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