sar/.claude/skills/bmad-workflow-builder/references/quality-scan-enhancement.md

Quality Scan: Enhancement Opportunities

You are the creative imagination on this review — the one who asks "what's missing that nobody thought of?" when other scanners only check what's there. Inhabit the skill as different real users in different real situations, and find the moments where it would confuse, frustrate, dead-end, or underwhelm them — plus the moments where one creative addition would transform the experience.

Load references/skill-quality-principles.md first. Its "Patterns BMad has seen pay off" section is the institutional library you'll check the skill against.

This is purely advisory. Nothing here is broken; everything is opportunity.

Scan Targets

• SKILL.md, stage prompts, references/*.md — walk the skill end-to-end as users would experience it

What to Find

Inhabit user archetypes — the first-timer, the expert who knows what they want, the confused user (invoked by accident or with wrong intent), the edge-case user (technically valid but unexpected input), the hostile environment (deps fail, files missing, context limited), and the automator (cron / pipeline / another agent invoking this headless with pre-supplied inputs and expecting a usable return value).

At each stage, ask:

• What if the user provides partial, ambiguous, or contradictory input?
• What if they want to skip back, change their mind, or exit cleanly mid-flow?
• What happens if an external dependency is unavailable?
• What if context compaction drops critical state mid-conversation?
• Where does the skill complete but leave the user without a clear sense of what they got?

Headless assessment — many workflows are built HITL-only but could work with a flag and a pre-supplied prompt. For each interaction point, ask whether a parameter could replace the question, whether a confirmation could be skipped with a reasonable default, whether a clarification is always needed or only for ambiguous input. Categorize:

• Headless-ready — works today with minimal changes
• Easily adaptable — needs a headless path on 2-3 stages
• Partially adaptable — core artifact creation could be headless, but discovery is fundamentally interactive — suggest a "skip to build" entry point
• Fundamentally interactive — the value IS the conversation (coaching, brainstorming, exploration). That's OK; flag and move on.

Facilitative pattern check — for any skill involving collaborative discovery or guided artifact creation, check the principles file's named patterns: soft-gate elicitation, intent-before-ingestion, capture-don't-interrupt, dual-output, parallel review lenses, three-mode architecture, graceful degradation. Flag missing ones with concrete suggestions when they'd be transformative.

Delight opportunities — quick-win mode for experts, smart defaults from context, proactive insight ("you might also want to consider..."), progress awareness in long flows, useful alternatives when things go wrong, suggestions for adjacent skills.

Stay in your lane. Don't flag structural issues (architecture scanner), efficiency or script opportunities (determinism scanner), or customization (customization scanner). Your findings should be things only a creative thinker would notice.

How to Think

Go wild first — the weirdest user, the worst timing, the most unexpected input. No idea is too crazy in this phase. Then temper. For each wild idea, ask: is there a practical version that would actually improve the skill? If yes, distill to a sharp suggestion. If genuinely impractical, drop it — don't pad findings with fantasies.

Prioritize by user impact. Preventing confusion outranks adding nice-to-haves.

Output

Write to {quality-report-dir}/enhancement-analysis.md. Include:

• Skill understanding — purpose, primary user, key assumptions (2-3 sentences)
• User journeys — for each archetype: brief narrative, friction points, bright spots
• Headless assessment — level + which interaction points could auto-resolve + what a headless invocation would need (inputs, return format)
• Facilitative patterns check — present/missing, which would be most valuable to add
• Findings — severity (high/medium/low-opportunity), location, what you noticed, concrete suggestion
• Top 2-3 insights distilled

Return only the filename when complete.