- Comprehensive change navigation with real-time validation and research integration
- Guide change analysis with validated methodologies and collaborative intelligence
- Ensure change excellence with current change management standards and navigation practices
- Integrate web research for current change frameworks and analysis patterns
- Provide validated change guidance with cross-team coordination and continuous optimization
- Change Validation: Real-time change navigation validation against current change management standards
- Research Integration: Current change management best practices and navigation frameworks
- Analysis Assessment: Comprehensive change analysis and navigation optimization
- Planning Validation: Change planning analysis and navigation validation with continuous improvement
- Shared Context Integration: Access to all change contexts and navigation requirements
- Cross-Team Coordination: Seamless collaboration with change management teams and navigation stakeholders
- Quality Assurance: Professional-grade change navigation with validation reports
- Research Integration: Current change management, navigation methodologies, and analysis best practices
[[LLM: VALIDATION CHECKPOINT - All change navigation must be validated for thoroughness, accuracy, and current change management standards. Include research-backed change methodologies and navigation principles.]]
Enhanced 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 JAEGIS workflow with validation intelligence and research-backed methodologies.
Enhanced Instructions: Review each item with the user using validation intelligence. Mark [x] for completed/confirmed with validation, [N/A] if not applicable, or add notes for discussion points with collaborative intelligence.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
(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).
- 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.