moved bmad-core to dot folder so when adding to project it is clear its not part of the project it is added to
This commit is contained in:
Brian Madison
375
.bmad-core/checklists/pm-checklist.md
Normal file
375
.bmad-core/checklists/pm-checklist.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
|
||||
# Product Manager (PM) Requirements Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
This checklist serves as a comprehensive framework to ensure the Product Requirements Document (PRD) and Epic definitions are complete, well-structured, and appropriately scoped for MVP development. The PM should systematically work through each item during the product definition process.
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: INITIALIZATION INSTRUCTIONS - PM CHECKLIST
|
||||
|
||||
Before proceeding with this checklist, ensure you have access to:
|
||||
|
||||
1. prd.md - The Product Requirements Document (check docs/prd.md)
|
||||
2. Any user research, market analysis, or competitive analysis documents
|
||||
3. Business goals and strategy documents
|
||||
4. Any existing epic definitions or user stories
|
||||
|
||||
IMPORTANT: If the PRD is missing, immediately ask the user for its location or content before proceeding.
|
||||
|
||||
VALIDATION APPROACH:
|
||||
|
||||
1. User-Centric - Every requirement should tie back to user value
|
||||
2. MVP Focus - Ensure scope is truly minimal while viable
|
||||
3. Clarity - Requirements should be unambiguous and testable
|
||||
4. Completeness - All aspects of the product vision are covered
|
||||
5. Feasibility - Requirements are technically achievable
|
||||
|
||||
EXECUTION MODE:
|
||||
Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:
|
||||
|
||||
- Section by section (interactive mode) - Review each section, present findings, get confirmation before proceeding
|
||||
- All at once (comprehensive mode) - Complete full analysis and present comprehensive report at end]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION & CONTEXT
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: The foundation of any product is a clear problem statement. As you review this section:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Verify the problem is real and worth solving
|
||||
2. Check that the target audience is specific, not "everyone"
|
||||
3. Ensure success metrics are measurable, not vague aspirations
|
||||
4. Look for evidence of user research, not just assumptions
|
||||
5. Confirm the problem-solution fit is logical]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.1 Problem Statement
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Clear articulation of the problem being solved
|
||||
- [ ] Identification of who experiences the problem
|
||||
- [ ] Explanation of why solving this problem matters
|
||||
- [ ] Quantification of problem impact (if possible)
|
||||
- [ ] Differentiation from existing solutions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.2 Business Goals & Success Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Specific, measurable business objectives defined
|
||||
- [ ] Clear success metrics and KPIs established
|
||||
- [ ] Metrics are tied to user and business value
|
||||
- [ ] Baseline measurements identified (if applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] Timeframe for achieving goals specified
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.3 User Research & Insights
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Target user personas clearly defined
|
||||
- [ ] User needs and pain points documented
|
||||
- [ ] User research findings summarized (if available)
|
||||
- [ ] Competitive analysis included
|
||||
- [ ] Market context provided
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. MVP SCOPE DEFINITION
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: MVP scope is critical - too much and you waste resources, too little and you can't validate. Check:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Is this truly minimal? Challenge every feature
|
||||
2. Does each feature directly address the core problem?
|
||||
3. Are "nice-to-haves" clearly separated from "must-haves"?
|
||||
4. Is the rationale for inclusion/exclusion documented?
|
||||
5. Can you ship this in the target timeframe?]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.1 Core Functionality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Essential features clearly distinguished from nice-to-haves
|
||||
- [ ] Features directly address defined problem statement
|
||||
- [ ] Each Epic ties back to specific user needs
|
||||
- [ ] Features and Stories are described from user perspective
|
||||
- [ ] Minimum requirements for success defined
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2 Scope Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Clear articulation of what is OUT of scope
|
||||
- [ ] Future enhancements section included
|
||||
- [ ] Rationale for scope decisions documented
|
||||
- [ ] MVP minimizes functionality while maximizing learning
|
||||
- [ ] Scope has been reviewed and refined multiple times
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.3 MVP Validation Approach
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Method for testing MVP success defined
|
||||
- [ ] Initial user feedback mechanisms planned
|
||||
- [ ] Criteria for moving beyond MVP specified
|
||||
- [ ] Learning goals for MVP articulated
|
||||
- [ ] Timeline expectations set
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. USER EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: UX requirements bridge user needs and technical implementation. Validate:
|
||||
|
||||
1. User flows cover the primary use cases completely
|
||||
2. Edge cases are identified (even if deferred)
|
||||
3. Accessibility isn't an afterthought
|
||||
4. Performance expectations are realistic
|
||||
5. Error states and recovery are planned]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1 User Journeys & Flows
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Primary user flows documented
|
||||
- [ ] Entry and exit points for each flow identified
|
||||
- [ ] Decision points and branches mapped
|
||||
- [ ] Critical path highlighted
|
||||
- [ ] Edge cases considered
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.2 Usability Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Accessibility considerations documented
|
||||
- [ ] Platform/device compatibility specified
|
||||
- [ ] Performance expectations from user perspective defined
|
||||
- [ ] Error handling and recovery approaches outlined
|
||||
- [ ] User feedback mechanisms identified
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.3 UI Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Information architecture outlined
|
||||
- [ ] Critical UI components identified
|
||||
- [ ] Visual design guidelines referenced (if applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] Content requirements specified
|
||||
- [ ] High-level navigation structure defined
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: Functional requirements must be clear enough for implementation. Check:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Requirements focus on WHAT not HOW (no implementation details)
|
||||
2. Each requirement is testable (how would QA verify it?)
|
||||
3. Dependencies are explicit (what needs to be built first?)
|
||||
4. Requirements use consistent terminology
|
||||
5. Complex features are broken into manageable pieces]]
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1 Feature Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All required features for MVP documented
|
||||
- [ ] Features have clear, user-focused descriptions
|
||||
- [ ] Feature priority/criticality indicated
|
||||
- [ ] Requirements are testable and verifiable
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies between features identified
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2 Requirements Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Requirements are specific and unambiguous
|
||||
- [ ] Requirements focus on WHAT not HOW
|
||||
- [ ] Requirements use consistent terminology
|
||||
- [ ] Complex requirements broken into simpler parts
|
||||
- [ ] Technical jargon minimized or explained
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.3 User Stories & Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Stories follow consistent format
|
||||
- [ ] Acceptance criteria are testable
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are sized appropriately (not too large)
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are independent where possible
|
||||
- [ ] Stories include necessary context
|
||||
- [ ] Local testability requirements (e.g., via CLI) defined in ACs for relevant backend/data stories
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. NON-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.1 Performance Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Response time expectations defined
|
||||
- [ ] Throughput/capacity requirements specified
|
||||
- [ ] Scalability needs documented
|
||||
- [ ] Resource utilization constraints identified
|
||||
- [ ] Load handling expectations set
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.2 Security & Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Data protection requirements specified
|
||||
- [ ] Authentication/authorization needs defined
|
||||
- [ ] Compliance requirements documented
|
||||
- [ ] Security testing requirements outlined
|
||||
- [ ] Privacy considerations addressed
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.3 Reliability & Resilience
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Availability requirements defined
|
||||
- [ ] Backup and recovery needs documented
|
||||
- [ ] Fault tolerance expectations set
|
||||
- [ ] Error handling requirements specified
|
||||
- [ ] Maintenance and support considerations included
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.4 Technical Constraints
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Platform/technology constraints documented
|
||||
- [ ] Integration requirements outlined
|
||||
- [ ] Third-party service dependencies identified
|
||||
- [ ] Infrastructure requirements specified
|
||||
- [ ] Development environment needs identified
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. EPIC & STORY STRUCTURE
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.1 Epic Definition
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Epics represent cohesive units of functionality
|
||||
- [ ] Epics focus on user/business value delivery
|
||||
- [ ] Epic goals clearly articulated
|
||||
- [ ] Epics are sized appropriately for incremental delivery
|
||||
- [ ] Epic sequence and dependencies identified
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.2 Story Breakdown
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are broken down to appropriate size
|
||||
- [ ] Stories have clear, independent value
|
||||
- [ ] Stories include appropriate acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Story dependencies and sequence documented
|
||||
- [ ] Stories aligned with epic goals
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.3 First Epic Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] First epic includes all necessary setup steps
|
||||
- [ ] Project scaffolding and initialization addressed
|
||||
- [ ] Core infrastructure setup included
|
||||
- [ ] Development environment setup addressed
|
||||
- [ ] Local testability established early
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.1 Architecture Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Initial architecture direction provided
|
||||
- [ ] Technical constraints clearly communicated
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points identified
|
||||
- [ ] Performance considerations highlighted
|
||||
- [ ] Security requirements articulated
|
||||
- [ ] Known areas of high complexity or technical risk flagged for architectural deep-dive
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.2 Technical Decision Framework
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Decision criteria for technical choices provided
|
||||
- [ ] Trade-offs articulated for key decisions
|
||||
- [ ] Rationale for selecting primary approach over considered alternatives documented (for key design/feature choices)
|
||||
- [ ] Non-negotiable technical requirements highlighted
|
||||
- [ ] Areas requiring technical investigation identified
|
||||
- [ ] Guidance on technical debt approach provided
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.3 Implementation Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Development approach guidance provided
|
||||
- [ ] Testing requirements articulated
|
||||
- [ ] Deployment expectations set
|
||||
- [ ] Monitoring needs identified
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation requirements specified
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. CROSS-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.1 Data Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Data entities and relationships identified
|
||||
- [ ] Data storage requirements specified
|
||||
- [ ] Data quality requirements defined
|
||||
- [ ] Data retention policies identified
|
||||
- [ ] Data migration needs addressed (if applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] Schema changes planned iteratively, tied to stories requiring them
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.2 Integration Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] External system integrations identified
|
||||
- [ ] API requirements documented
|
||||
- [ ] Authentication for integrations specified
|
||||
- [ ] Data exchange formats defined
|
||||
- [ ] Integration testing requirements outlined
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.3 Operational Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Deployment frequency expectations set
|
||||
- [ ] Environment requirements defined
|
||||
- [ ] Monitoring and alerting needs identified
|
||||
- [ ] Support requirements documented
|
||||
- [ ] Performance monitoring approach specified
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. CLARITY & COMMUNICATION
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.1 Documentation Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Documents use clear, consistent language
|
||||
- [ ] Documents are well-structured and organized
|
||||
- [ ] Technical terms are defined where necessary
|
||||
- [ ] Diagrams/visuals included where helpful
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation is versioned appropriately
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.2 Stakeholder Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Key stakeholders identified
|
||||
- [ ] Stakeholder input incorporated
|
||||
- [ ] Potential areas of disagreement addressed
|
||||
- [ ] Communication plan for updates established
|
||||
- [ ] Approval process defined
|
||||
|
||||
## PRD & EPIC VALIDATION SUMMARY
|
||||
|
||||
[[LLM: FINAL PM CHECKLIST REPORT GENERATION
|
||||
|
||||
Create a comprehensive validation report that includes:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Overall PRD completeness (percentage)
|
||||
- MVP scope appropriateness (Too Large/Just Right/Too Small)
|
||||
- Readiness for architecture phase (Ready/Nearly Ready/Not Ready)
|
||||
- Most critical gaps or concerns
|
||||
|
||||
2. Category Analysis Table
|
||||
Fill in the actual table with:
|
||||
|
||||
- Status: PASS (90%+ complete), PARTIAL (60-89%), FAIL (<60%)
|
||||
- Critical Issues: Specific problems that block progress
|
||||
|
||||
3. Top Issues by Priority
|
||||
|
||||
- BLOCKERS: Must fix before architect can proceed
|
||||
- HIGH: Should fix for quality
|
||||
- MEDIUM: Would improve clarity
|
||||
- LOW: Nice to have
|
||||
|
||||
4. MVP Scope Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- Features that might be cut for true MVP
|
||||
- Missing features that are essential
|
||||
- Complexity concerns
|
||||
- Timeline realism
|
||||
|
||||
5. Technical Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- Clarity of technical constraints
|
||||
- Identified technical risks
|
||||
- Areas needing architect investigation
|
||||
|
||||
6. Recommendations
|
||||
- Specific actions to address each blocker
|
||||
- Suggested improvements
|
||||
- Next steps
|
||||
|
||||
After presenting the report, ask if the user wants:
|
||||
|
||||
- Detailed analysis of any failed sections
|
||||
- Suggestions for improving specific areas
|
||||
- Help with refining MVP scope]]
|
||||
|
||||
### Category Statuses
|
||||
|
||||
| Category | Status | Critical Issues |
|
||||
| -------------------------------- | ------ | --------------- |
|
||||
| 1. Problem Definition & Context | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 2. MVP Scope Definition | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 3. User Experience Requirements | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 4. Functional Requirements | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 5. Non-Functional Requirements | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 6. Epic & Story Structure | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 7. Technical Guidance | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 8. Cross-Functional Requirements | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
| 9. Clarity & Communication | _TBD_ | |
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Deficiencies
|
||||
|
||||
_To be populated during validation_
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
_To be populated during validation_
|
||||
|
||||
### Final Decision
|
||||
|
||||
- **READY FOR ARCHITECT**: The PRD and epics are comprehensive, properly structured, and ready for architectural design.
|
||||
- **NEEDS REFINEMENT**: The requirements documentation requires additional work to address the identified deficiencies.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user