HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
bmad-code-org
BMAD-METHOD
Python2025–2026
bmad-code-org / BMAD-METHOD

BMAD-METHOD

Breakthrough Method for Agile Ai Driven Development

Science & EngineeringAI & Machine Learning
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
18Distinct people
18Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
55.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Breakthrough Method for Agile Ai Driven Development

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 11:56:56 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month18 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2025-05-25 12:16:54 UTC to 2026-10-23 06:30:42 UTC.

01232025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMay 20252025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 20262026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 2 submissions, 0 commentsOct 2026

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
May 20252025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jun 20252025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20252025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Aug 20252025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC312
Sep 20252025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Oct 20252025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20252025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Dec 20252025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Jan 20262026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20262026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC312
Mar 20262026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20262026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC101
May 20262026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jun 20262026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20262026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20262026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20262026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20262026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-11-01 00:00:00 UTC220

What Hacker News says

18 sources
redact207·May 4, 2026
I sometimes wonder if I'm in a different universe to other devs. Anytime AI coding is brought up, comments are overwhelmingly negative and often point out correctness, quality, slop, etc. There's also the 'more stuff is being delivered, but it's not right, full of holes and papercuts'. I'm 22 years into development and couldn't think of going back to non AI programming now. Not only has it sped up velocity by an order of magnitude, it's also helped me unlock side projects that I would never even begin in the past as I knew I didn't have that time. It's just like any tool though, and I've found enormous differences in outcome depending on how you drive it. Launching into 'build this' and expecting it to output code that you would manually write would not get you there; and I feel this is where most developers stall out. Getting the right o
Read the rest
utcomes takes a lot of harness set up - the same as if you wanted to hire new devs and get them productive without peering with them. You would set up linting, good test coverage and approaches, thorough documentation about what your project is, the domain, the architecture etc. This at least gets good code consistency for the most part. For how to build, https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD is really good and I've onboarded a few Saas projects into it now. Tech speccing and multiple cycles of elicitation are what deal with all the edge cases that you normally only encounter during coding. It does front-load all of the planning brainwork; but condensing that into a couple days of solid speccing is far more productive than spreading it out over months. It's taken a while to get to this point, and most agents aren't good for substantial work out of the box. Most of the time what the agent does will be a product of its environment.
In Agentic Coding Is a Trap
atilla_bilgic·Nov 17, 2025
Hi, As a former senior solution architect, I have tested several tools or platforms of "vibe-coding" or "agentic software development". None of the available tools or platforms satisfied the quality level, I used to have. Number of failures was more than successes. Which is completely understandable for the "Sophisticated Prediction Algorithms" or LLMs in official terms. The main problem is these systems do not have proper judgement mechanisms to translate user or customer requirements to executable tasks. Then, I have ended up with https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD. This framework is a well thought approach to create very detailed definitions of the tasks that LLM based coding agents can process and execute with better outcomes. To address this topic I have recently published an article you can read https://open.substack.com/p
Read the rest
ub/practicalsecurity/p/the-70-pro... . I hope the information and research for this article gives you some ammunition for your defense. For further discussions feel free to reach out by leaving a comment to the article if you wish. I hope things will get better for you in the startup you are contributing.
In Startup CTO insisting on only vibe coding – What to do?

Showing the 15 most recent of 18 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.