hash file change checking integrated
This commit is contained in:
Brian Madison
@@ -1,661 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Solution Architecture Workflow Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
This workflow generates scale-adaptive solution architecture documentation that replaces the legacy HLA workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
```xml
|
||||
<workflow name="solution-architecture">
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="0" goal="Load project analysis, validate prerequisites, and scale assessment">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
1. Read project-workflow-analysis.md:
|
||||
Path: {{project_workflow_analysis_path}}
|
||||
|
||||
2. Extract:
|
||||
- project_level: {{0|1|2|3|4}}
|
||||
- field_type: {{greenfield|brownfield}}
|
||||
- project_type: {{web|mobile|embedded|game|library}}
|
||||
- has_user_interface: {{true|false}}
|
||||
- ui_complexity: {{none|simple|moderate|complex}}
|
||||
- ux_spec_path: /docs/ux-spec.md (if exists)
|
||||
- prd_status: {{complete|incomplete}}
|
||||
|
||||
3. Validate Prerequisites (BLOCKING):
|
||||
|
||||
Check 1: PRD complete?
|
||||
IF prd_status != complete:
|
||||
❌ STOP WORKFLOW
|
||||
Output: "PRD is required before solution architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRED: Complete PRD with FRs, NFRs, epics, and stories.
|
||||
|
||||
Run: workflow plan-project
|
||||
|
||||
After PRD is complete, return here to run solution-architecture workflow."
|
||||
END
|
||||
|
||||
Check 2: UX Spec complete (if UI project)?
|
||||
IF has_user_interface == true AND ux_spec_missing:
|
||||
❌ STOP WORKFLOW
|
||||
Output: "UX Spec is required before solution architecture for UI projects.
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRED: Complete UX specification before proceeding.
|
||||
|
||||
Run: workflow ux-spec
|
||||
|
||||
The UX spec will define:
|
||||
- Screen/page structure
|
||||
- Navigation flows
|
||||
- Key user journeys
|
||||
- UI/UX patterns and components
|
||||
- Responsive requirements
|
||||
- Accessibility requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Once complete, the UX spec will inform:
|
||||
- Frontend architecture and component structure
|
||||
- API design (driven by screen data needs)
|
||||
- State management strategy
|
||||
- Technology choices (component libraries, animation, etc.)
|
||||
- Performance requirements (lazy loading, code splitting)
|
||||
|
||||
After UX spec is complete at /docs/ux-spec.md, return here to run solution-architecture workflow."
|
||||
END
|
||||
|
||||
Check 3: All prerequisites met?
|
||||
IF all prerequisites met:
|
||||
✅ Prerequisites validated
|
||||
- PRD: complete
|
||||
- UX Spec: {{complete | not_applicable}}
|
||||
Proceeding with solution architecture workflow...
|
||||
|
||||
4. Determine workflow path:
|
||||
IF project_level == 0:
|
||||
- Skip solution architecture entirely
|
||||
- Output: "Level 0 project - validate/update tech-spec.md only"
|
||||
- STOP WORKFLOW
|
||||
ELSE:
|
||||
- Proceed with full solution architecture workflow
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
<template-output>prerequisites_and_scale_assessment</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="1" goal="Deep requirements document and spec analysis">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
1. Determine requirements document type based on project_type:
|
||||
- IF project_type == "game":
|
||||
Primary Doc: Game Design Document (GDD)
|
||||
Path: {{gdd_path}} OR {{prd_path}}/GDD.md
|
||||
- ELSE:
|
||||
Primary Doc: Product Requirements Document (PRD)
|
||||
Path: {{prd_path}}
|
||||
|
||||
2. Read primary requirements document:
|
||||
Read: {{determined_path}}
|
||||
|
||||
Extract based on document type:
|
||||
|
||||
IF GDD (Game):
|
||||
- Game concept and genre
|
||||
- Core gameplay mechanics
|
||||
- Player progression systems
|
||||
- Game world/levels/scenes
|
||||
- Characters and entities
|
||||
- Win/loss conditions
|
||||
- Game modes (single-player, multiplayer, etc.)
|
||||
- Technical requirements (platform, performance targets)
|
||||
- Art/audio direction
|
||||
- Monetization (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
IF PRD (Non-Game):
|
||||
- All Functional Requirements (FRs)
|
||||
- All Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)
|
||||
- All Epics with user stories
|
||||
- Technical constraints mentioned
|
||||
- Integrations required (payments, email, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
3. Read UX Spec (if project has UI):
|
||||
IF has_user_interface == true:
|
||||
Read: {{ux_spec_path}}
|
||||
|
||||
Extract:
|
||||
- All screens/pages (list every screen defined)
|
||||
- Navigation structure (how screens connect, patterns)
|
||||
- Key user flows (auth, onboarding, checkout, core features)
|
||||
- UI complexity indicators:
|
||||
* Complex wizards/multi-step forms
|
||||
* Real-time updates/dashboards
|
||||
* Complex state machines
|
||||
* Rich interactions (drag-drop, animations)
|
||||
* Infinite scroll, virtualization needs
|
||||
- Component patterns (from design system/wireframes)
|
||||
- Responsive requirements (mobile-first, desktop-first, adaptive)
|
||||
- Accessibility requirements (WCAG level, screen reader support)
|
||||
- Design system/tokens (colors, typography, spacing if specified)
|
||||
- Performance requirements (page load times, frame rates)
|
||||
|
||||
4. Cross-reference requirements + specs:
|
||||
IF GDD + UX Spec (game with UI):
|
||||
- Each gameplay mechanic should have UI representation
|
||||
- Each scene/level should have visual design
|
||||
- Player controls mapped to UI elements
|
||||
|
||||
IF PRD + UX Spec (non-game):
|
||||
- Each epic should have corresponding screens/flows in UX spec
|
||||
- Each screen should support epic stories
|
||||
- FRs should have UI manifestation (where applicable)
|
||||
- NFRs (performance, accessibility) should inform UX patterns
|
||||
- Identify gaps: Epics without screens, screens without epic mapping
|
||||
|
||||
5. Detect characteristics:
|
||||
- Project type(s): web, mobile, embedded, game, library, desktop
|
||||
- UI complexity: simple (CRUD) | moderate (dashboards) | complex (wizards/real-time)
|
||||
- Architecture style hints: monolith, microservices, modular, etc.
|
||||
- Repository strategy hints: monorepo, polyrepo, hybrid
|
||||
- Special needs: real-time, event-driven, batch, offline-first
|
||||
|
||||
6. Identify what's already specified vs. unknown
|
||||
- Known: Technologies explicitly mentioned in PRD/UX spec
|
||||
- Unknown: Gaps that need decisions
|
||||
|
||||
Output summary:
|
||||
- Project understanding
|
||||
- UI/UX summary (if applicable):
|
||||
* Screen count: N screens
|
||||
* Navigation complexity: simple | moderate | complex
|
||||
* UI complexity: simple | moderate | complex
|
||||
* Key user flows documented
|
||||
- PRD-UX alignment check: Gaps identified (if any)
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
<template-output>prd_and_ux_analysis</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="2" goal="User skill level and preference clarification">
|
||||
<ask>
|
||||
What's your experience level with {{project_type}} development?
|
||||
|
||||
1. Beginner - Need detailed explanations and guidance
|
||||
2. Intermediate - Some explanations helpful
|
||||
3. Expert - Concise output, minimal explanations
|
||||
|
||||
Your choice (1/2/3):
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Set user_skill_level variable for adaptive output:
|
||||
- beginner: Verbose explanations, examples, rationale for every decision
|
||||
- intermediate: Moderate explanations, key rationale, balanced detail
|
||||
- expert: Concise, decision-focused, minimal prose
|
||||
|
||||
This affects ALL subsequent output verbosity.
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask optional="true">
|
||||
Any technical preferences or constraints I should know?
|
||||
- Preferred languages/frameworks?
|
||||
- Required platforms/services?
|
||||
- Team expertise areas?
|
||||
- Existing infrastructure (brownfield)?
|
||||
|
||||
(Press enter to skip if none)
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Record preferences for narrowing recommendations.
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="3" goal="Determine architecture pattern">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Determine the architectural pattern based on requirements:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Architecture style:
|
||||
- Monolith (single application)
|
||||
- Microservices (multiple services)
|
||||
- Serverless (function-based)
|
||||
- Other (event-driven, JAMstack, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
2. Repository strategy:
|
||||
- Monorepo (single repo)
|
||||
- Polyrepo (multiple repos)
|
||||
- Hybrid
|
||||
|
||||
3. Pattern-specific characteristics:
|
||||
- For web: SSR vs SPA vs API-only
|
||||
- For mobile: Native vs cross-platform vs hybrid vs PWA
|
||||
- For game: 2D vs 3D vs text-based vs web
|
||||
- For backend: REST vs GraphQL vs gRPC vs realtime
|
||||
- For data: ETL vs ML vs analytics vs streaming
|
||||
- Etc.
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask>
|
||||
Based on your requirements, I need to determine the architecture pattern:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Architecture style: {{suggested_style}} - Does this sound right? (or specify: monolith/microservices/serverless/other)
|
||||
|
||||
2. Repository strategy: {{suggested_repo_strategy}} - Monorepo or polyrepo?
|
||||
|
||||
{{project_type_specific_questions}}
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<elicit-required/>
|
||||
<template-output>architecture_pattern</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="4" goal="Epic analysis and component boundaries">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
1. Analyze each epic from PRD:
|
||||
- What domain capabilities does it require?
|
||||
- What data does it operate on?
|
||||
- What integrations does it need?
|
||||
|
||||
2. Identify natural component/service boundaries:
|
||||
- Vertical slices (epic-aligned features)
|
||||
- Shared infrastructure (auth, logging, etc.)
|
||||
- Integration points (external services)
|
||||
|
||||
3. Determine architecture style:
|
||||
- Single monolith vs. multiple services
|
||||
- Monorepo vs. polyrepo
|
||||
- Modular monolith vs. microservices
|
||||
|
||||
4. Map epics to proposed components (high-level only)
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
<template-output>component_boundaries</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="5" goal="Project-type-specific architecture questions">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
1. Load project types registry:
|
||||
Read: {{installed_path}}/project-types/project-types.csv
|
||||
|
||||
2. Match detected project_type to CSV:
|
||||
- Use project_type from Step 1 (e.g., "web", "mobile", "backend")
|
||||
- Find matching row in CSV
|
||||
- Get question_file path
|
||||
|
||||
3. Load project-type-specific questions:
|
||||
Read: {{installed_path}}/project-types/{{question_file}}
|
||||
|
||||
4. Ask only UNANSWERED questions (dynamic narrowing):
|
||||
- Skip questions already answered by reference architecture
|
||||
- Skip questions already specified in PRD
|
||||
- Focus on gaps and ambiguities
|
||||
|
||||
5. Record all decisions with rationale
|
||||
|
||||
NOTE: For hybrid projects (e.g., "web + mobile"), load multiple question files
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask>
|
||||
{{project_type_specific_questions}}
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<elicit-required/>
|
||||
<template-output>architecture_decisions</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="6" goal="Generate solution architecture document with dynamic template">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Sub-step 6.1: Load Appropriate Template
|
||||
|
||||
1. Analyze project to determine:
|
||||
- Project type(s): {{web|mobile|embedded|game|library|cli|desktop|data|backend|infra|extension}}
|
||||
- Architecture style: {{monolith|microservices|serverless|etc}}
|
||||
- Repository strategy: {{monorepo|polyrepo|hybrid}}
|
||||
- Primary language(s): {{TypeScript|Python|Rust|etc}}
|
||||
|
||||
2. Search template registry:
|
||||
Read: {{installed_path}}/templates/registry.csv
|
||||
|
||||
Filter WHERE:
|
||||
- project_types = {{project_type}}
|
||||
- architecture_style = {{determined_style}}
|
||||
- repo_strategy = {{determined_strategy}}
|
||||
- languages matches {{language_preference}} (if specified)
|
||||
- tags overlap with {{requirements}}
|
||||
|
||||
3. Select best matching row:
|
||||
Get {{template_path}} and {{guide_path}} from matched CSV row
|
||||
Example template: "web-fullstack-architecture.md", "game-engine-architecture.md", etc.
|
||||
Example guide: "game-engine-unity-guide.md", "game-engine-godot-guide.md", etc.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Load markdown template:
|
||||
Read: {{installed_path}}/templates/{{template_path}}
|
||||
|
||||
This template contains:
|
||||
- Complete document structure with all sections
|
||||
- {{placeholder}} variables to fill (e.g., {{project_name}}, {{framework}}, {{database_schema}})
|
||||
- Pattern-specific sections (e.g., SSR sections for web, gameplay sections for games)
|
||||
- Specialist recommendations (e.g., audio-designer for games, hardware-integration for embedded)
|
||||
|
||||
5. Load pattern-specific guide (if available):
|
||||
IF {{guide_path}} is not empty:
|
||||
Read: {{installed_path}}/templates/{{guide_path}}
|
||||
|
||||
This guide contains:
|
||||
- Engine/framework-specific questions
|
||||
- Technology-specific best practices
|
||||
- Common patterns and pitfalls
|
||||
- Specialist recommendations for this specific tech stack
|
||||
- Pattern-specific ADR examples
|
||||
|
||||
6. Present template to user:
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask>
|
||||
Based on your {{project_type}} {{architecture_style}} project, I've selected the "{{template_path}}" template.
|
||||
|
||||
This template includes {{section_count}} sections covering:
|
||||
{{brief_section_list}}
|
||||
|
||||
I will now fill in all the {{placeholder}} variables based on our previous discussions and requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
1. Use this template (recommended)
|
||||
2. Use a different template (specify which one)
|
||||
3. Show me the full template structure first
|
||||
|
||||
Your choice (1/2/3):
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Sub-step 6.2: Fill Template Placeholders
|
||||
|
||||
6. Parse template to identify all {{placeholders}}
|
||||
|
||||
7. Fill each placeholder with appropriate content:
|
||||
- Use information from previous steps (PRD, UX spec, tech decisions)
|
||||
- Ask user for any missing information
|
||||
- Generate appropriate content based on user_skill_level
|
||||
|
||||
8. Generate final architecture.md document
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL REQUIREMENTS:
|
||||
- MUST include "Technology and Library Decisions" section with table:
|
||||
| Category | Technology | Version | Rationale |
|
||||
- ALL technologies with SPECIFIC versions (e.g., "pino 8.17.0")
|
||||
- NO vagueness ("a logging library" = FAIL)
|
||||
|
||||
- MUST include "Proposed Source Tree" section:
|
||||
- Complete directory/file structure
|
||||
- For polyrepo: show ALL repo structures
|
||||
|
||||
- Design-level only (NO extensive code implementations):
|
||||
- ✅ DO: Data model schemas, API contracts, diagrams, patterns
|
||||
- ❌ DON'T: 10+ line functions, complete components, detailed implementations
|
||||
|
||||
- Adapt verbosity to user_skill_level:
|
||||
- Beginner: Detailed explanations, examples, rationale
|
||||
- Intermediate: Key explanations, balanced
|
||||
- Expert: Concise, decision-focused
|
||||
|
||||
Common sections (adapt per project):
|
||||
1. Executive Summary
|
||||
2. Technology Stack and Decisions (TABLE REQUIRED)
|
||||
3. Repository and Service Architecture (mono/poly, monolith/microservices)
|
||||
4. System Architecture (diagrams)
|
||||
5. Data Architecture
|
||||
6. API/Interface Design (adapts: REST for web, protocols for embedded, etc.)
|
||||
7. Cross-Cutting Concerns
|
||||
8. Component and Integration Overview (NOT epic alignment - that's cohesion check)
|
||||
9. Architecture Decision Records
|
||||
10. Implementation Guidance
|
||||
11. Proposed Source Tree (REQUIRED)
|
||||
12-14. Specialist sections (DevOps, Security, Testing) - see Step 7.5
|
||||
|
||||
NOTE: Section list is DYNAMIC per project type. Embedded projects have different sections than web apps.
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>solution_architecture</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="7" goal="Solution architecture cohesion check (QUALITY GATE)">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
CRITICAL: This is a validation quality gate before proceeding.
|
||||
|
||||
Run cohesion check validation inline (NO separate workflow for now):
|
||||
|
||||
1. Requirements Coverage:
|
||||
- Every FR mapped to components/technology?
|
||||
- Every NFR addressed in architecture?
|
||||
- Every epic has technical foundation?
|
||||
- Every story can be implemented with current architecture?
|
||||
|
||||
2. Technology and Library Table Validation:
|
||||
- Table exists?
|
||||
- All entries have specific versions?
|
||||
- No vague entries ("a library", "some framework")?
|
||||
- No multi-option entries without decision?
|
||||
|
||||
3. Code vs Design Balance:
|
||||
- Any sections with 10+ lines of code? (FLAG for removal)
|
||||
- Focus on design (schemas, patterns, diagrams)?
|
||||
|
||||
4. Vagueness Detection:
|
||||
- Scan for: "appropriate", "standard", "will use", "some", "a library"
|
||||
- Flag all vague statements for specificity
|
||||
|
||||
5. Generate Epic Alignment Matrix:
|
||||
| Epic | Stories | Components | Data Models | APIs | Integration Points | Status |
|
||||
|
||||
This matrix is SEPARATE OUTPUT (not in architecture.md)
|
||||
|
||||
6. Generate Cohesion Check Report with:
|
||||
- Executive summary (READY vs GAPS)
|
||||
- Requirements coverage table
|
||||
- Technology table validation
|
||||
- Epic Alignment Matrix
|
||||
- Story readiness (X of Y stories ready)
|
||||
- Vagueness detected
|
||||
- Over-specification detected
|
||||
- Recommendations (critical/important/nice-to-have)
|
||||
- Overall readiness score
|
||||
|
||||
7. Present report to user
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>cohesion_check_report</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask>
|
||||
Cohesion Check Results: {{readiness_score}}% ready
|
||||
|
||||
{{if_gaps_found}}
|
||||
Issues found:
|
||||
{{list_critical_issues}}
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
1. I'll fix these issues now (update architecture.md)
|
||||
2. You'll fix them manually
|
||||
3. Proceed anyway (not recommended)
|
||||
|
||||
Your choice:
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{if_ready}}
|
||||
✅ Architecture is ready for specialist sections!
|
||||
Proceed? (y/n)
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<action if="user_chooses_option_1">
|
||||
Update architecture.md to address critical issues, then re-validate.
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="7.5" goal="Scale-adaptive specialist section handling" optional="true">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
For each specialist area (DevOps, Security, Testing), assess complexity:
|
||||
|
||||
DevOps Assessment:
|
||||
- Simple: Vercel/Heroku, 1-2 envs, simple CI/CD → Handle INLINE
|
||||
- Complex: K8s, 3+ envs, complex IaC, multi-region → Create PLACEHOLDER
|
||||
|
||||
Security Assessment:
|
||||
- Simple: Framework defaults, no compliance → Handle INLINE
|
||||
- Complex: HIPAA/PCI/SOC2, custom auth, high sensitivity → Create PLACEHOLDER
|
||||
|
||||
Testing Assessment:
|
||||
- Simple: Basic unit + E2E → Handle INLINE
|
||||
- Complex: Mission-critical UI, comprehensive coverage needed → Create PLACEHOLDER
|
||||
|
||||
For INLINE: Add 1-3 paragraph sections to architecture.md
|
||||
For PLACEHOLDER: Add handoff section with specialist agent invocation instructions
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask for_each="specialist_area">
|
||||
{{specialist_area}} Assessment: {{simple|complex}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{if_complex}}
|
||||
Recommendation: Engage {{specialist_area}} specialist agent after this document.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
1. Create placeholder, I'll engage specialist later (recommended)
|
||||
2. Attempt inline coverage now (may be less detailed)
|
||||
3. Skip (handle later)
|
||||
|
||||
Your choice:
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{if_simple}}
|
||||
I'll handle {{specialist_area}} inline with essentials.
|
||||
{{/if}}
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Update architecture.md with specialist sections (inline or placeholders) at the END of document.
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>specialist_sections</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="8" goal="PRD epic/story updates (if needed)" optional="true">
|
||||
<check>
|
||||
Did cohesion check or architecture design reveal:
|
||||
- Missing enabler epics (e.g., "Infrastructure Setup")?
|
||||
- Story modifications needed?
|
||||
- New FRs/NFRs discovered?
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<ask if="changes_needed">
|
||||
Architecture design revealed some PRD updates needed:
|
||||
{{list_suggested_changes}}
|
||||
|
||||
Should I update the PRD? (y/n)
|
||||
</ask>
|
||||
|
||||
<action if="user_approves">
|
||||
Update PRD with architectural discoveries:
|
||||
- Add enabler epics if needed
|
||||
- Clarify stories based on architecture
|
||||
- Update tech-spec.md with architecture reference
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="9" goal="Tech-spec generation per epic (INTEGRATED)">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
For each epic in PRD:
|
||||
1. Extract relevant architecture sections:
|
||||
- Technology stack (full table)
|
||||
- Components for this epic
|
||||
- Data models for this epic
|
||||
- APIs for this epic
|
||||
- Proposed source tree (relevant paths)
|
||||
- Implementation guidance
|
||||
|
||||
2. Generate tech-spec-epic-{{N}}.md using tech-spec workflow logic:
|
||||
Read: {project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/tech-spec/instructions.md
|
||||
|
||||
Include:
|
||||
- Epic overview (from PRD)
|
||||
- Stories (from PRD)
|
||||
- Architecture extract (from solution-architecture.md)
|
||||
- Component-level technical decisions
|
||||
- Implementation notes
|
||||
- Testing approach
|
||||
|
||||
3. Save to: /docs/tech-spec-epic-{{N}}.md
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>tech_specs</template-output>
|
||||
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Update project-workflow-analysis.md workflow status:
|
||||
- [x] Solution architecture generated
|
||||
- [x] Cohesion check passed
|
||||
- [x] Tech specs generated for all epics
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="10" goal="Polyrepo documentation strategy" optional="true">
|
||||
<check>
|
||||
Is this a polyrepo project (multiple repositories)?
|
||||
</check>
|
||||
|
||||
<action if="polyrepo">
|
||||
For polyrepo projects:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Identify all repositories from architecture:
|
||||
Example: frontend-repo, api-repo, worker-repo, mobile-repo
|
||||
|
||||
2. Strategy: Copy FULL documentation to ALL repos
|
||||
- architecture.md → Copy to each repo
|
||||
- tech-spec-epic-X.md → Copy to each repo (full set)
|
||||
- cohesion-check-report.md → Copy to each repo
|
||||
|
||||
3. Add repo-specific README pointing to docs:
|
||||
"See /docs/architecture.md for complete solution architecture"
|
||||
|
||||
4. Later phases extract per-epic and per-story contexts as needed
|
||||
|
||||
Rationale: Full context in every repo, extract focused contexts during implementation.
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<action if="monorepo">
|
||||
For monorepo projects:
|
||||
- All docs already in single /docs directory
|
||||
- No special strategy needed
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
<step n="11" goal="Validation and completion">
|
||||
<action>
|
||||
Final validation checklist:
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] architecture.md exists and is complete
|
||||
- [x] Technology and Library Decision Table has specific versions
|
||||
- [x] Proposed Source Tree section included
|
||||
- [x] Cohesion check passed (or issues addressed)
|
||||
- [x] Epic Alignment Matrix generated
|
||||
- [x] Specialist sections handled (inline or placeholder)
|
||||
- [x] Tech specs generated for all epics
|
||||
- [x] Analysis template updated
|
||||
|
||||
Generate completion summary:
|
||||
- Document locations
|
||||
- Key decisions made
|
||||
- Next steps (engage specialist agents if placeholders, begin implementation)
|
||||
</action>
|
||||
|
||||
<template-output>completion_summary</template-output>
|
||||
</step>
|
||||
|
||||
</workflow>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Reference Documentation
|
||||
|
||||
For detailed design specification, rationale, examples, and edge cases, see:
|
||||
`./arch-plan.md` (when available in same directory)
|
||||
|
||||
Key sections:
|
||||
|
||||
- Key Design Decisions (15 critical requirements)
|
||||
- Step 6 - Architecture Generation (examples, guidance)
|
||||
- Step 7 - Cohesion Check (validation criteria, report format)
|
||||
- Dynamic Template Section Strategy
|
||||
- CSV Registry Examples
|
||||
|
||||
This instructions.md is the EXECUTABLE guide.
|
||||
arch-plan.md is the REFERENCE specification.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user