AI Development Methodology

Self-development backlog

This is the backlog for the methodology project’s self-development (the methodology applied to its own development). Follow methodology/04_backlog_items.md for the canonical BL-#### format, ROI heuristic, lifecycle, and item rules — everything in this backlog uses that format unchanged.

Structure

self-development/backlog/
├── README.md             # this file
├── EPICS.md              # rollup of all epics with status counts + pillar coverage
├── ACTIVE_CONTEXT.md     # volatile working-state baton
├── FEEDBACK.md           # inbound feedback inbox (untrusted by default)
├── HUMAN_NEEDED.md       # items blocked on human-only action
└── epics/
    ├── E00-intake/        # standing; never closes
    ├── E01-examples-folder/
    │   ├── README.md     # charter
    │   ├── BACKLOG.md    # active items
    │   ├── ARCHIVE.md    # done items
    │   ├── FUTURE.md     # deferred items
    │   └── TEST.md       # epic acceptance + regression scenarios
    ├── E02-first-semiannual-self-evaluation/   # same shape as above
    ├── E03-git-workflow-trim/
    ├── E04-native-tool-templates/
    ├── E05-cheatsheet/
    ├── E06-bmad-v6-landscape-pass/
    ├── E07-agentic-workflow-pass/
    ├── E08-role-briefs/
    ├── E09-external-landscape-pass/
    ├── E10-external-audit-remediation/
    └── E11-assurance-and-squads/

The five-file shape is the methodology’s, per “Standard epic-folder structure”. This diagram documented four for a long time and the filesystem matched the diagram rather than the methodology — an external audit caught it (F-09). All twelve epics carry all five files. The nine back-filled TEST.md files are empty-but-present and point at the real verification record in each ARCHIVE.md; no acceptance scenarios were reconstructed, because back-filling rows that never ran would be fabricated evidence. The rule was not weakened to fit the practice.

ID space

Per the methodology’s project structure convention: item IDs are repo-wide-monotonic within this backlog (so items can move between epics without renumbering and grep BL-0042 is unambiguous within the self-development backlog).

Workflow

Standard methodology workflow per methodology/04_backlog_items.md. Three project-specific overrides:

  1. The autonomous loop MUST NOT modify abstract methodology docs in methodology/ autonomously. Cycle outputs that suggest methodology changes are surfaced to the maintainer; methodology updates ship as a normal release cycle. The full constraint set is in ../AUTONOMOUS_LOOP.md “Hard constraints.”
  2. All releases that touch self-development/ ship as minor or patch versions of the public repo — the work is in the public repo, but it’s project-meta work, not methodology work. The abstract methodology in methodology/ versions independently.
  3. WIP cap is 2 active epics (not the methodology’s typical 3). Raised from 1 on E02’s close. See EPICS.md “WIP cap note” for reasoning. The cap has still never actually been contended, so there is no evidence for raising it further. E00-intake is exempt — it is standing rather than chartered, and a permanently-active epic would otherwise eat a slot forever. Declared in its charter as a deviation rather than read into the rule.
  4. Focused mode is dogfooded, not published. E00 runs it; E00/FUTURE.md holds the design and the condition that would promote it into methodology/. Nothing about it is a published convention yet, deliberately.

Cross-references

Status

Bootstrapped on 2026-05-25; the bootstrap completed long ago. As of 2026-09-05: eleven epics, eight done, one parked (E04, will not resume), one active (E10), one standing (E00 intake). Item IDs run to BL-0062. The live rollup is EPICS.md — this section records origin, not current state.

This paragraph was stale by two epics, twenty-two item IDs and a WIP cap when an external audit read it. It is the second-order form of the finding E10 exists to fix: a hand-maintained record drifts, and nothing notices until someone outside reads it. No check will catch the next one — a committed checker was declined — so the only defences are that this section says what it is (origin, not current state), that it points at the file that is, and that ../RELEASE_EVIDENCE.md makes the counts reproducible by anyone who cares to look.