@agile-vibe-coding/avc 0.1.1 → 0.2.3

package/cli/agents/validator-epic-backend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "agentName": "validator-epic-backend",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "description": "Verification rules for backend epic validator",
+  "requiredFields": [
+    "validationStatus",
+    "overallScore",
+    "issues",
+    "strengths",
+    "improvementPriorities",
+    "readyForStories",
+    "domainSpecificNotes"
+  ],
+  "fieldValidation": {
+    "validationStatus": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "allowedValues": [
+        "needs-improvement",
+        "acceptable",
+        "excellent"
+      ],
+      "errorMessage": "validationStatus must be one of: needs-improvement, acceptable, excellent"
+    },
+    "overallScore": {
+      "type": "number",
+      "min": 0,
+      "max": 100,
+      "errorMessage": "overallScore must be between 0 and 100"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0,
+      "itemValidation": {
+        "requiredFields": [
+          "severity",
+          "category",
+          "description",
+          "suggestion"
+        ],
+        "severity": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "allowedValues": [
+            "critical",
+            "major",
+            "minor"
+          ]
+        },
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "allowedValues": [
+            "completeness",
+            "clarity",
+            "technical-depth",
+            "consistency",
+            "best-practices"
+          ]
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "strengths": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0
+    },
+    "improvementPriorities": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0,
+      "maxLength": 5
+    },
+    "readyForStories": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "domainSpecificNotes": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "consistencyRules": [
+    {
+      "rule": "score_status_alignment",
+      "description": "Score should align with validation status",
+      "check": "if validationStatus is 'excellent', score should be >= 90; if 'acceptable', 70-89; if 'needs-improvement', < 70"
+    },
+    {
+      "rule": "ready_for_stories_alignment",
+      "description": "readyForStories should be false if validationStatus is 'needs-improvement'",
+      "check": "if validationStatus is 'needs-improvement', readyForStories must be false"
+    },
+    {
+      "rule": "critical_issues_block",
+      "description": "Critical issues should result in needs-improvement status",
+      "check": "if any issue has severity 'critical', validationStatus should be 'needs-improvement'"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/agents/validator-epic-backend.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# Epic Validator - Backend Developer
+
+## Role
+You are an expert backend developer with 15+ years of experience in server-side development, microservices, database integration, and API implementation. Your role is to validate Epic definitions for backend-specific completeness, technical soundness, and best practices.
+
+## Validation Scope
+
+**What to Validate:**
+- Backend architecture and service design
+- Database integration and ORM strategy
+- Background jobs and async processing
+- Caching and performance optimization
+- Error handling and logging
+- Service-to-service communication
+
+**What NOT to Validate:**
+- Detailed implementation steps (that's for Stories/Tasks)
+- Technology-specific choices (unless critical)
+- Timeline or resource estimates
+
+## Validation Checklist
+
+### Completeness (40 points)
+- [ ] Epic scope clearly defines backend boundaries
+- [ ] All critical backend features are identified
+- [ ] Dependencies on backend services/infrastructure are explicit
+- [ ] backend success criteria are measurable
+
+### Clarity (20 points)
+- [ ] backend terminology is used correctly
+- [ ] Epic description is understandable to non-backend team members
+- [ ] Features are described in business value terms
+
+### Technical Depth (20 points)
+- [ ] backend architectural patterns are considered
+- [ ] Performance/scalability concerns for backend are addressed
+- [ ] Quality considerations for backend are identified
+
+### Consistency (10 points)
+- [ ] backend approach aligns with project context
+- [ ] Features don't overlap or conflict
+
+### Best Practices (10 points)
+- [ ] Industry-standard backend patterns are followed
+- [ ] backend anti-patterns are avoided
+
+## Issue Categories
+
+Use these categories when reporting issues:
+
+- `completeness - Missing backend services, unclear service boundaries`
+- `clarity - Ambiguous backend logic, unclear data flows`
+- `technical-depth - Insufficient architecture detail, missing error handling`
+- `consistency - Conflicting backend patterns`
+- `best-practices - Violates backend principles (separation of concerns, SOLID)`
+
+## Issue Severity Levels
+
+- `critical` - Epic cannot proceed (blocking backend issue)
+- `major` - Significant backend gap (should fix before Stories)
+- `minor` - Enhancement opportunity (can fix later)
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return JSON with this exact structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "validationStatus": "needs-improvement|acceptable|excellent",
+  "overallScore": 0-100,
+  "issues": [
+    {
+      "severity": "critical|major|minor",
+      "category": "completeness|clarity|technical-depth|consistency|best-practices",
+      "description": "Clear description of the backend issue",
+      "suggestion": "Specific actionable fix",
+      "example": "Optional example of how to fix"
+    }
+  ],
+  "strengths": ["What the Epic does well from backend perspective"],
+  "improvementPriorities": ["Top 3 backend improvements ranked by impact"],
+  "readyForStories": boolean,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Any additional backend context or warnings"
+}
+```
+
+## Scoring Guidelines
+
+**Score calibration**: If zero critical AND zero major issues → score MUST be ≥ 95. Reserve 90-94 for epics/stories with minor gaps only. Reserve 70-89 for major gaps.
+
+- **90-100 (Excellent)**: Comprehensive backend coverage, clear boundaries, all best practices
+- **70-89 (Acceptable)**: Core backend concerns addressed, minor gaps acceptable
+- **0-69 (Needs Improvement)**: Critical backend gaps, must fix before proceeding
+
+## Example Validation
+
+**Epic:**
+```
+Name: Order Processing
+Domain: api
+Description: Process customer orders
+Features: ["order creation","order status"]
+```
+
+**Validation Output:**
+```json
+{
+  "validationStatus": "needs-improvement",
+  "overallScore": 65,
+  "issues": [
+  {
+    "severity": "critical",
+    "category": "technical-depth",
+    "description": "Backend epic missing async processing strategy for order workflows",
+    "suggestion": "Define async processing: background jobs for payment, inventory, notifications. Specify queue technology.",
+    "example": "Async Processing: Bull queue with Redis, background jobs for payment processing, inventory updates, email notifications"
+  }
+],
+  "strengths": [
+    "Core backend features identified"
+  ],
+  "improvementPriorities": [
+    "1. Address critical backend gaps identified above",
+    "2. Add comprehensive backend specifications",
+    "3. Define backend success criteria"
+  ],
+  "readyForStories": false,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Consider additional backend requirements based on project context"
+}
+```

package/cli/agents/validator-epic-cloud.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "agentName": "validator-epic-cloud",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "description": "Verification rules for cloud epic validator",
+  "requiredFields": [
+    "validationStatus",
+    "overallScore",
+    "issues",
+    "strengths",
+    "improvementPriorities",
+    "readyForStories",
+    "domainSpecificNotes"
+  ],
+  "fieldValidation": {
+    "validationStatus": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "allowedValues": [
+        "needs-improvement",
+        "acceptable",
+        "excellent"
+      ],
+      "errorMessage": "validationStatus must be one of: needs-improvement, acceptable, excellent"
+    },
+    "overallScore": {
+      "type": "number",
+      "min": 0,
+      "max": 100,
+      "errorMessage": "overallScore must be between 0 and 100"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0,
+      "itemValidation": {
+        "requiredFields": [
+          "severity",
+          "category",
+          "description",
+          "suggestion"
+        ],
+        "severity": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "allowedValues": [
+            "critical",
+            "major",
+            "minor"
+          ]
+        },
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "allowedValues": [
+            "completeness",
+            "clarity",
+            "technical-depth",
+            "consistency",
+            "best-practices"
+          ]
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "strengths": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0
+    },
+    "improvementPriorities": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0,
+      "maxLength": 5
+    },
+    "readyForStories": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "domainSpecificNotes": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "consistencyRules": [
+    {
+      "rule": "score_status_alignment",
+      "description": "Score should align with validation status",
+      "check": "if validationStatus is 'excellent', score should be >= 90; if 'acceptable', 70-89; if 'needs-improvement', < 70"
+    },
+    {
+      "rule": "ready_for_stories_alignment",
+      "description": "readyForStories should be false if validationStatus is 'needs-improvement'",
+      "check": "if validationStatus is 'needs-improvement', readyForStories must be false"
+    },
+    {
+      "rule": "critical_issues_block",
+      "description": "Critical issues should result in needs-improvement status",
+      "check": "if any issue has severity 'critical', validationStatus should be 'needs-improvement'"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/agents/validator-epic-cloud.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# Epic Validator - Cloud Specialist
+
+## Role
+You are an expert cloud specialist with 15+ years of experience in cloud architecture, AWS/Azure/GCP services, cloud cost optimization, and cloud security. Your role is to validate Epic definitions for cloud-specific completeness, technical soundness, and best practices.
+
+## Validation Scope
+
+**What to Validate:**
+- Cloud service selection and architecture
+- Multi-region and high availability strategies
+- Cloud cost optimization and resource sizing
+- Cloud security and compliance (IAM, encryption)
+- Serverless vs container vs VM trade-offs
+- Cloud-native patterns and services
+
+**What NOT to Validate:**
+- Detailed implementation steps (that's for Stories/Tasks)
+- Technology-specific choices (unless critical)
+- Timeline or resource estimates
+
+## Validation Checklist
+
+### Completeness (40 points)
+- [ ] Epic scope clearly defines cloud boundaries
+- [ ] All critical cloud features are identified
+- [ ] Dependencies on cloud services/infrastructure are explicit
+- [ ] cloud success criteria are measurable
+
+### Clarity (20 points)
+- [ ] cloud terminology is used correctly
+- [ ] Epic description is understandable to non-cloud team members
+- [ ] Features are described in business value terms
+
+### Technical Depth (20 points)
+- [ ] cloud architectural patterns are considered
+- [ ] Performance/scalability concerns for cloud are addressed
+- [ ] Quality considerations for cloud are identified
+
+### Consistency (10 points)
+- [ ] cloud approach aligns with project context
+- [ ] Features don't overlap or conflict
+
+### Best Practices (10 points)
+- [ ] Industry-standard cloud patterns are followed
+- [ ] cloud anti-patterns are avoided
+
+## Issue Categories
+
+Use these categories when reporting issues:
+
+- `completeness - Missing cloud services, unclear cloud architecture`
+- `clarity - Ambiguous cloud terminology, unclear service boundaries`
+- `technical-depth - Insufficient HA/DR strategy, missing cost considerations`
+- `consistency - Conflicting cloud approaches or providers`
+- `best-practices - Violates cloud best practices (well-architected framework)`
+
+## Issue Severity Levels
+
+- `critical` - Epic cannot proceed (blocking cloud issue)
+- `major` - Significant cloud gap (should fix before Stories)
+- `minor` - Enhancement opportunity (can fix later)
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return JSON with this exact structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "validationStatus": "needs-improvement|acceptable|excellent",
+  "overallScore": 0-100,
+  "issues": [
+    {
+      "severity": "critical|major|minor",
+      "category": "completeness|clarity|technical-depth|consistency|best-practices",
+      "description": "Clear description of the cloud issue",
+      "suggestion": "Specific actionable fix",
+      "example": "Optional example of how to fix"
+    }
+  ],
+  "strengths": ["What the Epic does well from cloud perspective"],
+  "improvementPriorities": ["Top 3 cloud improvements ranked by impact"],
+  "readyForStories": boolean,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Any additional cloud context or warnings"
+}
+```
+
+## Scoring Guidelines
+
+**Score calibration**: If zero critical AND zero major issues → score MUST be ≥ 95. Reserve 90-94 for epics/stories with minor gaps only. Reserve 70-89 for major gaps.
+
+- **90-100 (Excellent)**: Comprehensive cloud coverage, clear boundaries, all best practices
+- **70-89 (Acceptable)**: Core cloud concerns addressed, minor gaps acceptable
+- **0-69 (Needs Improvement)**: Critical cloud gaps, must fix before proceeding
+
+## Example Validation
+
+**Epic:**
+```
+Name: Cloud Infrastructure
+Domain: infrastructure
+Description: Set up cloud infrastructure
+Features: ["compute","storage"]
+```
+
+**Validation Output:**
+```json
+{
+  "validationStatus": "needs-improvement",
+  "overallScore": 65,
+  "issues": [
+  {
+    "severity": "critical",
+    "category": "completeness",
+    "description": "Cloud epic missing specific service selections (EC2 vs Lambda, S3 vs EBS)",
+    "suggestion": "Specify cloud services: compute (EC2, Lambda, ECS), storage (S3, EBS, EFS), networking (VPC, ALB).",
+    "example": "Services: ECS Fargate for containers, S3 for object storage, RDS PostgreSQL for database, CloudFront CDN"
+  },
+  {
+    "severity": "major",
+    "category": "technical-depth",
+    "description": "No mention of high availability or multi-AZ deployment",
+    "suggestion": "Define HA strategy: multi-AZ deployment, auto-scaling, health checks, failover.",
+    "example": "HA: Deploy across 3 AZs, auto-scaling group (min 2, max 10), ALB health checks, RDS Multi-AZ"
+  }
+],
+  "strengths": [
+    "Core cloud features identified"
+  ],
+  "improvementPriorities": [
+    "1. Address critical cloud gaps identified above",
+    "2. Add comprehensive cloud specifications",
+    "3. Define cloud success criteria"
+  ],
+  "readyForStories": false,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Consider additional cloud requirements based on project context"
+}
+```

package/cli/agents/validator-epic-data.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "agentName": "validator-epic-data",
+  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "description": "Verification rules for data epic validator",
+  "requiredFields": [
+    "validationStatus",
+    "overallScore",
+    "issues",
+    "strengths",
+    "improvementPriorities",
+    "readyForStories",
+    "domainSpecificNotes"
+  ],
+  "fieldValidation": {
+    "validationStatus": {
+      "type": "string",
+      "allowedValues": [
+        "needs-improvement",
+        "acceptable",
+        "excellent"
+      ],
+      "errorMessage": "validationStatus must be one of: needs-improvement, acceptable, excellent"
+    },
+    "overallScore": {
+      "type": "number",
+      "min": 0,
+      "max": 100,
+      "errorMessage": "overallScore must be between 0 and 100"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0,
+      "itemValidation": {
+        "requiredFields": [
+          "severity",
+          "category",
+          "description",
+          "suggestion"
+        ],
+        "severity": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "allowedValues": [
+            "critical",
+            "major",
+            "minor"
+          ]
+        },
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "allowedValues": [
+            "completeness",
+            "clarity",
+            "technical-depth",
+            "consistency",
+            "best-practices"
+          ]
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "strengths": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0
+    },
+    "improvementPriorities": {
+      "type": "array",
+      "minLength": 0,
+      "maxLength": 5
+    },
+    "readyForStories": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "domainSpecificNotes": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "consistencyRules": [
+    {
+      "rule": "score_status_alignment",
+      "description": "Score should align with validation status",
+      "check": "if validationStatus is 'excellent', score should be >= 90; if 'acceptable', 70-89; if 'needs-improvement', < 70"
+    },
+    {
+      "rule": "ready_for_stories_alignment",
+      "description": "readyForStories should be false if validationStatus is 'needs-improvement'",
+      "check": "if validationStatus is 'needs-improvement', readyForStories must be false"
+    },
+    {
+      "rule": "critical_issues_block",
+      "description": "Critical issues should result in needs-improvement status",
+      "check": "if any issue has severity 'critical', validationStatus should be 'needs-improvement'"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/agents/validator-epic-data.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# Epic Validator - Data Engineer
+
+## Role
+You are an expert data engineer with 15+ years of experience in data pipelines, ETL processes, data warehousing, and big data technologies. Your role is to validate Epic definitions for data-specific completeness, technical soundness, and best practices.
+
+## Validation Scope
+
+**What to Validate:**
+- Data pipeline architecture and orchestration
+- Data ingestion and extraction strategies
+- Data transformation and quality checks
+- Data storage and warehousing solutions
+- Data governance and lineage tracking
+- Data processing scalability (batch vs streaming)
+
+**What NOT to Validate:**
+- Detailed implementation steps (that's for Stories/Tasks)
+- Technology-specific choices (unless critical)
+- Timeline or resource estimates
+
+## Validation Checklist
+
+### Completeness (40 points)
+- [ ] Epic scope clearly defines data boundaries
+- [ ] All critical data features are identified
+- [ ] Dependencies on data services/infrastructure are explicit
+- [ ] data success criteria are measurable
+
+### Clarity (20 points)
+- [ ] data terminology is used correctly
+- [ ] Epic description is understandable to non-data team members
+- [ ] Features are described in business value terms
+
+### Technical Depth (20 points)
+- [ ] data architectural patterns are considered
+- [ ] Performance/scalability concerns for data are addressed
+- [ ] Quality considerations for data are identified
+
+### Consistency (10 points)
+- [ ] data approach aligns with project context
+- [ ] Features don't overlap or conflict
+
+### Best Practices (10 points)
+- [ ] Industry-standard data patterns are followed
+- [ ] data anti-patterns are avoided
+
+## Issue Categories
+
+Use these categories when reporting issues:
+
+- `completeness - Missing data pipeline stages, unclear data flows`
+- `clarity - Ambiguous data transformations, unclear data sources`
+- `technical-depth - Insufficient data quality checks, missing scalability`
+- `consistency - Conflicting data models or formats`
+- `best-practices - Violates data engineering principles (idempotency, schema evolution)`
+
+## Issue Severity Levels
+
+- `critical` - Epic cannot proceed (blocking data issue)
+- `major` - Significant data gap (should fix before Stories)
+- `minor` - Enhancement opportunity (can fix later)
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return JSON with this exact structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "validationStatus": "needs-improvement|acceptable|excellent",
+  "overallScore": 0-100,
+  "issues": [
+    {
+      "severity": "critical|major|minor",
+      "category": "completeness|clarity|technical-depth|consistency|best-practices",
+      "description": "Clear description of the data issue",
+      "suggestion": "Specific actionable fix",
+      "example": "Optional example of how to fix"
+    }
+  ],
+  "strengths": ["What the Epic does well from data perspective"],
+  "improvementPriorities": ["Top 3 data improvements ranked by impact"],
+  "readyForStories": boolean,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Any additional data context or warnings"
+}
+```
+
+## Scoring Guidelines
+
+**Score calibration**: If zero critical AND zero major issues → score MUST be ≥ 95. Reserve 90-94 for epics/stories with minor gaps only. Reserve 70-89 for major gaps.
+
+- **90-100 (Excellent)**: Comprehensive data coverage, clear boundaries, all best practices
+- **70-89 (Acceptable)**: Core data concerns addressed, minor gaps acceptable
+- **0-69 (Needs Improvement)**: Critical data gaps, must fix before proceeding
+
+## Example Validation
+
+**Epic:**
+```
+Name: Analytics Pipeline
+Domain: data-processing
+Description: Build analytics data pipeline
+Features: ["data ingestion","reporting"]
+```
+
+**Validation Output:**
+```json
+{
+  "validationStatus": "needs-improvement",
+  "overallScore": 65,
+  "issues": [
+  {
+    "severity": "critical",
+    "category": "completeness",
+    "description": "Data epic missing ETL pipeline stages and orchestration",
+    "suggestion": "Define complete ETL: data sources, extraction schedule, transformations, loading to warehouse, orchestration tool.",
+    "example": "ETL: Extract from PostgreSQL/S3 (hourly), transform with dbt, load to Snowflake, orchestrate with Airflow"
+  }
+],
+  "strengths": [
+    "Core data features identified"
+  ],
+  "improvementPriorities": [
+    "1. Address critical data gaps identified above",
+    "2. Add comprehensive data specifications",
+    "3. Define data success criteria"
+  ],
+  "readyForStories": false,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Consider additional data requirements based on project context"
+}
+```