@agile-vibe-coding/avc 0.1.1 → 0.2.3

package/cli/tools/generate-validators.js

@@ -0,0 +1,669 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+
+/**
+ * Validator Generator Script
+ *
+ * Generates validator agent .md files and verification rule .json files
+ * for all remaining domains based on established patterns.
+ *
+ * Usage: node src/cli/tools/generate-validators.js
+ */
+
+import fs from 'fs';
+import path from 'path';
+import { fileURLToPath } from 'url';
+
+const __filename = fileURLToPath(import.meta.url);
+const __dirname = path.dirname(__filename);
+
+const AGENTS_PATH = path.join(__dirname, '..', 'agents');
+
+// Validator domain configurations
+const VALIDATORS = {
+  epic: [
+    {
+      name: 'database',
+      title: 'Database Specialist',
+      expertise: 'database design, data modeling, query optimization, and database administration',
+      scope: {
+        validate: [
+          'Data model design and schema definitions',
+          'Database performance and query optimization',
+          'Data integrity and consistency requirements',
+          'Backup, recovery, and disaster recovery strategies',
+          'Database scalability (sharding, replication, partitioning)',
+          'Migration and schema evolution strategies'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          'completeness - Missing tables/entities, unclear relationships',
+          'clarity - Ambiguous data model, unclear database boundaries',
+          'technical-depth - Insufficient normalization/denormalization strategy, missing indexes',
+          'consistency - Conflicting data requirements or constraints',
+          'best-practices - Violates database design principles (normalization, indexing)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'User Data Storage',
+        domain: 'data-processing',
+        description: 'Store user data',
+        features: ['user table', 'profile storage'],
+        issues: [
+          {
+            severity: 'critical',
+            category: 'completeness',
+            description: 'Database epic missing schema definition and relationships',
+            suggestion: 'Define complete schema: tables, columns, data types, primary keys, foreign keys, indexes.',
+            example: 'Schema: users table (id PK, email unique, password_hash, created_at), profiles table (user_id FK, bio, avatar_url)'
+          },
+          {
+            severity: 'major',
+            category: 'technical-depth',
+            description: 'No mention of database technology (SQL vs NoSQL) or specific database engine',
+            suggestion: 'Specify database type (PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, DynamoDB) based on data access patterns.',
+            example: 'Technology: PostgreSQL for relational user data with ACID guarantees'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'api',
+      title: 'API Specialist',
+      expertise: 'RESTful API design, GraphQL, API security, and API lifecycle management',
+      scope: {
+        validate: [
+          'API endpoints and resource models',
+          'Request/response formats and data contracts',
+          'API authentication and authorization',
+          'Rate limiting and throttling strategies',
+          'API versioning and backward compatibility',
+          'Error handling and status codes'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          'completeness - Missing endpoints, unclear API surface',
+          'clarity - Ambiguous API contracts, unclear resource models',
+          'technical-depth - Insufficient API design detail, missing error handling',
+          'consistency - Conflicting API patterns or conventions',
+          'best-practices - Violates REST/GraphQL principles, poor API design'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'User API',
+        domain: 'api',
+        description: 'Expose user management APIs',
+        features: ['user endpoints', 'authentication'],
+        issues: [
+          {
+            severity: 'critical',
+            category: 'completeness',
+            description: 'API epic missing endpoint specifications (methods, paths, parameters)',
+            suggestion: 'Define all endpoints: GET /users, POST /users, GET /users/:id, PUT /users/:id, DELETE /users/:id',
+            example: 'Endpoints: GET /users (list), POST /users (create), GET /users/:id (get), PUT /users/:id (update), DELETE /users/:id (delete)'
+          },
+          {
+            severity: 'major',
+            category: 'technical-depth',
+            description: 'No mention of API authentication mechanism',
+            suggestion: 'Specify authentication: JWT bearer tokens, API keys, OAuth 2.0, session cookies.',
+            example: 'Authentication: JWT bearer tokens in Authorization header, 1-hour expiry, refresh token support'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'cloud',
+      title: 'Cloud Specialist',
+      expertise: 'cloud architecture, AWS/Azure/GCP services, cloud cost optimization, and cloud security',
+      scope: {
+        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'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          '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)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'Cloud Infrastructure',
+        domain: 'infrastructure',
+        description: 'Set up cloud infrastructure',
+        features: ['compute', 'storage'],
+        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'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'qa',
+      title: 'QA Engineer',
+      expertise: 'quality assurance, test planning, defect management, and quality metrics',
+      scope: {
+        validate: [
+          'Testing strategy and test coverage requirements',
+          'Quality gates and acceptance criteria',
+          'Defect management and bug triage processes',
+          'Test automation and manual testing balance',
+          'Performance and load testing requirements',
+          'Quality metrics and success criteria'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          'completeness - Missing test scenarios, unclear quality criteria',
+          'clarity - Ambiguous acceptance criteria, unclear test scope',
+          'technical-depth - Insufficient test coverage, missing edge cases',
+          'consistency - Conflicting quality requirements',
+          'best-practices - Violates testing best practices (test pyramid, shift-left)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'User Authentication',
+        domain: 'user-management',
+        description: 'Implement authentication',
+        features: ['login', 'logout'],
+        issues: [
+          {
+            severity: 'critical',
+            category: 'completeness',
+            description: 'Epic missing testability requirements and quality gates',
+            suggestion: 'Define quality gates: unit test coverage (>80%), integration tests for all flows, security tests.',
+            example: 'Quality Gates: 80% unit coverage, 100% integration coverage for auth flows, OWASP ZAP security scan, load test (1000 concurrent logins)'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'test-architect',
+      title: 'Test Architect',
+      expertise: 'test architecture, automation frameworks, test infrastructure, and testing patterns',
+      scope: {
+        validate: [
+          'Test architecture and framework selection',
+          'Test data management strategies',
+          'Test environment and infrastructure needs',
+          'Test automation patterns and anti-patterns',
+          'Integration with CI/CD pipelines',
+          'Test maintainability and scalability'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          'completeness - Missing test infrastructure, unclear test architecture',
+          'clarity - Ambiguous test strategy, unclear automation scope',
+          'technical-depth - Insufficient test framework design, missing CI/CD integration',
+          'consistency - Conflicting test approaches',
+          'best-practices - Violates test architecture principles (DRY, test pyramid, BDD)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'E-commerce Checkout',
+        domain: 'frontend',
+        description: 'Build checkout flow',
+        features: ['cart', 'payment', 'order confirmation'],
+        issues: [
+          {
+            severity: 'major',
+            category: 'technical-depth',
+            description: 'Epic missing test automation framework and CI/CD integration',
+            suggestion: 'Specify test framework: Jest for unit, Cypress for e2e, run tests in CI before merge.',
+            example: 'Testing: Jest (unit), React Testing Library (component), Cypress (e2e), run in GitHub Actions on PR'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'ux',
+      title: 'UX Designer',
+      expertise: 'user experience design, user research, interaction design, and usability testing',
+      scope: {
+        validate: [
+          'User flows and journey maps',
+          'Usability and accessibility requirements',
+          'User research and validation needs',
+          'Information architecture and navigation',
+          'User feedback and iteration strategies',
+          'UX metrics and success criteria'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          'completeness - Missing user flows, unclear UX requirements',
+          'clarity - Ambiguous user experience, unclear user goals',
+          'technical-depth - Insufficient user research, missing usability testing',
+          'consistency - Conflicting UX patterns',
+          'best-practices - Violates UX principles (cognitive load, user control, consistency)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'User Dashboard',
+        domain: 'frontend',
+        description: 'Build dashboard',
+        features: ['widgets', 'charts'],
+        issues: [
+          {
+            severity: 'major',
+            category: 'completeness',
+            description: 'Epic missing user flows and task analysis',
+            suggestion: 'Define primary user tasks and flows: what users need to accomplish, key actions, success paths.',
+            example: 'User Flows: (1) View key metrics at a glance, (2) Drill into specific metric details, (3) Customize dashboard layout'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'ui',
+      title: 'UI Designer',
+      expertise: 'user interface design, visual design, design systems, and UI component libraries',
+      scope: {
+        validate: [
+          'Visual design and branding consistency',
+          'UI component specifications',
+          'Design system and component library',
+          'Responsive design and breakpoints',
+          'Accessibility (color contrast, typography, spacing)',
+          'UI patterns and conventions'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          'completeness - Missing UI specifications, unclear component library',
+          'clarity - Ambiguous visual design, unclear UI patterns',
+          'technical-depth - Insufficient responsive design, missing accessibility specs',
+          'consistency - Conflicting UI styles or components',
+          'best-practices - Violates UI design principles (visual hierarchy, contrast, spacing)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'Admin Panel',
+        domain: 'frontend',
+        description: 'Build admin interface',
+        features: ['tables', 'forms'],
+        issues: [
+          {
+            severity: 'major',
+            category: 'completeness',
+            description: 'Epic missing UI design system and component specifications',
+            suggestion: 'Define design system: color palette, typography scale, spacing system, component library (tables, forms, buttons).',
+            example: 'Design System: Material-UI component library, 8px spacing grid, primary color #1976d2, Roboto font family'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'mobile',
+      title: 'Mobile Developer',
+      expertise: 'iOS and Android development, mobile app architecture, and mobile UX patterns',
+      scope: {
+        validate: [
+          'Mobile platform support (iOS, Android, cross-platform)',
+          'Mobile-specific UX patterns and gestures',
+          'Offline support and data synchronization',
+          'Mobile performance and battery optimization',
+          'Push notifications and background tasks',
+          'App store deployment and distribution'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          'completeness - Missing mobile features, unclear platform support',
+          'clarity - Ambiguous mobile requirements, unclear offline behavior',
+          'technical-depth - Insufficient mobile architecture, missing performance optimization',
+          'consistency - Conflicting mobile patterns',
+          'best-practices - Violates mobile best practices (native patterns, offline-first)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'Mobile App',
+        domain: 'mobile',
+        description: 'Build mobile application',
+        features: ['user interface', 'data sync'],
+        issues: [
+          {
+            severity: 'critical',
+            category: 'completeness',
+            description: 'Mobile epic missing platform specification (iOS, Android, React Native, Flutter)',
+            suggestion: 'Specify mobile approach: native iOS + Android, React Native, Flutter, or PWA.',
+            example: 'Platform: React Native for iOS and Android, share 90% codebase, native modules for camera/payments'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'backend',
+      title: 'Backend Developer',
+      expertise: 'server-side development, microservices, database integration, and API implementation',
+      scope: {
+        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'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          '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)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'Order Processing',
+        domain: 'api',
+        description: 'Process customer orders',
+        features: ['order creation', 'order status'],
+        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'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      name: 'data',
+      title: 'Data Engineer',
+      expertise: 'data pipelines, ETL processes, data warehousing, and big data technologies',
+      scope: {
+        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)'
+        ],
+        categories: [
+          '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)'
+        ]
+      },
+      example: {
+        name: 'Analytics Pipeline',
+        domain: 'data-processing',
+        description: 'Build analytics data pipeline',
+        features: ['data ingestion', 'reporting'],
+        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'
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  story: [
+    // Story validators follow same pattern but focus on implementation details
+  ]
+};
+
+/**
+ * Generate epic validator markdown file
+ */
+function generateEpicValidatorMd(domain, config) {
+  return `# Epic Validator - ${config.title}
+
+## Role
+You are an expert ${config.title.toLowerCase()} with 15+ years of experience in ${config.expertise}. Your role is to validate Epic definitions for ${domain}-specific completeness, technical soundness, and best practices.
+
+## Validation Scope
+
+**What to Validate:**
+${config.scope.validate.map(item => `- ${item}`).join('\n')}
+
+**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 ${domain} boundaries
+- [ ] All critical ${domain} features are identified
+- [ ] Dependencies on ${domain} services/infrastructure are explicit
+- [ ] ${domain} success criteria are measurable
+
+### Clarity (20 points)
+- [ ] ${domain} terminology is used correctly
+- [ ] Epic description is understandable to non-${domain} team members
+- [ ] Features are described in business value terms
+
+### Technical Depth (20 points)
+- [ ] ${domain} architectural patterns are considered
+- [ ] Performance/scalability concerns for ${domain} are addressed
+- [ ] Quality considerations for ${domain} are identified
+
+### Consistency (10 points)
+- [ ] ${domain} approach aligns with project context
+- [ ] Features don't overlap or conflict
+
+### Best Practices (10 points)
+- [ ] Industry-standard ${domain} patterns are followed
+- [ ] ${domain} anti-patterns are avoided
+
+## Issue Categories
+
+Use these categories when reporting issues:
+
+${config.scope.categories.map(cat => `- \`${cat}\``).join('\n')}
+
+## Issue Severity Levels
+
+- \`critical\` - Epic cannot proceed (blocking ${domain} issue)
+- \`major\` - Significant ${domain} 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 ${domain} issue",
+      "suggestion": "Specific actionable fix",
+      "example": "Optional example of how to fix"
+    }
+  ],
+  "strengths": ["What the Epic does well from ${domain} perspective"],
+  "improvementPriorities": ["Top 3 ${domain} improvements ranked by impact"],
+  "readyForStories": boolean,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Any additional ${domain} context or warnings"
+}
+\`\`\`
+
+## Scoring Guidelines
+
+- **90-100 (Excellent)**: Comprehensive ${domain} coverage, clear boundaries, all best practices
+- **70-89 (Acceptable)**: Core ${domain} concerns addressed, minor gaps acceptable
+- **0-69 (Needs Improvement)**: Critical ${domain} gaps, must fix before proceeding
+
+## Example Validation
+
+**Epic:**
+\`\`\`
+Name: ${config.example.name}
+Domain: ${config.example.domain}
+Description: ${config.example.description}
+Features: ${JSON.stringify(config.example.features)}
+\`\`\`
+
+**Validation Output:**
+\`\`\`json
+{
+  "validationStatus": "needs-improvement",
+  "overallScore": 65,
+  "issues": ${JSON.stringify(config.example.issues, null, 2)},
+  "strengths": [
+    "Core ${domain} features identified"
+  ],
+  "improvementPriorities": [
+    "1. Address critical ${domain} gaps identified above",
+    "2. Add comprehensive ${domain} specifications",
+    "3. Define ${domain} success criteria"
+  ],
+  "readyForStories": false,
+  "domainSpecificNotes": "Consider additional ${domain} requirements based on project context"
+}
+\`\`\`
+`;
+}
+
+/**
+ * Generate verification rules JSON
+ */
+function generateVerificationJson(domain, type) {
+  return {
+    agentName: `validator-${type}-${domain}`,
+    version: '1.0.0',
+    description: `Verification rules for ${domain} ${type} 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\''
+      }
+    ]
+  };
+}
+
+/**
+ * Main generation function
+ */
+function generateValidators() {
+  console.log('Generating validator files...\n');
+
+  // Check which validators already exist
+  const existingEpicValidators = [
+    'security', 'devops', 'frontend', 'solution-architect', 'developer'
+  ];
+
+  let created = 0;
+  let skipped = 0;
+
+  // Generate epic validators
+  VALIDATORS.epic.forEach(config => {
+    const mdFilename = `validator-epic-${config.name}.md`;
+    const jsonFilename = `validator-epic-${config.name}.json`;
+
+    if (existingEpicValidators.includes(config.name)) {
+      console.log(`Skipping ${mdFilename} (already exists)`);
+      skipped += 2;
+      return;
+    }
+
+    // Generate .md file
+    const mdPath = path.join(AGENTS_PATH, mdFilename);
+    const mdContent = generateEpicValidatorMd(config.name, config);
+    fs.writeFileSync(mdPath, mdContent, 'utf8');
+    console.log(`Created ${mdFilename}`);
+    created++;
+
+    // Generate .json file
+    const jsonPath = path.join(AGENTS_PATH, jsonFilename);
+    const jsonContent = JSON.stringify(generateVerificationJson(config.name, 'epic'), null, 2);
+    fs.writeFileSync(jsonPath, jsonContent, 'utf8');
+    console.log(`Created ${jsonFilename}`);
+    created++;
+  });
+
+  console.log(`\nSummary:`);
+  console.log(`   Created: ${created} files`);
+  console.log(`   Skipped: ${skipped} files (already exist)`);
+  console.log(`\nNext steps:`);
+  console.log(`   1. Review generated validators in ${AGENTS_PATH}`);
+  console.log(`   2. Customize domain-specific examples and notes`);
+  console.log(`   3. Run story validator generation (coming next)`);
+}
+
+// Run generator
+generateValidators();