Preview — full styling will appear after the next deploy completes.

bmad-method

Quick Dev

Lightweight grooming for well-understood stories

Quick Dev is the minimal grooming path for stories that are already well-specified, low-risk, and constrained to a single clear implementation. It bypasses the full grooming ritual and moves directly to implementation with a single readiness check.

flowchart TD
    WS([Well-Specified Story]) --> RC[Developer Persona<br>Readiness Check]
    RC --> Q1{AC complete<br>and unambiguous?}
    Q1 -->|No| SG([Escalate to<br>Sequential Grooming])
    Q1 -->|Yes| Q2{Single-session<br>scope?}
    Q2 -->|No| SG
    Q2 -->|Yes| Q3{Prerequisites<br>in place?}
    Q3 -->|No| SG
    Q3 -->|Yes| Q4{No ambiguous<br>terms?}
    Q4 -->|No| SG
    Q4 -->|Yes| RD([Ready — proceed<br>to implementation])

Not every story needs Party Mode, Sequential Grooming, or Adversarial Review. A bug fix with a clear reproduction case, a copy change to a specific UI element, or a configuration update with a known outcome — these stories are already specific enough that elaborate grooming adds friction without adding safety. Quick Dev is the legitimate fast path for stories that genuinely do not need it.

Quick Dev is a single-persona readiness check: the Developer persona reads the story and asks four questions. Is the acceptance criteria complete and unambiguous? Is the scope appropriate for a single session? Are the prerequisites in place? Is there any term in this story that could be interpreted more than one way? If all four answers are yes, the story moves directly to implementation. If any answer is no, the story escalates to Sequential Grooming.

The failure mode of Quick Dev is using it to avoid grooming that is actually needed. The trigger for Quick Dev should be objective story characteristics: small scope, single system component, no new dependencies, no design decisions. If you find yourself arguing that a story "should be quick," it probably isn't — that reasoning is a signal to run Sequential Grooming instead.