@agile-vibe-coding/avc 0.2.3 → 0.3.2

package/cli/checks/epic/cloud.json

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "cloud",
+  "scope": "epic",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services or cloud infrastructure? (Does it use AWS, Azure, GCP, or cloud-hosted services?)",
+      "question": "Does the epic scope clearly define cloud boundaries?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud boundaries are not defined — unclear which cloud services and regions are in scope",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define cloud boundaries: which cloud provider, services, regions, and accounts are in scope"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services or cloud infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Are all critical cloud features identified?",
+      "failDescription": "Critical cloud features are not identified — compute, storage, networking, or security services missing",
+      "failSuggestion": "Identify critical cloud features: compute (EC2/Lambda/ECS), storage (S3/EBS), networking (VPC/ALB), security (IAM)"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic depend on cloud services or infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Are dependencies on cloud services/infrastructure explicit?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud service dependencies are not explicit",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make cloud dependencies explicit: list specific services (RDS, ElastiCache, SQS) and their configurations"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services or cloud infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Are cloud success criteria measurable?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud success criteria are not measurable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define measurable cloud criteria: availability (99.9%), latency (< 100ms), cost budget, resource utilization targets"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "clarity",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services or cloud infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Is cloud terminology used correctly?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud terminology is used incorrectly or inconsistently",
+      "failSuggestion": "Review and correct cloud terminology for accuracy (e.g. region vs AZ, instance vs container)"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "clarity",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services or cloud infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Are features described in business value terms?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud features lack business value context",
+      "failSuggestion": "Frame cloud features in business terms: 'multi-AZ deployment ensures 99.99% availability for end users'"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud architecture? (Does it need HA, scaling, or multi-region?)",
+      "question": "Are cloud architectural patterns considered?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud architectural patterns are not considered — HA, scaling, or serverless patterns missing",
+      "failSuggestion": "Consider cloud patterns: multi-AZ, auto-scaling, serverless, microservices, event-driven architecture"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-08",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services that need to scale?",
+      "question": "Are performance/scalability concerns for cloud addressed?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud performance and scalability concerns are not addressed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Address cloud scalability: auto-scaling policies, load balancing, caching strategy, CDN for static assets"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-09",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services or cloud infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Does the cloud approach align with project context?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud approach does not align with project context",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure cloud approach aligns with project: use consistent cloud provider, follow organization standards"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "cloud-epic-10",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "cloud",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve cloud services or cloud infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Are industry-standard cloud patterns followed (well-architected framework)?",
+      "failDescription": "Cloud best practices are not followed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Follow cloud best practices: AWS Well-Architected Framework pillars (reliability, security, performance, cost, operations)"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/checks/epic/data.json

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "data",
+  "scope": "epic",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data pipelines, ETL, data warehousing, or data processing? (Does it handle data ingestion, transformation, or analytics?)",
+      "question": "Does the epic scope clearly define data boundaries?",
+      "failDescription": "Data boundaries are not defined — unclear which data sources, transformations, and destinations are in scope",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define data boundaries: data sources, transformation logic, destination systems, data quality requirements"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data pipelines, ETL, data warehousing, or data processing?",
+      "question": "Are all critical data features identified?",
+      "failDescription": "Critical data features are missing — pipeline stages, orchestration, or quality checks not identified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Identify critical data features: ETL stages, orchestration tool, data quality checks, lineage tracking"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic depend on data services or infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Are dependencies on data services/infrastructure explicit?",
+      "failDescription": "Data service dependencies are not explicit",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make data dependencies explicit: source databases, data warehouse, orchestration tool (Airflow), processing engine (Spark)"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data pipelines, ETL, data warehousing, or data processing?",
+      "question": "Are data success criteria measurable?",
+      "failDescription": "Data success criteria are not measurable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define measurable data criteria: data freshness SLA, processing latency, data quality score, pipeline uptime"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data architecture? (Does it need batch vs streaming, schema evolution, or data governance?)",
+      "question": "Are data architectural patterns considered?",
+      "failDescription": "Data architectural patterns are not considered",
+      "failSuggestion": "Consider data patterns: batch vs streaming, schema evolution, data lake/warehouse architecture, CDC patterns"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data processing that needs to scale?",
+      "question": "Are performance/scalability concerns for data addressed?",
+      "failDescription": "Data performance and scalability concerns are not addressed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Address data scalability: partitioning strategy, parallel processing, incremental loads, data retention policy"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data pipelines, ETL, data warehousing, or data processing?",
+      "question": "Does the data approach align with project context?",
+      "failDescription": "Data approach does not align with project context",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure data approach aligns with project: consistent tools, naming conventions, data governance policies"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "data-epic-08",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "data",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data pipelines, ETL, data warehousing, or data processing?",
+      "question": "Are industry-standard data patterns followed (idempotency, schema evolution)?",
+      "failDescription": "Data best practices are not followed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Follow data best practices: idempotent pipelines, schema evolution support, data quality gates, lineage tracking"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/checks/epic/database.json

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "database",
+  "scope": "epic",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data persistence or database operations? (Does it store, query, or manage structured data?)",
+      "question": "Does the epic scope clearly define database boundaries?",
+      "failDescription": "Database boundaries are not defined — unclear which data entities and operations are in scope",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define database boundaries: which tables/collections, relationships, and operations belong to this epic"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data persistence or database operations?",
+      "question": "Are all critical database features identified?",
+      "failDescription": "Critical database features are missing — schema, indexes, or migration strategy not identified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Identify critical database features: schema definition, indexes, migrations, data validation constraints"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic depend on database services or infrastructure?",
+      "question": "Are dependencies on database services/infrastructure explicit?",
+      "failDescription": "Database service dependencies are not explicit",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make database dependencies explicit: database engine, version, hosting, backup service"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "completeness",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data persistence or database operations?",
+      "question": "Are database success criteria measurable?",
+      "failDescription": "Database success criteria are not measurable",
+      "failSuggestion": "Define measurable database criteria: query latency targets, throughput, data integrity constraints"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "clarity",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data persistence or database operations?",
+      "question": "Is database terminology used correctly?",
+      "failDescription": "Database terminology is used incorrectly or inconsistently",
+      "failSuggestion": "Review database terminology: normalization, indexes, foreign keys, constraints, migrations"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve database architecture? (Does it need schema design, optimization, or scaling?)",
+      "question": "Are database architectural patterns considered?",
+      "failDescription": "Database architectural patterns are not considered",
+      "failSuggestion": "Consider database patterns: normalization/denormalization strategy, indexing, partitioning, replication"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "technical-depth",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve database queries that need to perform well?",
+      "question": "Are performance/scalability concerns for database addressed?",
+      "failDescription": "Database performance and scalability concerns are not addressed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Address database performance: query optimization, indexing strategy, connection pooling, read replicas"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-08",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "consistency",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data persistence or database operations?",
+      "question": "Does the database approach align with project context?",
+      "failDescription": "Database approach does not align with project context",
+      "failSuggestion": "Ensure database approach aligns with project: consistent engine, naming conventions, migration strategy"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "db-epic-09",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "database",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": false,
+      "applicabilityQuestion": "Does this epic involve data persistence or database operations?",
+      "question": "Are industry-standard database patterns followed (normalization, indexing)?",
+      "failDescription": "Database best practices are not followed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Follow database best practices: proper normalization, strategic indexing, referential integrity constraints"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/cli/checks/epic/developer.json

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+{
+  "perspective": "developer",
+  "scope": "epic",
+  "checks": [
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-01",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "clarity-feasibility",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Is the epic description clear and unambiguous for developers?",
+      "failDescription": "Epic description is vague or ambiguous — developers cannot understand what to build",
+      "failSuggestion": "Rewrite the epic description to be specific about what is being built, the approach, and key technical decisions"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-02",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "critical",
+      "category": "clarity-feasibility",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Are the features technically feasible with reasonable effort?",
+      "failDescription": "One or more features appear technically infeasible or require unreasonable effort",
+      "failSuggestion": "Review features for technical feasibility and break down overly complex features into achievable increments"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-03",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "clarity-feasibility",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Is the epic scope appropriate for iterative development?",
+      "failDescription": "Epic scope is too large or too small for iterative development",
+      "failSuggestion": "Adjust scope to be deliverable in stories that each cover a single cohesive capability — add as many as needed to fully cover the epic"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-04",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "clarity-feasibility",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Are technical constraints and assumptions explicitly stated?",
+      "failDescription": "Technical constraints and assumptions are implicit — developers may make wrong assumptions",
+      "failSuggestion": "Make constraints and assumptions explicit: runtime version, OS constraints, browser support, API compatibility requirements"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-05",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "code-quality-maintainability",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic mention code quality standards (linting, formatting, code review)?",
+      "failDescription": "Code quality standards are not mentioned — no linting, formatting, or code review requirements",
+      "failSuggestion": "Mention code quality standards: linting rules, formatting conventions, and code review requirements"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-06",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "major",
+      "category": "code-quality-maintainability",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic address testing strategy (unit, integration, e2e)?",
+      "failDescription": "Testing strategy is not addressed — no mention of unit, integration, or e2e testing",
+      "failSuggestion": "Address testing strategy: specify which types of tests are expected (unit, integration, e2e) and coverage targets"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-07",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "code-quality-maintainability",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Are documentation requirements specified (code comments, API docs, README)?",
+      "failDescription": "Documentation requirements are not specified",
+      "failSuggestion": "Specify documentation requirements: inline code comments, API documentation, README updates"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-08",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "development-workflow",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic support incremental development and testing?",
+      "failDescription": "Epic does not support incremental development — features may need to be delivered all at once",
+      "failSuggestion": "Structure the epic to support incremental development: features should be independently testable and deployable"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-09",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "development-workflow",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Are dependencies clear and do they avoid blocking parallelization unnecessarily?",
+      "failDescription": "Dependencies are unclear or block parallelization unnecessarily",
+      "failSuggestion": "Clarify dependencies and minimize blocking relationships to allow parallel development"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-10",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "development-workflow",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Is a version control strategy implied or specified (branching, commits)?",
+      "failDescription": "Version control strategy is not addressed",
+      "failSuggestion": "Specify or imply version control strategy: feature branches, commit conventions, merge approach"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-11",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "developer-experience",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic provide sufficient context for developers to start work?",
+      "failDescription": "Insufficient context for developers — key background information or technical context is missing",
+      "failSuggestion": "Provide enough context: domain background, technical rationale, relevant prior decisions"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-12",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "developer-experience",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Are technical decisions justified (why this approach)?",
+      "failDescription": "Technical decisions are not justified — unclear why a particular approach was chosen",
+      "failSuggestion": "Justify key technical decisions: explain why this approach was chosen over alternatives"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-13",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "developer-experience",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic avoid introducing unnecessary complexity?",
+      "failDescription": "Epic introduces unnecessary complexity — simpler alternatives may exist",
+      "failSuggestion": "Review for unnecessary complexity and simplify where possible without losing functionality"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-14",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic follow SOLID principles and clean code practices?",
+      "failDescription": "Epic design does not follow SOLID principles or clean code practices",
+      "failSuggestion": "Align the epic design with SOLID principles: single responsibility, open/closed, dependency inversion"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-15",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic avoid common anti-patterns (tight coupling, god objects, premature optimization)?",
+      "failDescription": "Epic may introduce anti-patterns — tight coupling, god objects, or premature optimization",
+      "failSuggestion": "Review for anti-patterns: avoid tight coupling between components, god objects, and premature optimization"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dev-epic-16",
+      "tier": 1,
+      "perspective": "developer",
+      "severity": "minor",
+      "category": "best-practices",
+      "universal": true,
+      "question": "Does the epic consider technical debt and refactoring needs?",
+      "failDescription": "Technical debt and refactoring needs are not considered",
+      "failSuggestion": "Acknowledge technical debt implications and plan for necessary refactoring"
+    }
+  ]
+}