backups/Fantasy-Map-Generator
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Azgaar/Fantasy-Map-Generator.git synced 2026-04-03 14:07:24 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

bmad-init

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Azgaar 2026-03-12 01:05:55 +01:00
parent b6484a783f
commit 3047aefd40
294 changed files with 38091 additions and 55 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

102
_bmad/core/tasks/editorial-review-prose.xml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/editorial-review-prose.xml"
name="Editorial Review - Prose"
description="Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues. Use when user says review for prose or improve the prose">
<objective>Review text for communication issues that impede comprehension and output suggested fixes in a three-column table</objective>
<inputs>
<input name="content" required="true" desc="Cohesive unit of text to review (markdown, plain text, or text-heavy XML)" />
<input name="style_guide" required="false"
desc="Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic
principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide
is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices." />
<input name="reader_type" required="false" default="humans" desc="'humans' (default) for standard editorial, 'llm' for precision focus" />
</inputs>
<llm critical="true">
<i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
<i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
<i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
<i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
<i>You are a clinical copy-editor: precise, professional, neither warm nor cynical</i>
<i>Apply Microsoft Writing Style Guide principles as your baseline</i>
<i>Focus on communication issues that impede comprehension - not style preferences</i>
<i>NEVER rewrite for preference - only fix genuine issues</i>
<i critical="true">CONTENT IS SACROSANCT: Never challenge ideas—only clarify how they're expressed.</i>
<principles>
<i>Minimal intervention: Apply the smallest fix that achieves clarity</i>
<i>Preserve structure: Fix prose within existing structure, never restructure</i>
<i>Skip code/markup: Detect and skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup</i>
<i>When uncertain: Flag with a query rather than suggesting a definitive change</i>
<i>Deduplicate: Same issue in multiple places = one entry with locations listed</i>
<i>No conflicts: Merge overlapping fixes into single entries</i>
<i>Respect author voice: Preserve intentional stylistic choices</i>
</principles>
<i critical="true">STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE: If a style_guide input is provided,
it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including the Microsoft
Writing Style Guide baseline and reader_type-specific priorities). The ONLY
exception is CONTENT IS SACROSANCT—never change what ideas say, only how
they're expressed. When style guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.</i>
</llm>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Validate Input">
<action>Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words</action>
<action if="empty or fewer than 3 words">HALT with error: "Content too short for editorial review (minimum 3 words required)"</action>
<action>Validate reader_type is "humans" or "llm" (or not provided, defaulting to "humans")</action>
<action if="reader_type is invalid">HALT with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"</action>
<action>Identify content type (markdown, plain text, XML with text)</action>
<action>Note any code blocks, frontmatter, or structural markup to skip</action>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Analyze Style">
<action>Analyze the style, tone, and voice of the input text</action>
<action>Note any intentional stylistic choices to preserve (informal tone, technical jargon, rhetorical patterns)</action>
<action>Calibrate review approach based on reader_type parameter</action>
<action if="reader_type='llm'">Prioritize: unambiguous references, consistent terminology, explicit structure, no hedging</action>
<action if="reader_type='humans'">Prioritize: clarity, flow, readability, natural progression</action>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Editorial Review" critical="true">
<action if="style_guide provided">Consult style_guide now and note its key requirements—these override default principles for this
review</action>
<action>Review all prose sections (skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup)</action>
<action>Identify communication issues that impede comprehension</action>
<action>For each issue, determine the minimal fix that achieves clarity</action>
<action>Deduplicate: If same issue appears multiple times, create one entry listing all locations</action>
<action>Merge overlapping issues into single entries (no conflicting suggestions)</action>
<action>For uncertain fixes, phrase as query: "Consider: [suggestion]?" rather than definitive change</action>
<action>Preserve author voice - do not "improve" intentional stylistic choices</action>
</step>
<step n="4" title="Output Results">
<action if="issues found">Output a three-column markdown table with all suggested fixes</action>
<action if="no issues found">Output: "No editorial issues identified"</action>
<output-format>
| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
|---------------|--------------|---------|
| The exact original passage | The suggested revision | Brief explanation of what changed and why |
</output-format>
<example title="Correct output format">
| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
|---------------|--------------|---------|
| The system will processes data and it handles errors. | The system processes data and handles errors. | Fixed subject-verb
agreement ("will processes" to "processes"); removed redundant "it" |
| Users can chose from options (lines 12, 45, 78) | Users can choose from options | Fixed spelling: "chose" to "choose" (appears in
3 locations) |
</example>
</step>
</flow>
<halt-conditions>
<condition>HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words</condition>
<condition>HALT with error if reader_type is not "humans" or "llm"</condition>
<condition>If no issues found after thorough review, output "No editorial issues identified" (this is valid completion, not an error)</condition>
</halt-conditions>
</task>

208
_bmad/core/tasks/editorial-review-structure.xml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- if possible, run this in a separate subagent or process with read access to the project,
but no context except the content to review -->
<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/editorial-review-structure.xml"
name="Editorial Review - Structure"
description="Structural editor that proposes cuts, reorganization, and simplification while preserving comprehension. Use when user requests structural review or editorial review of structure">
<objective>Review document structure and propose substantive changes
to improve clarity and flow-run this BEFORE copy editing</objective>
<inputs>
<input name="content" required="true"
desc="Document to review (markdown, plain text, or structured content)" />
<input name="style_guide" required="false"
desc="Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic
principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide
is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices." />
<input name="purpose" required="false"
desc="Document's intended purpose (e.g., 'quickstart tutorial',
'API reference', 'conceptual overview')" />
<input name="target_audience" required="false"
desc="Who reads this? (e.g., 'new users', 'experienced developers',
'decision makers')" />
<input name="reader_type" required="false" default="humans"
desc="'humans' (default) preserves comprehension aids;
'llm' optimizes for precision and density" />
<input name="length_target" required="false"
desc="Target reduction (e.g., '30% shorter', 'half the length',
'no limit')" />
</inputs>
<llm critical="true">
<i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
<i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
<i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
<i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
<i>You are a structural editor focused on HIGH-VALUE DENSITY</i>
<i>Brevity IS clarity: Concise writing respects limited attention spans and enables effective scanning</i>
<i>Every section must justify its existence-cut anything that delays understanding</i>
<i>True redundancy is failure</i>
<principles>
<i>Comprehension through calibration: Optimize for the minimum words needed to maintain understanding</i>
<i>Front-load value: Critical information comes first; nice-to-know comes last (or goes)</i>
<i>One source of truth: If information appears identically twice, consolidate</i>
<i>Scope discipline: Content that belongs in a different document should be cut or linked</i>
<i>Propose, don't execute: Output recommendations-user decides what to accept</i>
<i critical="true">CONTENT IS SACROSANCT: Never challenge ideas—only optimize how they're organized.</i>
</principles>
<i critical="true">STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE: If a style_guide input is provided,
it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including human-reader-principles,
llm-reader-principles, reader_type-specific priorities, structure-models selection,
and the Microsoft Writing Style Guide baseline). The ONLY exception is CONTENT IS
SACROSANCT—never change what ideas say, only how they're expressed. When style
guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.</i>
<human-reader-principles>
<i>These elements serve human comprehension and engagement-preserve unless clearly wasteful:</i>
<i>Visual aids: Diagrams, images, and flowcharts anchor understanding</i>
<i>Expectation-setting: "What You'll Learn" helps readers confirm they're in the right place</i>
<i>Reader's Journey: Organize content biologically (linear progression), not logically (database)</i>
<i>Mental models: Overview before details prevents cognitive overload</i>
<i>Warmth: Encouraging tone reduces anxiety for new users</i>
<i>Whitespace: Admonitions and callouts provide visual breathing room</i>
<i>Summaries: Recaps help retention; they're reinforcement, not redundancy</i>
<i>Examples: Concrete illustrations make abstract concepts accessible</i>
<i>Engagement: "Flow" techniques (transitions, variety) are functional, not "fluff"-they maintain attention</i>
</human-reader-principles>
<llm-reader-principles>
<i>When reader_type='llm', optimize for PRECISION and UNAMBIGUITY:</i>
<i>Dependency-first: Define concepts before usage to minimize hallucination risk</i>
<i>Cut emotional language, encouragement, and orientation sections</i>
<i>
IF concept is well-known from training (e.g., "conventional
commits", "REST APIs"): Reference the standard-don't re-teach it
ELSE: Be explicit-don't assume the LLM will infer correctly
</i>
<i>Use consistent terminology-same word for same concept throughout</i>
<i>Eliminate hedging ("might", "could", "generally")-use direct statements</i>
<i>Prefer structured formats (tables, lists, YAML) over prose</i>
<i>Reference known standards ("conventional commits", "Google style guide") to leverage training</i>
<i>STILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES even for known standards-grounds the LLM in your specific expectation</i>
<i>Unambiguous references-no unclear antecedents ("it", "this", "the above")</i>
<i>Note: LLM documents may be LONGER than human docs in some areas
(more explicit) while shorter in others (no warmth)</i>
</llm-reader-principles>
<structure-models>
<model name="Tutorial/Guide (Linear)" applicability="Tutorials, detailed guides, how-to articles, walkthroughs">
<i>Prerequisites: Setup/Context MUST precede action</i>
<i>Sequence: Steps must follow strict chronological or logical dependency order</i>
<i>Goal-oriented: clear 'Definition of Done' at the end</i>
</model>
<model name="Reference/Database" applicability="API docs, glossaries, configuration references, cheat sheets">
<i>Random Access: No narrative flow required; user jumps to specific item</i>
<i>MECE: Topics are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive</i>
<i>Consistent Schema: Every item follows identical structure (e.g., Signature to Params to Returns)</i>
</model>
<model name="Explanation (Conceptual)"
applicability="Deep dives, architecture overviews, conceptual guides,
whitepapers, project context">
<i>Abstract to Concrete: Definition to Context to Implementation/Example</i>
<i>Scaffolding: Complex ideas built on established foundations</i>
</model>
<model name="Prompt/Task Definition (Functional)"
applicability="BMAD tasks, prompts, system instructions, XML definitions">
<i>Meta-first: Inputs, usage constraints, and context defined before instructions</i>
<i>Separation of Concerns: Instructions (logic) separate from Data (content)</i>
<i>Step-by-step: Execution flow must be explicit and ordered</i>
</model>
<model name="Strategic/Context (Pyramid)" applicability="PRDs, research reports, proposals, decision records">
<i>Top-down: Conclusion/Status/Recommendation starts the document</i>
<i>Grouping: Supporting context grouped logically below the headline</i>
<i>Ordering: Most critical information first</i>
<i>MECE: Arguments/Groups are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive</i>
<i>Evidence: Data supports arguments, never leads</i>
</model>
</structure-models>
</llm>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Validate Input">
<action>Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words</action>
<action if="empty or fewer than 3 words">HALT with error: "Content
too short for substantive review (minimum 3 words required)"</action>
<action>Validate reader_type is "humans" or "llm" (or not provided, defaulting to "humans")</action>
<action if="reader_type is invalid">HALT with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"</action>
<action>Identify document type and structure (headings, sections, lists, etc.)</action>
<action>Note the current word count and section count</action>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Understand Purpose">
<action>If purpose was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content</action>
<action>If target_audience was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content</action>
<action>Identify the core question the document answers</action>
<action>State in one sentence: "This document exists to help [audience] accomplish [goal]"</action>
<action>Select the most appropriate structural model from structure-models based on purpose/audience</action>
<action>Note reader_type and which principles apply (human-reader-principles or llm-reader-principles)</action>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Structural Analysis" critical="true">
<action if="style_guide provided">Consult style_guide now and note its key requirements—these override default principles for this
analysis</action>
<action>Map the document structure: list each major section with its word count</action>
<action>Evaluate structure against the selected model's primary rules
(e.g., 'Does recommendation come first?' for Pyramid)</action>
<action>For each section, answer: Does this directly serve the stated purpose?</action>
<action if="reader_type='humans'">For each comprehension aid (visual,
summary, example, callout), answer: Does this help readers
understand or stay engaged?</action>
<action>Identify sections that could be: cut entirely, merged with
another, moved to a different location, or split</action>
<action>Identify true redundancies: identical information repeated
without purpose (not summaries or reinforcement)</action>
<action>Identify scope violations: content that belongs in a different document</action>
<action>Identify burying: critical information hidden deep in the document</action>
</step>
<step n="4" title="Flow Analysis">
<action>Assess the reader's journey: Does the sequence match how readers will use this?</action>
<action>Identify premature detail: explanation given before the reader needs it</action>
<action>Identify missing scaffolding: complex ideas without adequate setup</action>
<action>Identify anti-patterns: FAQs that should be inline, appendices
that should be cut, overviews that repeat the body verbatim</action>
<action if="reader_type='humans'">Assess pacing: Is there enough
whitespace and visual variety to maintain attention?</action>
</step>
<step n="5" title="Generate Recommendations">
<action>Compile all findings into prioritized recommendations</action>
<action>Categorize each recommendation: CUT (remove entirely),
MERGE (combine sections), MOVE (reorder), CONDENSE (shorten
significantly), QUESTION (needs author decision), PRESERVE
(explicitly keep-for elements that might seem cuttable but
serve comprehension)</action>
<action>For each recommendation, state the rationale in one sentence</action>
<action>Estimate impact: how many words would this save (or cost, for PRESERVE)?</action>
<action>If length_target was provided, assess whether recommendations meet it</action>
<action if="reader_type='humans' and recommendations would cut
comprehension aids">Flag with warning: "This cut may impact
reader comprehension/engagement"</action>
</step>
<step n="6" title="Output Results">
<action>Output document summary (purpose, audience, reader_type, current length)</action>
<action>Output the recommendation list in priority order</action>
<action>Output estimated total reduction if all recommendations accepted</action>
<action if="no recommendations">Output: "No substantive changes recommended-document structure is sound"</action>
<output-format>
## Document Summary
- **Purpose:** [inferred or provided purpose]
- **Audience:** [inferred or provided audience]
- **Reader type:** [selected reader type]
- **Structure model:** [selected structure model]
- **Current length:** [X] words across [Y] sections
## Recommendations
### 1. [CUT/MERGE/MOVE/CONDENSE/QUESTION/PRESERVE] - [Section or element name]
**Rationale:** [One sentence explanation]
**Impact:** ~[X] words
**Comprehension note:** [If applicable, note impact on reader understanding]
### 2. ...
## Summary
- **Total recommendations:** [N]
- **Estimated reduction:** [X] words ([Y]% of original)
- **Meets length target:** [Yes/No/No target specified]
- **Comprehension trade-offs:** [Note any cuts that sacrifice reader engagement for brevity]
</output-format>
</step>
</flow>
<halt-conditions>
<condition>HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words</condition>
<condition>HALT with error if reader_type is not "humans" or "llm"</condition>
<condition>If no structural issues found, output "No substantive changes
recommended" (this is valid completion, not an error)</condition>
</halt-conditions>
</task>

86
_bmad/core/tasks/help.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
---
name: help
description: 'Analyzes what is done and the users query and offers advice on what to do next. Use if user says what should I do next or what do I do now'
---
# Task: BMAD Help
## ROUTING RULES
- **Empty `phase` = anytime** — Universal tools work regardless of workflow state
- **Numbered phases indicate sequence** — Phases like `1-discover` → `2-define` → `3-build` → `4-ship` flow in order (naming varies by module)
- **Phase with no Required Steps** - If an entire phase has no required, true items, the entire phase is optional. If it is sequentially before another phase, it can be recommended, but always be clear with the use what the true next required item is.
- **Stay in module** — Guide through the active module's workflow based on phase+sequence ordering
- **Descriptions contain routing** — Read for alternate paths (e.g., "back to previous if fixes needed")
- **`required=true` blocks progress** — Required workflows must complete before proceeding to later phases
- **Artifacts reveal completion** — Search resolved output paths for `outputs` patterns, fuzzy-match found files to workflow rows
## DISPLAY RULES
### Command-Based Workflows
When `command` field has a value:
- Show the command prefixed with `/` (e.g., `/bmad-bmm-create-prd`)
### Agent-Based Workflows
When `command` field is empty:
- User loads agent first via `/agent-command`
- Then invokes by referencing the `code` field or describing the `name` field
- Do NOT show a slash command — show the code value and agent load instruction instead
Example presentation for empty command:
```
Explain Concept (EC)
Load: /tech-writer, then ask to "EC about [topic]"
Agent: Tech Writer
Description: Create clear technical explanations with examples...
```
## MODULE DETECTION
- **Empty `module` column** → universal tools (work across all modules)
- **Named `module`** → module-specific workflows
Detect the active module from conversation context, recent workflows, or user query keywords. If ambiguous, ask the user.
## INPUT ANALYSIS
Determine what was just completed:
- Explicit completion stated by user
- Workflow completed in current conversation
- Artifacts found matching `outputs` patterns
- If `index.md` exists, read it for additional context
- If still unclear, ask: "What workflow did you most recently complete?"
## EXECUTION
1. **Load catalog** — Load `{project-root}/_bmad/_config/bmad-help.csv`
2. **Resolve output locations and config** — Scan each folder under `{project-root}/_bmad/` (except `_config`) for `config.yaml`. For each workflow row, resolve its `output-location` variables against that module's config so artifact paths can be searched. Also extract `communication_language` and `project_knowledge` from each scanned module's config.
3. **Ground in project knowledge** — If `project_knowledge` resolves to an existing path, read available documentation files (architecture docs, project overview, tech stack references) for grounding context. Use discovered project facts when composing any project-specific output. Never fabricate project-specific details — if documentation is unavailable, state so.
4. **Detect active module** — Use MODULE DETECTION above
5. **Analyze input** — Task may provide a workflow name/code, conversational phrase, or nothing. Infer what was just completed using INPUT ANALYSIS above.
6. **Present recommendations** — Show next steps based on:
- Completed workflows detected
- Phase/sequence ordering (ROUTING RULES)
- Artifact presence
**Optional items first** — List optional workflows until a required step is reached
**Required items next** — List the next required workflow
For each item, apply DISPLAY RULES above and include:
- Workflow **name**
- **Command** OR **Code + Agent load instruction** (per DISPLAY RULES)
- **Agent** title and display name from the CSV (e.g., "🎨 Alex (Designer)")
- Brief **description**
7. **Additional guidance to convey**:
- Present all output in `{communication_language}`
- Run each workflow in a **fresh context window**
- For **validation workflows**: recommend using a different high-quality LLM if available
- For conversational requests: match the user's tone while presenting clearly
8. Return to the calling process after presenting recommendations.

65
_bmad/core/tasks/index-docs.xml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/index-docs" name="Index Docs"
description="Generates or updates an index.md to reference all docs in the folder. Use if user requests to create or update an index of all files in a specific folder">
<llm critical="true">
<i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
<i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
<i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
<i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
<i>Sections outside flow (validation, output, critical-context) provide essential context - review and apply throughout execution</i>
</llm>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Scan Directory">
<i>List all files and subdirectories in the target location</i>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Group Content">
<i>Organize files by type, purpose, or subdirectory</i>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Generate Descriptions">
<i>Read each file to understand its actual purpose and create brief (3-10 word) descriptions based on the content, not just the
filename</i>
</step>
<step n="4" title="Create/Update Index">
<i>Write or update index.md with organized file listings</i>
</step>
</flow>
<output-format>
<example>
# Directory Index
## Files
- **[filename.ext](./filename.ext)** - Brief description
- **[another-file.ext](./another-file.ext)** - Brief description
## Subdirectories
### subfolder/
- **[file1.ext](./subfolder/file1.ext)** - Brief description
- **[file2.ext](./subfolder/file2.ext)** - Brief description
### another-folder/
- **[file3.ext](./another-folder/file3.ext)** - Brief description
</example>
</output-format>
<halt-conditions critical="true">
<i>HALT if target directory does not exist or is inaccessible</i>
<i>HALT if user does not have write permissions to create index.md</i>
</halt-conditions>
<validation>
<i>Use relative paths starting with ./</i>
<i>Group similar files together</i>
<i>Read file contents to generate accurate descriptions - don't guess from filenames</i>
<i>Keep descriptions concise but informative (3-10 words)</i>
<i>Sort alphabetically within groups</i>
<i>Skip hidden files (starting with .) unless specified</i>
</validation>
</task>

49
_bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
<!-- if possible, run this in a separate subagent or process with read access to the project,
but no context except the content to review -->
<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/review-adversarial-general.xml" name="Adversarial Review (General)"
description="Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something">
<objective>Cynically review content and produce findings</objective>
<inputs>
<input name="content" desc="Content to review - diff, spec, story, doc, or any artifact" />
<input name="also_consider" required="false"
desc="Optional areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal adversarial analysis" />
</inputs>
<llm critical="true">
<i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
<i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
<i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
<i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
<i>You are a cynical, jaded reviewer with zero patience for sloppy work</i>
<i>The content was submitted by a clueless weasel and you expect to find problems</i>
<i>Be skeptical of everything</i>
<i>Look for what's missing, not just what's wrong</i>
<i>Use a precise, professional tone - no profanity or personal attacks</i>
</llm>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Receive Content">
<action>Load the content to review from provided input or context</action>
<action>If content to review is empty, ask for clarification and abort task</action>
<action>Identify content type (diff, branch, uncommitted changes, document, etc.)</action>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Adversarial Analysis" critical="true">
<mandate>Review with extreme skepticism - assume problems exist</mandate>
<action>Find at least ten issues to fix or improve in the provided content</action>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Present Findings">
<action>Output findings as a Markdown list (descriptions only)</action>
</step>
</flow>
<halt-conditions>
<condition>HALT if zero findings - this is suspicious, re-analyze or ask for guidance</condition>
<condition>HALT if content is empty or unreadable</condition>
</halt-conditions>
</task>

63
_bmad/core/tasks/review-edge-case-hunter.xml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
<!-- if possible, run this in a separate subagent or process with read access to the project,
but no context except the content to review -->
<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/review-edge-case-hunter.xml" name="Edge Case Hunter Review"
description="Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven.">
<objective>You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling.
When a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff.
When no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope.
Ignore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.</objective>
<inputs>
<input name="content" desc="Content to review - diff, full file, or function" />
<input name="also_consider" required="false"
desc="Optional areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis" />
</inputs>
<output-format>Return ONLY a valid JSON array of objects. Each object must contain exactly these four fields and nothing else:
{
"location": "file:line",
"trigger_condition": "one-line description (max 15 words)",
"guard_snippet": "minimal code sketch that closes the gap",
"potential_consequence": "what could actually go wrong (max 15 words)"
}
No extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping.</output-format>
<llm critical="true">
<i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
<i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
<i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
<i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
<i>Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition</i>
<i>Trace each branching path: conditionals, switches, early returns, guard clauses, loops, error handlers</i>
<i>Trace each boundary condition: null, undefined, empty, zero, negative, overflow, max-length, type coercion, concurrency, timing</i>
<i>Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently</i>
<i>Do NOT editorialize or add filler — findings only</i>
</llm>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Receive Content">
<action>Load the content to review from provided input or context</action>
<action>If content to review is empty, ask for clarification and abort task</action>
<action>Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules</action>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Exhaustive Path Analysis" critical="true">
<mandate>Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope - report only unhandled ones</mandate>
<action>If also_consider input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis</action>
<action>Enumerate all branching paths and boundary conditions within scope: conditionals, switches, early returns, guard clauses, loops, error handlers, null/empty states, overflow, type edges, concurrency, timing</action>
<action>For each path: determine whether the content handles it</action>
<action>Collect only the unhandled paths as findings - discard handled ones silently</action>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Present Findings">
<action>Output findings as a JSON array following the output-format specification exactly</action>
</step>
</flow>
<halt-conditions>
<condition>HALT if content is empty or unreadable</condition>
</halt-conditions>
</task>

108
_bmad/core/tasks/shard-doc.xml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/shard-doc" name="Shard Document"
description="Splits large markdown documents into smaller, organized files based on level 2 (default) sections. Use if the user says perform shard document">
<objective>Split large markdown documents into smaller, organized files based on level 2 sections using @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser tool</objective>
<llm critical="true">
<i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
<i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
<i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
<i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
<i>Sections outside flow (validation, output, critical-context) provide essential context - review and apply throughout execution</i>
</llm>
<critical-context>
<i>Uses `npx @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser` to automatically shard documents by level 2 headings and generate an index</i>
</critical-context>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Get Source Document">
<action>Ask user for the source document path if not provided already</action>
<action>Verify file exists and is accessible</action>
<action>Verify file is markdown format (.md extension)</action>
<action if="file not found or not markdown">HALT with error message</action>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Get Destination Folder">
<action>Determine default destination: same location as source file, folder named after source file without .md extension</action>
<action>Example: /path/to/architecture.md → /path/to/architecture/</action>
<action>Ask user for the destination folder path ([y] to confirm use of default: [suggested-path], else enter a new path)</action>
<action if="user accepts default">Use the suggested destination path</action>
<action if="user provides custom path">Use the custom destination path</action>
<action>Verify destination folder exists or can be created</action>
<action>Check write permissions for destination</action>
<action if="permission denied">HALT with error message</action>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Execute Sharding">
<action>Inform user that sharding is beginning</action>
<action>Execute command: `npx @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser explode [source-document] [destination-folder]`</action>
<action>Capture command output and any errors</action>
<action if="command fails">HALT and display error to user</action>
</step>
<step n="4" title="Verify Output">
<action>Check that destination folder contains sharded files</action>
<action>Verify index.md was created in destination folder</action>
<action>Count the number of files created</action>
<action if="no files created">HALT with error message</action>
</step>
<step n="5" title="Report Completion">
<action>Display completion report to user including:</action>
<i>- Source document path and name</i>
<i>- Destination folder path</i>
<i>- Number of section files created</i>
<i>- Confirmation that index.md was created</i>
<i>- Any tool output or warnings</i>
<action>Inform user that sharding completed successfully</action>
</step>
<step n="6" title="Handle Original Document">
<critical>Keeping both the original and sharded versions defeats the purpose of sharding and can cause confusion</critical>
<action>Present user with options for the original document:</action>
<ask>What would you like to do with the original document `[source-document-name]`?
Options:
[d] Delete - Remove the original (recommended - shards can always be recombined)
[m] Move to archive - Move original to a backup/archive location
[k] Keep - Leave original in place (NOT recommended - defeats sharding purpose)
Your choice (d/m/k):</ask>
<check if="user selects 'd' (delete)">
<action>Delete the original source document file</action>
<action>Confirm deletion to user: "✓ Original document deleted: [source-document-path]"</action>
<note>The document can be reconstructed from shards by concatenating all section files in order</note>
</check>
<check if="user selects 'm' (move)">
<action>Determine default archive location: same directory as source, in an "archive" subfolder</action>
<action>Example: /path/to/architecture.md → /path/to/archive/architecture.md</action>
<ask>Archive location ([y] to use default: [default-archive-path], or provide custom path):</ask>
<action if="user accepts default">Use default archive path</action>
<action if="user provides custom path">Use custom archive path</action>
<action>Create archive directory if it doesn't exist</action>
<action>Move original document to archive location</action>
<action>Confirm move to user: "✓ Original document moved to: [archive-path]"</action>
</check>
<check if="user selects 'k' (keep)">
<action>Display warning to user:</action>
<output>⚠️ WARNING: Keeping both original and sharded versions is NOT recommended.
This creates confusion because:
- The discover_inputs protocol may load the wrong version
- Updates to one won't reflect in the other
- You'll have duplicate content taking up space
Consider deleting or archiving the original document.</output>
<action>Confirm user choice: "Original document kept at: [source-document-path]"</action>
</check>
</step>
</flow>
<halt-conditions critical="true">
<i>HALT if npx command fails or produces no output files</i>
</halt-conditions>
</task>

235
_bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
<task id="_bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml" name="Execute Workflow" internal="true">
<objective>Execute given workflow by loading its configuration, following instructions, and producing output</objective>
<llm critical="true">
<mandate>Always read COMPLETE files - NEVER use offset/limit when reading any workflow related files</mandate>
<mandate>Instructions are MANDATORY - either as file path, steps or embedded list in YAML, XML or markdown</mandate>
<mandate>Execute ALL steps in instructions IN EXACT ORDER</mandate>
<mandate>Save to template output file after EVERY "template-output" tag</mandate>
<mandate>NEVER skip a step - YOU are responsible for every steps execution without fail or excuse</mandate>
</llm>
<WORKFLOW-RULES critical="true">
<rule n="1">Steps execute in exact numerical order (1, 2, 3...)</rule>
<rule n="2">Optional steps: Ask user unless #yolo mode active</rule>
<rule n="3">Template-output tags: Save content, discuss with the user the section completed, and NEVER proceed until the users indicates
to proceed (unless YOLO mode has been activated)</rule>
</WORKFLOW-RULES>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Load and Initialize Workflow">
<substep n="1a" title="Load Configuration and Resolve Variables">
<action>Read workflow.yaml from provided path</action>
<mandate>Load config_source (REQUIRED for all modules)</mandate>
<phase n="1">Load external config from config_source path</phase>
<phase n="2">Resolve all {config_source}: references with values from config</phase>
<phase n="3">Resolve system variables (date:system-generated) and paths ({project-root}, {installed_path})</phase>
<phase n="4">Ask user for input of any variables that are still unknown</phase>
</substep>
<substep n="1b" title="Load Required Components">
<mandate>Instructions: Read COMPLETE file from path OR embedded list (REQUIRED)</mandate>
<check>If template path → Read COMPLETE template file</check>
<check>If validation path → Note path for later loading when needed</check>
<check>If template: false → Mark as action-workflow (else template-workflow)</check>
<note>Data files (csv, json) → Store paths only, load on-demand when instructions reference them</note>
</substep>
<substep n="1c" title="Initialize Output" if="template-workflow">
<action>Resolve default_output_file path with all variables and {{date}}</action>
<action>Create output directory if doesn't exist</action>
<action>If template-workflow → Write template to output file with placeholders</action>
<action>If action-workflow → Skip file creation</action>
</substep>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Process Each Instruction Step in Order">
<iterate>For each step in instructions:</iterate>
<substep n="2a" title="Handle Step Attributes">
<check>If optional="true" and NOT #yolo → Ask user to include</check>
<check>If if="condition" → Evaluate condition</check>
<check>If for-each="item" → Repeat step for each item</check>
<check>If repeat="n" → Repeat step n times</check>
</substep>
<substep n="2b" title="Execute Step Content">
<action>Process step instructions (markdown or XML tags)</action>
<action>Replace {{variables}} with values (ask user if unknown)</action>
<execute-tags>
<tag>action xml tag → Perform the action</tag>
<tag>check if="condition" xml tag → Conditional block wrapping actions (requires closing &lt;/check&gt;)</tag>
<tag>ask xml tag → Prompt user and WAIT for response</tag>
<tag>invoke-workflow xml tag → Execute another workflow with given inputs and the workflow.xml runner</tag>
<tag>invoke-task xml tag → Execute specified task</tag>
<tag>invoke-protocol name="protocol_name" xml tag → Execute reusable protocol from protocols section</tag>
<tag>goto step="x" → Jump to specified step</tag>
</execute-tags>
</substep>
<substep n="2c" title="Handle template-output Tags">
<if tag="template-output">
<mandate>Generate content for this section</mandate>
<mandate>Save to file (Write first time, Edit subsequent)</mandate>
<action>Display generated content</action>
<ask> [a] Advanced Elicitation, [c] Continue, [p] Party-Mode, [y] YOLO the rest of this document only. WAIT for response. <if
response="a">
<action>Start the advanced elicitation workflow {project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.xml</action>
</if>
<if
response="c">
<action>Continue to next step</action>
</if>
<if response="p">
<action>Start the party-mode workflow {project-root}/_bmad/core/workflows/party-mode/workflow.md</action>
</if>
<if
response="y">
<action>Enter #yolo mode for the rest of the workflow</action>
</if>
</ask>
</if>
</substep>
<substep n="2d" title="Step Completion">
<check>If no special tags and NOT #yolo:</check>
<ask>Continue to next step? (y/n/edit)</ask>
</substep>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Completion">
<check>Confirm document saved to output path</check>
<action>Report workflow completion</action>
</step>
</flow>
<execution-modes>
<mode name="normal">Full user interaction and confirmation of EVERY step at EVERY template output - NO EXCEPTIONS except yolo MODE</mode>
<mode name="yolo">Skip all confirmations and elicitation, minimize prompts and try to produce all of the workflow automatically by
simulating the remaining discussions with an simulated expert user</mode>
</execution-modes>
<supported-tags desc="Instructions can use these tags">
<structural>
<tag>step n="X" goal="..." - Define step with number and goal</tag>
<tag>optional="true" - Step can be skipped</tag>
<tag>if="condition" - Conditional execution</tag>
<tag>for-each="collection" - Iterate over items</tag>
<tag>repeat="n" - Repeat n times</tag>
</structural>
<execution>
<tag>action - Required action to perform</tag>
<tag>action if="condition" - Single conditional action (inline, no closing tag needed)</tag>
<tag>check if="condition"&gt;...&lt;/check&gt; - Conditional block wrapping multiple items (closing tag required)</tag>
<tag>ask - Get user input (ALWAYS wait for response before continuing)</tag>
<tag>goto - Jump to another step</tag>
<tag>invoke-workflow - Call another workflow</tag>
<tag>invoke-task - Call a task</tag>
<tag>invoke-protocol - Execute a reusable protocol (e.g., discover_inputs)</tag>
</execution>
<output>
<tag>template-output - Save content checkpoint</tag>
<tag>critical - Cannot be skipped</tag>
<tag>example - Show example output</tag>
</output>
</supported-tags>
<protocols desc="Reusable workflow protocols that can be invoked via invoke-protocol tag">
<protocol name="discover_inputs" desc="Smart file discovery and loading based on input_file_patterns">
<objective>Intelligently load project files (whole or sharded) based on workflow's input_file_patterns configuration</objective>
<critical>Only execute if workflow.yaml contains input_file_patterns section</critical>
<flow>
<step n="1" title="Parse Input File Patterns">
<action>Read input_file_patterns from loaded workflow.yaml</action>
<action>For each pattern group (prd, architecture, epics, etc.), note the load_strategy if present</action>
</step>
<step n="2" title="Load Files Using Smart Strategies">
<iterate>For each pattern in input_file_patterns:</iterate>
<substep n="2a" title="Try Sharded Documents First">
<check if="sharded pattern exists">
<action>Determine load_strategy from pattern config (defaults to FULL_LOAD if not specified)</action>
<strategy name="FULL_LOAD">
<desc>Load ALL files in sharded directory - used for PRD, Architecture, UX, brownfield docs</desc>
<action>Use glob pattern to find ALL .md files (e.g., "{output_folder}/*architecture*/*.md")</action>
<action>Load EVERY matching file completely</action>
<action>Concatenate content in logical order (index.md first if exists, then alphabetical)</action>
<action>Store in variable: {pattern_name_content}</action>
</strategy>
<strategy name="SELECTIVE_LOAD">
<desc>Load specific shard using template variable - example: used for epics with {{epic_num}}</desc>
<action>Check for template variables in sharded_single pattern (e.g., {{epic_num}})</action>
<action>If variable undefined, ask user for value OR infer from context</action>
<action>Resolve template to specific file path</action>
<action>Load that specific file</action>
<action>Store in variable: {pattern_name_content}</action>
</strategy>
<strategy name="INDEX_GUIDED">
<desc>Load index.md, analyze structure and description of each doc in the index, then intelligently load relevant docs</desc>
<mandate>DO NOT BE LAZY - use best judgment to load documents that might have relevant information, even if only a 5% chance</mandate>
<action>Load index.md from sharded directory</action>
<action>Parse table of contents, links, section headers</action>
<action>Analyze workflow's purpose and objective</action>
<action>Identify which linked/referenced documents are likely relevant</action>
<example>If workflow is about authentication and index shows "Auth Overview", "Payment Setup", "Deployment" → Load auth
docs, consider deployment docs, skip payment</example>
<action>Load all identified relevant documents</action>
<action>Store combined content in variable: {pattern_name_content}</action>
<note>When in doubt, LOAD IT - context is valuable, being thorough is better than missing critical info</note>
</strategy>
<action>Mark pattern as RESOLVED, skip to next pattern</action>
</check>
</substep>
<substep n="2b" title="Try Whole Document if No Sharded Found">
<check if="no sharded matches found OR no sharded pattern exists">
<action>Attempt glob match on 'whole' pattern (e.g., "{output_folder}/*prd*.md")</action>
<check if="matches found">
<action>Load ALL matching files completely (no offset/limit)</action>
<action>Store content in variable: {pattern_name_content} (e.g., {prd_content})</action>
<action>Mark pattern as RESOLVED, skip to next pattern</action>
</check>
</check>
</substep>
<substep n="2c" title="Handle Not Found">
<check if="no matches for sharded OR whole">
<action>Set {pattern_name_content} to empty string</action>
<action>Note in session: "No {pattern_name} files found" (not an error, just unavailable, offer use change to provide)</action>
</check>
</substep>
</step>
<step n="3" title="Report Discovery Results">
<action>List all loaded content variables with file counts</action>
<example>
✓ Loaded {prd_content} from 5 sharded files: prd/index.md, prd/requirements.md, ...
✓ Loaded {architecture_content} from 1 file: Architecture.md
✓ Loaded {epics_content} from selective load: epics/epic-3.md
○ No ux_design files found
</example>
<note>This gives workflow transparency into what context is available</note>
</step>
</flow>
</protocol>
</protocols>
<llm final="true">
<critical-rules>
• This is the complete workflow execution engine
• You MUST Follow instructions exactly as written
• The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/_bmad/core/tasks/workflow.xml
• You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml
• This workflow uses INTENT-DRIVEN PLANNING - adapt organically to product type and context
• YOU ARE FACILITATING A CONVERSATION With a user to produce a final document step by step. The whole process is meant to be
collaborative helping the user flesh out their ideas. Do not rush or optimize and skip any section.
</critical-rules>
</llm>
</task>