Skip to main content

ame Prompt, Three Workflows: What Happens When BMAD Joins SpecKit

By

 In my previous article, I looked at SpecKit without extensions and SpecKit with extensions, trying to understand how much structure really helps when we use AI to generate code. This post is a follow-up of that work. I kept the same prompt, tools, and evaluation method, but added a third approach: BMAD (BMad Agentic Development).

From the beginning, BMAD felt different. SpecKit guides the AI through clear workflows. BMAD, on the other hand, feels like a small virtual team that thinks first, plans more, and then writes code. This difference shows clearly in the output.

What impressed me most was simplicity. Even if BMAD did not win on all linting scores, the code was much easier to read and reason about. The Halstead cognitive metrics showed a big gap that classic linters do not really capture. In simple words, the BMAD code is easier for a human brain.

Testing was another strong signal. BMAD produced the highest number of tests and almost 99% coverage, while also having the smallest codebase. Less code, more tests — that is usually a good sign.

Still, SpecKit with extensions remains very strong for documentation and project maturity. If you think about long‑term maintenance or enterprise readiness, extensions add real value.

Below is a small snapshot of the numbers that influenced my conclusion:

Metric

SpecKit

SpecKit + Extensions

BMAD

Source Lines of Code

604

629

517

Pylint Score

9.68

9.32

8.50

Halstead Effort

2,665

1,526

1,090

Test Count

65

102

107

Test Coverage

94.27%

92.24%

99.01%

 

My takeaway so far is simple:
BMAD optimises for thinking and simplicity, while SpecKit + Extensions optimises for structure and completeness.
Ultimately, establishing a balance between BMAD and SpecKit + Extensions is key. Measuring the trade-offs helps determine the optimal approach for your needs.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

By
In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

By
In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...
Post a Comment
Read more

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

By
Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...
8 comments
Read more