Skip to main content

Project Analysis: been-there

Project Type: Mobile App (Flutter/Dart)
Analysis Date: 2025-12-16
ADK Version: [Detected via frameworks in packages/]
Implementation Method: Git submodule (frameworks in packages/frameworks/)
Implementation Date: [To be determined from git history]

Note: This report focuses on Epic/Story-level analysis. For detailed task-level analysis (task naming conventions, organization patterns, structure details, checklist patterns), see ../task-level-kanban-structure-analysis.md. For detailed knowledge/documentation structure analysis (KB naming conventions, directory organization, document structure, lifecycle metadata, navigation patterns), see ../knowledge-documentation-structure-analysis.md. For detailed workflow structure analysis (workflow naming, YAML structure, step patterns, configuration, execution patterns), see ../workflow-structure-analysis.md. For detailed cursorrules structure analysis (cursorrules naming, structure patterns, trigger patterns, rule patterns), see ../cursorrules-structure-analysis.md.

Executive Summary​

ADK Implementation Status: Full Implementation
Overall Assessment: Good (with critical mashup issue)
Key Findings:

  • ✅ Proper ADK framework installation (Git submodule)
  • ✅ Correct KB structure matching ADK canonical
  • ✅ Proper version file and RW configuration
  • ❌ CRITICAL MASHUP: Epic 9 "Book Related Work" present in mobile app project
  • ✅ Good workflow integration (RW trigger in .cursorrules)
  • ✅ Proper framework packages structure

1. Kanban Structure Analysis​

1.1 Structure Overview​

  • Epic Count: 10 epics (Epics 1-9 + Epic 20)
  • Story Count: ~30+ stories across epics
  • Task Count: Multiple tasks per story
  • Directory Structure: docs/project-management/kanban/epics/Epic-X/
  • File Organization: Nested (Epic → Story → Task directories)

1.2 Distance from ADK Canonical Structure​

Comparison to ADK Canonical:

Epic Structure: ⚠️ DIVERGES - CRITICAL MASHUP ISSUE

  • Epics 1-9: Framework epics from ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure (dev-kit repo)
    • Epic 1: Project Core
    • Epic 2: Workflow Management Framework
    • Epic 3: Numbering & Versioning Framework
    • Epic 4: Kanban Framework
    • Epic 5: FR Implementation
    • Epic 6: BR Implementation
    • Epic 7: UXR (User Experience Research)
    • Epic 8: Codebase Maintenance and Review
    • Epic 9: Book Related Work ❌ INAPPROPRIATE FOR MOBILE APP PROJECT
  • Epic 20: Been There Mobile App - MVP (actual project epic) ✅

Root Cause: Project installed both:

  1. ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure (from dev-kit repo itself)
  2. Kanban package template (from packages/frameworks/kanban/)

Impact:

  • Confusion about which epics are relevant
  • Epic 9 "Book Related Work" has no relevance to mobile app
  • Clutters Kanban board with framework infrastructure epics
  • Makes it unclear what the actual project work is

Story Structure: ✅ MATCHES

  • Stories organized under Epic directories
  • Story naming follows pattern: Story-XXX-description.md
  • Story documents include proper frontmatter

Task Structure: ✅ MATCHES

  • Tasks organized in Story subdirectories
  • Task documents follow pattern: Task-YYY-description.md or TYYY-description.md
  • Tasks have proper structure and metadata

Naming Conventions: ✅ MATCHES

  • Epic naming: Epic-X/Epic-X.md
  • Story naming: Story-XXX-description.md
  • Task naming: Task-YYY-description.md or TYYY-description.md

File Organization: ✅ MATCHES

  • Nested structure: epics/Epic-X/Story-XXX/Task-YYY.md
  • Consistent with ADK canonical

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: CRITICAL (mashup issue)
  • Root Cause: Unclear installation instructions led to mixing ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure with Kanban package template
  • Impact: Confusion, inappropriate epics, unclear project boundaries

1.3 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. Proper Framework Installation

    • Frameworks installed via Git submodule in packages/frameworks/
    • Clean separation between frameworks and project code
    • Proper framework structure maintained

  2. Correct KB Structure

    • KB structure matches ADK canonical exactly
    • Proper directory organization: docs/project-management/kanban/epics/
    • Good separation of concerns

  3. Proper Version File

    • Version file at src/fynd_deals/version.py
    • Using RC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILD schema correctly
    • Version tracking integrated with Kanban

  4. RW Configuration

    • rw-config.yaml properly configured
    • Kanban integration enabled
    • Proper path mappings

  5. Workflow Integration

    • .cursorrules includes RW trigger section
    • Proper workflow definitions
    • Good integration with Kanban

  6. Epic 20 Structure

    • Epic 20 (actual project epic) properly structured
    • Stories well-organized
    • Tasks properly documented

1.4 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

  1. CRITICAL: Epic Mashup

    • Issue: Epics 1-9 from ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure mixed with project epic
    • Problem: Epic 9 "Book Related Work" has no relevance to mobile app
    • Impact: Confusion, clutter, unclear project boundaries
    • Root Cause: Unclear distinction between:
      • ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure (for dev-kit repo)
      • Kanban package template (for client projects)

  2. Framework Epics in Project Kanban

    • Issue: Epics 1-8 are framework infrastructure epics, not project epics
    • Problem: These epics belong to ai-dev-kit repo, not client projects
    • Impact: Confusion about what work belongs to the project vs. framework

  3. Inconsistent Epic Usage

    • Issue: Some framework epics (1-8) have stories/tasks, others don't
    • Problem: Unclear which epics are active vs. template placeholders
    • Impact: Maintenance burden, confusion

1.5 Mashup Issues​

🔀 Mixing ADK Components:

  1. Epic 9 "Book Related Work" in Mobile App

    • Description: Epic 9 from ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure present in mobile app project
    • Impact: CRITICAL - Epic has no relevance to mobile app project
    • Root Cause: Project copied ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure instead of using Kanban package template
    • Evidence: docs/project-management/kanban/epics/Epic-9/Epic-9.md exists with "Book Related Work" content

  2. Framework Infrastructure Epics (1-8) in Project

    • Description: Epics 1-8 are framework infrastructure epics from ai-dev-kit repo
    • Impact: MAJOR - Confusion about project vs. framework work
    • Root Cause: Same as above - copied dev-kit's own structure

1.6 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  1. Remove Epic 9 - "Book Related Work" has no relevance to mobile app
  2. Evaluate Epics 1-8 - Determine if these are needed or should be removed
  3. Clarify Project Boundaries - Ensure only project-relevant epics remain
  4. Consider Epic Cleanup - Remove framework infrastructure epics if not needed

For ADK:

  1. CRITICAL: Clarify Installation Instructions

    • Make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that projects should NOT copy ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure
    • Projects should use Kanban package template, not dev-kit's own epics
    • Add explicit warnings about this mashup

  2. Separate Dev-Kit Structure from Package Template

    • Clearly distinguish between:
      • ai-dev-kit/docs/project-management/kanban/epics/ (dev-kit's own structure)
      • packages/frameworks/kanban/templates/ (package template for projects)
    • Make this distinction obvious in installation guide

  3. Add Installation Validation

    • Create validator to detect mashup issues
    • Warn if project has inappropriate epics (e.g., Epic 9 in non-book projects)
    • Provide cleanup guidance

  4. Improve Template Contextualization

    • Template should guide projects to:
      • Use only relevant canonical epics (1-7, 8, 10, 18, 22, 23)
      • Add project-specific epics (like Epic 20)
      • NOT copy dev-kit's own epics (1-9)

2. Knowledge Base (KB) Analysis​

2.1 Structure Overview​

  • Directory Structure: docs/ with subdirectories matching ADK canonical
  • Document Count: ~50+ documents
  • Document Types: Architecture, Changelog, Documentation, Guides, project-management
  • Organization Pattern: Matches ADK canonical structure exactly

KB Structure:

docs/
├── Analysis/
├── Architecture/
│   └── standards-and-adrs/ (20+ ADRs)
├── changelog-and-release-notes/
│   └── changelog-archive/
├── Documentation/
│   └── user-docs/ (10+ framework docs)
├── Guides/
│   ├── framework-consumption/
│   └── getting-started/
└── project-management/
    └── kanban/

2.2 Distance from ADK Canonical KB Structure​

Comparison to ADK KB:

Directory Organization: ✅ MATCHES

  • Structure matches ADK canonical exactly
  • Proper separation: Architecture, Changelog, Documentation, Guides, project-management
  • Good depth management (3-4 levels)

Document Lifecycle: ✅ MATCHES

  • Documents have proper frontmatter with lifecycle metadata
  • TTL and expiration properly configured
  • Housekeeping policy set

Naming Conventions: ✅ MATCHES

  • Consistent naming patterns
  • Self-documenting names
  • Proper file extensions

Cross-Referencing: ✅ MATCHES

  • Proper cross-references between documents
  • Good linking patterns

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: NONE
  • Root Cause: N/A - structure matches canonical
  • Impact: None - KB structure is correct

2.3 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. Perfect KB Structure Match

    • KB structure matches ADK canonical exactly
    • Proper directory organization
    • Good separation of concerns

  2. Comprehensive ADRs

    • 20+ Architecture Decision Records
    • Well-documented standards
    • Good technical reference

  3. Proper Documentation Organization

    • Framework documentation in Documentation/user-docs/
    • Guides properly organized
    • Good discoverability

  4. Lifecycle Metadata

    • Documents have proper frontmatter
    • TTL and expiration configured
    • Good housekeeping

2.4 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

None identified - KB structure is correct.

2.5 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  • None - KB structure is correct

For ADK:

  • KB structure is working well - no changes needed
  • This project demonstrates correct KB adoption

3. Cursor Rules (.cursorrules) Analysis​

3.1 Structure Overview​

  • File Location: .cursorrules (project root)
  • File Size: ~437 lines
  • Sections: Multiple sections including RW trigger section
  • Organization: Well-organized with clear sections

3.2 ADK Integration​

Workflow Integration:

  • Release Workflow (RW): ✅ PRESENT
    • RW trigger section included
    • Proper workflow definitions
    • Config-driven approach documented
    • Step-by-step guide included

Kanban Integration:

  • Epic/Story/Task References: ✅ PRESENT
    • References to Kanban structure
    • Version integration documented

KB Integration:

  • Document References: ✅ PRESENT
    • References to KB structure
    • Lifecycle metadata mentioned

3.3 Distance from ADK Canonical Cursor Rules​

Comparison:

Structure: ✅ MATCHES

  • RW trigger section present
  • Proper workflow definitions
  • Good organization

Workflow Definitions: ✅ MATCHES

  • RW workflow properly defined
  • Step-by-step guide included
  • Config-driven approach

Agent Instructions: ✅ MATCHES

  • Clear instructions for RW execution
  • Proper TODO tracking
  • Good validation steps

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: NONE
  • Root Cause: N/A - matches canonical
  • Impact: None - cursor rules are correct

3.4 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. Comprehensive RW Trigger Section

    • Complete workflow definition
    • Step-by-step guide
    • Config-driven approach
    • Proper validation steps

  2. Good Documentation

    • Clear instructions
    • Examples provided
    • Troubleshooting guidance

  3. Proper Integration

    • Good integration with Kanban
    • Proper version integration
    • KB references included

3.5 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

None identified - cursor rules are correct.

3.6 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  • None - cursor rules are correct

For ADK:

  • Cursor rules structure is working well
  • This project demonstrates correct RW integration

4. CI/CD Configuration Analysis​

4.1 Configuration Overview​

  • CI/CD Platform: None detected
  • Workflow Files: None found
  • Pipeline Stages: N/A

4.2 ADK Workflow Integration​

Release Workflow (RW) Integration:

  • Present: N/A (no CI/CD)
  • Implementation: N/A
  • Customization: N/A

Other ADK Workflows:

  • None detected

4.3 Custom Workflows​

Custom Workflows:

  • None detected

4.4 Distance from ADK Canonical Workflows​

Comparison:

  • RW Implementation: N/A (no CI/CD)
  • Workflow Patterns: N/A

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: N/A (no CI/CD configured)
  • Root Cause: N/A
  • Impact: None - CI/CD not required for this project type

4.5 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. Appropriate for Project Type
    • Flutter mobile app may not need CI/CD initially
    • Can be added later if needed

4.6 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

None identified - CI/CD not required.

4.7 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  • Consider adding CI/CD when ready for automated testing/deployment

For ADK:

  • CI/CD integration is optional - not a requirement
  • This is fine for project type

5. Workflow Definitions Analysis​

5.1 Workflow Overview​

  • Release Workflow (RW): ✅ PRESENT (via .cursorrules)
  • Intake Workflows: ✅ PRESENT (FR/BR in Kanban)
  • Custom Workflows: None detected

5.2 Workflow Scripts​

Scripts Used:

  • packages/frameworks/workflow mgt/scripts/validation/validate_branch_context.py
  • packages/frameworks/workflow mgt/scripts/validation/validate_changelog_format.py
  • packages/frameworks/workflow mgt/scripts/install_release_workflow.py
  • scripts/sync_version_to_pubspec.py (custom - syncs version to Flutter pubspec.yaml)
  • scripts/documentation/validate-documentation-links.py
  • scripts/documentation/validate-documentation-consistency.py
  • scripts/documentation/documentation-review-workflow.py

Script Analysis:

Custom Scripts:

  1. sync_version_to_pubspec.py
    • Purpose: Syncs version from src/fynd_deals/version.py to Flutter pubspec.yaml
    • Customization: Project-specific script for Flutter integration
    • Drift from ADK: None - this is appropriate customization
    • Issues: None identified

ADK Framework Scripts:

  • All scripts from packages/frameworks/workflow mgt/scripts/ are used as-is
  • No customization detected
  • Proper integration

5.3 Distance from ADK Canonical Workflows​

Comparison:

RW Implementation: ✅ MATCHES

  • RW properly configured via .cursorrules
  • Config-driven approach
  • Proper validation

Intake Workflows: ✅ MATCHES

  • FR/BR intake workflows present
  • Proper Kanban integration

Workflow Patterns: ✅ MATCHES

  • Workflows follow ADK patterns
  • Good integration

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: NONE
  • Root Cause: N/A - workflows match canonical
  • Impact: None - workflows are correct

5.4 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. Proper RW Integration

    • RW properly configured
    • Config-driven approach
    • Good validation

  2. Custom Script for Flutter Integration

    • sync_version_to_pubspec.py is appropriate customization
    • Syncs version to Flutter pubspec.yaml
    • Good project-specific adaptation

  3. Framework Scripts Used As-Is

    • No unnecessary customization
    • Proper framework usage

5.5 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

None identified - workflows are correct.

5.6 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  • None - workflows are correct

For ADK:

  • Workflow integration is working well
  • Custom script for Flutter integration is good example of appropriate customization
  • Consider documenting Flutter-specific integration patterns

6. Scripts Analysis​

6.1 Script Inventory​

Scripts Found:

  • scripts/sync_version_to_pubspec.py - Custom Flutter version sync
  • scripts/documentation/validate-documentation-links.py - Documentation validation
  • scripts/documentation/validate-documentation-consistency.py - Documentation consistency
  • scripts/documentation/documentation-review-workflow.py - Documentation review
  • Framework scripts in packages/frameworks/workflow mgt/scripts/ (used as-is)

6.2 Script Usage​

Used By:

  • Workflows: Validation scripts used by RW
  • Kanban: N/A
  • KB: Documentation scripts for KB maintenance
  • Standalone: Version sync script for Flutter integration

6.3 Script Analysis​

Customizations:

  1. sync_version_to_pubspec.py
    • Customization: Project-specific script for Flutter
    • Drift from ADK: None - appropriate customization
    • Issues: None

Framework Scripts:

  • All framework scripts used as-is
  • No customization
  • Proper integration

6.4 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. Appropriate Customization

    • Custom script for Flutter integration is appropriate
    • Doesn't modify framework scripts
    • Good separation

  2. Framework Scripts Used As-Is

    • No unnecessary customization
    • Proper framework usage

6.5 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

None identified - scripts are correct.

6.6 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  • None - scripts are correct

For ADK:

  • Script usage is correct
  • Custom Flutter script is good example of appropriate customization
  • Consider documenting Flutter-specific patterns

7. Framework Drift Analysis​

7.1 Drift Summary​

Overall Drift Level: CRITICAL (due to Epic mashup)

Areas of Drift:

  • Kanban: CRITICAL - Epic mashup (Epics 1-9 + Epic 20)
  • KB: NONE - Perfect match
  • Workflows: NONE - Perfect match
  • Scripts: NONE - Appropriate customization only

7.2 Root Causes​

Why Drift Occurred:

  1. Unclear Installation Instructions

    • Project copied ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure instead of using package template
    • Unclear distinction between dev-kit's own structure and package template
    • No validation to prevent mashup

  2. Template Confusion

    • Project didn't understand difference between:
      • ai-dev-kit/docs/project-management/kanban/epics/ (dev-kit's own structure)
      • packages/frameworks/kanban/templates/ (package template)

  3. No Installation Validation

    • No validator to detect inappropriate epics
    • No warnings about mashup issues

Common Patterns:

  • Epic mashup appears to be common issue (user mentioned it)
  • Framework epics mixed with project epics

7.3 Impact Assessment​

Problems Caused:

  1. Confusion

    • Unclear which epics are project work vs. framework work
    • Epic 9 "Book Related Work" has no relevance

  2. Clutter

    • Kanban board cluttered with framework infrastructure epics
    • Makes it hard to see actual project work

  3. Maintenance Burden

    • Framework epics may be maintained unnecessarily
    • Unclear what needs attention

Maintenance Burden:

  • Medium - Epic cleanup needed
  • Framework epics may be maintained unnecessarily

8. What ADK Can Learn​

8.1 What to Implement​

✅ Good Practices to Adopt:

  1. Flutter Version Sync Pattern

    • Practice: Custom script to sync version from version.py to pubspec.yaml
    • Why Valuable: Enables Flutter projects to use ADK versioning
    • How to Implement: Document Flutter integration pattern, provide example script

  2. Perfect KB Structure Adoption

    • Practice: KB structure matches canonical exactly
    • Why Valuable: Demonstrates correct KB adoption
    • How to Implement: Use as example in KB adoption guide

  3. Proper RW Configuration

    • Practice: rw-config.yaml properly configured
    • Why Valuable: Shows correct RW setup
    • How to Implement: Use as example in RW installation guide

8.2 How to Harden​

🛡️ Hardening Opportunities:

  1. CRITICAL: Prevent Epic Mashup

    • What to Harden: Installation process to prevent copying dev-kit's own Kanban structure
    • How:
      • Add explicit warnings in installation guide
      • Create validator to detect inappropriate epics
      • Provide cleanup guidance
      • Separate dev-kit structure from package template more clearly

  2. Installation Validation

    • What to Harden: Add validation to detect mashup issues
    • How:
      • Create validate_kanban_structure.py script
      • Check for inappropriate epics (e.g., Epic 9 in non-book projects)
      • Warn about framework epics in project Kanban
      • Provide cleanup recommendations

  3. Template Contextualization

    • What to Harden: Improve template contextualization guidance
    • How:
      • Add explicit guidance on which epics to use
      • Document which epics are framework vs. project
      • Provide examples of correct epic selection

8.3 What NOT to Do​

❌ Anti-Patterns to Prevent:

  1. Epic Mashup

    • Anti-Pattern: Copying ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure into projects
    • Why Bad: Causes confusion, inappropriate epics, clutter
    • How to Prevent:
      • Make distinction crystal clear in installation guide
      • Add explicit warnings
      • Provide validator

  2. Framework Epics in Project Kanban

    • Anti-Pattern: Including framework infrastructure epics (1-8) in project Kanban
    • Why Bad: These belong to ai-dev-kit repo, not client projects
    • How to Prevent:
      • Clarify in installation guide
      • Provide template with only relevant epics
      • Add validation

Current ADK Issues:

  1. Unclear Installation Instructions

    • Issue: Installation guide doesn't clearly distinguish dev-kit structure from package template
    • How to Fix: Add explicit section explaining difference, add warnings

  2. No Installation Validation

    • Issue: No validator to detect mashup issues
    • How to Fix: Create validator script, add to installation process

8.4 What to Do Differently​

🔄 Improvements:

  1. Separate Dev-Kit Structure from Package Template

    • Current Approach: Unclear distinction
    • Better Approach:
      • Clearly separate:
        • ai-dev-kit/docs/project-management/kanban/epics/ (dev-kit's own structure)
        • packages/frameworks/kanban/templates/ (package template)
      • Make distinction obvious in all documentation
      • Add explicit warnings in installation guide

  2. Improve Template Contextualization

    • Current Approach: Template may not clearly guide epic selection
    • Better Approach:
      • Template should guide projects to:
        • Use only relevant canonical epics (1-7, 8, 10, 18, 22, 23)
        • Add project-specific epics
        • NOT copy dev-kit's own epics
      • Provide examples of correct epic selection
      • Add validation

  3. Add Installation Validation

    • Current Approach: No validation
    • Better Approach:
      • Create validator to detect mashup issues
      • Warn about inappropriate epics
      • Provide cleanup guidance
      • Integrate into installation process

9. Synthesis & Recommendations​

9.1 Key Insights​

Top 3 Insights:

  1. CRITICAL: Epic Mashup is Major Issue

    • Projects are copying ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure instead of using package template
    • Epic 9 "Book Related Work" appearing in non-book projects
    • Need to clearly separate dev-kit structure from package template

  2. KB Structure Adoption is Perfect

    • KB structure matches canonical exactly
    • Demonstrates correct adoption
    • Can be used as example

  3. Workflow Integration is Correct

    • RW properly configured
    • Good workflow integration
    • Appropriate customizations (Flutter version sync)

9.2 Critical Recommendations​

For ADK:

  1. CRITICAL: Prevent Epic Mashup (Priority: Critical)

    • Add explicit warnings in installation guide
    • Create validator to detect inappropriate epics
    • Provide cleanup guidance
    • Separate dev-kit structure from package template more clearly

  2. Add Installation Validation (Priority: High)

    • Create validate_kanban_structure.py script
    • Check for inappropriate epics
    • Warn about framework epics in project Kanban
    • Integrate into installation process

  3. Improve Template Contextualization (Priority: High)

    • Template should guide epic selection
    • Document which epics are framework vs. project
    • Provide examples of correct epic selection

For This Project:

  1. Remove Epic 9 - "Book Related Work" has no relevance
  2. Evaluate Epics 1-8 - Determine if needed or should be removed
  3. Clarify Project Boundaries - Ensure only project-relevant epics remain

9.3 Patterns Across Projects​

Common Patterns:

  • Epic mashup appears to be common (user mentioned it)
  • Framework epics mixed with project epics
  • Need for clearer installation guidance

10. Appendix​

10.1 File Inventory​

Kanban Files:

  • docs/project-management/kanban/epics/Epic-1/ through Epic-9/ (framework epics)
  • docs/project-management/kanban/epics/Epic-20/ (project epic)
  • Multiple stories and tasks per epic

KB Files:

  • docs/architecture/standards-and-adrs/ (20+ ADRs)
  • docs/changelog-and-release-notes/
  • docs/documentation/user-docs/ (10+ framework docs)
  • docs/guides/

Workflow Files:

  • .cursorrules (RW trigger section)
  • rw-config.yaml (RW configuration)

Script Files:

  • scripts/sync_version_to_pubspec.py (custom Flutter sync)
  • scripts/documentation/ (documentation scripts)
  • packages/frameworks/workflow mgt/scripts/ (framework scripts)

10.2 Comparison Tables​

Kanban Structure Comparison:

AspectADK Canonicalbeen-thereMatch?
Epic StructureProject-specific epics onlyEpics 1-9 (framework) + Epic 20 (project)❌ NO (mashup)
Story StructureStories under Epic directories✅ Matches✅ YES
Task StructureTasks under Story directories✅ Matches✅ YES
Naming ConventionsEpic-X, Story-XXX, Task-YYY✅ Matches✅ YES
File OrganizationNested structure✅ Matches✅ YES

KB Structure Comparison:

AspectADK Canonicalbeen-thereMatch?
Directory OrganizationArchitecture, Changelog, Documentation, Guides, project-management✅ Matches✅ YES
Document LifecycleFrontmatter with lifecycle metadata✅ Matches✅ YES
Naming ConventionsSelf-documenting names✅ Matches✅ YES
Cross-ReferencingProper linking patterns✅ Matches✅ YES

Analysis Completed: 2025-12-16
Next Review: After ADK hardening recommendations implemented