fa470c92fd
* docs: add headers and improve formatting for BMAD orchestrator agent documentation ## CHANGES - Add configuration header to cfg file - Improve numbered list formatting consistency - Add proper heading punctuation throughout - Enhance readability with cleaner structure - Standardize markdown formatting conventions * gitignore update * Plaform Engineer role for a robust infrastructure (#135) * Add Platform Engineer role to support a robust and validated infrastructure * Platform Engineer and Architect boundaries, confidence levels, domain expertise * remove duplicate task, leftover artifact * Consistency, workflow, feedback loops between architect and PE * PE customization generalized, updated Architect, consistency check * style: add VSCode integration and standardize document formatting CHANGES - Introduce VSCode recommended extensions and project-specific settings. - Update `.gitignore` to track the `.vscode` directory. - Apply consistent markdown formatting to all checklist documents. - Standardize spacing, list styles, and headers in personas. - Refine formatting and sectioning in task definition files. - Ensure newline termination for all modified text files. - Correct code block specifiers and minor textual content. * docs: remove exclamation from header * fix: spacing at end of line --------- Co-authored-by: Brian Madison <brianmadison@Brians-MacBook-Pro.local> Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ickler <icklers@users.noreply.github.com>
93 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
# Change Navigation Checklist
|
|
|
|
**Purpose:** To systematically guide the selected Agent and user through the analysis and planning required when a significant change (pivot, tech issue, missing requirement, failed story) is identified during the BMAD workflow.
|
|
|
|
**Instructions:** Review each item with the user. Mark `[x]` for completed/confirmed, `[N/A]` if not applicable, or add notes for discussion points.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Understand the Trigger & Context
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Identify Triggering Story:** Clearly identify the story (or stories) that revealed the issue.
|
|
- [ ] **Define the Issue:** Articulate the core problem precisely.
|
|
- [ ] Is it a technical limitation/dead-end?
|
|
- [ ] Is it a newly discovered requirement?
|
|
- [ ] Is it a fundamental misunderstanding of existing requirements?
|
|
- [ ] Is it a necessary pivot based on feedback or new information?
|
|
- [ ] Is it a failed/abandoned story needing a new approach?
|
|
- [ ] **Assess Initial Impact:** Describe the immediate observed consequences (e.g., blocked progress, incorrect functionality, non-viable tech).
|
|
- [ ] **Gather Evidence:** Note any specific logs, error messages, user feedback, or analysis that supports the issue definition.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Epic Impact Assessment
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Analyze Current Epic:**
|
|
- [ ] Can the current epic containing the trigger story still be completed?
|
|
- [ ] Does the current epic need modification (story changes, additions, removals)?
|
|
- [ ] Should the current epic be abandoned or fundamentally redefined?
|
|
- [ ] **Analyze Future Epics:**
|
|
- [ ] Review all remaining planned epics.
|
|
- [ ] Does the issue require changes to planned stories in future epics?
|
|
- [ ] Does the issue invalidate any future epics?
|
|
- [ ] Does the issue necessitate the creation of entirely new epics?
|
|
- [ ] Should the order/priority of future epics be changed?
|
|
- [ ] **Summarize Epic Impact:** Briefly document the overall effect on the project's epic structure and flow.
|
|
|
|
## 3. Artifact Conflict & Impact Analysis
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Review PRD:**
|
|
- [ ] Does the issue conflict with the core goals or requirements stated in the PRD?
|
|
- [ ] Does the PRD need clarification or updates based on the new understanding?
|
|
- [ ] **Review Architecture Document:**
|
|
- [ ] Does the issue conflict with the documented architecture (components, patterns, tech choices)?
|
|
- [ ] Are specific components/diagrams/sections impacted?
|
|
- [ ] Does the technology list need updating?
|
|
- [ ] Do data models or schemas need revision?
|
|
- [ ] Are external API integrations affected?
|
|
- [ ] **Review Frontend Spec (if applicable):**
|
|
- [ ] Does the issue conflict with the FE architecture, component library choice, or UI/UX design?
|
|
- [ ] Are specific FE components or user flows impacted?
|
|
- [ ] **Review Other Artifacts (if applicable):**
|
|
- [ ] Consider impact on deployment scripts, IaC, monitoring setup, etc.
|
|
- [ ] **Summarize Artifact Impact:** List all artifacts requiring updates and the nature of the changes needed.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Path Forward Evaluation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Option 1: Direct Adjustment / Integration:**
|
|
- [ ] Can the issue be addressed by modifying/adding future stories within the existing plan?
|
|
- [ ] Define the scope and nature of these adjustments.
|
|
- [ ] Assess feasibility, effort, and risks of this path.
|
|
- [ ] **Option 2: Potential Rollback:**
|
|
- [ ] Would reverting completed stories significantly simplify addressing the issue?
|
|
- [ ] Identify specific stories/commits to consider for rollback.
|
|
- [ ] Assess the effort required for rollback.
|
|
- [ ] Assess the impact of rollback (lost work, data implications).
|
|
- [ ] Compare the net benefit/cost vs. Direct Adjustment.
|
|
- [ ] **Option 3: PRD MVP Review & Potential Re-scoping:**
|
|
- [ ] Is the original PRD MVP still achievable given the issue and constraints?
|
|
- [ ] Does the MVP scope need reduction (removing features/epics)?
|
|
- [ ] Do the core MVP goals need modification?
|
|
- [ ] Are alternative approaches needed to meet the original MVP intent?
|
|
- [ ] **Extreme Case:** Does the issue necessitate a fundamental replan or potentially a new PRD V2 (to be handled by PM)?
|
|
- [ ] **Select Recommended Path:** Based on the evaluation, agree on the most viable path forward.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Sprint Change Proposal Components
|
|
|
|
(Ensure all agreed-upon points from previous sections are captured in the proposal)
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Identified Issue Summary:** Clear, concise problem statement.
|
|
- [ ] **Epic Impact Summary:** How epics are affected.
|
|
- [ ] **Artifact Adjustment Needs:** List of documents to change.
|
|
- [ ] **Recommended Path Forward:** Chosen solution with rationale.
|
|
- [ ] **PRD MVP Impact:** Changes to scope/goals (if any).
|
|
- [ ] **High-Level Action Plan:** Next steps for stories/updates.
|
|
- [ ] **Agent Handoff Plan:** Identify roles needed (PM, Arch, Design Arch, PO).
|
|
|
|
## 6. Final Review & Handoff
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Review Checklist:** Confirm all relevant items were discussed.
|
|
- [ ] **Review Sprint Change Proposal:** Ensure it accurately reflects the discussion and decisions.
|
|
- [ ] **User Approval:** Obtain explicit user approval for the proposal.
|
|
- [ ] **Confirm Next Steps:** Reiterate the handoff plan and the next actions to be taken by specific agents.
|
|
|
|
---
|