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>
This commit is contained in:
Max
2026-01-26 12:28:43 +07:00
commit 3fbbb1a93b
812 changed files with 150531 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
---
name: 'step-01-document-discovery'
description: 'Discover and inventory all project documents, handling duplicates and organizing file structure'
# Path Definitions
workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
# File References
thisStepFile: './step-01-document-discovery.md'
nextStepFile: './step-02-prd-analysis.md'
workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
templateFile: '{workflow_path}/templates/readiness-report-template.md'
---
# Step 1: Document Discovery
## STEP GOAL:
To discover, inventory, and organize all project documents, identifying duplicates and determining which versions to use for the assessment.
## 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 an expert Product Manager and Scrum Master
- ✅ Your focus is on finding organizing and documenting what exists
- ✅ You identify ambiguities and ask for clarification
- ✅ Success is measured in clear file inventory and conflict resolution
### Step-Specific Rules:
- 🎯 Focus ONLY on finding and organizing files
- 🚫 Don't read or analyze file contents
- 💬 Identify duplicate documents clearly
- 🚪 Get user confirmation on file selections
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
- 🎯 Search for all document types systematically
- 💾 Group sharded files together
- 📖 Flag duplicates for user resolution
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed with unresolved duplicates
## DOCUMENT DISCOVERY PROCESS:
### 1. Initialize Document Discovery
"Beginning **Document Discovery** to inventory all project files.
I will:
1. Search for all required documents (PRD, Architecture, Epics, UX)
2. Group sharded documents together
3. Identify any duplicates (whole + sharded versions)
4. Present findings for your confirmation"
### 2. Document Search Patterns
Search for each document type using these patterns:
#### A. PRD Documents
- Whole: `{planning_artifacts}/*prd*.md`
- Sharded: `{planning_artifacts}/*prd*/index.md` and related files
#### B. Architecture Documents
- Whole: `{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*.md`
- Sharded: `{planning_artifacts}/*architecture*/index.md` and related files
#### C. Epics & Stories Documents
- Whole: `{planning_artifacts}/*epic*.md`
- Sharded: `{planning_artifacts}/*epic*/index.md` and related files
#### D. UX Design Documents
- Whole: `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*.md`
- Sharded: `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*/index.md` and related files
### 3. Organize Findings
For each document type found:
```
## [Document Type] Files Found
**Whole Documents:**
- [filename.md] ([size], [modified date])
**Sharded Documents:**
- Folder: [foldername]/
- index.md
- [other files in folder]
```
### 4. Identify Critical Issues
#### Duplicates (CRITICAL)
If both whole and sharded versions exist:
```
⚠️ CRITICAL ISSUE: Duplicate document formats found
- PRD exists as both whole.md AND prd/ folder
- YOU MUST choose which version to use
- Remove or rename the other version to avoid confusion
```
#### Missing Documents (WARNING)
If required documents not found:
```
⚠️ WARNING: Required document not found
- Architecture document not found
- Will impact assessment completeness
```
### 5. Add Initial Report Section
Initialize {outputFile} with {templateFile}.
### 6. Present Findings and Get Confirmation
Display findings and ask:
"**Document Discovery Complete**
[Show organized file list]
**Issues Found:**
- [List any duplicates requiring resolution]
- [List any missing documents]
**Required Actions:**
- If duplicates exist: Please remove/rename one version
- Confirm which documents to use for assessment
**Ready to proceed?** [C] Continue after resolving issues"
### 7. Present MENU OPTIONS
Display: **Select an Option:** [C] Continue to File Validation
#### EXECUTION RULES:
- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
- ONLY proceed with 'C' selection
- If duplicates identified, insist on resolution first
- User can clarify file locations or request additional searches
#### Menu Handling Logic:
- IF C: Save document inventory to {outputFile}, update frontmatter with completed step and files being included, and only then load read fully and execute {nextStepFile}
- IF Any other comments or queries: help user respond then redisplay menu
## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
ONLY WHEN C is selected and document inventory is saved will you load {nextStepFile} to begin file validation.
---
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
### ✅ SUCCESS:
- All document types searched systematically
- Files organized and inventoried clearly
- Duplicates identified and flagged for resolution
- User confirmed file selections
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
- Not searching all document types
- Ignoring duplicate document conflicts
- Proceeding without resolving critical issues
- Not saving document inventory
**Master Rule:** Clear file identification is essential for accurate assessment.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
---
name: 'step-02-prd-analysis'
description: 'Read and analyze PRD to extract all FRs and NFRs for coverage validation'
# Path Definitions
workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
# File References
thisStepFile: './step-02-prd-analysis.md'
nextStepFile: './step-03-epic-coverage-validation.md'
workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
epicsFile: '{planning_artifacts}/*epic*.md' # Will be resolved to actual file
---
# Step 2: PRD Analysis
## STEP GOAL:
To fully read and analyze the PRD document (whole or sharded) to extract all Functional Requirements (FRs) and Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) for validation against epics coverage.
## 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 an expert Product Manager and Scrum Master
- ✅ Your expertise is in requirements analysis and traceability
- ✅ You think critically about requirement completeness
- ✅ Success is measured in thorough requirement extraction
### Step-Specific Rules:
- 🎯 Focus ONLY on reading and extracting from PRD
- 🚫 Don't validate files (done in step 1)
- 💬 Read PRD completely - whole or all sharded files
- 🚪 Extract every FR and NFR with numbering
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
- 🎯 Load and completely read the PRD
- 💾 Extract all requirements systematically
- 📖 Document findings in the report
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip or summarize PRD content
## PRD ANALYSIS PROCESS:
### 1. Initialize PRD Analysis
"Beginning **PRD Analysis** to extract all requirements.
I will:
1. Load the PRD document (whole or sharded)
2. Read it completely and thoroughly
3. Extract ALL Functional Requirements (FRs)
4. Extract ALL Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)
5. Document findings for coverage validation"
### 2. Load and Read PRD
From the document inventory in step 1:
- If whole PRD file exists: Load and read it completely
- If sharded PRD exists: Load and read ALL files in the PRD folder
- Ensure complete coverage - no files skipped
### 3. Extract Functional Requirements (FRs)
Search for and extract:
- Numbered FRs (FR1, FR2, FR3, etc.)
- Requirements labeled "Functional Requirement"
- User stories or use cases that represent functional needs
- Business rules that must be implemented
Format findings as:
```
## Functional Requirements Extracted
FR1: [Complete requirement text]
FR2: [Complete requirement text]
FR3: [Complete requirement text]
...
Total FRs: [count]
```
### 4. Extract Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)
Search for and extract:
- Performance requirements (response times, throughput)
- Security requirements (authentication, encryption, etc.)
- Usability requirements (accessibility, ease of use)
- Reliability requirements (uptime, error rates)
- Scalability requirements (concurrent users, data growth)
- Compliance requirements (standards, regulations)
Format findings as:
```
## Non-Functional Requirements Extracted
NFR1: [Performance requirement]
NFR2: [Security requirement]
NFR3: [Usability requirement]
...
Total NFRs: [count]
```
### 5. Document Additional Requirements
Look for:
- Constraints or assumptions
- Technical requirements not labeled as FR/NFR
- Business constraints
- Integration requirements
### 6. Add to Assessment Report
Append to {outputFile}:
```markdown
## PRD Analysis
### Functional Requirements
[Complete FR list from section 3]
### Non-Functional Requirements
[Complete NFR list from section 4]
### Additional Requirements
[Any other requirements or constraints found]
### PRD Completeness Assessment
[Initial assessment of PRD completeness and clarity]
```
### 7. Auto-Proceed to Next Step
After PRD analysis complete, immediately load next step for epic coverage validation.
## PROCEEDING TO EPIC COVERAGE VALIDATION
PRD analysis complete. Loading next step to validate epic coverage.
---
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
### ✅ SUCCESS:
- PRD loaded and read completely
- All FRs extracted with full text
- All NFRs identified and documented
- Findings added to assessment report
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
- Not reading complete PRD (especially sharded versions)
- Missing requirements in extraction
- Summarizing instead of extracting full text
- Not documenting findings in report
**Master Rule:** Complete requirement extraction is essential for traceability validation.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
---
name: 'step-03-epic-coverage-validation'
description: 'Validate that all PRD FRs are covered in epics and stories'
# Path Definitions
workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
# File References
thisStepFile: './step-03-epic-coverage-validation.md'
nextStepFile: './step-04-ux-alignment.md'
workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
---
# Step 3: Epic Coverage Validation
## STEP GOAL:
To validate that all Functional Requirements from the PRD are captured in the epics and stories document, identifying any gaps in coverage.
## 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 an expert Product Manager and Scrum Master
- ✅ Your expertise is in requirements traceability
- ✅ You ensure no requirements fall through the cracks
- ✅ Success is measured in complete FR coverage
### Step-Specific Rules:
- 🎯 Focus ONLY on FR coverage validation
- 🚫 Don't analyze story quality (that's later)
- 💬 Compare PRD FRs against epic coverage list
- 🚪 Document every missing FR
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
- 🎯 Load epics document completely
- 💾 Extract FR coverage from epics
- 📖 Compare against PRD FR list
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without documenting gaps
## EPIC COVERAGE VALIDATION PROCESS:
### 1. Initialize Coverage Validation
"Beginning **Epic Coverage Validation**.
I will:
1. Load the epics and stories document
2. Extract FR coverage information
3. Compare against PRD FRs from previous step
4. Identify any FRs not covered in epics"
### 2. Load Epics Document
From the document inventory in step 1:
- Load the epics and stories document (whole or sharded)
- Read it completely to find FR coverage information
- Look for sections like "FR Coverage Map" or similar
### 3. Extract Epic FR Coverage
From the epics document:
- Find FR coverage mapping or list
- Extract which FR numbers are claimed to be covered
- Document which epics cover which FRs
Format as:
```
## Epic FR Coverage Extracted
FR1: Covered in Epic X
FR2: Covered in Epic Y
FR3: Covered in Epic Z
...
Total FRs in epics: [count]
```
### 4. Compare Coverage Against PRD
Using the PRD FR list from step 2:
- Check each PRD FR against epic coverage
- Identify FRs NOT covered in epics
- Note any FRs in epics but NOT in PRD
Create coverage matrix:
```
## FR Coverage Analysis
| FR Number | PRD Requirement | Epic Coverage | Status |
| --------- | --------------- | -------------- | --------- |
| FR1 | [PRD text] | Epic X Story Y | ✓ Covered |
| FR2 | [PRD text] | **NOT FOUND** | ❌ MISSING |
| FR3 | [PRD text] | Epic Z Story A | ✓ Covered |
```
### 5. Document Missing Coverage
List all FRs not covered:
```
## Missing FR Coverage
### Critical Missing FRs
FR#: [Full requirement text from PRD]
- Impact: [Why this is critical]
- Recommendation: [Which epic should include this]
### High Priority Missing FRs
[List any other uncovered FRs]
```
### 6. Add to Assessment Report
Append to {outputFile}:
```markdown
## Epic Coverage Validation
### Coverage Matrix
[Complete coverage matrix from section 4]
### Missing Requirements
[List of uncovered FRs from section 5]
### Coverage Statistics
- Total PRD FRs: [count]
- FRs covered in epics: [count]
- Coverage percentage: [percentage]
```
### 7. Auto-Proceed to Next Step
After coverage validation complete, immediately load next step.
## PROCEEDING TO UX ALIGNMENT
Epic coverage validation complete. Loading next step for UX alignment.
---
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
### ✅ SUCCESS:
- Epics document loaded completely
- FR coverage extracted accurately
- All gaps identified and documented
- Coverage matrix created
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
- Not reading complete epics document
- Missing FRs in comparison
- Not documenting uncovered requirements
- Incomplete coverage analysis
**Master Rule:** Every FR must have a traceable implementation path.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
---
name: 'step-04-ux-alignment'
description: 'Check for UX document and validate alignment with PRD and Architecture'
# Path Definitions
workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
# File References
thisStepFile: './step-04-ux-alignment.md'
nextStepFile: './step-05-epic-quality-review.md'
workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
---
# Step 4: UX Alignment
## STEP GOAL:
To check if UX documentation exists and validate that it aligns with PRD requirements and Architecture decisions, ensuring architecture accounts for both PRD and UX needs.
## 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 UX VALIDATOR ensuring user experience is properly addressed
- ✅ UX requirements must be supported by architecture
- ✅ Missing UX documentation is a warning if UI is implied
- ✅ Alignment gaps must be documented
### Step-Specific Rules:
- 🎯 Check for UX document existence first
- 🚫 Don't assume UX is not needed
- 💬 Validate alignment between UX, PRD, and Architecture
- 🚪 Add findings to the output report
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
- 🎯 Search for UX documentation
- 💾 If found, validate alignment
- 📖 If not found, assess if UX is implied
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed without completing assessment
## UX ALIGNMENT PROCESS:
### 1. Initialize UX Validation
"Beginning **UX Alignment** validation.
I will:
1. Check if UX documentation exists
2. If UX exists: validate alignment with PRD and Architecture
3. If no UX: determine if UX is implied and document warning"
### 2. Search for UX Documentation
Search patterns:
- `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*.md` (whole document)
- `{planning_artifacts}/*ux*/index.md` (sharded)
- Look for UI-related terms in other documents
### 3. If UX Document Exists
#### A. UX ↔ PRD Alignment
- Check UX requirements reflected in PRD
- Verify user journeys in UX match PRD use cases
- Identify UX requirements not in PRD
#### B. UX ↔ Architecture Alignment
- Verify architecture supports UX requirements
- Check performance needs (responsiveness, load times)
- Identify UI components not supported by architecture
### 4. If No UX Document
Assess if UX/UI is implied:
- Does PRD mention user interface?
- Are there web/mobile components implied?
- Is this a user-facing application?
If UX implied but missing: Add warning to report
### 5. Add Findings to Report
Append to {outputFile}:
```markdown
## UX Alignment Assessment
### UX Document Status
[Found/Not Found]
### Alignment Issues
[List any misalignments between UX, PRD, and Architecture]
### Warnings
[Any warnings about missing UX or architectural gaps]
```
### 6. Auto-Proceed to Next Step
After UX assessment complete, immediately load next step.
## PROCEEDING TO EPIC QUALITY REVIEW
UX alignment assessment complete. Loading next step for epic quality review.
---
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
### ✅ SUCCESS:
- UX document existence checked
- Alignment validated if UX exists
- Warning issued if UX implied but missing
- Findings added to report
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
- Not checking for UX document
- Ignoring alignment issues
- Not documenting warnings

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
---
name: 'step-05-epic-quality-review'
description: 'Validate epics and stories against create-epics-and-stories best practices'
# Path Definitions
workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
# File References
thisStepFile: './step-05-epic-quality-review.md'
nextStepFile: './step-06-final-assessment.md'
workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
epicsBestPractices: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/create-epics-and-stories'
---
# Step 5: Epic Quality Review
## STEP GOAL:
To validate epics and stories against the best practices defined in create-epics-and-stories workflow, focusing on user value, independence, dependencies, and implementation readiness.
## 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 an EPIC QUALITY ENFORCER
- ✅ You know what good epics look like - challenge anything deviating
- ✅ Technical epics are wrong - find them
- ✅ Forward dependencies are forbidden - catch them
- ✅ Stories must be independently completable
### Step-Specific Rules:
- 🎯 Apply create-epics-and-stories standards rigorously
- 🚫 Don't accept "technical milestones" as epics
- 💬 Challenge every dependency on future work
- 🚪 Verify proper story sizing and structure
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
- 🎯 Systematically validate each epic and story
- 💾 Document all violations of best practices
- 📖 Check every dependency relationship
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to accept structural problems
## EPIC QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS:
### 1. Initialize Best Practices Validation
"Beginning **Epic Quality Review** against create-epics-and-stories standards.
I will rigorously validate:
- Epics deliver user value (not technical milestones)
- Epic independence (Epic 2 doesn't need Epic 3)
- Story dependencies (no forward references)
- Proper story sizing and completeness
Any deviation from best practices will be flagged as a defect."
### 2. Epic Structure Validation
#### A. User Value Focus Check
For each epic:
- **Epic Title:** Is it user-centric (what user can do)?
- **Epic Goal:** Does it describe user outcome?
- **Value Proposition:** Can users benefit from this epic alone?
**Red flags (violations):**
- "Setup Database" or "Create Models" - no user value
- "API Development" - technical milestone
- "Infrastructure Setup" - not user-facing
- "Authentication System" - borderline (is it user value?)
#### B. Epic Independence Validation
Test epic independence:
- **Epic 1:** Must stand alone completely
- **Epic 2:** Can function using only Epic 1 output
- **Epic 3:** Can function using Epic 1 & 2 outputs
- **Rule:** Epic N cannot require Epic N+1 to work
**Document failures:**
- "Epic 2 requires Epic 3 features to function"
- Stories in Epic 2 referencing Epic 3 components
- Circular dependencies between epics
### 3. Story Quality Assessment
#### A. Story Sizing Validation
Check each story:
- **Clear User Value:** Does the story deliver something meaningful?
- **Independent:** Can it be completed without future stories?
**Common violations:**
- "Setup all models" - not a USER story
- "Create login UI (depends on Story 1.3)" - forward dependency
#### B. Acceptance Criteria Review
For each story's ACs:
- **Given/When/Then Format:** Proper BDD structure?
- **Testable:** Each AC can be verified independently?
- **Complete:** Covers all scenarios including errors?
- **Specific:** Clear expected outcomes?
**Issues to find:**
- Vague criteria like "user can login"
- Missing error conditions
- Incomplete happy path
- Non-measurable outcomes
### 4. Dependency Analysis
#### A. Within-Epic Dependencies
Map story dependencies within each epic:
- Story 1.1 must be completable alone
- Story 1.2 can use Story 1.1 output
- Story 1.3 can use Story 1.1 & 1.2 outputs
**Critical violations:**
- "This story depends on Story 1.4"
- "Wait for future story to work"
- Stories referencing features not yet implemented
#### B. Database/Entity Creation Timing
Validate database creation approach:
- **Wrong:** Epic 1 Story 1 creates all tables upfront
- **Right:** Each story creates tables it needs
- **Check:** Are tables created only when first needed?
### 5. Special Implementation Checks
#### A. Starter Template Requirement
Check if Architecture specifies starter template:
- If YES: Epic 1 Story 1 must be "Set up initial project from starter template"
- Verify story includes cloning, dependencies, initial configuration
#### B. Greenfield vs Brownfield Indicators
Greenfield projects should have:
- Initial project setup story
- Development environment configuration
- CI/CD pipeline setup early
Brownfield projects should have:
- Integration points with existing systems
- Migration or compatibility stories
### 6. Best Practices Compliance Checklist
For each epic, verify:
- [ ] Epic delivers user value
- [ ] Epic can function independently
- [ ] Stories appropriately sized
- [ ] No forward dependencies
- [ ] Database tables created when needed
- [ ] Clear acceptance criteria
- [ ] Traceability to FRs maintained
### 7. Quality Assessment Documentation
Document all findings by severity:
#### 🔴 Critical Violations
- Technical epics with no user value
- Forward dependencies breaking independence
- Epic-sized stories that cannot be completed
#### 🟠 Major Issues
- Vague acceptance criteria
- Stories requiring future stories
- Database creation violations
#### 🟡 Minor Concerns
- Formatting inconsistencies
- Minor structure deviations
- Documentation gaps
### 8. Autonomous Review Execution
This review runs autonomously to maintain standards:
- Apply best practices without compromise
- Document every violation with specific examples
- Provide clear remediation guidance
- Prepare recommendations for each issue
## REVIEW COMPLETION:
After completing epic quality review:
- Update {outputFile} with all quality findings
- Document specific best practices violations
- Provide actionable recommendations
- Load {nextStepFile} for final readiness assessment
## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
This step executes autonomously. Load {nextStepFile} only after complete epic quality review is documented.
---
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
### ✅ SUCCESS:
- All epics validated against best practices
- Every dependency checked and verified
- Quality violations documented with examples
- Clear remediation guidance provided
- No compromise on standards enforcement
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
- Accepting technical epics as valid
- Ignoring forward dependencies
- Not verifying story sizing
- Overlooking obvious violations
**Master Rule:** Enforce best practices rigorously. Find all violations.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
---
name: 'step-06-final-assessment'
description: 'Compile final assessment and polish the readiness report'
# Path Definitions
workflow_path: '{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/implementation-readiness'
# File References
thisStepFile: './step-06-final-assessment.md'
workflowFile: '{workflow_path}/workflow.md'
outputFile: '{planning_artifacts}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md'
---
# Step 6: Final Assessment
## STEP GOAL:
To provide a comprehensive summary of all findings and give the report a final polish, ensuring clear recommendations and overall readiness status.
## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
### Universal Rules:
- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
- 📖 You are at the final step - complete the assessment
- 📋 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 delivering the FINAL ASSESSMENT
- ✅ Your findings are objective and backed by evidence
- ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations
- ✅ Success is measured by value of findings
### Step-Specific Rules:
- 🎯 Compile and summarize all findings
- 🚫 Don't soften the message - be direct
- 💬 Provide specific examples for problems
- 🚪 Add final section to the report
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
- 🎯 Review all findings from previous steps
- 💾 Add summary and recommendations
- 📖 Determine overall readiness status
- 🚫 Complete and present final report
## FINAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS:
### 1. Initialize Final Assessment
"Completing **Final Assessment**.
I will now:
1. Review all findings from previous steps
2. Provide a comprehensive summary
3. Add specific recommendations
4. Determine overall readiness status"
### 2. Review Previous Findings
Check the {outputFile} for sections added by previous steps:
- File and FR Validation findings
- UX Alignment issues
- Epic Quality violations
### 3. Add Final Assessment Section
Append to {outputFile}:
```markdown
## Summary and Recommendations
### Overall Readiness Status
[READY/NEEDS WORK/NOT READY]
### Critical Issues Requiring Immediate Action
[List most critical issues that must be addressed]
### Recommended Next Steps
1. [Specific action item 1]
2. [Specific action item 2]
3. [Specific action item 3]
### Final Note
This assessment identified [X] issues across [Y] categories. Address the critical issues before proceeding to implementation. These findings can be used to improve the artifacts or you may choose to proceed as-is.
```
### 4. Complete the Report
- Ensure all findings are clearly documented
- Verify recommendations are actionable
- Add date and assessor information
- Save the final report
### 5. Present Completion
Display:
"**Implementation Readiness Assessment Complete**
Report generated: {outputFile}
The assessment found [number] issues requiring attention. Review the detailed report for specific findings and recommendations."
## WORKFLOW COMPLETE
The implementation readiness workflow is now complete. The report contains all findings and recommendations for the user to consider.
---
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
### ✅ SUCCESS:
- All findings compiled and summarized
- Clear recommendations provided
- Readiness status determined
- Final report saved
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
- Not reviewing previous findings
- Incomplete summary
- No clear recommendations