bmad-readiness-check

BMAD Readiness Check

"Planning ends here." This skill is the gate between Solutioning and

Implementation. It validates that the planning corpus is internally consistent

— requirements are covered by architecture, epics trace back to requirements,

and nothing critical is missing — before a single line of code is written.

The output is a readiness-report.md with a clear PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL

verdict and actionable specifics.

---

Workflow

Use TodoWrite to track: Load Artifacts → Cross-Reference → Quality Checks →

Generate Report → Display Verdict.

---

Step 1 — Locate Planning Artifacts

Run the bundled existence check:

bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/bmad-readiness-check/scripts/readiness-check.sh" <output-folder>

The script checks for required artifact files and prints a PASS / CONCERNS /

FAIL pre-flight verdict. Read its output; it will also print artifact paths

for you to load in Step 2.

Default search root is bmad-output/ (or the user-configured outputFolder).

If the user supplies a custom path, pass it as the argument.

---

Step 2 — Load and Parse Artifacts

Read each artifact the script located:

Requirements document (PRD or tech-spec):

• Extract labelled Functional Requirements (FR-001, FR-002 …) or requirement

bullets if not labelled.

• Extract Non-Functional Requirements (NFR-001 … or named sections:

Performance, Security, Scalability, Reliability, Maintainability).

• Note epic count and high-level scope statements.

Architecture document:

• Extract system components and their responsibilities.
• Locate FR traceability matrix or explicit FR-to-component mappings.
• Locate NFR coverage sections.
• Note technology stack decisions and trade-off notes.

Epics / stories (if present):

• Count epics and stories.
• For each epic, identify which PRD requirement(s) it references.

Record a baseline:

Baseline
- FRs found: N
- NFRs found: N
- Epics found: N  (0 if Quick Flow)
- Stories found: N  (0 if not yet decomposed)

---

Step 3 — Cross-Reference Checks

3a. FR → Architecture Coverage

For each FR, search the architecture document for the FR identifier AND for

the subject matter of the requirement. Mark:

• Covered — FR explicitly addressed, component assigned.
• Implied — subject matter covered but not explicitly linked.
• Missing — no evidence of coverage.

3b. NFR → Architecture Coverage

For each NFR category, check for a dedicated architecture section or explicit

strategy:

• Performance: caching, response-time targets, async patterns.
• Security: auth/authz model, encryption, secrets management.
• Scalability: horizontal/vertical strategy, load balancing.
• Reliability: failover, backup, uptime targets.
• Others as present.

Mark each: Addressed / Partial / Missing.

3c. Epic → FR Traceability (BMad Method / Enterprise tracks)

For each epic, verify it references at least one FR or PRD section.

Flag orphan epics (no traceable requirement).

3d. Architecture Quality Spot-Checks

Verify the architecture document contains:

• [ ] Architectural pattern stated and justified
• [ ] Component responsibilities and interfaces defined
• [ ] Data model / entity relationships
• [ ] API design or service contracts
• [ ] Technology choices with rationale
• [ ] Trade-offs documented
• [ ] Assumptions and constraints listed

---

Step 4 — Compute Verdict

Apply these thresholds (adapted from BMAD Method v6 gate criteria, expressed

as PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL):

| Criterion | PASS | CONCERNS | FAIL |

|-----------|------|----------|------|

| FR coverage (covered + implied) | ≥ 90 % | 80–89 % | < 80 % |

| NFR coverage (addressed + partial) | ≥ 90 % | 80–89 % | < 80 % |

| Architecture quality checks | ≥ 80 % | 70–79 % | < 70 % |

| Blocker issues (critical gaps) | 0 | have mitigation | unmitigated |

| Epic traceability (if applicable) | all linked | ≥ 80 % linked | < 80 % |

Overall verdict rule:

• PASS — all criteria at PASS threshold, no blockers.
• CONCERNS — one or more criteria in CONCERNS band, blockers have

mitigation plans. Proceed with caution; address concerns during story

refinement.

• FAIL — any criterion below CONCERNS threshold, or any unmitigated

blocker. Do not proceed to story creation until issues are resolved.

---

Step 5 — Generate Report

Write the readiness report using the template:

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/bmad-readiness-check/templates/readiness-report.template.md

Save to: <outputFolder>/readiness-report-<project-slug>-<date>.md

Use the Write tool. Fill all {{placeholder}} fields from your analysis.

---

Step 6 — Display Verdict

Print a concise summary to the user:

Readiness Check Complete

Artifact Coverage
  FR coverage:          XX %
  NFR coverage:         XX %
  Architecture quality: XX %

Verdict: PASS | CONCERNS | FAIL

<One-sentence rationale>

Report saved: <file path>

Then give a concrete Next Step recommendation:

• PASS → Proceed to epic/story decomposition

(/bmad-planning-orchestrator:bmad-epics-and-stories).

• CONCERNS → Proceed with caution; list the open items the story author

must carry forward as Dev Notes.

• FAIL → List the top 3–5 required fixes; re-run readiness check after

addressing them.

---

Scope Boundary

This skill validates planning documents only. It does not:

• Write application code.
• Run tests, linters, or build tools.
• Review pull requests or diffs.
• Execute coverage or velocity metrics.

When the verdict is PASS or CONCERNS, hand off to your dev tools via the

story files produced by the epic/story skill.

---

Persona Note

This gate is traditionally owned by Winston (System Architect) in the BMAD

Method. The skill is a workflow, not a character, but Winston's voice —

thorough, systematic, quality-focused — should guide the tone of the report.

---

> ---

> Part of the BMAD Planning & Orchestrator plugin — a Claude Code harness for the BMAD Method by the BMAD Code Organization (https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD). Implements the spirit of bmad-check-implementation-readiness. All methodology credit belongs to the BMAD Code Organization.