bmad初始化

bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+# Implementation Ready Check Workflow
+
+## Overview
+
+The Implementation Ready Check workflow provides a systematic validation of all planning and solutioning artifacts before transitioning from Phase 3 (Solutioning) to Phase 4 (Implementation) in the BMad Method. This workflow ensures that PRDs, architecture documents, and story breakdowns are properly aligned with no critical gaps or contradictions.
+
+## Purpose
+
+This workflow is designed to:
+
+- **Validate Completeness**: Ensure all required planning documents exist and are complete
+- **Verify Alignment**: Check that PRD, architecture, and stories are cohesive and aligned
+- **Identify Gaps**: Detect missing stories, unaddressed requirements, or sequencing issues
+- **Assess Risks**: Find contradictions, conflicts, or potential implementation blockers
+- **Provide Confidence**: Give teams confidence that planning is solid before starting development
+
+## When to Use
+
+This workflow should be invoked:
+
+- At the end of Phase 3 (Solutioning) for Level 2-4 projects
+- Before beginning Phase 4 (Implementation)
+- After significant planning updates or architectural changes
+- When validating readiness for Level 0-1 projects (simplified validation)
+
+## Project Level Adaptations
+
+The workflow adapts its validation based on project level:
+
+### Level 0-1 Projects
+
+- Validates tech spec and simple stories only
+- Checks internal consistency and basic coverage
+- Lighter validation appropriate for simple projects
+
+### Level 2 Projects
+
+- Validates PRD, tech spec (with embedded architecture), and stories
+- Ensures PRD requirements are fully covered
+- Verifies technical approach aligns with business goals
+
+### Level 3-4 Projects
+
+- Full validation of PRD, architecture document, and comprehensive stories
+- Deep cross-reference checking across all artifacts
+- Validates architectural decisions don't introduce scope creep
+- Checks UX artifacts if applicable
+
+## How to Invoke
+
+### Via Scrum Master Agent
+
+```
+*solutioning-gate-check
+```
+
+### Direct Workflow Invocation
+
+```
+workflow solutioning-gate-check
+```
+
+## Expected Inputs
+
+The workflow will automatically search your project's output folder for:
+
+- Product Requirements Documents (PRD)
+- Architecture documents
+- Technical Specifications
+- Epic and Story breakdowns
+- UX artifacts (if applicable)
+
+No manual input file specification needed - the workflow discovers documents automatically.
+
+## Generated Output
+
+The workflow produces a comprehensive **Implementation Readiness Report** containing:
+
+1. **Executive Summary** - Overall readiness status
+2. **Document Inventory** - What was found and reviewed
+3. **Alignment Validation** - Cross-reference analysis results
+4. **Gap Analysis** - Missing items and risks identified
+5. **Findings by Severity** - Critical, High, Medium, Low issues
+6. **Recommendations** - Specific actions to address issues
+7. **Readiness Decision** - Ready, Ready with Conditions, or Not Ready
+
+Output Location: `{output_folder}/implementation-readiness-report-{date}.md`
+
+## Workflow Steps
+
+1. **Initialize** - Get current workflow status and project level
+2. **Document Discovery** - Find all planning artifacts
+3. **Deep Analysis** - Extract requirements, decisions, and stories
+4. **Cross-Reference Validation** - Check alignment between all documents
+5. **Gap and Risk Analysis** - Identify issues and conflicts
+6. **UX Validation** (optional) - Verify UX concerns are addressed
+7. **Generate Report** - Compile comprehensive readiness assessment
+8. **Status Update** (optional) - Offer to advance workflow to next phase
+
+## Validation Criteria
+
+The workflow uses systematic validation rules adapted to each project level:
+
+- **Document completeness and quality**
+- **Requirement to story traceability**
+- **Architecture to implementation alignment**
+- **Story sequencing and dependencies**
+- **Greenfield project setup coverage**
+- **Risk identification and mitigation**
+
+For projects using the new architecture workflow (decision-architecture.md), additional validations include:
+
+- **Implementation patterns defined for consistency**
+- **Technology versions verified and current**
+- **Starter template initialization as first story**
+- **UX specification alignment (if provided)**
+
+## Special Features
+
+### Intelligent Adaptation
+
+- Automatically adjusts validation based on project level
+- Recognizes when UX workflow is active
+- Handles greenfield vs. brownfield projects differently
+
+### Comprehensive Coverage
+
+- Validates not just presence but quality and alignment
+- Checks for both gaps and gold-plating
+- Ensures logical story sequencing
+
+### Actionable Output
+
+- Provides specific, actionable recommendations
+- Categorizes issues by severity
+- Includes positive findings and commendations
+
+## Integration with BMad Method
+
+This workflow integrates seamlessly with the BMad Method workflow system:
+
+- Uses workflow-status to understand project context
+- Can update workflow status to advance to next phase
+- Follows standard BMad document naming conventions
+- Searches standard output folders automatically
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+### Documents Not Found
+
+- Ensure documents are in the configured output folder
+- Check that document names follow BMad conventions
+- Verify workflow-status is properly configured
+
+### Validation Too Strict
+
+- The workflow adapts to project level automatically
+- Level 0-1 projects get lighter validation
+- Consider if your project level is set correctly
+
+### Report Too Long
+
+- Focus on Critical and High priority issues first
+- Use the executive summary for quick decisions
+- Review detailed findings only for areas of concern
+
+## Support
+
+For issues or questions about this workflow:
+
+- Consult the BMad Method documentation
+- Check the SM agent for workflow guidance
+- Review validation-criteria.yaml for detailed rules
+
+---
+
+_This workflow is part of the BMad Method v6-alpha suite of planning and solutioning tools_

bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+# Implementation Readiness Validation Checklist
+
+## Document Completeness
+
+### Core Planning Documents
+
+- [ ] PRD exists and is complete (Level 2-4 projects)
+- [ ] PRD contains measurable success criteria
+- [ ] PRD defines clear scope boundaries and exclusions
+- [ ] Architecture document exists (architecture\*.md) (Level 3-4 projects)
+- [ ] Technical Specification exists with implementation details
+- [ ] Epic and story breakdown document exists
+- [ ] All documents are dated and versioned
+
+### Document Quality
+
+- [ ] No placeholder sections remain in any document
+- [ ] All documents use consistent terminology
+- [ ] Technical decisions include rationale and trade-offs
+- [ ] Assumptions and risks are explicitly documented
+- [ ] Dependencies are clearly identified and documented
+
+## Alignment Verification
+
+### PRD to Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4)
+
+- [ ] Every functional requirement in PRD has architectural support documented
+- [ ] All non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture
+- [ ] Architecture doesn't introduce features beyond PRD scope
+- [ ] Performance requirements from PRD match architecture capabilities
+- [ ] Security requirements from PRD are fully addressed in architecture
+- [ ] If architecture.md: Implementation patterns are defined for consistency
+- [ ] If architecture.md: All technology choices have verified versions
+- [ ] If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements
+
+### PRD to Stories Coverage (Level 2-4)
+
+- [ ] Every PRD requirement maps to at least one story
+- [ ] All user journeys in PRD have complete story coverage
+- [ ] Story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
+- [ ] Priority levels in stories match PRD feature priorities
+- [ ] No stories exist without PRD requirement traceability
+
+### Architecture to Stories Implementation
+
+- [ ] All architectural components have implementation stories
+- [ ] Infrastructure setup stories exist for each architectural layer
+- [ ] Integration points defined in architecture have corresponding stories
+- [ ] Data migration/setup stories exist if required by architecture
+- [ ] Security implementation stories cover all architecture security decisions
+
+## Story and Sequencing Quality
+
+### Story Completeness
+
+- [ ] All stories have clear acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Technical tasks are defined within relevant stories
+- [ ] Stories include error handling and edge cases
+- [ ] Each story has clear definition of done
+- [ ] Stories are appropriately sized (no epic-level stories remaining)
+
+### Sequencing and Dependencies
+
+- [ ] Stories are sequenced in logical implementation order
+- [ ] Dependencies between stories are explicitly documented
+- [ ] No circular dependencies exist
+- [ ] Prerequisite technical tasks precede dependent stories
+- [ ] Foundation/infrastructure stories come before feature stories
+
+### Greenfield Project Specifics
+
+- [ ] Initial project setup and configuration stories exist
+- [ ] If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization command
+- [ ] Development environment setup is documented
+- [ ] CI/CD pipeline stories are included early in sequence
+- [ ] Database/storage initialization stories are properly placed
+- [ ] Authentication/authorization stories precede protected features
+
+## Risk and Gap Assessment
+
+### Critical Gaps
+
+- [ ] No core PRD requirements lack story coverage
+- [ ] No architectural decisions lack implementation stories
+- [ ] All integration points have implementation plans
+- [ ] Error handling strategy is defined and implemented
+- [ ] Security concerns are all addressed
+
+### Technical Risks
+
+- [ ] No conflicting technical approaches between stories
+- [ ] Technology choices are consistent across all documents
+- [ ] Performance requirements are achievable with chosen architecture
+- [ ] Scalability concerns are addressed if applicable
+- [ ] Third-party dependencies are identified with fallback plans
+
+## UX and Special Concerns (if applicable)
+
+### UX Coverage
+
+- [ ] UX requirements are documented in PRD
+- [ ] UX implementation tasks exist in relevant stories
+- [ ] Accessibility requirements have story coverage
+- [ ] Responsive design requirements are addressed
+- [ ] User flow continuity is maintained across stories
+
+### Special Considerations
+
+- [ ] Compliance requirements are fully addressed
+- [ ] Internationalization needs are covered if required
+- [ ] Performance benchmarks are defined and measurable
+- [ ] Monitoring and observability stories exist
+- [ ] Documentation stories are included where needed
+
+## Overall Readiness
+
+### Ready to Proceed Criteria
+
+- [ ] All critical issues have been resolved
+- [ ] High priority concerns have mitigation plans
+- [ ] Story sequencing supports iterative delivery
+- [ ] Team has necessary skills for implementation
+- [ ] No blocking dependencies remain unresolved
+
+### Quality Indicators
+
+- [ ] Documents demonstrate thorough analysis
+- [ ] Clear traceability exists across all artifacts
+- [ ] Consistent level of detail throughout documents
+- [ ] Risks are identified with mitigation strategies
+- [ ] Success criteria are measurable and achievable
+
+## Assessment Completion
+
+### Report Quality
+
+- [ ] All findings are supported by specific examples
+- [ ] Recommendations are actionable and specific
+- [ ] Severity levels are appropriately assigned
+- [ ] Positive findings are highlighted
+- [ ] Next steps are clearly defined
+
+### Process Validation
+
+- [ ] All expected documents were reviewed
+- [ ] Cross-references were systematically checked
+- [ ] Project level considerations were applied correctly
+- [ ] Workflow status was checked and considered
+- [ ] Output folder was thoroughly searched for artifacts
+
+---
+
+## Issue Log
+
+### Critical Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+### High Priority Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+### Medium Priority Issues Found
+
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+- [ ] ***
+
+---
+
+_Use this checklist to ensure comprehensive validation of implementation readiness_

bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/instructions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+# Implementation Ready Check - Workflow Instructions
+
+<critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
+<critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/workflow.yaml</critical>
+<critical>Communicate all findings and analysis in {communication_language} throughout the assessment</critical>
+
+<workflow>
+
+<step n="0" goal="Validate workflow readiness" tag="workflow-status">
+<action>Check if {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml exists</action>
+
+<check if="status file not found">
+  <output>No workflow status file found. Implementation Ready Check can run standalone or as part of BMM workflow path.</output>
+  <output>**Recommended:** Run `workflow-init` first for project context tracking and workflow sequencing.</output>
+  <ask>Continue in standalone mode or exit to run workflow-init? (continue/exit)</ask>
+  <check if="continue">
+    <action>Set standalone_mode = true</action>
+  </check>
+  <check if="exit">
+    <action>Exit workflow</action>
+  </check>
+</check>
+
+<check if="status file found">
+  <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
+  <action>Parse workflow_status section</action>
+  <action>Check status of "solutioning-gate-check" workflow</action>
+  <action>Get project_level from YAML metadata</action>
+  <action>Find first non-completed workflow (next expected workflow)</action>
+
+<action>Based on the project_level, understand what artifacts should exist: - Level 0-1: Tech spec and simple stories only (no PRD, minimal solutioning) - Level 2: PRD, tech spec, epics/stories (no separate architecture doc) - Level 3-4: Full suite - PRD, architecture document, epics/stories, possible UX artifacts
+</action>
+
+  <check if="solutioning-gate-check status is file path (already completed)">
+    <output>⚠️ Gate check already completed: {{solutioning-gate-check status}}</output>
+    <ask>Re-running will create a new validation report. Continue? (y/n)</ask>
+    <check if="n">
+      <output>Exiting. Use workflow-status to see your next step.</output>
+      <action>Exit workflow</action>
+    </check>
+  </check>
+
+  <check if="solutioning-gate-check is not the next expected workflow">
+    <output>⚠️ Next expected workflow: {{next_workflow}}. Gate check is out of sequence.</output>
+    <ask>Continue with gate check anyway? (y/n)</ask>
+    <check if="n">
+      <output>Exiting. Run {{next_workflow}} instead.</output>
+      <action>Exit workflow</action>
+    </check>
+  </check>
+
+<action>Set standalone_mode = false</action>
+</check>
+
+<critical>The validation approach must adapt to the project level - don't look for documents that shouldn't exist at lower levels</critical>
+
+<template-output>project_context</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="1" goal="Discover and inventory project artifacts">
+<action>Search the {output_folder} for relevant planning and solutioning documents based on project level identified in Step 0</action>
+
+<action>For Level 0-1 projects, locate:
+
+- Technical specification document(s)
+- Story/task lists or simple epic breakdowns
+- Any API or interface definitions
+  </action>
+
+<action>For Level 2-4 projects, locate:
+
+- Product Requirements Document (PRD)
+- Architecture document (architecture.md) (Level 3-4 only)
+- Technical Specification (Level 2 includes architecture within)
+- Epic and story breakdowns
+- UX artifacts if the active path includes UX workflow
+- Any supplementary planning documents
+  </action>
+
+<action>Create an inventory of found documents with:
+
+- Document type and purpose
+- File path and last modified date
+- Brief description of what each contains
+- Any missing expected documents flagged as potential issues
+  </action>
+
+<template-output>document_inventory</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="2" goal="Deep analysis of core planning documents">
+<action>Load and thoroughly analyze each discovered document to extract:
+- Core requirements and success criteria
+- Architectural decisions and constraints
+- Technical implementation approaches
+- User stories and acceptance criteria
+- Dependencies and sequencing requirements
+- Any assumptions or risks documented
+</action>
+
+<action>For PRD analysis (Level 2-4), focus on:
+
+- User requirements and use cases
+- Functional and non-functional requirements
+- Success metrics and acceptance criteria
+- Scope boundaries and explicitly excluded items
+- Priority levels for different features
+  </action>
+
+<action>For Architecture/Tech Spec analysis, focus on:
+
+- System design decisions and rationale
+- Technology stack and framework choices
+- Integration points and APIs
+- Data models and storage decisions
+- Security and performance considerations
+- Any architectural constraints that might affect story implementation
+  </action>
+
+<action>For Epic/Story analysis, focus on:
+
+- Coverage of PRD requirements
+- Story sequencing and dependencies
+- Acceptance criteria completeness
+- Technical tasks within stories
+- Estimated complexity and effort indicators
+  </action>
+
+<template-output>document_analysis</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="3" goal="Cross-reference validation and alignment check">
+<action>Systematically validate alignment between all artifacts, adapting validation based on project level</action>
+
+<action>PRD ↔ Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4):
+
+- Verify every PRD requirement has corresponding architectural support
+- Check that architectural decisions don't contradict PRD constraints
+- Identify any architectural additions beyond PRD scope (potential gold-plating)
+- Ensure non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture document
+- If using new architecture workflow: verify implementation patterns are defined
+  </action>
+
+<action>PRD ↔ Stories Coverage (Level 2-4):
+
+- Map each PRD requirement to implementing stories
+- Identify any PRD requirements without story coverage
+- Find stories that don't trace back to PRD requirements
+- Validate that story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
+  </action>
+
+<action>Architecture ↔ Stories Implementation Check:
+
+- Verify architectural decisions are reflected in relevant stories
+- Check that story technical tasks align with architectural approach
+- Identify any stories that might violate architectural constraints
+- Ensure infrastructure and setup stories exist for architectural components
+  </action>
+
+<action>For Level 0-1 projects (Tech Spec only):
+
+- Validate internal consistency within tech spec
+- Check that all specified features have corresponding stories
+- Verify story sequencing matches technical dependencies
+  </action>
+
+<template-output>alignment_validation</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="4" goal="Gap and risk analysis">
+<action>Identify and categorize all gaps, risks, and potential issues discovered during validation</action>
+
+<action>Check for Critical Gaps:
+
+- Missing stories for core requirements
+- Unaddressed architectural concerns
+- Absent infrastructure or setup stories for greenfield projects
+- Missing error handling or edge case coverage
+- Security or compliance requirements not addressed
+  </action>
+
+<action>Identify Sequencing Issues:
+
+- Dependencies not properly ordered
+- Stories that assume components not yet built
+- Parallel work that should be sequential
+- Missing prerequisite technical tasks
+  </action>
+
+<action>Detect Potential Contradictions:
+
+- Conflicts between PRD and architecture approaches
+- Stories with conflicting technical approaches
+- Acceptance criteria that contradict requirements
+- Resource or technology conflicts
+  </action>
+
+<action>Find Gold-Plating and Scope Creep:
+
+- Features in architecture not required by PRD
+- Stories implementing beyond requirements
+- Technical complexity beyond project needs
+- Over-engineering indicators
+  </action>
+
+<template-output>gap_risk_analysis</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="5" goal="UX and special concerns validation" optional="true">
+<check if="UX artifacts exist or UX workflow in active path">
+<action>Review UX artifacts and validate integration:
+- Check that UX requirements are reflected in PRD
+- Verify stories include UX implementation tasks
+- Ensure architecture supports UX requirements (performance, responsiveness)
+- Identify any UX concerns not addressed in stories
+</action>
+
+<action>Validate accessibility and usability coverage:
+
+- Check for accessibility requirement coverage in stories
+- Verify responsive design considerations if applicable
+- Ensure user flow completeness across stories
+  </action>
+  </check>
+
+<template-output>ux_validation</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="6" goal="Generate comprehensive readiness assessment">
+<action>Compile all findings into a structured readiness report with:
+- Executive summary of readiness status
+- Project context and validation scope
+- Document inventory and coverage assessment
+- Detailed findings organized by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
+- Specific recommendations for each issue
+- Overall readiness recommendation (Ready, Ready with Conditions, Not Ready)
+</action>
+
+<action>Provide actionable next steps:
+
+- List any critical issues that must be resolved
+- Suggest specific document updates needed
+- Recommend additional stories or tasks required
+- Propose sequencing adjustments if needed
+  </action>
+
+<action>Include positive findings:
+
+- Highlight well-aligned areas
+- Note particularly thorough documentation
+- Recognize good architectural decisions
+- Commend comprehensive story coverage where found
+  </action>
+
+<template-output>readiness_assessment</template-output>
+</step>
+
+<step n="7" goal="Update status and complete" tag="workflow-status">
+<check if="standalone_mode != true">
+  <action>Load the FULL file: {output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml</action>
+  <action>Find workflow_status key "solutioning-gate-check"</action>
+  <critical>ONLY write the file path as the status value - no other text, notes, or metadata</critical>
+  <action>Update workflow_status["solutioning-gate-check"] = "{output_folder}/bmm-readiness-assessment-{{date}}.md"</action>
+  <action>Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS</action>
+
+<action>Find first non-completed workflow in workflow_status (next workflow to do)</action>
+<action>Determine next agent from path file based on next workflow</action>
+</check>
+
+<output>**✅ Implementation Ready Check Complete!**
+
+**Assessment Report:**
+
+- Readiness assessment saved to: {output_folder}/bmm-readiness-assessment-{{date}}.md
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+**Status Updated:**
+
+- Progress tracking updated: solutioning-gate-check marked complete
+- Next workflow: {{next_workflow}}
+  {{else}}
+  **Note:** Running in standalone mode (no progress tracking)
+  {{/if}}
+
+**Next Steps:**
+
+{{#if standalone_mode != true}}
+
+- **Next workflow:** {{next_workflow}} ({{next_agent}} agent)
+- Review the assessment report and address any critical issues before proceeding
+
+Check status anytime with: `workflow-status`
+{{else}}
+Since no workflow is in progress:
+
+- Refer to the BMM workflow guide if unsure what to do next
+- Or run `workflow-init` to create a workflow path and get guided next steps
+  {{/if}}
+  </output>
+
+<template-output>status_update_result</template-output>
+</step>
+
+</workflow>

bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+# Implementation Readiness Assessment Report
+
+**Date:** {{date}}
+**Project:** {{project_name}}
+**Assessed By:** {{user_name}}
+**Assessment Type:** Phase 3 to Phase 4 Transition Validation
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+{{readiness_assessment}}
+
+---
+
+## Project Context
+
+{{project_context}}
+
+---
+
+## Document Inventory
+
+### Documents Reviewed
+
+{{document_inventory}}
+
+### Document Analysis Summary
+
+{{document_analysis}}
+
+---
+
+## Alignment Validation Results
+
+### Cross-Reference Analysis
+
+{{alignment_validation}}
+
+---
+
+## Gap and Risk Analysis
+
+### Critical Findings
+
+{{gap_risk_analysis}}
+
+---
+
+## UX and Special Concerns
+
+{{ux_validation}}
+
+---
+
+## Detailed Findings
+
+### 🔴 Critical Issues
+
+_Must be resolved before proceeding to implementation_
+
+{{critical_issues}}
+
+### 🟠 High Priority Concerns
+
+_Should be addressed to reduce implementation risk_
+
+{{high_priority_concerns}}
+
+### 🟡 Medium Priority Observations
+
+_Consider addressing for smoother implementation_
+
+{{medium_priority_observations}}
+
+### 🟢 Low Priority Notes
+
+_Minor items for consideration_
+
+{{low_priority_notes}}
+
+---
+
+## Positive Findings
+
+### ✅ Well-Executed Areas
+
+{{positive_findings}}
+
+---
+
+## Recommendations
+
+### Immediate Actions Required
+
+{{immediate_actions}}
+
+### Suggested Improvements
+
+{{suggested_improvements}}
+
+### Sequencing Adjustments
+
+{{sequencing_adjustments}}
+
+---
+
+## Readiness Decision
+
+### Overall Assessment: {{overall_readiness_status}}
+
+{{readiness_rationale}}
+
+### Conditions for Proceeding (if applicable)
+
+{{conditions_for_proceeding}}
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+{{recommended_next_steps}}
+
+### Workflow Status Update
+
+{{status_update_result}}
+
+---
+
+## Appendices
+
+### A. Validation Criteria Applied
+
+{{validation_criteria_used}}
+
+### B. Traceability Matrix
+
+{{traceability_matrix}}
+
+### C. Risk Mitigation Strategies
+
+{{risk_mitigation_strategies}}
+
+---
+
+_This readiness assessment was generated using the BMad Method Implementation Ready Check workflow (v6-alpha)_

bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/validation-criteria.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+# Implementation Readiness Validation Criteria
+# Defines systematic validation rules by project level
+
+validation_rules:
+  # Level 0-1 Projects (Simple, minimal planning)
+  level_0_1:
+    required_documents:
+      - tech_spec
+      - stories_or_tasks
+
+    validations:
+      - name: "Tech Spec Completeness"
+        checks:
+          - "All features defined with implementation approach"
+          - "Technical dependencies identified"
+          - "API contracts defined if applicable"
+          - "Data models specified"
+
+      - name: "Story Coverage"
+        checks:
+          - "All tech spec features have corresponding stories"
+          - "Stories are sequenced logically"
+          - "Technical tasks are defined"
+          - "No critical gaps in coverage"
+
+  # Level 2 Projects (PRD + Tech Spec, no separate architecture)
+  level_2:
+    required_documents:
+      - prd
+      - tech_spec # Includes architecture decisions
+      - epics_and_stories
+
+    validations:
+      - name: "PRD to Tech Spec Alignment"
+        checks:
+          - "All PRD requirements addressed in tech spec"
+          - "Architecture embedded in tech spec covers PRD needs"
+          - "Non-functional requirements are specified"
+          - "Technical approach supports business goals"
+
+      - name: "Story Coverage and Alignment"
+        checks:
+          - "Every PRD requirement has story coverage"
+          - "Stories align with tech spec approach"
+          - "Epic breakdown is complete"
+          - "Acceptance criteria match PRD success criteria"
+
+      - name: "Sequencing Validation"
+        checks:
+          - "Foundation stories come first"
+          - "Dependencies are properly ordered"
+          - "Iterative delivery is possible"
+          - "No circular dependencies"
+
+  # Level 3-4 Projects (Full planning with separate architecture)
+  level_3_4:
+    required_documents:
+      - prd
+      - architecture
+      - epics_and_stories
+
+    validations:
+      - name: "PRD Completeness"
+        checks:
+          - "User requirements fully documented"
+          - "Success criteria are measurable"
+          - "Scope boundaries clearly defined"
+          - "Priorities are assigned"
+
+      - name: "Architecture Coverage"
+        checks:
+          - "All PRD requirements have architectural support"
+          - "System design is complete"
+          - "Integration points defined"
+          - "Security architecture specified"
+          - "Performance considerations addressed"
+          - "If architecture.md: Implementation patterns defined"
+          - "If architecture.md: Technology versions verified and current"
+          - "If architecture.md: Starter template command documented (if applicable)"
+
+      - name: "PRD-Architecture Alignment"
+        checks:
+          - "No architecture gold-plating beyond PRD"
+          - "NFRs from PRD reflected in architecture"
+          - "Technology choices support requirements"
+          - "Scalability matches expected growth"
+          - "If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements"
+          - "If UX spec exists: Component library supports interaction patterns"
+
+      - name: "Story Implementation Coverage"
+        checks:
+          - "All architectural components have stories"
+          - "Infrastructure setup stories exist"
+          - "Integration implementation planned"
+          - "Security implementation stories present"
+
+      - name: "Comprehensive Sequencing"
+        checks:
+          - "Infrastructure before features"
+          - "Authentication before protected resources"
+          - "Core features before enhancements"
+          - "Dependencies properly ordered"
+          - "Allows for iterative releases"
+
+# Special validation contexts
+special_contexts:
+  greenfield:
+    additional_checks:
+      - "Project initialization stories exist"
+      - "If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization"
+      - "Development environment setup documented"
+      - "CI/CD pipeline stories included"
+      - "Initial data/schema setup planned"
+      - "Deployment infrastructure stories present"
+
+  ux_workflow_active:
+    additional_checks:
+      - "UX requirements in PRD"
+      - "UX implementation stories exist"
+      - "Accessibility requirements covered"
+      - "Responsive design addressed"
+      - "User flow continuity maintained"
+
+  api_heavy:
+    additional_checks:
+      - "API contracts fully defined"
+      - "Versioning strategy documented"
+      - "Authentication/authorization specified"
+      - "Rate limiting considered"
+      - "API documentation stories included"
+
+# Severity definitions
+severity_levels:
+  critical:
+    description: "Must be resolved before implementation"
+    examples:
+      - "Missing stories for core requirements"
+      - "Conflicting technical approaches"
+      - "No infrastructure setup for greenfield"
+      - "Security requirements not addressed"
+
+  high:
+    description: "Should be addressed to reduce risk"
+    examples:
+      - "Incomplete acceptance criteria"
+      - "Unclear story dependencies"
+      - "Missing error handling coverage"
+      - "Performance requirements not validated"
+
+  medium:
+    description: "Consider addressing for smoother implementation"
+    examples:
+      - "Documentation gaps"
+      - "Test strategy not defined"
+      - "Monitoring approach unclear"
+      - "Minor sequencing improvements possible"
+
+  low:
+    description: "Minor improvements for consideration"
+    examples:
+      - "Formatting inconsistencies"
+      - "Optional enhancements identified"
+      - "Style guide compliance"
+      - "Nice-to-have features noted"
+
+# Readiness decision criteria
+readiness_decisions:
+  ready:
+    criteria:
+      - "No critical issues found"
+      - "All required documents present"
+      - "Core alignments validated"
+      - "Story sequencing logical"
+      - "Team can begin implementation"
+
+  ready_with_conditions:
+    criteria:
+      - "Only high/medium issues found"
+      - "Mitigation plans identified"
+      - "Core path to MVP clear"
+      - "Issues won't block initial stories"
+
+  not_ready:
+    criteria:
+      - "Critical issues identified"
+      - "Major gaps in coverage"
+      - "Conflicting approaches found"
+      - "Required documents missing"
+      - "Blocking dependencies unresolved"

bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Implementation Ready Check - Workflow Configuration
+name: solutioning-gate-check
+description: "Systematically validate that all planning and solutioning phases are complete and properly aligned before transitioning to Phase 4 implementation. Ensures PRD, architecture, and stories are cohesive with no gaps or contradictions."
+author: "BMad Builder"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Workflow status integration
+workflow_status_workflow: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/workflow-status/workflow.yaml"
+workflow_paths_dir: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/workflow-status/paths"
+
+# Module path and component files
+installed_path: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check"
+template: "{installed_path}/template.md"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+
+# Output configuration
+default_output_file: "{output_folder}/implementation-readiness-report-{{date}}.md"
+
+# Expected input documents (varies by project level)
+recommended_inputs:
+  - prd: "{output_folder}/prd*.md"
+  - architecture: "{output_folder}/architecture*.md or {output_folder}/architecture*.md"
+  - tech_spec: "{output_folder}/tech-spec*.md"
+  - epics_stories: "{output_folder}/epic*.md"
+  - ux_artifacts: "{output_folder}/ux*.md"
+
+# Validation criteria data
+validation_criteria: "{installed_path}/validation-criteria.yaml"
+
+standalone: true