirements
+
+**Classify format:**
+- **BMAD Standard:** 5-6 core sections present
+- **BMAD Variant:** 3-4 core sections present, generally follows BMAD patterns
+- **Legacy (Non-Standard):** Fewer than 3 core sections, does not follow BMAD structure
+
+### 8. Route Based on Format and Context
+
+**IF validation report provided OR PRD is BMAD Standard/Variant:**
+
+Display: "**Edit Requirements Understood**
+
+**PRD Format:** {classification}
+{If validation report: "**Validation Guide:** Yes - will use validation report findings"}
+**Edit Goals:** {summary of user's requirements}
+
+**Proceeding to deep review and analysis...**"
+
+Load and execute next step (step-e-02-review.md)
+
+**IF PRD is Legacy (Non-Standard) AND no validation report:**
+
+Display: "**Format Detected:** Legacy PRD
+
+This PRD does not follow BMAD standard structure (only {count}/6 core sections present).
+
+**Your edit goals:** {user's requirements}
+
+**How would you like to proceed?**"
+
+Present MENU OPTIONS below for user selection
+
+### 9. Present MENU OPTIONS (Legacy PRDs Only)
+
+**[C] Convert to BMAD Format** - Convert PRD to BMAD standard structure, then apply your edits
+**[E] Edit As-Is** - Apply your edits without converting the format
+**[X] Exit** - Exit and review conversion options
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF C (Convert): Load, read entire file, then execute {altStepFile} (step-e-01b-legacy-conversion.md)
+- IF E (Edit As-Is): Display "Proceeding with edits..." then load next step
+- IF X (Exit): Display summary and exit
+- IF Any other: help user, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- User's edit requirements clearly understood
+- Auto-detected validation reports loaded and analyzed (when found)
+- Manual validation report loaded and analyzed (if provided)
+- PRD format detected correctly
+- BMAD PRDs proceed directly to review step
+- Legacy PRDs pause and present conversion options
+- User can choose conversion path or edit as-is
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not discovering user's edit requirements
+- Not auto-detecting validation reports in PRD folder
+- Not loading validation report when provided (auto or manual)
+- Missing format detection
+- Not pausing for legacy PRDs without guidance
+- Auto-proceeding without understanding intent
+
+**Master Rule:** Understand before editing. Detect format early so we can guide users appropriately. Auto-detect and use validation reports for prioritized improvements.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-e/step-e-01b-legacy-conversion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+---
+name: 'step-e-01b-legacy-conversion'
+description: 'Legacy PRD Conversion Assessment - Analyze legacy PRD and propose conversion strategy'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-e-02-review.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdPurpose: '{project-root}/src/modules/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/data/prd-purpose.md'
+---
+
+# Step E-1B: Legacy PRD Conversion Assessment
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Analyze legacy PRD against BMAD standards, identify gaps, propose conversion strategy, and let user choose how to proceed.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and PRD Improvement Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring BMAD standards expertise and conversion guidance
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and edit requirements
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on conversion assessment and proposal
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform conversion yet (that comes in edit step)
+- 💬 Approach: Analytical gap analysis with clear recommendations
+- 🚪 This is a branch step - user chooses conversion path
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Analyze legacy PRD against BMAD standard
+- 💾 Identify gaps and estimate conversion effort
+- 📖 Present conversion options with effort estimates
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Legacy PRD, user's edit requirements, prd-purpose standards
+- Focus: Conversion assessment only (not actual conversion)
+- Limits: Don't convert yet, don't validate yet
+- Dependencies: Step e-01 detected legacy format and routed here
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Assessment
+
+**Try to use Task tool with sub-agent:**
+
+"Perform legacy PRD conversion assessment:
+
+**Load the PRD and prd-purpose.md**
+
+**For each BMAD PRD section, analyze:**
+1. Does PRD have this section? (Executive Summary, Success Criteria, Product Scope, User Journeys, Functional Requirements, Non-Functional Requirements)
+2. If present: Is it complete and well-structured?
+3. If missing: What content exists that could migrate to this section?
+4. Effort to create/complete: Minimal / Moderate / Significant
+
+**Identify:**
+- Core sections present: {count}/6
+- Content gaps in each section
+- Overall conversion effort: Quick / Moderate / Substantial
+- Recommended approach: Full restructuring vs targeted improvements
+
+Return conversion assessment with gap analysis and effort estimate."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually check PRD for each BMAD section
+- Note what's present and what's missing
+- Estimate conversion effort
+- Identify best conversion approach
+
+### 2. Build Gap Analysis
+
+**For each BMAD core section:**
+
+**Executive Summary:**
+- Present: [Yes/No/Partial]
+- Gap: [what's missing or incomplete]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- Present: [Yes/No/Partial]
+- Gap: [what's missing or incomplete]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Product Scope:**
+- Present: [Yes/No/Partial]
+- Gap: [what's missing or incomplete]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**User Journeys:**
+- Present: [Yes/No/Partial]
+- Gap: [what's missing or incomplete]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Functional Requirements:**
+- Present: [Yes/No/Partial]
+- Gap: [what's missing or incomplete]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements:**
+- Present: [Yes/No/Partial]
+- Gap: [what's missing or incomplete]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Overall Assessment:**
+- Sections Present: {count}/6
+- Total Conversion Effort: [Quick/Moderate/Substantial]
+- Recommended: [Full restructuring / Targeted improvements]
+
+### 3. Present Conversion Assessment
+
+Display:
+
+"**Legacy PRD Conversion Assessment**
+
+**Current PRD Structure:**
+- Core sections present: {count}/6
+{List which sections are present/missing}
+
+**Gap Analysis:**
+
+{Present gap analysis table showing each section's status and effort}
+
+**Overall Conversion Effort:** {effort level}
+
+**Your Edit Goals:**
+{Reiterate user's stated edit requirements}
+
+**Recommendation:**
+{Based on effort and user goals, recommend best approach}
+
+**How would you like to proceed?**"
+
+### 4. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+**[R] Restructure to BMAD** - Full conversion to BMAD format, then apply your edits
+**[I] Targeted Improvements** - Apply your edits to existing structure without restructuring
+**[E] Edit & Restructure** - Do both: convert format AND apply your edits
+**[X] Exit** - Review assessment and decide
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF R (Restructure): Note conversion mode, then load next step
+- IF I (Targeted): Note targeted mode, then load next step
+- IF E (Edit & Restructure): Note both mode, then load next step
+- IF X (Exit): Display summary, exit
+
+### 5. Document Conversion Strategy
+
+Store conversion decision for next step:
+
+- **Conversion mode:** [Full restructuring / Targeted improvements / Both]
+- **Edit requirements:** [user's requirements from step e-01]
+- **Gap analysis:** [summary of gaps identified]
+
+Display: "**Conversion Strategy Documented**
+
+Mode: {conversion mode}
+Edit goals: {summary}
+
+**Proceeding to deep review...**"
+
+Load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-e-02-review.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All 6 BMAD core sections analyzed for gaps
+- Effort estimates provided for each section
+- Overall conversion effort assessed correctly
+- Clear recommendation provided based on effort and user goals
+- User chooses conversion strategy (restructure/targeted/both)
+- Conversion strategy documented for next step
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not analyzing all 6 core sections
+- Missing effort estimates
+- Not providing clear recommendation
+- Auto-proceeding without user selection
+- Not documenting conversion strategy
+
+**Master Rule:** Legacy PRDs need conversion assessment so users understand the work involved and can choose the best approach.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-e/step-e-02-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
+---
+name: 'step-e-02-review'
+description: 'Deep Review & Analysis - Thoroughly review existing PRD and prepare detailed change plan'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-e-03-edit.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReport: '{validation_report_path}'  # If provided
+prdPurpose: '{project-root}/src/modules/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/data/prd-purpose.md'
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+---
+
+# Step E-2: Deep Review & Analysis
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Thoroughly review the existing PRD, analyze validation report findings (if provided), and prepare a detailed change plan before editing.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and PRD Improvement Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring analytical expertise and improvement planning
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and approval authority
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on review and analysis, not editing yet
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to make changes to PRD in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Thorough analysis with user confirmation on plan
+- 🚪 This is a middle step - user confirms plan before proceeding
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Load and analyze validation report (if provided)
+- 🎯 Deep review of entire PRD
+- 🎯 Map validation findings to specific sections
+- 🎯 Prepare detailed change plan
+- 💬 Get user confirmation on plan
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed to edit without user approval
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report (if provided), user requirements from step e-01
+- Focus: Analysis and planning only (no editing)
+- Limits: Don't change PRD yet, don't validate yet
+- Dependencies: Step e-01 completed - requirements and format known
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Deep Review
+
+**Try to use Task tool with sub-agent:**
+
+"Perform deep PRD review and change planning:
+
+**Context from step e-01:**
+- User's edit requirements: {user_requirements}
+- PRD format: {BMAD/legacy}
+- Validation report provided: {yes/no}
+- Conversion mode: {restructure/targeted/both} (if legacy)
+
+**IF validation report provided:**
+1. Extract all findings from validation report
+2. Map findings to specific PRD sections
+3. Prioritize by severity: Critical > Warning > Informational
+4. For each critical issue: identify specific fix needed
+5. For user's manual edit goals: identify where in PRD to apply
+
+**IF no validation report:**
+1. Read entire PRD thoroughly
+2. Analyze against BMAD standards (from prd-purpose.md)
+3. Identify issues in:
+   - Information density (anti-patterns)
+   - Structure and flow
+   - Completeness (missing sections/content)
+   - Measurability (unmeasurable requirements)
+   - Traceability (broken chains)
+   - Implementation leakage
+4. Map user's edit goals to specific sections
+
+**Output:**
+- Section-by-section analysis
+- Specific changes needed for each section
+- Prioritized action list
+- Recommended order for applying changes
+
+Return detailed change plan with section breakdown."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually read PRD sections
+- Manually analyze validation report findings (if provided)
+- Build section-by-section change plan
+- Prioritize changes by severity/user goals
+
+### 2. Build Change Plan
+
+**Organize by PRD section:**
+
+**For each section (in order):**
+- **Current State:** Brief description of what exists
+- **Issues Identified:** [List from validation report or manual analysis]
+- **Changes Needed:** [Specific changes required]
+- **Priority:** [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
+- **User Requirements Met:** [Which user edit goals address this section]
+
+**Include:**
+- Sections to add (if missing)
+- Sections to update (if present but needs work)
+- Content to remove (if incorrect/leakage)
+- Structure changes (if reformatting needed)
+
+### 3. Prepare Change Plan Summary
+
+**Summary sections:**
+
+**Changes by Type:**
+- **Additions:** {count} sections to add
+- **Updates:** {count} sections to update
+- **Removals:** {count} items to remove
+- **Restructuring:** {yes/no} if format conversion needed
+
+**Priority Distribution:**
+- **Critical:** {count} changes (must fix)
+- **High:** {count} changes (important)
+- **Medium:** {count} changes (nice to have)
+- **Low:** {count} changes (optional)
+
+**Estimated Effort:**
+[Quick/Moderate/Substantial] based on scope and complexity
+
+### 4. Present Change Plan to User
+
+Display:
+
+"**Deep Review Complete - Change Plan**
+
+**PRD Analysis:**
+{Brief summary of PRD current state}
+
+{If validation report provided:}
+**Validation Findings:**
+{count} issues identified: {critical} critical, {warning} warnings
+
+**Your Edit Requirements:**
+{summary of what user wants to edit}
+
+**Proposed Change Plan:**
+
+**By Section:**
+{Present section-by-section breakdown}
+
+**By Priority:**
+- Critical: {count} items
+- High: {count} items
+- Medium: {count} items
+
+**Estimated Effort:** {effort level}
+
+**Questions:**
+1. Does this change plan align with what you had in mind?
+2. Any sections I should add/remove/reprioritize?
+3. Any concerns before I proceed with edits?
+
+**Review the plan and let me know if you'd like any adjustments.**"
+
+### 5. Get User Confirmation
+
+Wait for user to review and provide feedback.
+
+**If user wants adjustments:**
+- Discuss requested changes
+- Revise change plan accordingly
+- Represent for confirmation
+
+**If user approves:**
+- Note: "Change plan approved. Proceeding to edit step."
+- Continue to step 6
+
+### 6. Document Approved Plan
+
+Store approved change plan for next step:
+
+- **Approved changes:** Section-by-section list
+- **Priority order:** Sequence to apply changes
+- **User confirmed:** Yes
+
+Display: "**Change Plan Approved**
+
+{Brief summary of approved plan}
+
+**Proceeding to edit step...**"
+
+Load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-e-03-edit.md)
+
+### 7. Present MENU OPTIONS (If User Wants Discussion)
+
+**[A] Advanced Elicitation** - Get additional perspectives on change plan
+**[P] Party Mode** - Discuss with team for more ideas
+**[C] Continue to Edit** - Proceed with approved plan
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed to edit when user selects 'C'
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask}, then return to discussion
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow}, then return to discussion
+- IF C: Document approval, then load {nextStepFile}
+- IF Any other: discuss, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Validation report findings fully analyzed (if provided)
+- Deep PRD review completed systematically
+- Change plan built section-by-section
+- Changes prioritized by severity/user goals
+- User presented with clear plan
+- User confirms or adjusts plan
+- Approved plan documented for next step
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not analyzing validation report findings (if provided)
+- Superficial review instead of deep analysis
+- Missing section-by-section breakdown
+- Not prioritizing changes
+- Proceeding without user approval
+
+**Master Rule:** Plan before editing. Thorough analysis ensures we make the right changes in the right order. User approval prevents misalignment.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-e/step-e-03-edit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+---
+name: 'step-e-03-edit'
+description: 'Edit & Update - Apply changes to PRD following approved change plan'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-e-04-complete.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdPurpose: '{project-root}/src/modules/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/data/prd-purpose.md'
+---
+
+# Step E-3: Edit & Update
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Apply changes to the PRD following the approved change plan from step e-02, including content updates, structure improvements, and format conversion if needed.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 ALWAYS generate content WITH user input/approval
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and PRD Improvement Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring analytical expertise and precise editing skills
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and approval authority
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on implementing approved changes from step e-02
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to make changes beyond the approved plan
+- 💬 Approach: Methodical, section-by-section execution
+- 🚪 This is a middle step - user can request adjustments
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Follow approved change plan systematically
+- 💾 Edit PRD content according to plan
+- 📖 Update frontmatter as needed
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without completion
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, approved change plan from step e-02, prd-purpose standards
+- Focus: Implementing changes from approved plan only
+- Limits: Don't add changes beyond plan, don't validate yet
+- Dependencies: Step e-02 completed - plan approved by user
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Retrieve Approved Change Plan
+
+From step e-02, retrieve:
+- **Approved changes:** Section-by-section list
+- **Priority order:** Sequence to apply changes
+- **User requirements:** Edit goals from step e-01
+
+Display: "**Starting PRD Edits**
+
+**Change Plan:** {summary}
+**Total Changes:** {count}
+**Estimated Effort:** {effort level}
+
+**Proceeding with edits section by section...**"
+
+### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Edits (For Complex Changes)
+
+**Try to use Task tool with sub-agent for major sections:**
+
+"Execute PRD edits for {section_name}:
+
+**Context:**
+- Section to edit: {section_name}
+- Current content: {existing content}
+- Changes needed: {specific changes from plan}
+- BMAD PRD standards: Load from prd-purpose.md
+
+**Tasks:**
+1. Read current PRD section
+2. Apply specified changes
+3. Ensure BMAD PRD principles compliance:
+   - High information density (no filler)
+   - Measurable requirements
+   - Clear structure
+   - Proper markdown formatting
+4. Return updated section content
+
+Apply changes and return updated section."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Perform edits directly in current context
+- Load PRD section, apply changes, save
+
+### 3. Execute Changes Section-by-Section
+
+**For each section in approved plan (in priority order):**
+
+**a) Load current section**
+- Read the current PRD section content
+- Note what exists
+
+**b) Apply changes per plan**
+- Additions: Create new sections with proper content
+- Updates: Modify existing content per plan
+- Removals: Remove specified content
+- Restructuring: Reformat content to BMAD standard
+
+**c) Update PRD file**
+- Apply changes to PRD
+- Save updated PRD
+- Verify changes applied correctly
+
+**Display progress after each section:**
+"**Section Updated:** {section_name}
+Changes: {brief summary}
+{More sections remaining...}"
+
+### 4. Handle Restructuring (If Needed)
+
+**If conversion mode is "Full restructuring" or "Both":**
+
+**For restructuring:**
+- Reorganize PRD to BMAD standard structure
+- Ensure proper ## Level 2 headers
+- Reorder sections logically
+- Update PRD frontmatter to match BMAD format
+
+**Follow BMAD PRD structure:**
+1. Executive Summary
+2. Success Criteria
+3. Product Scope
+4. User Journeys
+5. Domain Requirements (if applicable)
+6. Innovation Analysis (if applicable)
+7. Project-Type Requirements
+8. Functional Requirements
+9. Non-Functional Requirements
+
+Display: "**PRD Restructured**
+BMAD standard structure applied.
+{Sections added/reordered}"
+
+### 5. Update PRD Frontmatter
+
+**Ensure frontmatter is complete and accurate:**
+
+```yaml
+---
+workflowType: 'prd'
+workflow: 'create'  # or 'validate' or 'edit'
+classification:
+  domain: '{domain}'
+  projectType: '{project_type}'
+  complexity: '{complexity}'
+inputDocuments: [list of input documents]
+stepsCompleted: ['step-e-01-discovery', 'step-e-02-review', 'step-e-03-edit']
+lastEdited: '{current_date}'
+editHistory:
+  - date: '{current_date}'
+    changes: '{summary of changes}'
+---
+```
+
+**Update frontmatter accordingly.**
+
+### 6. Final Review of Changes
+
+**Load complete updated PRD**
+
+**Verify:**
+- All approved changes applied correctly
+- PRD structure is sound
+- No unintended modifications
+- Frontmatter is accurate
+
+**If issues found:**
+- Fix them now
+- Note corrections made
+
+**If user wants adjustments:**
+- Accept feedback and make adjustments
+- Re-verify after adjustments
+
+### 7. Confirm Completion
+
+Display:
+
+"**PRD Edits Complete**
+
+**Changes Applied:** {count} sections modified
+**PRD Updated:** {prd_file_path}
+
+**Summary of Changes:**
+{Brief bullet list of major changes}
+
+**PRD is ready for:**
+- Use in downstream workflows (UX, Architecture)
+- Validation (if not yet validated)
+
+**What would you like to do next?**"
+
+### 8. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+**[V] Run Validation** - Execute full validation workflow (steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md)
+**[S] Summary Only** - End with summary of changes (no validation)
+**[A] Adjust** - Make additional edits
+**[X] Exit** - Exit edit workflow
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF V (Validate): Display "Starting validation workflow..." then load and execute steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md
+- IF S (Summary): Present edit summary and exit
+- IF A (Adjust): Accept additional requirements, loop back to editing
+- IF X (Exit): Display summary and exit
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All approved changes from step e-02 applied correctly
+- Changes executed in planned priority order
+- Restructuring completed (if needed)
+- Frontmatter updated accurately
+- Final verification confirms changes
+- User can proceed to validation or exit with summary
+- Option to run validation seamlessly integrates edit and validate modes
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Making changes beyond approved plan
+- Not following priority order
+- Missing restructuring (if conversion mode)
+- Not updating frontmatter
+- No final verification
+- Not saving updated PRD
+
+**Master Rule:** Execute the plan exactly as approved. PRD is now ready for validation or downstream use. Validation integration ensures quality.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-e/step-e-04-complete.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+name: 'step-e-04-complete'
+description: 'Complete & Validate - Present options for next steps including full validation'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationWorkflow: './steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md'
+---
+
+# Step E-4: Complete & Validate
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Present summary of completed edits and offer next steps including seamless integration with validation workflow.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 ALWAYS generate content WITH user input/approval
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and PRD Improvement Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring synthesis and summary expertise
+- ✅ User chooses next actions
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on presenting summary and options
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to make additional changes
+- 💬 Approach: Clear, concise summary with actionable options
+- 🚪 This is the final edit step - no more edits
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Compile summary of all changes made
+- 🎯 Present options clearly with expected outcomes
+- 📖 Route to validation if user chooses
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Updated PRD file, edit history from step e-03
+- Focus: Summary and options only (no more editing)
+- Limits: Don't make changes, just present options
+- Dependencies: Step e-03 completed - all edits applied
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Compile Edit Summary
+
+From step e-03 change execution, compile:
+
+**Changes Made:**
+- Sections added: {list with names}
+- Sections updated: {list with names}
+- Content removed: {list}
+- Structure changes: {description}
+
+**Edit Details:**
+- Total sections affected: {count}
+- Mode: {restructure/targeted/both}
+- Priority addressed: {Critical/High/Medium/Low}
+
+**PRD Status:**
+- Format: {BMAD Standard / BMAD Variant / Legacy (converted)}
+- Completeness: {assessment}
+- Ready for: {downstream use cases}
+
+### 2. Present Completion Summary
+
+Display:
+
+"**✓ PRD Edit Complete**
+
+**Updated PRD:** {prd_file_path}
+
+**Changes Summary:**
+{Present bulleted list of major changes}
+
+**Edit Mode:** {mode}
+**Sections Modified:** {count}
+
+**PRD Format:** {format}
+
+**PRD is now ready for:**
+- Downstream workflows (UX Design, Architecture)
+- Validation to ensure quality
+- Production use
+
+**What would you like to do next?**"
+
+### 3. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display:
+
+**[V] Run Full Validation** - Execute complete validation workflow (steps-v) to verify PRD quality
+**[E] Edit More** - Make additional edits to the PRD
+**[S] Summary** - End with detailed summary of changes
+**[X] Exit** - Exit edit workflow
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- **IF V (Run Full Validation):**
+  - Display: "**Starting Validation Workflow**"
+  - Display: "This will run all 13 validation checks on the updated PRD."
+  - Display: "Preparing to validate: {prd_file_path}"
+  - Display: "**Proceeding to validation...**"
+  - Load, read entire file, then execute {validationWorkflow} (steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md)
+  - Note: This hands off to the validation workflow which will run its complete 13-step process
+
+- **IF E (Edit More):**
+  - Display: "**Additional Edits**"
+  - Ask: "What additional edits would you like to make?"
+  - Accept input, then display: "**Returning to edit step...**"
+  - Load and execute step-e-03-edit.md again
+
+- **IF S (Summary):**
+  - Display detailed summary including:
+    - Complete list of all changes made
+    - Before/after comparison (key improvements)
+    - Recommendations for next steps
+  - Display: "**Edit Workflow Complete**"
+  - Exit
+
+- **IF X (Exit):**
+  - Display summary
+  - Display: "**Edit Workflow Complete**"
+  - Exit
+
+- **IF Any other:** Help user, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Complete edit summary compiled accurately
+- All changes clearly documented
+- Options presented with clear expectations
+- Validation option seamlessly integrates with steps-v workflow
+- User can validate, edit more, or exit
+- Clean handoff to validation workflow (if chosen)
+- Edit workflow completes properly
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Missing changes in summary
+- Not offering validation option
+- Not documenting completion properly
+- No clear handoff to validation workflow
+
+**Master Rule:** Edit workflow seamlessly integrates with validation. User can edit → validate → edit again → validate again in iterative improvement cycle.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-01-discovery'
+description: 'Document Discovery & Confirmation - Handle fresh context validation, confirm PRD path, discover input documents'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-02-format-detection.md'
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+partyModeWorkflow: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md'
+prdPurpose: '../data/prd-purpose.md'
+---
+
+# Step 1: Document Discovery & Confirmation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Handle fresh context validation by confirming PRD path, discovering and loading input documents from frontmatter, and initializing the validation report.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring systematic validation expertise and analytical rigor
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and specific PRD context
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on discovering PRD and input documents, not validating yet
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform any validation checks in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic discovery with clear reporting to user
+- 🚪 This is the setup step - get everything ready for validation
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Discover and confirm PRD to validate
+- 💾 Load PRD and all input documents from frontmatter
+- 📖 Initialize validation report next to PRD
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to load next step until user confirms setup
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD path (user-specified or discovered), workflow configuration
+- Focus: Document discovery and setup only
+- Limits: Don't perform validation, don't skip discovery
+- Dependencies: Configuration loaded from PRD workflow.md initialization
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load PRD Purpose and Standards
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{prdPurpose}`
+
+This file contains the BMAD PRD philosophy, standards, and validation criteria that will guide all validation checks. Internalize this understanding - it defines what makes a great BMAD PRD.
+
+### 2. Discover PRD to Validate
+
+**If PRD path provided as invocation parameter:**
+- Use provided path
+
+**If no PRD path provided:**
+"**PRD Validation Workflow**
+
+Which PRD would you like to validate?
+
+Please provide the path to the PRD file you want to validate."
+
+**Wait for user to provide PRD path.**
+
+### 3. Validate PRD Exists and Load
+
+Once PRD path is provided:
+
+- Check if PRD file exists at specified path
+- If not found: "I cannot find a PRD at that path. Please check the path and try again."
+- If found: Load the complete PRD file including frontmatter
+
+### 4. Extract Frontmatter and Input Documents
+
+From the loaded PRD frontmatter, extract:
+
+- `inputDocuments: []` array (if present)
+- Any other relevant metadata (classification, date, etc.)
+
+**If no inputDocuments array exists:**
+Note this and proceed with PRD-only validation
+
+### 5. Load Input Documents
+
+For each document listed in `inputDocuments`:
+
+- Attempt to load the document
+- Track successfully loaded documents
+- Note any documents that fail to load
+
+**Build list of loaded input documents:**
+- Product Brief (if present)
+- Research documents (if present)
+- Other reference materials (if present)
+
+### 6. Ask About Additional Reference Documents
+
+"**I've loaded the following documents from your PRD frontmatter:**
+
+{list loaded documents with file names}
+
+**Are there any additional reference documents you'd like me to include in this validation?**
+
+These could include:
+- Additional research or context documents
+- Project documentation not tracked in frontmatter
+- Standards or compliance documents
+- Competitive analysis or benchmarks
+
+Please provide paths to any additional documents, or type 'none' to proceed."
+
+**Load any additional documents provided by user.**
+
+### 7. Initialize Validation Report
+
+Create validation report at: `{validationReportPath}`
+
+**Initialize with frontmatter:**
+```yaml
+---
+validationTarget: '{prd_path}'
+validationDate: '{current_date}'
+inputDocuments: [list of all loaded documents]
+validationStepsCompleted: []
+validationStatus: IN_PROGRESS
+---
+```
+
+**Initial content:**
+```markdown
+# PRD Validation Report
+
+**PRD Being Validated:** {prd_path}
+**Validation Date:** {current_date}
+
+## Input Documents
+
+{list all documents loaded for validation}
+
+## Validation Findings
+
+[Findings will be appended as validation progresses]
+```
+
+### 8. Present Discovery Summary
+
+"**Setup Complete!**
+
+**PRD to Validate:** {prd_path}
+
+**Input Documents Loaded:**
+- PRD: {prd_name} ✓
+- Product Brief: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none found){/if}
+- Research: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none found){/if}
+- Additional References: {count} {if count > 0}✓{else}(none){/if}
+
+**Validation Report:** {validationReportPath}
+
+**Ready to begin validation.**"
+
+### 9. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display: **Select an Option:** [A] Advanced Elicitation [P] Party Mode [C] Continue to Format Detection
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
+- User can ask questions or add more documents - always respond and redisplay menu
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF A: Execute {advancedElicitationTask}, and when finished redisplay the menu
+- IF P: Execute {partyModeWorkflow}, and when finished redisplay the menu
+- IF C: Load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile} to begin format detection
+- IF user provides additional document: Load it, update report, redisplay summary
+- IF Any other: help user, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- PRD path discovered and confirmed
+- PRD file exists and loads successfully
+- All input documents from frontmatter loaded
+- Additional reference documents (if any) loaded
+- Validation report initialized next to PRD
+- User clearly informed of setup status
+- Menu presented and user input handled correctly
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Proceeding with non-existent PRD file
+- Not loading input documents from frontmatter
+- Creating validation report in wrong location
+- Proceeding without user confirming setup
+- Not handling missing input documents gracefully
+
+**Master Rule:** Complete discovery and setup BEFORE validation. This step ensures everything is in place for systematic validation checks.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-02-format-detection.md

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-02-format-detection'
+description: 'Format Detection & Structure Analysis - Classify PRD format and route appropriately'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-03-density-validation.md'
+altStepFile: './step-v-02b-parity-check.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 2: Format Detection & Structure Analysis
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Detect if PRD follows BMAD format and route appropriately - classify as BMAD Standard / BMAD Variant / Non-Standard, with optional parity check for non-standard formats.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring systematic validation expertise and pattern recognition
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on detecting format and classifying structure
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Analytical and systematic, clear reporting of findings
+- 🚪 This is a branch step - may route to parity check for non-standard PRDs
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Analyze PRD structure systematically
+- 💾 Append format findings to validation report
+- 📖 Route appropriately based on format classification
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip format detection or proceed without classification
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file loaded in step 1, validation report initialized
+- Focus: Format detection and classification only
+- Limits: Don't perform other validation, don't skip classification
+- Dependencies: Step 1 completed - PRD loaded and report initialized
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Extract PRD Structure
+
+Load the complete PRD file and extract:
+
+**All Level 2 (##) headers:**
+- Scan through entire PRD document
+- Extract all ## section headers
+- List them in order
+
+**PRD frontmatter:**
+- Extract classification.domain if present
+- Extract classification.projectType if present
+- Note any other relevant metadata
+
+### 2. Check for BMAD PRD Core Sections
+
+Check if the PRD contains the following BMAD PRD core sections:
+
+1. **Executive Summary** (or variations: ## Executive Summary, ## Overview, ## Introduction)
+2. **Success Criteria** (or: ## Success Criteria, ## Goals, ## Objectives)
+3. **Product Scope** (or: ## Product Scope, ## Scope, ## In Scope, ## Out of Scope)
+4. **User Journeys** (or: ## User Journeys, ## User Stories, ## User Flows)
+5. **Functional Requirements** (or: ## Functional Requirements, ## Features, ## Capabilities)
+6. **Non-Functional Requirements** (or: ## Non-Functional Requirements, ## NFRs, ## Quality Attributes)
+
+**Count matches:**
+- How many of these 6 core sections are present?
+- Which specific sections are present?
+- Which are missing?
+
+### 3. Classify PRD Format
+
+Based on core section count, classify:
+
+**BMAD Standard:**
+- 5-6 core sections present
+- Follows BMAD PRD structure closely
+
+**BMAD Variant:**
+- 3-4 core sections present
+- Generally follows BMAD patterns but may have structural differences
+- Missing some sections but recognizable as BMAD-style
+
+**Non-Standard:**
+- Fewer than 3 core sections present
+- Does not follow BMAD PRD structure
+- May be completely custom format, legacy format, or from another framework
+
+### 4. Report Format Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Format Detection
+
+**PRD Structure:**
+[List all ## Level 2 headers found]
+
+**BMAD Core Sections Present:**
+- Executive Summary: [Present/Missing]
+- Success Criteria: [Present/Missing]
+- Product Scope: [Present/Missing]
+- User Journeys: [Present/Missing]
+- Functional Requirements: [Present/Missing]
+- Non-Functional Requirements: [Present/Missing]
+
+**Format Classification:** [BMAD Standard / BMAD Variant / Non-Standard]
+**Core Sections Present:** [count]/6
+```
+
+### 5. Route Based on Format Classification
+
+**IF format is BMAD Standard or BMAD Variant:**
+
+Display: "**Format Detected:** {classification}
+
+Proceeding to systematic validation checks..."
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-03-density-validation.md)
+
+**IF format is Non-Standard (< 3 core sections):**
+
+Display: "**Format Detected:** Non-Standard PRD
+
+This PRD does not follow BMAD standard structure (only {count}/6 core sections present).
+
+You have options:"
+
+Present MENU OPTIONS below for user selection
+
+### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS (Non-Standard PRDs Only)
+
+**[A] Parity Check** - Analyze gaps and estimate effort to reach BMAD PRD parity
+**[B] Validate As-Is** - Proceed with validation using current structure
+**[C] Exit** - Exit validation and review format findings
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF A (Parity Check): Load, read entire file, then execute {altStepFile} (step-v-02b-parity-check.md)
+- IF B (Validate As-Is): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF C (Exit): Display format findings summary and exit validation
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All ## Level 2 headers extracted successfully
+- BMAD core sections checked systematically
+- Format classified correctly based on section count
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- BMAD Standard/Variant PRDs proceed directly to next validation step
+- Non-Standard PRDs pause and present options to user
+- User can choose parity check, validate as-is, or exit
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not extracting all headers before classification
+- Incorrect format classification
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not pausing for non-standard PRDs
+- Proceeding without user decision for non-standard formats
+
+**Master Rule:** Format detection determines validation path. Non-standard PRDs require user choice before proceeding.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-02b-parity-check.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-02b-parity-check'
+description: 'Document Parity Check - Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-03-density-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 2B: Document Parity Check
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Analyze non-standard PRD and identify gaps to achieve BMAD PRD parity, presenting user with options for how to proceed.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring BMAD PRD standards expertise and gap analysis
+- ✅ User brings domain knowledge and PRD context
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on analyzing gaps and estimating parity effort
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform other validation checks in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic gap analysis with clear recommendations
+- 🚪 This is an optional branch step - user chooses next action
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Analyze each BMAD PRD section for gaps
+- 💾 Append parity analysis to validation report
+- 📖 Present options and await user decision
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Non-standard PRD from step 2, validation report in progress
+- Focus: Parity analysis only - what's missing, what's needed
+- Limits: Don't perform validation checks, don't auto-proceed
+- Dependencies: Step 2 classified PRD as non-standard and user chose parity check
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Analyze Each BMAD PRD Section
+
+For each of the 6 BMAD PRD core sections, analyze:
+
+**Executive Summary:**
+- Does PRD have vision/overview?
+- Is problem statement clear?
+- Are target users identified?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- Are measurable goals defined?
+- Is success clearly defined?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Product Scope:**
+- Is scope clearly defined?
+- Are in-scope items listed?
+- Are out-of-scope items listed?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**User Journeys:**
+- Are user types/personas identified?
+- Are user flows documented?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Functional Requirements:**
+- Are features/capabilities listed?
+- Are requirements structured?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements:**
+- Are quality attributes defined?
+- Are performance/security/etc. requirements documented?
+- Gap: [What's missing or incomplete]
+
+### 2. Estimate Effort to Reach Parity
+
+For each missing or incomplete section, estimate:
+
+**Effort Level:**
+- Minimal - Section exists but needs minor enhancements
+- Moderate - Section missing but content exists elsewhere in PRD
+- Significant - Section missing, requires new content creation
+
+**Total Parity Effort:**
+- Based on individual section estimates
+- Classify overall: Quick / Moderate / Substantial effort
+
+### 3. Report Parity Analysis to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Parity Analysis (Non-Standard PRD)
+
+### Section-by-Section Gap Analysis
+
+**Executive Summary:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Success Criteria:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Product Scope:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**User Journeys:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Functional Requirements:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements:**
+- Status: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Gap: [specific gap description]
+- Effort to Complete: [Minimal/Moderate/Significant]
+
+### Overall Parity Assessment
+
+**Overall Effort to Reach BMAD Standard:** [Quick/Moderate/Substantial]
+**Recommendation:** [Brief recommendation based on analysis]
+```
+
+### 4. Present Parity Analysis and Options
+
+Display:
+
+"**Parity Analysis Complete**
+
+Your PRD is missing {count} of 6 core BMAD PRD sections. The overall effort to reach BMAD standard is: **{effort level}**
+
+**Quick Summary:**
+[2-3 sentence summary of key gaps]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+{recommendation from analysis}
+
+**How would you like to proceed?**"
+
+### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+**[C] Continue Validation** - Proceed with validation using current structure
+**[E] Exit & Review** - Exit validation and review parity report
+**[S] Save & Exit** - Save parity report and exit
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- IF C (Continue): Display "Proceeding with validation..." then load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
+- IF E (Exit): Display parity summary and exit validation
+- IF S (Save): Confirm saved, display summary, exit
+- IF Any other: help user respond, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All 6 BMAD PRD sections analyzed for gaps
+- Effort estimates provided for each gap
+- Overall parity effort assessed correctly
+- Parity analysis reported to validation report
+- Clear summary presented to user
+- User can choose to continue validation, exit, or save report
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not analyzing all 6 sections systematically
+- Missing effort estimates
+- Not reporting parity analysis to validation report
+- Auto-proceeding without user decision
+- Unclear recommendations
+
+**Master Rule:** Parity check informs user of gaps and effort, but user decides whether to proceed with validation or address gaps first.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-03-density-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-03-density-validation'
+description: 'Information Density Check - Scan for anti-patterns that violate information density principles'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 3: Information Density Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate PRD meets BMAD information density standards by scanning for conversational filler, wordy phrases, and redundant expressions that violate conciseness principles.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and attention to detail
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on information density anti-patterns
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning and categorization
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Scan PRD for density anti-patterns systematically
+- 💾 Append density findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report with format findings
+- Focus: Information density validation only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Step 2 completed - format classification done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform information density validation on this PRD:
+
+1. Load the PRD file
+2. Scan for the following anti-patterns:
+   - Conversational filler phrases (examples: 'The system will allow users to...', 'It is important to note that...', 'In order to')
+   - Wordy phrases (examples: 'Due to the fact that', 'In the event of', 'For the purpose of')
+   - Redundant phrases (examples: 'Future plans', 'Absolutely essential', 'Past history')
+3. Count violations by category with line numbers
+4. Classify severity: Critical (>10 violations), Warning (5-10), Pass (<5)
+
+Return structured findings with counts and examples."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Scan for conversational filler patterns:**
+- "The system will allow users to..."
+- "It is important to note that..."
+- "In order to"
+- "For the purpose of"
+- "With regard to"
+- Count occurrences and note line numbers
+
+**Scan for wordy phrases:**
+- "Due to the fact that" (use "because")
+- "In the event of" (use "if")
+- "At this point in time" (use "now")
+- "In a manner that" (use "how")
+- Count occurrences and note line numbers
+
+**Scan for redundant phrases:**
+- "Future plans" (just "plans")
+- "Past history" (just "history")
+- "Absolutely essential" (just "essential")
+- "Completely finish" (just "finish")
+- Count occurrences and note line numbers
+
+### 3. Classify Severity
+
+**Calculate total violations:**
+- Conversational filler count
+- Wordy phrases count
+- Redundant phrases count
+- Total = sum of all categories
+
+**Determine severity:**
+- **Critical:** Total > 10 violations
+- **Warning:** Total 5-10 violations
+- **Pass:** Total < 5 violations
+
+### 4. Report Density Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Information Density Validation
+
+**Anti-Pattern Violations:**
+
+**Conversational Filler:** {count} occurrences
+[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Wordy Phrases:** {count} occurrences
+[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Redundant Phrases:** {count} occurrences
+[If count > 0, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Total Violations:** {total}
+
+**Severity Assessment:** [Critical/Warning/Pass]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD requires significant revision to improve information density. Every sentence should carry weight without filler."
+[If Warning] "PRD would benefit from reducing wordiness and eliminating filler phrases."
+[If Pass] "PRD demonstrates good information density with minimal violations."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Information Density Validation Complete**
+
+Severity: {Critical/Warning/Pass}
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- PRD scanned for all three anti-pattern categories
+- Violations counted with line numbers
+- Severity classified correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scanning all anti-pattern categories
+- Missing severity classification
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Pausing for user input (should auto-proceed)
+- Not attempting subprocess architecture
+
+**Master Rule:** Information density validation runs autonomously. Scan, classify, report, auto-proceed. No user interaction needed.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation'
+description: 'Product Brief Coverage Check - Validate PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if used as input)'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-05-measurability-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+productBrief: '{product_brief_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 4: Product Brief Coverage Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate that PRD covers all content from Product Brief (if brief was used as input), mapping brief content to PRD sections and identifying gaps.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and traceability expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on Product Brief coverage (conditional on brief existence)
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic mapping and gap analysis
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check if Product Brief exists in input documents
+- 💬 If no brief: Skip this check and report "N/A - No Product Brief"
+- 🎯 If brief exists: Map brief content to PRD sections
+- 💾 Append coverage findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, input documents from step 1, validation report
+- Focus: Product Brief coverage only (conditional)
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, conditional execution
+- Dependencies: Step 1 completed - input documents loaded
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Check for Product Brief
+
+Check if Product Brief was loaded in step 1's inputDocuments:
+
+**IF no Product Brief found:**
+Append to validation report:
+```markdown
+## Product Brief Coverage
+
+**Status:** N/A - No Product Brief was provided as input
+```
+
+Display: "**Product Brief Coverage: Skipped** (No Product Brief provided)
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile}
+
+**IF Product Brief exists:** Continue to step 2 below
+
+### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform Product Brief coverage validation:
+
+1. Load the Product Brief
+2. Extract key content:
+   - Vision statement
+   - Target users/personas
+   - Problem statement
+   - Key features
+   - Goals/objectives
+   - Differentiators
+   - Constraints
+3. For each item, search PRD for corresponding coverage
+4. Classify coverage: Fully Covered / Partially Covered / Not Found / Intentionally Excluded
+5. Note any gaps with severity: Critical / Moderate / Informational
+
+Return structured coverage map with classifications."
+
+### 3. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Extract from Product Brief:**
+- Vision: What is this product?
+- Users: Who is it for?
+- Problem: What problem does it solve?
+- Features: What are the key capabilities?
+- Goals: What are the success criteria?
+- Differentiators: What makes it unique?
+
+**For each item, search PRD:**
+- Scan Executive Summary for vision
+- Check User Journeys or user personas
+- Look for problem statement
+- Review Functional Requirements for features
+- Check Success Criteria section
+- Search for differentiators
+
+**Classify coverage:**
+- **Fully Covered:** Content present and complete
+- **Partially Covered:** Content present but incomplete
+- **Not Found:** Content missing from PRD
+- **Intentionally Excluded:** Content explicitly out of scope
+
+### 4. Assess Coverage and Severity
+
+**For each gap (Partially Covered or Not Found):**
+- Is this Critical? (Core vision, primary users, main features)
+- Is this Moderate? (Secondary features, some goals)
+- Is this Informational? (Nice-to-have features, minor details)
+
+**Note:** Some exclusions may be intentional (valid scoping decisions)
+
+### 5. Report Coverage Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Product Brief Coverage
+
+**Product Brief:** {brief_file_name}
+
+### Coverage Map
+
+**Vision Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Target Users:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Problem Statement:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Key Features:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: List specific features with severity]
+
+**Goals/Objectives:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+**Differentiators:** [Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded]
+[If gap: Note severity and specific missing content]
+
+### Coverage Summary
+
+**Overall Coverage:** [percentage or qualitative assessment]
+**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+**Moderate Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+**Informational Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If critical gaps exist] "PRD should be revised to cover critical Product Brief content."
+[If moderate gaps] "Consider addressing moderate gaps for complete coverage."
+[If minimal gaps] "PRD provides good coverage of Product Brief content."
+```
+
+### 6. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Product Brief Coverage Validation Complete**
+
+Overall Coverage: {assessment}
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-05-measurability-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Checked for Product Brief existence correctly
+- If no brief: Reported "N/A" and skipped gracefully
+- If brief exists: Mapped all key brief content to PRD sections
+- Coverage classified appropriately (Fully/Partially/Not Found/Intentionally Excluded)
+- Severity assessed for gaps (Critical/Moderate/Informational)
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking for brief existence before attempting validation
+- If brief exists: not mapping all key content areas
+- Missing coverage classifications
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Product Brief coverage is conditional - skip if no brief, validate thoroughly if brief exists. Always auto-proceed.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-05-measurability-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-05-measurability-validation'
+description: 'Measurability Validation - Validate that all requirements (FRs and NFRs) are measurable and testable'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-06-traceability-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 5: Measurability Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate that all Functional Requirements (FRs) and Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) are measurable, testable, and follow proper format without implementation details.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and requirements engineering expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR and NFR measurability
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic requirement-by-requirement analysis
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Extract all FRs and NFRs from PRD
+- 💾 Validate each for measurability and format
+- 📖 Append findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report
+- Focus: FR and NFR measurability only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-4 completed - initial validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform measurability validation on this PRD:
+
+**Functional Requirements (FRs):**
+1. Extract all FRs from Functional Requirements section
+2. Check each FR for:
+   - '[Actor] can [capability]' format compliance
+   - No subjective adjectives (easy, fast, simple, intuitive, etc.)
+   - No vague quantifiers (multiple, several, some, many, etc.)
+   - No implementation details (technology names, library names, data structures unless capability-relevant)
+3. Document violations with line numbers
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs):**
+1. Extract all NFRs from Non-Functional Requirements section
+2. Check each NFR for:
+   - Specific metrics with measurement methods
+   - Template compliance (criterion, metric, measurement method, context)
+   - Context included (why this matters, who it affects)
+3. Document violations with line numbers
+
+Return structured findings with violation counts and examples."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Functional Requirements Analysis:**
+
+Extract all FRs and check each for:
+
+**Format compliance:**
+- Does it follow "[Actor] can [capability]" pattern?
+- Is actor clearly defined?
+- Is capability actionable and testable?
+
+**No subjective adjectives:**
+- Scan for: easy, fast, simple, intuitive, user-friendly, responsive, quick, efficient (without metrics)
+- Note line numbers
+
+**No vague quantifiers:**
+- Scan for: multiple, several, some, many, few, various, number of
+- Note line numbers
+
+**No implementation details:**
+- Scan for: React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, Docker, Kubernetes, Redux, etc.
+- Unless capability-relevant (e.g., "API consumers can access...")
+- Note line numbers
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements Analysis:**
+
+Extract all NFRs and check each for:
+
+**Specific metrics:**
+- Is there a measurable criterion? (e.g., "response time < 200ms", not "fast response")
+- Can this be measured or tested?
+
+**Template compliance:**
+- Criterion defined?
+- Metric specified?
+- Measurement method included?
+- Context provided?
+
+### 3. Tally Violations
+
+**FR Violations:**
+- Format violations: count
+- Subjective adjectives: count
+- Vague quantifiers: count
+- Implementation leakage: count
+- Total FR violations: sum
+
+**NFR Violations:**
+- Missing metrics: count
+- Incomplete template: count
+- Missing context: count
+- Total NFR violations: sum
+
+**Total violations:** FR violations + NFR violations
+
+### 4. Report Measurability Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Measurability Validation
+
+### Functional Requirements
+
+**Total FRs Analyzed:** {count}
+
+**Format Violations:** {count}
+[If violations exist, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Subjective Adjectives Found:** {count}
+[If found, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Vague Quantifiers Found:** {count}
+[If found, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Implementation Leakage:** {count}
+[If found, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**FR Violations Total:** {total}
+
+### Non-Functional Requirements
+
+**Total NFRs Analyzed:** {count}
+
+**Missing Metrics:** {count}
+[If missing, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Incomplete Template:** {count}
+[If incomplete, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**Missing Context:** {count}
+[If missing, list examples with line numbers]
+
+**NFR Violations Total:** {total}
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+**Total Requirements:** {FRs + NFRs}
+**Total Violations:** {FR violations + NFR violations}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >10 violations, Warning if 5-10, Pass if <5]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Many requirements are not measurable or testable. Requirements must be revised to be testable for downstream work."
+[If Warning] "Some requirements need refinement for measurability. Focus on violating requirements above."
+[If Pass] "Requirements demonstrate good measurability with minimal issues."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Measurability Validation Complete**
+
+Total Violations: {count} ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-06-traceability-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All FRs extracted and analyzed for measurability
+- All NFRs extracted and analyzed for measurability
+- Violations documented with line numbers
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not analyzing all FRs and NFRs
+- Missing line numbers for violations
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not assessing severity
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Requirements must be testable to be useful. Validate every requirement for measurability, document violations, auto-proceed.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-06-traceability-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-06-traceability-validation'
+description: 'Traceability Validation - Validate the traceability chain from vision → success → journeys → FRs is intact'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 6: Traceability Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate the traceability chain from Executive Summary → Success Criteria → User Journeys → Functional Requirements is intact, ensuring every requirement traces back to a user need or business objective.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and traceability matrix expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on traceability chain validation
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic chain validation and orphan detection
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Build and validate traceability matrix
+- 💾 Identify broken chains and orphan requirements
+- 📖 Append findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report
+- Focus: Traceability chain validation only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-5 completed - initial validations done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform traceability validation on this PRD:
+
+1. Extract content from Executive Summary (vision, goals)
+2. Extract Success Criteria
+3. Extract User Journeys (user types, flows, outcomes)
+4. Extract Functional Requirements (FRs)
+5. Extract Product Scope (in-scope items)
+
+**Validate chains:**
+- Executive Summary → Success Criteria: Does vision align with defined success?
+- Success Criteria → User Journeys: Are success criteria supported by user journeys?
+- User Journeys → Functional Requirements: Does each FR trace back to a user journey?
+- Scope → FRs: Do MVP scope FRs align with in-scope items?
+
+**Identify orphans:**
+- FRs not traceable to any user journey or business objective
+- Success criteria not supported by user journeys
+- User journeys without supporting FRs
+
+Build traceability matrix and identify broken chains and orphan FRs.
+
+Return structured findings with chain status and orphan list."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Step 1: Extract key elements**
+- Executive Summary: Note vision, goals, objectives
+- Success Criteria: List all criteria
+- User Journeys: List user types and their flows
+- Functional Requirements: List all FRs
+- Product Scope: List in-scope items
+
+**Step 2: Validate Executive Summary → Success Criteria**
+- Does Executive Summary mention the success dimensions?
+- Are Success Criteria aligned with vision?
+- Note any misalignment
+
+**Step 3: Validate Success Criteria → User Journeys**
+- For each success criterion, is there a user journey that achieves it?
+- Note success criteria without supporting journeys
+
+**Step 4: Validate User Journeys → FRs**
+- For each user journey/flow, are there FRs that enable it?
+- List FRs with no clear user journey origin
+- Note orphan FRs (requirements without traceable source)
+
+**Step 5: Validate Scope → FR Alignment**
+- Does MVP scope align with essential FRs?
+- Are in-scope items supported by FRs?
+- Note misalignments
+
+**Step 6: Build traceability matrix**
+- Map each FR to its source (journey or business objective)
+- Note orphan FRs
+- Identify broken chains
+
+### 3. Tally Traceability Issues
+
+**Broken chains:**
+- Executive Summary → Success Criteria gaps: count
+- Success Criteria → User Journeys gaps: count
+- User Journeys → FRs gaps: count
+- Scope → FR misalignments: count
+
+**Orphan elements:**
+- Orphan FRs (no traceable source): count
+- Unsupported success criteria: count
+- User journeys without FRs: count
+
+**Total issues:** Sum of all broken chains and orphans
+
+### 4. Report Traceability Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Traceability Validation
+
+### Chain Validation
+
+**Executive Summary → Success Criteria:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
+{If gaps: List specific misalignments}
+
+**Success Criteria → User Journeys:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
+{If gaps: List unsupported success criteria}
+
+**User Journeys → Functional Requirements:** [Intact/Gaps Identified]
+{If gaps: List journeys without supporting FRs}
+
+**Scope → FR Alignment:** [Intact/Misaligned]
+{If misaligned: List specific issues}
+
+### Orphan Elements
+
+**Orphan Functional Requirements:** {count}
+{List orphan FRs with numbers}
+
+**Unsupported Success Criteria:** {count}
+{List unsupported criteria}
+
+**User Journeys Without FRs:** {count}
+{List journeys without FRs}
+
+### Traceability Matrix
+
+{Summary table showing traceability coverage}
+
+**Total Traceability Issues:** {total}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if orphan FRs exist, Warning if gaps, Pass if intact]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Orphan requirements exist - every FR must trace back to a user need or business objective."
+[If Warning] "Traceability gaps identified - strengthen chains to ensure all requirements are justified."
+[If Pass] "Traceability chain is intact - all requirements trace to user needs or business objectives."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Traceability Validation Complete**
+
+Total Issues: {count} ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All traceability chains validated systematically
+- Orphan FRs identified with numbers
+- Broken chains documented
+- Traceability matrix built
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not validating all traceability chains
+- Missing orphan FR detection
+- Not building traceability matrix
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Every requirement should trace to a user need or business objective. Orphan FRs indicate broken traceability that must be fixed.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation'
+description: 'Implementation Leakage Check - Ensure FRs and NFRs don\'t include implementation details'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 7: Implementation Leakage Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Ensure Functional Requirements and Non-Functional Requirements don't include implementation details - they should specify WHAT, not HOW.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and separation of concerns expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on implementation leakage detection
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic scanning for technology and implementation terms
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Scan FRs and NFRs for implementation terms
+- 💾 Distinguish capability-relevant vs leakage
+- 📖 Append findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report
+- Focus: Implementation leakage detection only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-6 completed - initial validations done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform implementation leakage validation on this PRD:
+
+**Scan for:**
+1. Technology names (React, Vue, Angular, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, GCP, Azure, Docker, Kubernetes, etc.)
+2. Library names (Redux, axios, lodash, Express, Django, Rails, Spring, etc.)
+3. Data structures (JSON, XML, CSV) unless relevant to capability
+4. Architecture patterns (MVC, microservices, serverless) unless business requirement
+5. Protocol names (HTTP, REST, GraphQL, WebSockets) - check if capability-relevant
+
+**For each term found:**
+- Is this capability-relevant? (e.g., 'API consumers can access...' - API is capability)
+- Or is this implementation detail? (e.g., 'React component for...' - implementation)
+
+Document violations with line numbers and explanation.
+
+Return structured findings with leakage counts and examples."
+
+### 2. Graceful Degradation (if Task tool unavailable)
+
+If Task tool unavailable, perform analysis directly:
+
+**Implementation leakage terms to scan for:**
+
+**Frontend Frameworks:**
+React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, Solid, Next.js, Nuxt, etc.
+
+**Backend Frameworks:**
+Express, Django, Rails, Spring, Laravel, FastAPI, etc.
+
+**Databases:**
+PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Redis, DynamoDB, Cassandra, etc.
+
+**Cloud Platforms:**
+AWS, GCP, Azure, Cloudflare, Vercel, Netlify, etc.
+
+**Infrastructure:**
+Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, etc.
+
+**Libraries:**
+Redux, Zustand, axios, fetch, lodash, jQuery, etc.
+
+**Data Formats:**
+JSON, XML, YAML, CSV (unless capability-relevant)
+
+**For each term found in FRs/NFRs:**
+- Determine if it's capability-relevant or implementation leakage
+- Example: "API consumers can access data via REST endpoints" - API/REST is capability
+- Example: "React components fetch data using Redux" - implementation leakage
+
+**Count violations and note line numbers**
+
+### 3. Tally Implementation Leakage
+
+**By category:**
+- Frontend framework leakage: count
+- Backend framework leakage: count
+- Database leakage: count
+- Cloud platform leakage: count
+- Infrastructure leakage: count
+- Library leakage: count
+- Other implementation details: count
+
+**Total implementation leakage violations:** sum
+
+### 4. Report Implementation Leakage Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Implementation Leakage Validation
+
+### Leakage by Category
+
+**Frontend Frameworks:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Backend Frameworks:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Databases:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Cloud Platforms:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Infrastructure:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Libraries:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+**Other Implementation Details:** {count} violations
+{If violations, list examples with line numbers}
+
+### Summary
+
+**Total Implementation Leakage Violations:** {total}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >5 violations, Warning if 2-5, Pass if <2]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Extensive implementation leakage found. Requirements specify HOW instead of WHAT. Remove all implementation details - these belong in architecture, not PRD."
+[If Warning] "Some implementation leakage detected. Review violations and remove implementation details from requirements."
+[If Pass] "No significant implementation leakage found. Requirements properly specify WHAT without HOW."
+
+**Note:** API consumers, GraphQL (when required), and other capability-relevant terms are acceptable when they describe WHAT the system must do, not HOW to build it.
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Implementation Leakage Validation Complete**
+
+Total Violations: {count} ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Scanned FRs and NFRs for all implementation term categories
+- Distinguished capability-relevant from implementation leakage
+- Violations documented with line numbers and explanations
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scanning all implementation term categories
+- Not distinguishing capability-relevant from leakage
+- Missing line numbers for violations
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Requirements specify WHAT, not HOW. Implementation details belong in architecture documents, not PRDs.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation'
+description: 'Domain Compliance Validation - Validate domain-specific requirements are present for high-complexity domains'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-09-project-type-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+domainComplexityData: '../data/domain-complexity.csv'
+---
+
+# Step 8: Domain Compliance Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate domain-specific requirements are present for high-complexity domains (Healthcare, Fintech, GovTech, etc.), ensuring regulatory and compliance requirements are properly documented.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring domain expertise and compliance knowledge
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on domain-specific compliance requirements
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Conditional validation based on domain classification
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check classification.domain from PRD frontmatter
+- 💬 If low complexity (general): Skip detailed checks
+- 🎯 If high complexity: Validate required special sections
+- 💾 Append compliance findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file with frontmatter classification, validation report
+- Focus: Domain compliance only (conditional on domain complexity)
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, conditional execution
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-7 completed - format and requirements validation done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load Domain Complexity Data
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{domainComplexityData}` (../data/domain-complexity.csv)
+
+This CSV contains:
+- Domain classifications and complexity levels (high/medium/low)
+- Required special sections for each domain
+- Key concerns and requirements for regulated industries
+
+Internalize this data - it drives which domains require special compliance sections.
+
+### 2. Extract Domain Classification
+
+From PRD frontmatter, extract:
+- `classification.domain` - what domain is this PRD for?
+
+**If no domain classification found:**
+Treat as "general" (low complexity) and proceed to step 4
+
+### 2. Determine Domain Complexity
+
+**Low complexity domains (skip detailed checks):**
+- General
+- Consumer apps (standard e-commerce, social, productivity)
+- Content websites
+- Business tools (standard)
+
+**High complexity domains (require special sections):**
+- Healthcare / Healthtech
+- Fintech / Financial services
+- GovTech / Public sector
+- EdTech (educational records, accredited courses)
+- Legal tech
+- Other regulated domains
+
+### 3. For High-Complexity Domains: Validate Required Special Sections
+
+**Attempt subprocess validation:**
+
+"Perform domain compliance validation for {domain}:
+
+Based on {domain} requirements, check PRD for:
+
+**Healthcare:**
+- Clinical Requirements section
+- Regulatory Pathway (FDA, HIPAA, etc.)
+- Safety Measures
+- HIPAA Compliance (data privacy, security)
+- Patient safety considerations
+
+**Fintech:**
+- Compliance Matrix (SOC2, PCI-DSS, GDPR, etc.)
+- Security Architecture
+- Audit Requirements
+- Fraud Prevention measures
+- Financial transaction handling
+
+**GovTech:**
+- Accessibility Standards (WCAG 2.1 AA, Section 508)
+- Procurement Compliance
+- Security Clearance requirements
+- Data residency requirements
+
+**Other regulated domains:**
+- Check for domain-specific regulatory sections
+- Compliance requirements
+- Special considerations
+
+For each required section:
+- Is it present in PRD?
+- Is it adequately documented?
+- Note any gaps
+
+Return compliance matrix with presence/adequacy assessment."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually check for required sections based on domain
+- List present sections and missing sections
+- Assess adequacy of documentation
+
+### 5. For Low-Complexity Domains: Skip Detailed Checks
+
+Append to validation report:
+```markdown
+## Domain Compliance Validation
+
+**Domain:** {domain}
+**Complexity:** Low (general/standard)
+**Assessment:** N/A - No special domain compliance requirements
+
+**Note:** This PRD is for a standard domain without regulatory compliance requirements.
+```
+
+Display: "**Domain Compliance Validation Skipped**
+
+Domain: {domain} (low complexity)
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile}
+
+### 6. Report Compliance Findings (High-Complexity Domains)
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Domain Compliance Validation
+
+**Domain:** {domain}
+**Complexity:** High (regulated)
+
+### Required Special Sections
+
+**{Section 1 Name}:** [Present/Missing/Adequate]
+{If missing or inadequate: Note specific gaps}
+
+**{Section 2 Name}:** [Present/Missing/Adequate]
+{If missing or inadequate: Note specific gaps}
+
+[Continue for all required sections]
+
+### Compliance Matrix
+
+| Requirement | Status | Notes |
+|-------------|--------|-------|
+| {Requirement 1} | [Met/Partial/Missing] | {Notes} |
+| {Requirement 2} | [Met/Partial/Missing] | {Notes} |
+[... continue for all requirements]
+
+### Summary
+
+**Required Sections Present:** {count}/{total}
+**Compliance Gaps:** {count}
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if missing regulatory sections, Warning if incomplete, Pass if complete]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD is missing required domain-specific compliance sections. These are essential for {domain} products."
+[If Warning] "Some domain compliance sections are incomplete. Strengthen documentation for full compliance."
+[If Pass] "All required domain compliance sections are present and adequately documented."
+```
+
+### 7. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Domain Compliance Validation Complete**
+
+Domain: {domain} ({complexity})
+Compliance Status: {status}
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-09-project-type-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Domain classification extracted correctly
+- Complexity assessed appropriately
+- Low complexity domains: Skipped with clear "N/A" documentation
+- High complexity domains: All required sections checked
+- Compliance matrix built with status for each requirement
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking domain classification before proceeding
+- Performing detailed checks on low complexity domains
+- For high complexity: missing required section checks
+- Not building compliance matrix
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Domain compliance is conditional. High-complexity domains require special sections - low complexity domains skip these checks.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-09-project-type-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-09-project-type-validation'
+description: 'Project-Type Compliance Validation - Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-10-smart-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+projectTypesData: '../data/project-types.csv'
+---
+
+# Step 9: Project-Type Compliance Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate project-type specific requirements are properly documented - different project types (api_backend, web_app, mobile_app, etc.) have different required and excluded sections.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring project type expertise and architectural knowledge
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on project-type compliance
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Validate required sections present, excluded sections absent
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check classification.projectType from PRD frontmatter
+- 🎯 Validate required sections for that project type are present
+- 🎯 Validate excluded sections for that project type are absent
+- 💾 Append compliance findings to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file with frontmatter classification, validation report
+- Focus: Project-type compliance only
+- Limits: Don't validate other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-8 completed - domain and requirements validation done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load Project Types Data
+
+Load and read the complete file at:
+`{projectTypesData}` (../data/project-types.csv)
+
+This CSV contains:
+- Detection signals for each project type
+- Required sections for each project type
+- Skip/excluded sections for each project type
+- Innovation signals
+
+Internalize this data - it drives what sections must be present or absent for each project type.
+
+### 2. Extract Project Type Classification
+
+From PRD frontmatter, extract:
+- `classification.projectType` - what type of project is this?
+
+**Common project types:**
+- api_backend
+- web_app
+- mobile_app
+- desktop_app
+- data_pipeline
+- ml_system
+- library_sdk
+- infrastructure
+- other
+
+**If no projectType classification found:**
+Assume "web_app" (most common) and note in findings
+
+### 3. Determine Required and Excluded Sections from CSV Data
+
+**From loaded project-types.csv data, for this project type:**
+
+**Required sections:** (from required_sections column)
+These MUST be present in the PRD
+
+**Skip sections:** (from skip_sections column)
+These MUST NOT be present in the PRD
+
+**Example mappings from CSV:**
+- api_backend: Required=[endpoint_specs, auth_model, data_schemas], Skip=[ux_ui, visual_design]
+- mobile_app: Required=[platform_reqs, device_permissions, offline_mode], Skip=[desktop_features, cli_commands]
+- cli_tool: Required=[command_structure, output_formats, config_schema], Skip=[visual_design, ux_principles, touch_interactions]
+- etc.
+
+### 4. Validate Against CSV-Based Requirements
+
+**Based on project type, determine:**
+
+**api_backend:**
+- Required: Endpoint Specs, Auth Model, Data Schemas, API Versioning
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections, mobile-specific sections
+
+**web_app:**
+- Required: User Journeys, UX/UI Requirements, Responsive Design
+- Excluded: None typically
+
+**mobile_app:**
+- Required: Mobile UX, Platform specifics (iOS/Android), Offline mode
+- Excluded: Desktop-specific sections
+
+**desktop_app:**
+- Required: Desktop UX, Platform specifics (Windows/Mac/Linux)
+- Excluded: Mobile-specific sections
+
+**data_pipeline:**
+- Required: Data Sources, Data Transformation, Data Sinks, Error Handling
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections
+
+**ml_system:**
+- Required: Model Requirements, Training Data, Inference Requirements, Model Performance
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections (unless ML UI)
+
+**library_sdk:**
+- Required: API Surface, Usage Examples, Integration Guide
+- Excluded: UX/UI sections, deployment sections
+
+**infrastructure:**
+- Required: Infrastructure Components, Deployment, Monitoring, Scaling
+- Excluded: Feature requirements (this is infrastructure, not product)
+
+### 4. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+"Perform project-type compliance validation for {projectType}:
+
+**Check that required sections are present:**
+{List required sections for this project type}
+For each: Is it present in PRD? Is it adequately documented?
+
+**Check that excluded sections are absent:**
+{List excluded sections for this project type}
+For each: Is it absent from PRD? (Should not be present)
+
+Build compliance table showing:
+- Required sections: [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+- Excluded sections: [Absent/Present] (Present = violation)
+
+Return compliance table with findings."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually check PRD for required sections
+- Manually check PRD for excluded sections
+- Build compliance table
+
+### 5. Build Compliance Table
+
+**Required sections check:**
+- For each required section: Present / Missing / Incomplete
+- Count: Required sections present vs total required
+
+**Excluded sections check:**
+- For each excluded section: Absent / Present (violation)
+- Count: Excluded sections present (violations)
+
+**Total compliance score:**
+- Required: {present}/{total}
+- Excluded violations: {count}
+
+### 6. Report Project-Type Compliance Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Project-Type Compliance Validation
+
+**Project Type:** {projectType}
+
+### Required Sections
+
+**{Section 1}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps}
+
+**{Section 2}:** [Present/Missing/Incomplete]
+{If missing or incomplete: Note specific gaps}
+
+[Continue for all required sections]
+
+### Excluded Sections (Should Not Be Present)
+
+**{Section 1}:** [Absent/Present] ✓
+{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}}
+
+**{Section 2}:** [Absent/Present] ✓
+{If present: This section should not be present for {projectType}}
+
+[Continue for all excluded sections]
+
+### Compliance Summary
+
+**Required Sections:** {present}/{total} present
+**Excluded Sections Present:** {violations} (should be 0)
+**Compliance Score:** {percentage}%
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if required sections missing, Warning if incomplete, Pass if complete]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD is missing required sections for {projectType}. Add missing sections to properly specify this type of project."
+[If Warning] "Some required sections for {projectType} are incomplete. Strengthen documentation."
+[If Pass] "All required sections for {projectType} are present. No excluded sections found."
+```
+
+### 7. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Project-Type Compliance Validation Complete**
+
+Project Type: {projectType}
+Compliance: {score}%
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-10-smart-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Project type extracted correctly (or default assumed)
+- Required sections validated for presence and completeness
+- Excluded sections validated for absence
+- Compliance table built with status for all sections
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not checking project type before proceeding
+- Missing required section checks
+- Missing excluded section checks
+- Not building compliance table
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Different project types have different requirements. API PRDs don't need UX sections - validate accordingly.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-10-smart-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-10-smart-validation'
+description: 'SMART Requirements Validation - Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+---
+
+# Step 10: SMART Requirements Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate Functional Requirements meet SMART quality criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable), ensuring high-quality requirements.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring requirements engineering expertise and quality assessment
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR quality assessment using SMART framework
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate other aspects in this step
+- 💬 Approach: Score each FR on SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Extract all FRs from PRD
+- 🎯 Score each FR on SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Traceable)
+- 💾 Flag FRs with score < 3 in any category
+- 📖 Append scoring table and suggestions to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: PRD file, validation report
+- Focus: FR quality assessment only using SMART framework
+- Limits: Don't validate NFRs or other aspects, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 2-9 completed - comprehensive validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Extract All Functional Requirements
+
+From the PRD's Functional Requirements section, extract:
+- All FRs with their FR numbers (FR-001, FR-002, etc.)
+- Count total FRs
+
+### 2. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform SMART requirements validation on these Functional Requirements:
+
+{List all FRs}
+
+**For each FR, score on SMART criteria (1-5 scale):**
+
+**Specific (1-5):**
+- 5: Clear, unambiguous, well-defined
+- 3: Somewhat clear but could be more specific
+- 1: Vague, ambiguous, unclear
+
+**Measurable (1-5):**
+- 5: Quantifiable metrics, testable
+- 3: Partially measurable
+- 1: Not measurable, subjective
+
+**Attainable (1-5):**
+- 5: Realistic, achievable with constraints
+- 3: Probably achievable but uncertain
+- 1: Unrealistic, technically infeasible
+
+**Relevant (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly aligned with user needs and business objectives
+- 3: Somewhat relevant but connection unclear
+- 1: Not relevant, doesn't align with goals
+
+**Traceable (1-5):**
+- 5: Clearly traces to user journey or business objective
+- 3: Partially traceable
+- 1: Orphan requirement, no clear source
+
+**For each FR with score < 3 in any category:**
+- Provide specific improvement suggestions
+
+Return scoring table with all FR scores and improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually score each FR on SMART criteria
+- Note FRs with low scores
+- Provide improvement suggestions
+
+### 3. Build Scoring Table
+
+For each FR:
+- FR number
+- Specific score (1-5)
+- Measurable score (1-5)
+- Attainable score (1-5)
+- Relevant score (1-5)
+- Traceable score (1-5)
+- Average score
+- Flag if any category < 3
+
+**Calculate overall FR quality:**
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 3
+- Percentage of FRs with all scores ≥ 4
+- Average score across all FRs and categories
+
+### 4. Report SMART Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## SMART Requirements Validation
+
+**Total Functional Requirements:** {count}
+
+### Scoring Summary
+
+**All scores ≥ 3:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**All scores ≥ 4:** {percentage}% ({count}/{total})
+**Overall Average Score:** {average}/5.0
+
+### Scoring Table
+
+| FR # | Specific | Measurable | Attainable | Relevant | Traceable | Average | Flag |
+|------|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----------|--------|------|
+| FR-001 | {s1} | {m1} | {a1} | {r1} | {t1} | {avg1} | {X if any <3} |
+| FR-002 | {s2} | {m2} | {a2} | {r2} | {t2} | {avg2} | {X if any <3} |
+[Continue for all FRs]
+
+**Legend:** 1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent
+**Flag:** X = Score < 3 in one or more categories
+
+### Improvement Suggestions
+
+**Low-Scoring FRs:**
+
+**FR-{number}:** {specific suggestion for improvement}
+[For each FR with score < 3 in any category]
+
+### Overall Assessment
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if >30% flagged FRs, Warning if 10-30%, Pass if <10%]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "Many FRs have quality issues. Revise flagged FRs using SMART framework to improve clarity and testability."
+[If Warning] "Some FRs would benefit from SMART refinement. Focus on flagged requirements above."
+[If Pass] "Functional Requirements demonstrate good SMART quality overall."
+```
+
+### 5. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**SMART Requirements Validation Complete**
+
+FR Quality: {percentage}% with acceptable scores ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to next validation check...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- All FRs extracted from PRD
+- Each FR scored on all 5 SMART criteria (1-5 scale)
+- FRs with scores < 3 flagged for improvement
+- Improvement suggestions provided for low-scoring FRs
+- Scoring table built with all FR scores
+- Overall quality assessment calculated
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scoring all FRs on all SMART criteria
+- Missing improvement suggestions for low-scoring FRs
+- Not building scoring table
+- Not calculating overall quality metrics
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** FRs should be high-quality, not just present. SMART framework provides objective quality measure.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,264 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation'
+description: 'Holistic Quality Assessment - Assess PRD as cohesive, compelling document - is it a good PRD?'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-12-completeness-validation.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+advancedElicitationTask: '{project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml'
+---
+
+# Step 11: Holistic Quality Assessment
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Assess the PRD as a cohesive, compelling document - evaluating document flow, dual audience effectiveness (humans and LLMs), BMAD PRD principles compliance, and overall quality rating.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring analytical rigor and document quality expertise
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+- ✅ Uses Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on holistic document quality assessment
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate individual components (done in previous steps)
+- 💬 Approach: Multi-perspective evaluation using Advanced Elicitation
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Use Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective assessment
+- 🎯 Evaluate document flow, dual audience, BMAD principles
+- 💾 Append comprehensive assessment to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to next check..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Complete PRD file, validation report with findings from steps 1-10
+- Focus: Holistic quality - the WHOLE document
+- Limits: Don't re-validate individual components, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 1-10 completed - all systematic checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process with Advanced Elicitation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess using Advanced Elicitation:**
+
+"Perform holistic quality assessment on this PRD using multi-perspective evaluation:
+
+**Load and execute Advanced Elicitation workflow:**
+{advancedElicitationTask}
+
+**Evaluate the PRD from these perspectives:**
+
+**1. Document Flow & Coherence:**
+- Read entire PRD
+- Evaluate narrative flow - does it tell a cohesive story?
+- Check transitions between sections
+- Assess consistency - is it coherent throughout?
+- Evaluate readability - is it clear and well-organized?
+
+**2. Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Executive-friendly: Can executives understand vision and goals quickly?
+- Developer clarity: Do developers have clear requirements to build from?
+- Designer clarity: Do designers understand user needs and flows?
+- Stakeholder decision-making: Can stakeholders make informed decisions?
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- Machine-readable structure: Is the PRD structured for LLM consumption?
+- UX readiness: Can an LLM generate UX designs from this?
+- Architecture readiness: Can an LLM generate architecture from this?
+- Epic/Story readiness: Can an LLM break down into epics and stories?
+
+**3. BMAD PRD Principles Compliance:**
+- Information density: Every sentence carries weight?
+- Measurability: Requirements testable?
+- Traceability: Requirements trace to sources?
+- Domain awareness: Domain-specific considerations included?
+- Zero anti-patterns: No filler or wordiness?
+- Dual audience: Works for both humans and LLMs?
+- Markdown format: Proper structure and formatting?
+
+**4. Overall Quality Rating:**
+Rate the PRD on 5-point scale:
+- Excellent (5/5): Exemplary, ready for production use
+- Good (4/5): Strong with minor improvements needed
+- Adequate (3/5): Acceptable but needs refinement
+- Needs Work (2/5): Significant gaps or issues
+- Problematic (1/5): Major flaws, needs substantial revision
+
+**5. Top 3 Improvements:**
+Identify the 3 most impactful improvements to make this a great PRD
+
+Return comprehensive assessment with all perspectives, rating, and top 3 improvements."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool or Advanced Elicitation unavailable):**
+- Perform holistic assessment directly in current context
+- Read complete PRD
+- Evaluate document flow, coherence, transitions
+- Assess dual audience effectiveness
+- Check BMAD principles compliance
+- Assign overall quality rating
+- Identify top 3 improvements
+
+### 2. Synthesize Assessment
+
+**Compile findings from multi-perspective evaluation:**
+
+**Document Flow & Coherence:**
+- Overall assessment: [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
+- Key strengths: [list]
+- Key weaknesses: [list]
+
+**Dual Audience Effectiveness:**
+- For Humans: [assessment]
+- For LLMs: [assessment]
+- Overall dual audience score: [1-5]
+
+**BMAD Principles Compliance:**
+- Principles met: [count]/7
+- Principles with issues: [list]
+
+**Overall Quality Rating:** [1-5 with label]
+
+**Top 3 Improvements:**
+1. [Improvement 1]
+2. [Improvement 2]
+3. [Improvement 3]
+
+### 3. Report Holistic Quality Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Holistic Quality Assessment
+
+### Document Flow & Coherence
+
+**Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Adequate/Needs Work/Problematic]
+
+**Strengths:**
+{List key strengths}
+
+**Areas for Improvement:**
+{List key weaknesses}
+
+### Dual Audience Effectiveness
+
+**For Humans:**
+- Executive-friendly: [assessment]
+- Developer clarity: [assessment]
+- Designer clarity: [assessment]
+- Stakeholder decision-making: [assessment]
+
+**For LLMs:**
+- Machine-readable structure: [assessment]
+- UX readiness: [assessment]
+- Architecture readiness: [assessment]
+- Epic/Story readiness: [assessment]
+
+**Dual Audience Score:** {score}/5
+
+### BMAD PRD Principles Compliance
+
+| Principle | Status | Notes |
+|-----------|--------|-------|
+| Information Density | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Measurability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Traceability | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Domain Awareness | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Zero Anti-Patterns | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Dual Audience | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+| Markdown Format | [Met/Partial/Not Met] | {notes} |
+
+**Principles Met:** {count}/7
+
+### Overall Quality Rating
+
+**Rating:** {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Scale:**
+- 5/5 - Excellent: Exemplary, ready for production use
+- 4/5 - Good: Strong with minor improvements needed
+- 3/5 - Adequate: Acceptable but needs refinement
+- 2/5 - Needs Work: Significant gaps or issues
+- 1/5 - Problematic: Major flaws, needs substantial revision
+
+### Top 3 Improvements
+
+1. **{Improvement 1}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+2. **{Improvement 2}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+3. **{Improvement 3}**
+   {Brief explanation of why and how}
+
+### Summary
+
+**This PRD is:** {one-sentence overall assessment}
+
+**To make it great:** Focus on the top 3 improvements above.
+```
+
+### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Holistic Quality Assessment Complete**
+
+Overall Rating: {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Proceeding to final validation checks...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-12-completeness-validation.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Advanced Elicitation used for multi-perspective evaluation (or graceful degradation)
+- Document flow & coherence assessed
+- Dual audience effectiveness evaluated (humans and LLMs)
+- BMAD PRD principles compliance checked
+- Overall quality rating assigned (1-5 scale)
+- Top 3 improvements identified
+- Comprehensive assessment reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to next validation step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not using Advanced Elicitation for multi-perspective evaluation
+- Missing document flow assessment
+- Missing dual audience evaluation
+- Not checking all BMAD principles
+- Not assigning overall quality rating
+- Missing top 3 improvements
+- Not reporting comprehensive assessment to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** This evaluates the WHOLE document, not just components. Answers "Is this a good PRD?" and "What would make it great?"

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-12-completeness-validation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-12-completeness-validation'
+description: 'Completeness Check - Final comprehensive completeness check before report generation'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+nextStepFile: './step-v-13-report-complete.md'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+prdFrontmatter: '{prd_frontmatter}'
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 12: Completeness Validation
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Final comprehensive completeness check - validate no template variables remain, each section has required content, section-specific completeness, and frontmatter is properly populated.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in systematic validation, not collaborative dialogue
+- ✅ You bring attention to detail and completeness verification
+- ✅ This step runs autonomously - no user input needed
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on completeness verification
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to validate quality (done in step 11) or other aspects
+- 💬 Approach: Systematic checklist-style verification
+- 🚪 This is a validation sequence step - auto-proceeds when complete
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Check template completeness (no variables remaining)
+- 🎯 Validate content completeness (each section has required content)
+- 🎯 Validate section-specific completeness
+- 🎯 Validate frontmatter completeness
+- 💾 Append completeness matrix to validation report
+- 📖 Display "Proceeding to final step..." and load next step
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to pause or request user input
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Complete PRD file, frontmatter, validation report
+- Focus: Completeness verification only (final gate)
+- Limits: Don't assess quality, don't pause for user input
+- Dependencies: Steps 1-11 completed - all validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Attempt Sub-Process Validation
+
+**Try to use Task tool to spawn a subprocess:**
+
+"Perform completeness validation on this PRD - final gate check:
+
+**1. Template Completeness:**
+- Scan PRD for any remaining template variables
+- Look for: {variable}, {{variable}}, {placeholder}, [placeholder], etc.
+- List any found with line numbers
+
+**2. Content Completeness:**
+- Executive Summary: Has vision statement? ({key content})
+- Success Criteria: All criteria measurable? ({metrics present})
+- Product Scope: In-scope and out-of-scope defined? ({both present})
+- User Journeys: User types identified? ({users listed})
+- Functional Requirements: FRs listed with proper format? ({FRs present})
+- Non-Functional Requirements: NFRs with metrics? ({NFRs present})
+
+For each section: Is required content present? (Yes/No/Partial)
+
+**3. Section-Specific Completeness:**
+- Success Criteria: Each has specific measurement method?
+- User Journeys: Cover all user types?
+- Functional Requirements: Cover MVP scope?
+- Non-Functional Requirements: Each has specific criteria?
+
+**4. Frontmatter Completeness:**
+- stepsCompleted: Populated?
+- classification: Present (domain, projectType)?
+- inputDocuments: Tracked?
+- date: Present?
+
+Return completeness matrix with status for each check."
+
+**Graceful degradation (if no Task tool):**
+- Manually scan for template variables
+- Manually check each section for required content
+- Manually verify frontmatter fields
+- Build completeness matrix
+
+### 2. Build Completeness Matrix
+
+**Template Completeness:**
+- Template variables found: count
+- List if any found
+
+**Content Completeness by Section:**
+- Executive Summary: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Success Criteria: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Product Scope: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- User Journeys: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Non-Functional Requirements: Complete / Incomplete / Missing
+- Other sections: [List completeness]
+
+**Section-Specific Completeness:**
+- Success criteria measurable: All / Some / None
+- Journeys cover all users: Yes / Partial / No
+- FRs cover MVP scope: Yes / Partial / No
+- NFRs have specific criteria: All / Some / None
+
+**Frontmatter Completeness:**
+- stepsCompleted: Present / Missing
+- classification: Present / Missing
+- inputDocuments: Present / Missing
+- date: Present / Missing
+
+**Overall completeness:**
+- Sections complete: X/Y
+- Critical gaps: [list if any]
+
+### 3. Report Completeness Findings to Validation Report
+
+Append to validation report:
+
+```markdown
+## Completeness Validation
+
+### Template Completeness
+
+**Template Variables Found:** {count}
+{If count > 0, list variables with line numbers}
+{If count = 0, note: No template variables remaining ✓}
+
+### Content Completeness by Section
+
+**Executive Summary:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Success Criteria:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Product Scope:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**User Journeys:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+**Non-Functional Requirements:** [Complete/Incomplete/Missing]
+{If incomplete or missing, note specific gaps}
+
+### Section-Specific Completeness
+
+**Success Criteria Measurability:** [All/Some/None] measurable
+{If Some or None, note which criteria lack metrics}
+
+**User Journeys Coverage:** [Yes/Partial/No] - covers all user types
+{If Partial or No, note missing user types}
+
+**FRs Cover MVP Scope:** [Yes/Partial/No]
+{If Partial or No, note scope gaps}
+
+**NFRs Have Specific Criteria:** [All/Some/None]
+{If Some or None, note which NFRs lack specificity}
+
+### Frontmatter Completeness
+
+**stepsCompleted:** [Present/Missing]
+**classification:** [Present/Missing]
+**inputDocuments:** [Present/Missing]
+**date:** [Present/Missing]
+
+**Frontmatter Completeness:** {complete_fields}/4
+
+### Completeness Summary
+
+**Overall Completeness:** {percentage}% ({complete_sections}/{total_sections})
+
+**Critical Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+**Minor Gaps:** [count] [list if any]
+
+**Severity:** [Critical if template variables exist or critical sections missing, Warning if minor gaps, Pass if complete]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[If Critical] "PRD has completeness gaps that must be addressed before use. Fix template variables and complete missing sections."
+[If Warning] "PRD has minor completeness gaps. Address minor gaps for complete documentation."
+[If Pass] "PRD is complete with all required sections and content present."
+```
+
+### 4. Display Progress and Auto-Proceed
+
+Display: "**Completeness Validation Complete**
+
+Overall Completeness: {percentage}% ({severity})
+
+**Proceeding to final step...**"
+
+Immediately load and execute {nextStepFile} (step-v-13-report-complete.md)
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Scanned for template variables systematically
+- Validated each section for required content
+- Validated section-specific completeness (measurability, coverage, scope)
+- Validated frontmatter completeness
+- Completeness matrix built with all checks
+- Severity assessed correctly
+- Findings reported to validation report
+- Auto-proceeds to final step
+- Subprocess attempted with graceful degradation
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not scanning for template variables
+- Missing section-specific completeness checks
+- Not validating frontmatter
+- Not building completeness matrix
+- Not reporting findings to validation report
+- Not auto-proceeding
+
+**Master Rule:** Final gate to ensure document is complete before presenting findings. Template variables or critical gaps must be fixed.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/steps-v/step-v-13-report-complete.md

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+---
+name: 'step-v-13-report-complete'
+description: 'Validation Report Complete - Finalize report, summarize findings, present to user, offer next steps'
+
+# File references (ONLY variables used in this step)
+validationReportPath: '{validation_report_path}'
+prdFile: '{prd_file_path}'
+---
+
+# Step 13: Validation Report Complete
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Finalize validation report, summarize all findings from steps 1-12, present summary to user conversationally, and offer actionable next steps.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
+- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
+- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
+- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are a Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- ✅ If you already have been given communication or persona patterns, continue to use those while playing this new role
+- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
+- ✅ You bring synthesis and summary expertise
+- ✅ This is the FINAL step - requires user interaction
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Focus ONLY on summarizing findings and presenting options
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to perform additional validation
+- 💬 Approach: Conversational summary with clear next steps
+- 🚪 This is the final step - no next step after this
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Load complete validation report
+- 🎯 Summarize all findings from steps 1-12
+- 🎯 Update report frontmatter with final status
+- 💬 Present summary to user conversationally
+- 💬 Offer menu options for next actions
+- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without user selection
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: Complete validation report with findings from all validation steps
+- Focus: Summary and presentation only (no new validation)
+- Limits: Don't add new findings, just synthesize existing
+- Dependencies: Steps 1-12 completed - all validation checks done
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise unless user explicitly requests a change.
+
+### 1. Load Complete Validation Report
+
+Read the entire validation report from {validationReportPath}
+
+Extract all findings from:
+- Format Detection (Step 2)
+- Parity Analysis (Step 2B, if applicable)
+- Information Density (Step 3)
+- Product Brief Coverage (Step 4)
+- Measurability (Step 5)
+- Traceability (Step 6)
+- Implementation Leakage (Step 7)
+- Domain Compliance (Step 8)
+- Project-Type Compliance (Step 9)
+- SMART Requirements (Step 10)
+- Holistic Quality (Step 11)
+- Completeness (Step 12)
+
+### 2. Update Report Frontmatter with Final Status
+
+Update validation report frontmatter:
+
+```yaml
+---
+validationTarget: '{prd_path}'
+validationDate: '{current_date}'
+inputDocuments: [list of documents]
+validationStepsCompleted: ['step-v-01-discovery', 'step-v-02-format-detection', 'step-v-03-density-validation', 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation', 'step-v-05-measurability-validation', 'step-v-06-traceability-validation', 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation', 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation', 'step-v-09-project-type-validation', 'step-v-10-smart-validation', 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation', 'step-v-12-completeness-validation']
+validationStatus: COMPLETE
+holisticQualityRating: '{rating from step 11}'
+overallStatus: '{Pass/Warning/Critical based on all findings}'
+---
+```
+
+### 3. Create Summary of Findings
+
+**Overall Status:**
+- Determine from all validation findings
+- **Pass:** All critical checks pass, minor warnings acceptable
+- **Warning:** Some issues found but PRD is usable
+- **Critical:** Major issues that prevent PRD from being fit for purpose
+
+**Quick Results Table:**
+- Format: [classification]
+- Information Density: [severity]
+- Measurability: [severity]
+- Traceability: [severity]
+- Implementation Leakage: [severity]
+- Domain Compliance: [status]
+- Project-Type Compliance: [compliance score]
+- SMART Quality: [percentage]
+- Holistic Quality: [rating/5]
+- Completeness: [percentage]
+
+**Critical Issues:** List from all validation steps
+**Warnings:** List from all validation steps
+**Strengths:** List positives from all validation steps
+
+**Holistic Quality Rating:** From step 11
+**Top 3 Improvements:** From step 11
+
+**Recommendation:** Based on overall status
+
+### 4. Present Summary to User Conversationally
+
+Display:
+
+"**✓ PRD Validation Complete**
+
+**Overall Status:** {Pass/Warning/Critical}
+
+**Quick Results:**
+{Present quick results table with key findings}
+
+**Critical Issues:** {count or "None"}
+{If any, list briefly}
+
+**Warnings:** {count or "None"}
+{If any, list briefly}
+
+**Strengths:**
+{List key strengths}
+
+**Holistic Quality:** {rating}/5 - {label}
+
+**Top 3 Improvements:**
+1. {Improvement 1}
+2. {Improvement 2}
+3. {Improvement 3}
+
+**Recommendation:**
+{Based on overall status:
+- Pass: "PRD is in good shape. Address minor improvements to make it great."
+- Warning: "PRD is usable but has issues that should be addressed. Review warnings and improve where needed."
+- Critical: "PRD has significant issues that should be fixed before use. Focus on critical issues above."}
+
+**What would you like to do next?**"
+
+### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS
+
+Display:
+
+**[R] Review Detailed Findings** - Walk through validation report section by section
+**[E] Use Edit Workflow** - Use validation report with Edit workflow for systematic improvements
+**[F] Fix Simpler Items** - Immediate fixes for simple issues (anti-patterns, leakage, missing headers)
+**[X] Exit** - Exit and review validation report
+
+#### EXECUTION RULES:
+
+- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
+- Only proceed based on user selection
+
+#### Menu Handling Logic:
+
+- **IF R (Review Detailed Findings):**
+  - Walk through validation report section by section
+  - Present findings from each validation step
+  - Allow user to ask questions
+  - After review, return to menu
+
+- **IF E (Use Edit Workflow):**
+  - Explain: "The Edit workflow (steps-e/) can use this validation report to systematically address issues. Edit mode will guide you through discovering what to edit, reviewing the PRD, and applying targeted improvements."
+  - Offer: "Would you like to launch Edit mode now? It will help you fix validation findings systematically."
+  - If yes: Load and execute steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md
+  - If no: Return to menu
+
+- **IF F (Fix Simpler Items):**
+  - Offer immediate fixes for:
+    - Template variables (fill in with appropriate content)
+    - Conversational filler (remove wordy phrases)
+    - Implementation leakage (remove technology names from FRs/NFRs)
+    - Missing section headers (add ## headers)
+  - Ask: "Which simple fixes would you like me to make?"
+  - If user specifies fixes, make them and update validation report
+  - Return to menu
+
+- **IF X (Exit):**
+  - Display: "**Validation Report Saved:** {validationReportPath}"
+  - Display: "**Summary:** {overall status} - {recommendation}"
+  - Display: "**Next Steps:** Review the validation report and address findings. For systematic improvements, consider using Edit workflow when available, or manually fix issues identified in this report."
+  - Exit validation
+
+- **IF Any other:** Help user, then redisplay menu
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Complete validation report loaded successfully
+- All findings from steps 1-12 summarized
+- Report frontmatter updated with final status
+- Overall status determined correctly (Pass/Warning/Critical)
+- Quick results table presented
+- Critical issues, warnings, and strengths listed
+- Holistic quality rating included
+- Top 3 improvements presented
+- Clear recommendation provided
+- Menu options presented with clear explanations
+- User can review findings, get help, or exit
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Not loading complete validation report
+- Missing summary of findings
+- Not updating report frontmatter
+- Not determining overall status
+- Missing menu options
+- Unclear next steps
+
+**Master Rule:** User needs clear summary and actionable next steps. Edit workflow is best for complex issues; immediate fixes available for simpler ones.

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/templates/prd-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+stepsCompleted: []
+inputDocuments: []
+workflowType: 'prd'
+---
+
+# Product Requirements Document - {{project_name}}
+
+**Author:** {{user_name}}
+**Date:** {{date}}

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/validation-report-prd-workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,433 @@
+---
+validationTarget: 'PRD Workflow Structure'
+validationDate: '2026-01-08'
+inputDocuments: []
+validationStepsCompleted: ['discovery', 'frontmatter-validation', 'content-validation', 'documentation-validation', 'integration-validation', 'corrections-applied']
+validationStatus: COMPLETE - PRODUCTION READY
+---
+
+# PRD Workflow Validation Report
+
+**Workflow Being Validated:** /Users/brianmadison/dev/BMAD-METHOD/src/modules/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd
+**Validation Date:** 2026-01-08
+**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+This validation report assesses the PRD workflow structure against BMAD workflow standards. The PRD workflow is a tri-modal workflow system with Create, Validate, and Edit phases.
+
+---
+
+## 1. File Structure & Size Analysis
+
+### Folder Structure
+
+```
+prd/
+├── workflow.md (main workflow file)
+├── steps-c/ (Create steps - 12 files)
+├── steps-v/ (Validation steps - 13 files)
+├── steps-e/ (Edit steps - 5 files)
+├── data/
+│   └── prd-purpose.md
+└── templates/
+    └── prd-template.md
+```
+
+**✅ Structure Status**: PASS - All required folders present
+
+### File Size Analysis
+
+#### Steps-C (Create Steps) - 12 files
+| File | Lines | Status |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| step-01-init.md | 191 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-01b-continue.md | 153 | ✅ Good |
+| step-02-discovery.md | 197 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-03-success.md | 226 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-04-journeys.md | 213 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-05-domain.md | 193 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-06-innovation.md | 226 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-07-project-type.md | 225 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-08-scoping.md | 228 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-09-functional.md | 231 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-10-nonfunctional.md | 242 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-11-polish.md | 217 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-12-complete.md | 185 | ✅ Good |
+
+#### Steps-V (Validation Steps) - 13 files
+| File | Lines | Status |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| step-v-01-discovery.md | 217 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-02-format-detection.md | 191 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-02b-parity-check.md | 209 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-03-density-validation.md | 174 | ✅ Good |
+| step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation.md | 214 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-05-measurability-validation.md | 228 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-06-traceability-validation.md | 217 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation.md | 205 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation.md | 243 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-09-project-type-validation.md | 263 | ❌ Exceeds limit |
+| step-v-10-smart-validation.md | 209 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md | 264 | ❌ Exceeds limit |
+| step-v-12-completeness-validation.md | 242 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-v-13-report-complete.md | 231 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+
+#### Steps-E (Edit Steps) - 5 files
+| File | Lines | Status |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| step-e-01-discovery.md | 206 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-e-01b-legacy-conversion.md | 208 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-e-02-review.md | 249 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| step-e-03-edit.md | 253 | ❌ Exceeds limit |
+| step-e-04-complete.md | 168 | ✅ Good |
+
+#### Data & Templates
+| File | Lines | Status |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| data/prd-purpose.md | 197 | ⚠️ Approaching limit |
+| templates/prd-template.md | 10 | ✅ Good |
+| workflow.md | 114 | ✅ Good |
+
+### File Size Statistics
+
+- **Total Files**: 32 markdown files
+- **✅ Good (<200 lines)**: 6 files (18.8%)
+- **⚠️ Approaching limit (200-250)**: 23 files (71.9%)
+- **❌ Exceeds limit (>250)**: 3 files (9.4%)
+- **Average lines per file**: 213.3 lines
+
+### ⚠️ Recommendations
+
+1. **Files Exceeding 250-line limit**:
+   - `step-v-09-project-type-validation.md` (263 lines) - Consider splitting into sub-steps
+   - `step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md` (264 lines) - Consider splitting into sub-steps
+   - `step-e-03-edit.md` (253 lines) - Consider splitting into sub-steps
+
+2. **Files Approaching Limit**:
+   - Many files are in the 200-250 line range
+   - Monitor these files as further additions may push them over the limit
+   - Consider proactive refactoring where appropriate
+
+---
+
+## 2. Frontmatter Structure Validation
+
+### Files Checked: 29 total files
+
+**✅ Overall Status:** ALL VALID - One Issue Fixed
+
+#### Main Workflow (workflow.md)
+**Required Fields Present:**
+- ✅ `name`: "prd"
+- ✅ `description`: "PRD tri-modal workflow"
+- ✅ `nextStep`: "./steps-c/step-01-init.md"
+- ✅ `validateWorkflow`: "./steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md"
+- ✅ `editWorkflow`: "./steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md" (FIXED - was assess-workflow.md)
+
+#### Create Steps (steps-c)
+- ✅ All 13 files have proper name, description, nextStepFile
+- ✅ Proper sequencing from step-01 through step-12
+- ✅ Consistent output file references
+
+#### Validation Steps (steps-v)
+- ✅ All 13 files have complete frontmatter
+- ✅ Proper sequential chain maintained
+- ✅ No broken internal references
+
+#### Edit Steps (steps-e)
+- ✅ All files have required fields
+- ✅ Proper routing with altStepFile references
+
+### ✅ All Issues Resolved
+
+**1. Broken Edit Workflow Reference:**
+```yaml
+# Current (INCORRECT):
+editWorkflow: './steps-e/step-e-01-assess-workflow.md'
+
+# Should be:
+editWorkflow: './steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md'
+```
+
+**2. Step Numbering Gap:**
+- Original `step-11-complete.md` was deleted
+- Sequence now: step-10 → step-11-polish → step-12-complete
+- Creates confusion in step numbering
+
+### ✅ YAML Syntax
+- No YAML syntax errors detected
+- All frontmatter properly formatted
+- Consistent structure across files
+
+### Status
+✅ **ALL ISSUES RESOLVED** - Only cosmetic improvements remain:
+
+1. **✅ FIXED**: Edit workflow path corrected in workflow.md
+2. **⚠️ OPTIONAL**: Address step numbering gap for clarity
+3. **⚠️ OPTIONAL**: Rename step-01b-continue.md to step-01a-continue.md for consistency
+
+---
+
+## 3. Step File Content Validation
+
+### Content Quality Assessment: 4.5/5 - EXCELLENT
+
+#### Files Reviewed: 10 representative files across all modes
+
+#### ✅ Strengths
+
+**1. Comprehensive Structure:**
+- Clear step goal sections in all files
+- Detailed mandatory execution rules
+- Well-defined execution protocols
+- Context boundaries clearly specified
+- Mandatory sequence with numbered steps
+- System success/failure metrics present
+
+**2. BMAD Compliance:**
+- ✅ JIT loading references consistently mentioned
+- ✅ State tracking requirements documented
+- ✅ Append-only building instructions present
+- ✅ Critical rules properly emphasized with emojis
+- ✅ Sequential enforcement clearly stated
+
+**3. Instructional Quality:**
+- Clear, unambiguous instructions
+- Proper menu handling rules (where applicable)
+- Excellent continuation checks
+- Strong role definition for each mode
+
+**4. Role Clarity:**
+- Create Mode: "Product-focused PM facilitator"
+- Validate Mode: "Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist"
+- Edit Mode: "PRD improvement specialist"
+
+#### ⚠️ Minor Improvement Opportunities
+
+**1. Header Formatting:**
+- Some inconsistency in header level usage across files
+- Recommend standardizing H2/H3 usage
+
+**2. Edit Mode Completeness:**
+- Edit mode has fewer steps (5 vs 12/13 for other modes)
+- Documentation marks it as "Future" but implementation exists
+
+#### Recommendations
+1. **LOW PRIORITY**: Standardize header formatting across all step files
+2. **LOW PRIORITY**: Complete remaining edit mode steps for parity
+3. **MAINTAIN**: Current excellent quality standards
+
+---
+
+## 4. Documentation Validation
+
+### Documentation Completeness: ✅ COMPREHENSIVE
+
+#### Main Components Present
+- ✅ Workflow Definition (workflow.md)
+- ✅ Purpose Document (data/prd-purpose.md)
+- ✅ Template (templates/prd-template.md)
+- ✅ Three Mode Implementations (Create: 12, Validate: 13, Edit: 5 steps)
+
+#### Clarity Assessment: ✅ EXCELLENT
+
+**Strong Points:**
+1. Clear mode determination (commands, flags, menu selection)
+2. Detailed routing instructions for each mode
+3. Comprehensive workflow architecture explanation
+4. Well-defined critical rules with visual emphasis
+5. Professional presentation with consistent formatting
+
+#### ⚠️ Minor Issues Found
+
+**1. Step Count Mismatch:**
+- workflow.md mentions "11 steps" for Create mode
+- Actually implements 12 steps
+- Could confuse users
+
+**2. Edit Mode Status:**
+- workflow.md calls Edit mode "Future"
+- Edit mode steps are actually implemented
+- Should reflect current status
+
+**3. Template Completeness:**
+- PRD template is minimal (10 lines)
+- Could benefit from section placeholders
+
+**4. Missing README:**
+- No onboarding documentation for new users
+- Not critical but would be helpful
+
+#### Recommendations
+
+**HIGH PRIORITY:**
+1. Fix step count reference to match implementation (12 steps)
+2. Update edit mode documentation to "Implemented"
+
+**MEDIUM PRIORITY:**
+3. Enhance PRD template with section structure
+4. Add quick-start README for new users
+
+**LOW PRIORITY:**
+5. Add troubleshooting section
+6. Document external dependencies (domain-complexity.csv, project-types.csv)
+
+---
+
+## 5. Integration & Compatibility Validation
+
+### Integration Status: 85% Ready
+
+#### ✅ Successfully Integrated Components
+
+**1. Agent Menu Registration:**
+- ✅ Registered in PM agent menu
+- ✅ Trigger: `PR` or fuzzy match on `prd`
+- ✅ Command: `/bmad:bmm:workflows:create-prd`
+- ✅ Proper workflow path configuration
+
+**2. External Workflow References:**
+- ✅ Party-mode workflow: Exists at `/src/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md`
+- ✅ Advanced-elicitation task: Exists at `/src/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml`
+
+**3. Directory Structure:**
+- ✅ Complete step architecture (all 3 modes)
+- ✅ All referenced step files exist
+- ✅ Data files available
+
+#### ✅ Configuration & Installation - WORKING AS DESIGNED
+
+**1. BMM Config Reference:**
+- Path: `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml`
+- **Status:** ✅ Correct installation-time placeholder
+- Resolves to actual config during workflow installation
+- **Note:** This is expected behavior, not an issue
+
+**2. Planning Artifacts Folder:**
+- Reference: `{planning_artifacts}/prd.md`
+- **Status:** ✅ Correct installation-time placeholder
+- Created/resolved during workflow installation
+- **Note:** This is expected behavior, not an issue
+
+**3. Edit Mode Implementation:**
+- Current: 5 steps (Discovery, Legacy Conversion branch, Review, Edit, Complete)
+- **Status:** ✅ Functionally complete
+- Edit mode is inherently simpler than create mode (targeted improvements vs full creation)
+- Uses subprocesses for complex operations
+- Validation integration ensures quality
+- **Note:** Edit workflow is complete and well-designed
+
+#### Configuration Analysis
+
+**Placeholder Usage:**
+- `{project-root}`: ✅ Properly used
+- `{planning_artifacts}`: ⚠️ Referenced but folder missing
+- `{nextStep}`, `{validateWorkflow}`, etc: ✅ Properly resolved
+
+#### Recommendations
+
+**✅ ALL CRITICAL ISSUES RESOLVED:**
+
+The only true critical issue (edit workflow path) has been fixed. All other items flagged as "critical" were actually working as designed (installation-time placeholders).
+
+**LOW PRIORITY:**
+3. Add CLI command registration for standalone execution (optional enhancement)
+4. Consider adding workflow to additional agent menus (UX designer, architect)
+5. Create standalone execution documentation (nice-to-have)
+6. Address step numbering gap if desired (cosmetic)
+
+---
+
+## 6. Executive Summary & Overall Assessment
+
+### Overall Validation Status: ✅ PRODUCTION-READY
+
+#### Validation Scores by Category
+
+| Category | Status | Score | Notes |
+|----------|--------|-------|-------|
+| **File Structure & Size** | ⚠️ WARNINGS | 7/10 | 3 files exceed 250-line limit, 23 approaching |
+| **Frontmatter Validation** | ✅ PASS | 9/10 | One broken path reference |
+| **Step Content Quality** | ✅ EXCELLENT | 9.5/10 | High-quality instructional design |
+| **Documentation** | ✅ EXCELLENT | 9/10 | Comprehensive, minor inconsistencies |
+| **Integration** | ✅ PASS | 9/10 | All paths correct (one issue fixed) |
+| **BMAD Compliance** | ✅ EXCELLENT | 9.5/10 | Strong adherence to standards |
+
+**Overall Score: 9.2/10 - EXCELLENT**
+
+#### ✅ Critical Action Items - ALL RESOLVED
+
+**ONLY ONE TRUE CRITICAL ISSUE EXISTED - NOW FIXED:**
+
+1. **✅ FIXED: Edit Workflow Path**
+   - File: `workflow.md` ✓ RESOLVED
+   - Changed from: `./steps-e/step-e-01-assess-workflow.md`
+   - Changed to: `./steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md`
+
+**Items incorrectly flagged as critical (actually working as designed):**
+- ✅ Configuration path references (installation-time placeholders)
+- ✅ Planning artifacts folder (installation-time placeholder)
+
+#### High Priority Improvements
+
+2. **⚠️ Split Large Step Files** (>250 lines):
+   - `step-v-09-project-type-validation.md` (263 lines)
+   - `step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation.md` (264 lines)
+   - `step-e-03-edit.md` (253 lines)
+
+3. **⚠️ Update Documentation Inconsistencies**:
+   - Fix step count reference (11 → 12 steps in create mode)
+   - Update edit mode status (Future → Implemented)
+
+#### Medium Priority Enhancements
+
+4. **Enhance PRD Template** (currently minimal at 10 lines)
+5. **Add quick-start README** for new users
+6. **Address step numbering gap** (cosmetic - missing step-11-complete.md)
+
+#### Edit Mode Status - FUNCTIONALLY COMPLETE ✅
+
+The edit workflow is **complete and well-designed** with 5 steps:
+- Discovery → Legacy Conversion (branch) → Review → Edit → Complete
+- Edit mode is inherently simpler than create mode (targeted improvements vs full creation)
+- Uses subprocesses for complex operations
+- Integrates with validation workflow
+
+**No additional steps needed.**
+
+### Key Strengths
+
+✅ **Excellent step file quality** - Clear, well-structured instructions
+✅ **Comprehensive validation system** - 13 dedicated validation steps
+✅ **Strong BMAD compliance** - JIT loading, state tracking, sequential enforcement
+✅ **Tri-modal architecture** - Create, Validate, Edit all implemented
+✅ **Professional documentation** - Clear, consistent, well-presented
+✅ **Proper agent integration** - Registered in PM agent menu
+
+### Areas for Improvement (Optional)
+
+⚠️ **File size management** - Many files approaching limits (maintainability consideration)
+⚠️ **Documentation consistency** - Minor discrepancies in counts/status (cosmetic)
+✅ **Edit mode** - Functionally complete, no additional steps needed
+
+### Conclusion
+
+The PRD workflow is **well-designed and fully compliant** with BMAD standards. The step file architecture is exemplary, the content quality is excellent, and the documentation is comprehensive. The only critical issue (edit workflow path) has been **resolved**, and all other flagged items were actually working as designed (installation-time placeholders).
+
+**Current Status: ✅ PRODUCTION-READY**
+
+**Recommended Optional Enhancements:**
+1. Split the 3 files exceeding 250-line limit (maintainability)
+2. Update documentation inconsistencies (step counts, edit mode status)
+3. Enhance PRD template and add quick-start README (user experience)
+
+The PRD workflow is ready for production use and fully compliant with BMAD workflow standards.
+
+---
+
+**Validation Completed:** 2026-01-08
+**Validation Method:** Systematic subprocess analysis with maximum context coverage
+**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System (Wendy - Workflow Building Master)

_bmad/bmm/workflows/2-plan-workflows/prd/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+---
+name: prd
+description: PRD tri-modal workflow - Create, Validate, or Edit comprehensive PRDs
+main_config: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml'
+nextStep: './steps-c/step-01-init.md'
+validateWorkflow: './steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md'
+editWorkflow: './steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md'
+web_bundle: true
+---
+
+# PRD Workflow (Tri-Modal)
+
+**Goal:** Create, Validate, or Edit comprehensive PRDs through structured workflows.
+
+**Your Role:**
+- **Create Mode:** Product-focused PM facilitator collaborating with an expert peer
+- **Validate Mode:** Validation Architect and Quality Assurance Specialist
+- **Edit Mode:** PRD improvement specialist
+
+You will continue to operate with your given name, identity, and communication_style, merged with the details of this role description.
+
+---
+
+## MODE DETERMINATION
+
+### Detect Workflow Mode
+
+Determine which mode to invoke based on:
+
+1. **Command/Invocation:**
+   - "create prd" or "new prd" → Create mode
+   - "validate prd" or "check prd" → Validate mode
+   - "edit prd" or "improve prd" → Edit mode
+
+2. **Context Detection:**
+   - If invoked with -c flag → Create mode
+   - If invoked with -v flag → Validate mode
+   - If invoked with -e flag → Edit mode
+
+3. **Menu Selection (if unclear):**
+
+If mode cannot be determined from invocation:
+"**PRD Workflow - Select Mode:**
+
+**[C] Create** - Create a new PRD from scratch
+**[V] Validate** - Validate an existing PRD against BMAD standards
+**[E] Edit** - Improve an existing PRD
+
+Which mode would you like?"
+
+Wait for user selection.
+
+### Route to Appropriate Workflow
+
+**IF Create Mode:**
+"**Create Mode: Creating a new PRD from scratch.**"
+Load, read entire file, then execute: `{nextStep}` (steps-c/step-01-init.md)
+
+**IF Validate Mode:**
+"**Validate Mode: Validating an existing PRD against BMAD standards.**"
+Prompt for PRD path: "Which PRD would you like to validate? Please provide the path to the PRD.md file."
+Then load, read entire file, and execute: `{validateWorkflow}` (steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md)
+
+**IF Edit Mode:**
+"**Edit Mode: Improving an existing PRD.**"
+Prompt for PRD path: "Which PRD would you like to edit? Please provide the path to the PRD.md file."
+Then load, read entire file, and execute: `{editWorkflow}` (steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md)
+
+---
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This uses **step-file architecture** for disciplined execution:
+
+### Core Principles
+
+- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is a self contained instruction file that is a part of an overall workflow that must be followed exactly
+- **Just-In-Time Loading**: Only the current step file is in memory - never load future step files until told to do so
+- **Sequential Enforcement**: Sequence within the step files must be completed in order, no skipping or optimization allowed
+- **State Tracking**: Document progress in output file frontmatter using `stepsCompleted` array when a workflow produces a document
+- **Append-Only Building**: Build documents by appending content as directed to the output file
+
+### Step Processing Rules
+
+1. **READ COMPLETELY**: Always read the entire step file before taking any action
+2. **FOLLOW SEQUENCE**: Execute all numbered sections in order, never deviate
+3. **WAIT FOR INPUT**: If a menu is presented, halt and wait for user selection
+4. **CHECK CONTINUATION**: If the step has a menu with Continue as an option, only proceed to next step when user selects 'C' (Continue)
+5. **SAVE STATE**: Update `stepsCompleted` in frontmatter before loading next step
+6. **LOAD NEXT**: When directed, load, read entire file, then execute the next step file
+
+### Critical Rules (NO EXCEPTIONS)
+
+- 🛑 **NEVER** load multiple step files simultaneously
+- 📖 **ALWAYS** read entire step file before execution
+- 🚫 **NEVER** skip steps or optimize the sequence
+- 💾 **ALWAYS** update frontmatter of output files when writing the final output for a specific step
+- 🎯 **ALWAYS** follow the exact instructions in the step file
+- ⏸️ **ALWAYS** halt at menus and wait for user input
+- 📋 **NEVER** create mental todo lists from future steps
+
+---
+
+## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
+
+### 1. Mode Determination
+
+**Check if mode was specified in the command invocation:**
+
+- If user invoked with "create prd" or "new prd" or "build prd" or "-c" or "--create" → Set mode to **create**
+- If user invoked with "validate prd" or "review prd" or "check prd" or "-v" or "--validate" → Set mode to **validate**
+- If user invoked with "edit prd" or "modify prd" or "improve prd" or "-e" or "--edit" → Set mode to **edit**
+
+**If mode is still unclear, ask user:**
+
+"**PRD Workflow - Select Mode:**
+
+**[C] Create** - Create a new PRD from scratch
+**[V] Validate** - Validate an existing PRD against BMAD standards
+**[E] Edit** - Improve an existing PRD
+
+Which mode would you like?"
+
+Wait for user selection.
+
+### 2. Configuration Loading
+
+Load and read full config from {main_config} and resolve:
+
+- `project_name`, `output_folder`, `planning_artifacts`, `user_name`
+- `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
+- `date` as system-generated current datetime
+
+✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT In your Agent communication style with the configured `{communication_language}`.
+
+### 3. Route to Appropriate Workflow
+
+**IF mode == create:**
+"**Create Mode: Creating a new PRD from scratch.**"
+Load, read entire file, then execute `{nextStep}` (steps-c/step-01-init.md)
+
+**IF mode == validate:**
+"**Validate Mode: Validating an existing PRD against BMAD standards.**"
+Prompt for PRD path: "Which PRD would you like to validate? Please provide the path to the PRD.md file."
+Then load, read entire file, and execute `{validateWorkflow}` (steps-v/step-v-01-discovery.md)
+
+**IF mode == edit:**
+"**Edit Mode: Improving an existing PRD.**"
+Prompt for PRD path: "Which PRD would you like to edit? Please provide the path to the PRD.md file."
+Then load, read entire file, and execute `{editWorkflow}` (steps-e/step-e-01-discovery.md)