fix: Clarify quick flow tech-spec plan wording

[wsmoak]

What

• rename the Step 2 checkpoint menu option to say "Generate Plan" so it matches the next step

Why

When going through the quick-dev workflow it was confusing to have the choice to "Generate Spec" when I already have a tech spec. The next step is actually to generate the implementation plan.

[a] Advanced Elicitation - explore more context
[c] Continue - proceed to Generate Spec
[p] Party Mode - bring in other experts

c     #<---- user input 

Loading Step 3: Generate Plan.

[alexeyv]

Thanks for catching this! The wording is indeed confusing.

However, I'd suggest a slightly different fix. The current pattern Continue - proceed to is redundant (both words mean the same thing), and we should also update step-01 in a similar way.

step-01-understand.md:167

[c] Continue to Deep Investigation

step-02-investigate.md:122

[c] Continue to Implementation Plan

This removes the redundancy and matches the "Next:" labels in each step's progress line.

Would you be open to updating both files in this PR?

[wsmoak]

The current pattern is Title - description. With that change we would have:

[a] Advanced Elicitation - explore more context
[c] Continue to Implementation Plan
[p] Party Mode - bring in other experts

So now we have a different inconsistency. Is there a style guide to follow?

Related: I left feedback in Discord that some of the lists are numbered, some are one lowercase letter (like this one) and some are two uppercase letters like [CH].

Aside: Feel free to close this unmerged if you're going in a different direction, I am not attached to it in the least!

[bmadcode]

sorry just saw this - good call out on a convention! I think all menu items should be listed consistently as upper case wether 1 or 2 letters (the llm still seems to accept either as input at least with claude)

re '-' or 'to' most of the agent menus right now have description as [XX] Some sentence type description and workflow follow the [XX] Word - Explain...

Standardizing this is a great idea - also some miss in the menus having it show the actual workflow name also like create-prd

maybe we could standardize all to follow [XX or X] Word or workflow-name - explanation - this could be worked into the validation of the bmb.

RE standard files - the bmb workflows now each have a data folder that really are the standards - for example src/modules/bmb/workflows/agent/data and src/modules/bmb/workflows/workflow/data.