@agile-vibe-coding/avc 0.1.1 → 0.3.1

package/cli/checks/epic/test-architect.json

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "test-architect",
+  "scope": "epic",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "ta-epic-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "test-architect",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve test infrastructure, automation frameworks, or test architecture? (Does it define test frameworks, CI/CD test integration, or test data strategy?)",
+      "question": "Does the epic scope clearly define test architecture boundaries?",
+      "failDescription": "Test architecture boundaries are not defined — unclear which test infrastructure and frameworks are in scope",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define test architecture boundaries: test frameworks, CI/CD integration, test data management, test environments"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ta-epic-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "test-architect",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve test infrastructure, automation frameworks, or test architecture?",
+      "question": "Are all critical test architecture features identified?",
+      "failDescription": "Critical test architecture features are missing — framework selection, CI integration, or test data strategy not identified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Identify critical features: test framework, CI/CD integration, test data management, parallel execution, reporting"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ta-epic-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "test-architect",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic depend on test infrastructure or services?",
+      "question": "Are dependencies on test architecture services/infrastructure explicit?",
+      "failDescription": "Test infrastructure dependencies are not explicit",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make test dependencies explicit: test framework, CI/CD runner, test database, mock services, browser drivers"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ta-epic-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "test-architect",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve test infrastructure, automation frameworks, or test architecture?",
+      "question": "Are test architecture success criteria measurable?",
+      "failDescription": "Test architecture success criteria are not measurable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define measurable criteria: test execution time, flakiness rate, coverage targets, CI/CD integration status"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ta-epic-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "test-architect",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve test architecture design?",
+      "question": "Are test architecture patterns considered?",
+      "failDescription": "Test architecture patterns are not considered",
+      "failSuggestion": "Consider test patterns: page object model, test data factories, fixture management, parallel execution strategy"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ta-epic-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "test-architect",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve test infrastructure, automation frameworks, or test architecture?",
+      "question": "Does the test architecture approach align with project context?",
+      "failDescription": "Test architecture approach does not align with project context",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure test architecture aligns with project: consistent frameworks, patterns, and CI/CD pipeline"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ta-epic-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "test-architect",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve test infrastructure, automation frameworks, or test architecture?",
+      "question": "Are industry-standard test architecture patterns followed (DRY tests, test pyramid, BDD)?",
+      "failDescription": "Test architecture best practices are not followed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Follow test architecture best practices: DRY test helpers, test pyramid, BDD patterns, deterministic tests"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/checks/epic/ui.json

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "ui",
+  "scope": "epic",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve visual design, UI components, or design systems? (Does it include UI specifications, component libraries, or visual design?)",
+      "question": "Does the epic scope clearly define UI boundaries?",
+      "failDescription": "UI boundaries are not defined — unclear which components and visual elements are in scope",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define UI boundaries: which components, pages, and visual elements belong to this epic"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve visual design, UI components, or design systems?",
+      "question": "Are all critical UI features identified?",
+      "failDescription": "Critical UI features are missing — component specs, design tokens, or responsive rules not identified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Identify critical UI features: component library, design tokens (colors, spacing, typography), responsive breakpoints"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic depend on UI libraries or design systems?",
+      "question": "Are dependencies on UI services/infrastructure explicit?",
+      "failDescription": "UI dependencies are not explicit — component library, icon set, or font requirements missing",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make UI dependencies explicit: component library (MUI, Ant Design), icon set, font family, design system"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve visual design, UI components, or design systems?",
+      "question": "Are UI success criteria measurable?",
+      "failDescription": "UI success criteria are not measurable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define measurable UI criteria: design consistency score, accessibility audit pass rate, responsive breakpoint coverage"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve UI design patterns or component architecture?",
+      "question": "Are UI architectural patterns considered?",
+      "failDescription": "UI architectural patterns are not considered",
+      "failSuggestion": "Consider UI patterns: design system tokens, component composition, responsive layout strategy, theming"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve UI components that need to render efficiently?",
+      "question": "Are performance/scalability concerns for UI addressed?",
+      "failDescription": "UI performance concerns are not addressed — rendering, animation, or large list handling missing",
+      "failSuggestion": "Address UI performance: virtualized lists, optimized re-renders, animation performance, image optimization"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve visual design, UI components, or design systems?",
+      "question": "Does the UI approach align with project context?",
+      "failDescription": "UI approach does not align with project context",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure UI approach aligns with project: consistent component library, design tokens, and visual language"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ui-epic-08",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ui",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve visual design, UI components, or design systems?",
+      "question": "Are industry-standard UI patterns followed (visual hierarchy, contrast, spacing)?",
+      "failDescription": "UI best practices are not followed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Follow UI best practices: visual hierarchy, sufficient contrast, consistent spacing, clear typography scale"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/checks/epic/ux.json

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "ux",
+  "scope": "epic",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "ux-epic-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ux",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve user-facing features or user interactions? (Does it include user flows, navigation, or user research?)",
+      "question": "Does the epic scope clearly define UX boundaries?",
+      "failDescription": "UX boundaries are not defined — unclear which user flows and interactions are in scope",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define UX boundaries: which user flows, personas, and interaction patterns are in scope"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ux-epic-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ux",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve user-facing features or user interactions?",
+      "question": "Are all critical UX features identified?",
+      "failDescription": "Critical UX features are missing — user flows, navigation, or feedback mechanisms not identified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Identify critical UX features: primary user flows, navigation structure, feedback mechanisms, error recovery"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ux-epic-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ux",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve user-facing features or user interactions?",
+      "question": "Are UX success criteria measurable?",
+      "failDescription": "UX success criteria are not measurable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define measurable UX criteria: task completion rate, time-on-task, error rate, user satisfaction score"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ux-epic-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ux",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve UX design patterns or interaction design?",
+      "question": "Are UX architectural patterns considered?",
+      "failDescription": "UX patterns are not considered — information architecture, navigation patterns, or interaction models missing",
+      "failSuggestion": "Consider UX patterns: information architecture, navigation model, progressive disclosure, feedback loops"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ux-epic-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ux",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "clarity",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve user-facing features or user interactions?",
+      "question": "Is UX terminology used correctly?",
+      "failDescription": "UX terminology is used incorrectly or inconsistently",
+      "failSuggestion": "Review UX terminology for accuracy: user flow, persona, journey map, affordance, mental model"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ux-epic-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ux",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve user-facing features or user interactions?",
+      "question": "Does the UX approach align with project context?",
+      "failDescription": "UX approach does not align with project context",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure UX approach aligns with project: consistent interaction patterns, user expectations, platform conventions"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ux-epic-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "ux",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve user-facing features or user interactions?",
+      "question": "Are industry-standard UX patterns followed (cognitive load, user control, consistency)?",
+      "failDescription": "UX best practices are not followed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Follow UX best practices: minimize cognitive load, provide user control, maintain consistency, support error recovery"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/checks/fixes/epic-fix-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Epic Micro-Fix Agent
+
+You are fixing exactly ONE issue in an epic definition.
+
+## Rules
+- Make the MINIMUM change to pass the failed check
+- Do NOT remove existing features — only add or clarify
+- Do NOT add unrelated improvements
+- Each feature must be a single concise sentence (max 30 words)
+- Return the complete epic as JSON: { description, features, dependencies }

package/cli/checks/fixes/story-fix-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Story Micro-Fix Agent
+
+You are fixing exactly ONE issue in a story definition.
+
+## Rules
+- Make the MINIMUM change to pass the failed check
+- Do NOT remove existing acceptance criteria — only add or clarify
+- Do NOT add unrelated improvements
+- Keep each acceptance criterion specific, testable, and atomic
+- Return the complete story as JSON: { description, acceptanceCriteria, dependencies }

package/cli/checks/story/api.json

@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "api",
+  "scope": "story",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "endpoint-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story define or modify API endpoints? (Does it involve HTTP requests, REST endpoints, or API operations?)",
+      "question": "Does every endpoint have HTTP method and full path stated (e.g. POST /api/v1/customers)?",
+      "failDescription": "Endpoint contract missing HTTP method or full path",
+      "failSuggestion": "State HTTP method and full path for every endpoint: e.g. POST /api/v1/customers"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "endpoint-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story define or modify API endpoints?",
+      "question": "Does every endpoint have success status code + key response fields named (e.g. 201 { id, name, createdAt })?",
+      "failDescription": "Endpoint contract missing success status code or response field names",
+      "failSuggestion": "State success status code and key response fields: e.g. 201 { id, name, createdAt }"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "endpoint-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story accept request payloads?",
+      "question": "Are request payload fields named with type, required/optional, and format constraint?",
+      "failDescription": "Request payload fields lack type, required/optional status, or format constraints",
+      "failSuggestion": "Name payload fields with constraints: e.g. 'phone: E.164 string, required; bio: string, optional, max 500 chars'"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "endpoint-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story define or modify API endpoints?",
+      "question": "Is API versioning consistent with the project's convention (e.g. /api/v1/ prefix)?",
+      "failDescription": "API versioning is inconsistent with project convention",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure API versioning matches project convention: e.g. /api/v1/ prefix on all endpoints"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "error-contract-completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story define or modify API endpoints?",
+      "question": "Does the error contract cover at minimum: one validation error (400/422), one auth error (401), one authz error (403), one not-found (404)?",
+      "failDescription": "Error contract is incomplete — missing required error status codes",
+      "failSuggestion": "Cover minimum error contract: 422 (validation), 401 (auth), 403 (authz), 404 (not found)"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "error-contract-completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story define error responses?",
+      "question": "Is the error body shape consistent: { error: 'MACHINE_READABLE_CODE' } or { error: 'CODE', field: '...' }?",
+      "failDescription": "Error body shape is inconsistent or not machine-readable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Use consistent error shape: { error: 'MACHINE_READABLE_CODE' } for general errors, add 'field' for validation errors"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "error-contract-completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve operations that could conflict? (duplicate keys, stale writes, concurrent operations)",
+      "question": "Are conflict scenarios (409) addressed (duplicate key, stale write, concurrent booking)?",
+      "failDescription": "Conflict scenarios (409) are not addressed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Address conflict scenarios: 409 for duplicate key, stale write (optimistic lock), or concurrent resource booking"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-08",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "error-contract-completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve rate-limited endpoints?",
+      "question": "Is the rate limit response (429) specified with retryAfter or Retry-After header?",
+      "failDescription": "Rate limit response is not specified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Specify rate limit response: 429 with Retry-After header indicating when to retry"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-09",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "pagination-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story return a paginated list? (Does it involve listing or searching through collections?)",
+      "question": "Is cursor encoding documented (opaque base64, what fields encoded)?",
+      "failDescription": "Cursor encoding is not documented for paginated endpoint",
+      "failSuggestion": "Document cursor encoding: e.g. 'opaque base64 encoding of (createdAt, id)'"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-10",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "pagination-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story return a paginated list?",
+      "question": "Are default and max limit values stated?",
+      "failDescription": "Default and max pagination limit values are not stated",
+      "failSuggestion": "State pagination limits: e.g. 'default: 20, max: 100'"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-11",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "pagination-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story return a paginated list?",
+      "question": "Is a stable sort defined so pagination is deterministic?",
+      "failDescription": "Stable sort is not defined — pagination may be non-deterministic",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define stable sort: e.g. 'ORDER BY createdAt DESC, id DESC' for deterministic pagination"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-12",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "pagination-contract",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story return a paginated list?",
+      "question": "Does nextCursor: null explicitly signal the last page?",
+      "failDescription": "Last page signal is not explicitly defined",
+      "failSuggestion": "Specify last page: 'nextCursor: null signals the last page'"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-13",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "api-design-consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story define or modify API endpoints?",
+      "question": "Is the field naming convention consistent (camelCase or snake_case matching project convention)?",
+      "failDescription": "Field naming convention is inconsistent with project convention",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure consistent field naming: use camelCase or snake_case matching the project convention throughout"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-14",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "api-design-consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story return datetime values?",
+      "question": "Is the datetime format stated (ISO-8601 UTC, Unix timestamp)?",
+      "failDescription": "Datetime format is not stated",
+      "failSuggestion": "State datetime format: ISO-8601 UTC (e.g. '2024-01-15T10:30:00Z') or Unix timestamp"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "api-story-15",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "api",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "api-design-consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story define fields with constrained values?",
+      "question": "Are enum values for constrained fields listed explicitly in ACs?",
+      "failDescription": "Enum values for constrained fields are not listed",
+      "failSuggestion": "List enum values explicitly: e.g. 'status: \"active\" | \"inactive\" | \"pending\"'"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/checks/story/backend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "backend",
+  "scope": "story",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "acceptance-criteria",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services? (Does it include API endpoints, business logic, or data processing?)",
+      "question": "Is each acceptance criterion testable and measurable?",
+      "failDescription": "One or more acceptance criteria are not testable or measurable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make each AC testable: specify HTTP status codes, DB state changes, or observable backend outcomes"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "acceptance-criteria",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services?",
+      "question": "Do criteria cover happy path, edge cases, and error scenarios?",
+      "failDescription": "Criteria do not cover edge cases or error scenarios",
+      "failSuggestion": "Add backend error scenarios: DB constraint violations, service timeouts, invalid input, auth failures"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "acceptance-criteria",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services?",
+      "question": "Are backend requirements explicitly stated?",
+      "failDescription": "Backend requirements are not explicitly stated",
+      "failSuggestion": "State backend requirements: API endpoint details, data validation rules, error response format, logging"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "implementation-clarity",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services?",
+      "question": "Does the story provide enough backend detail for implementation?",
+      "failDescription": "Insufficient backend detail for implementation",
+      "failSuggestion": "Add backend details: service layer structure, data access pattern, error handling approach, transaction boundaries"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "implementation-clarity",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services?",
+      "question": "Are backend patterns and approaches specified?",
+      "failDescription": "Backend patterns and approaches are not specified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Specify backend patterns: middleware chain, service layer, repository pattern, async processing"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "testability",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services?",
+      "question": "Does the story have a test-boundary AC naming specific scenarios a developer must test?",
+      "failDescription": "Story lacks a test-boundary AC",
+      "failSuggestion": "Add test-boundary AC: 'Tests must cover: (1) happy path, (2) validation error, (3) auth failure, (4) DB error, (5) edge cases'"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "scope-dependencies",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services?",
+      "question": "Are dependencies on other stories explicit?",
+      "failDescription": "Dependencies on other stories are not explicit",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make dependencies explicit: reference specific story IDs and what contracts or services they provide"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "be-story-08",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "backend",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this story involve server-side logic or backend services?",
+      "question": "Does the story follow backend best practices?",
+      "failDescription": "Backend best practices are not followed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Follow backend best practices: separation of concerns, proper error handling, input validation, logging"
+    }
+  ]
+}