@cregis-dev/cckit 0.2.0

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/test-review-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+---
+stepsCompleted: []
+lastStep: ''
+lastSaved: ''
+workflowType: 'testarch-test-review'
+inputDocuments: []
+---
+
+# Test Quality Review: {test_filename}
+
+**Quality Score**: {score}/100 ({grade} - {assessment})
+**Review Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
+**Review Scope**: {single | directory | suite}
+**Reviewer**: {user_name or TEA Agent}
+
+---
+
+Note: This review audits existing tests; it does not generate tests.
+Coverage mapping and coverage gates are out of scope here. Use `trace` for coverage decisions.
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Overall Assessment**: {Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Critical Issues}
+
+**Recommendation**: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}
+
+### Key Strengths
+
+✅ {strength_1}
+✅ {strength_2}
+✅ {strength_3}
+
+### Key Weaknesses
+
+❌ {weakness_1}
+❌ {weakness_2}
+❌ {weakness_3}
+
+### Summary
+
+{1-2 paragraph summary of overall test quality, highlighting major findings and recommendation rationale}
+
+---
+
+## Quality Criteria Assessment
+
+| Criterion                            | Status                          | Violations | Notes        |
+| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------ |
+| BDD Format (Given-When-Then)         | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Test IDs                             | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Priority Markers (P0/P1/P2/P3)       | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Hard Waits (sleep, waitForTimeout)   | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Determinism (no conditionals)        | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Isolation (cleanup, no shared state) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Fixture Patterns                     | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Data Factories                       | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Network-First Pattern                | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Explicit Assertions                  | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Test Length (≤300 lines)             | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {lines}    | {brief_note} |
+| Test Duration (≤1.5 min)             | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {duration} | {brief_note} |
+| Flakiness Patterns                   | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+
+**Total Violations**: {critical_count} Critical, {high_count} High, {medium_count} Medium, {low_count} Low
+
+---
+
+## Quality Score Breakdown
+
+```
+Starting Score:          100
+Critical Violations:     -{critical_count} × 10 = -{critical_deduction}
+High Violations:         -{high_count} × 5 = -{high_deduction}
+Medium Violations:       -{medium_count} × 2 = -{medium_deduction}
+Low Violations:          -{low_count} × 1 = -{low_deduction}
+
+Bonus Points:
+  Excellent BDD:         +{0|5}
+  Comprehensive Fixtures: +{0|5}
+  Data Factories:        +{0|5}
+  Network-First:         +{0|5}
+  Perfect Isolation:     +{0|5}
+  All Test IDs:          +{0|5}
+                         --------
+Total Bonus:             +{bonus_total}
+
+Final Score:             {final_score}/100
+Grade:                   {grade}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
+
+{If no critical issues: "No critical issues detected. ✅"}
+
+{For each critical issue:}
+
+### {issue_number}. {Issue Title}
+
+**Severity**: P0 (Critical)
+**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
+**Criterion**: {criterion_name}
+**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
+
+**Issue Description**:
+{Detailed explanation of what the problem is and why it's critical}
+
+**Current Code**:
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Bad (current implementation)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_problem;
+}
+```
+
+**Recommended Fix**:
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Good (recommended approach)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_solution;
+}
+```
+
+**Why This Matters**:
+{Explanation of impact - flakiness risk, maintainability, reliability}
+
+**Related Violations**:
+{If similar issue appears elsewhere, note line numbers}
+
+---
+
+## Recommendations (Should Fix)
+
+{If no recommendations: "No additional recommendations. Test quality is excellent. ✅"}
+
+{For each recommendation:}
+
+### {rec_number}. {Recommendation Title}
+
+**Severity**: {P1 (High) | P2 (Medium) | P3 (Low)}
+**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
+**Criterion**: {criterion_name}
+**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
+
+**Issue Description**:
+{Detailed explanation of what could be improved and why}
+
+**Current Code**:
+
+```typescript
+// ⚠️ Could be improved (current implementation)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_current_approach;
+}
+```
+
+**Recommended Improvement**:
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Better approach (recommended)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_improvement;
+}
+```
+
+**Benefits**:
+{Explanation of benefits - maintainability, readability, reusability}
+
+**Priority**:
+{Why this is P1/P2/P3 - urgency and impact}
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices Found
+
+{If good patterns found, highlight them}
+
+{For each best practice:}
+
+### {practice_number}. {Best Practice Title}
+
+**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
+**Pattern**: {pattern_name}
+**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
+
+**Why This Is Good**:
+{Explanation of why this pattern is excellent}
+
+**Code Example**:
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Excellent pattern demonstrated in this test
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_best_practice;
+}
+```
+
+**Use as Reference**:
+{Encourage using this pattern in other tests}
+
+---
+
+## Test File Analysis
+
+### File Metadata
+
+- **File Path**: `{relative_path_from_project_root}`
+- **File Size**: {line_count} lines, {kb_size} KB
+- **Test Framework**: {Playwright | Jest | Cypress | Vitest | Other}
+- **Language**: {TypeScript | JavaScript}
+
+### Test Structure
+
+- **Describe Blocks**: {describe_count}
+- **Test Cases (it/test)**: {test_count}
+- **Average Test Length**: {avg_lines_per_test} lines per test
+- **Fixtures Used**: {fixture_count} ({fixture_names})
+- **Data Factories Used**: {factory_count} ({factory_names})
+
+### Test Scope
+
+- **Test IDs**: {test_id_list}
+- **Priority Distribution**:
+  - P0 (Critical): {p0_count} tests
+  - P1 (High): {p1_count} tests
+  - P2 (Medium): {p2_count} tests
+  - P3 (Low): {p3_count} tests
+  - Unknown: {unknown_count} tests
+
+### Assertions Analysis
+
+- **Total Assertions**: {assertion_count}
+- **Assertions per Test**: {avg_assertions_per_test} (avg)
+- **Assertion Types**: {assertion_types_used}
+
+---
+
+## Context and Integration
+
+### Related Artifacts
+
+{If story file found:}
+
+- **Story File**: [{story_filename}]({story_path})
+
+{If test-design found:}
+
+- **Test Design**: [{test_design_filename}]({test_design_path})
+- **Risk Assessment**: {risk_level}
+- **Priority Framework**: P0-P3 applied
+
+---
+
+## Knowledge Base References
+
+This review consulted the following knowledge base fragments:
+
+- **[test-quality.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-quality.md)** - Definition of Done for tests (no hard waits, <300 lines, <1.5 min, self-cleaning)
+- **[fixture-architecture.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/fixture-architecture.md)** - Pure function → Fixture → mergeTests pattern
+- **[network-first.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/network-first.md)** - Route intercept before navigate (race condition prevention)
+- **[data-factories.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/data-factories.md)** - Factory functions with overrides, API-first setup
+- **[test-levels-framework.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-levels-framework.md)** - E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit appropriateness
+- **[tdd-cycles.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/tdd-cycles.md)** - Red-Green-Refactor patterns
+- **[selective-testing.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/selective-testing.md)** - Duplicate coverage detection
+- **[ci-burn-in.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/ci-burn-in.md)** - Flakiness detection patterns (10-iteration loop)
+- **[test-priorities.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-priorities.md)** - P0/P1/P2/P3 classification framework
+
+For coverage mapping, consult `trace` workflow outputs.
+
+See [tea-index.csv](../../../testarch/tea-index.csv) for complete knowledge base.
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+### Immediate Actions (Before Merge)
+
+1. **{action_1}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
+   - Owner: {team_or_person}
+   - Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}
+
+2. **{action_2}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
+   - Owner: {team_or_person}
+   - Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}
+
+### Follow-up Actions (Future PRs)
+
+1. **{action_1}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P2 | P3}
+   - Target: {next_milestone | backlog}
+
+2. **{action_2}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P2 | P3}
+   - Target: {next_milestone | backlog}
+
+### Re-Review Needed?
+
+{✅ No re-review needed - approve as-is}
+{⚠️ Re-review after critical fixes - request changes, then re-review}
+{❌ Major refactor required - block merge, pair programming recommended}
+
+---
+
+## Decision
+
+**Recommendation**: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}
+
+**Rationale**:
+{1-2 paragraph explanation of recommendation based on findings}
+
+**For Approve**:
+
+> Test quality is excellent/good with {score}/100 score. {Minor issues noted can be addressed in follow-up PRs.} Tests are production-ready and follow best practices.
+
+**For Approve with Comments**:
+
+> Test quality is acceptable with {score}/100 score. {High-priority recommendations should be addressed but don't block merge.} Critical issues resolved, but improvements would enhance maintainability.
+
+**For Request Changes**:
+
+> Test quality needs improvement with {score}/100 score. {Critical issues must be fixed before merge.} {X} critical violations detected that pose flakiness/maintainability risks.
+
+**For Block**:
+
+> Test quality is insufficient with {score}/100 score. {Multiple critical issues make tests unsuitable for production.} Recommend pairing session with QA engineer to apply patterns from knowledge base.
+
+---
+
+## Appendix
+
+### Violation Summary by Location
+
+{Table of all violations sorted by line number:}
+
+| Line   | Severity      | Criterion   | Issue         | Fix         |
+| ------ | ------------- | ----------- | ------------- | ----------- |
+| {line} | {P0/P1/P2/P3} | {criterion} | {brief_issue} | {brief_fix} |
+| {line} | {P0/P1/P2/P3} | {criterion} | {brief_issue} | {brief_fix} |
+
+### Quality Trends
+
+{If reviewing same file multiple times, show trend:}
+
+| Review Date  | Score         | Grade     | Critical Issues | Trend       |
+| ------------ | ------------- | --------- | --------------- | ----------- |
+| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_1}/100 | {grade_1} | {count_1}       | ⬆️ Improved |
+| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_2}/100 | {grade_2} | {count_2}       | ⬇️ Declined |
+| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_3}/100 | {grade_3} | {count_3}       | ➡️ Stable   |
+
+### Related Reviews
+
+{If reviewing multiple files in directory/suite:}
+
+| File     | Score       | Grade   | Critical | Status             |
+| -------- | ----------- | ------- | -------- | ------------------ |
+| {file_1} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count}  | {Approved/Blocked} |
+| {file_2} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count}  | {Approved/Blocked} |
+| {file_3} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count}  | {Approved/Blocked} |
+
+**Suite Average**: {avg_score}/100 ({avg_grade})
+
+---
+
+## Review Metadata
+
+**Generated By**: BMad TEA Agent (Test Architect)
+**Workflow**: testarch-test-review v4.0
+**Review ID**: test-review-{filename}-{YYYYMMDD}
+**Timestamp**: {YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS}
+**Version**: 1.0
+
+---
+
+## Feedback on This Review
+
+If you have questions or feedback on this review:
+
+1. Review patterns in knowledge base: `testarch/knowledge/`
+2. Consult tea-index.csv for detailed guidance
+3. Request clarification on specific violations
+4. Pair with QA engineer to apply patterns
+
+This review is guidance, not rigid rules. Context matters - if a pattern is justified, document it with a comment.

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/validation-report-20260127-095021.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+validationDate: 2026-01-27
+workflowName: testarch-test-review
+workflowPath: /Users/murat.ozcan/opensource/bmad-method-test-architecture-enterprise/src/workflows/testarch/test-review
+validationStatus: COMPLETE
+completionDate: 2026-01-27 10:03:10
+---
+
+# Validation Report: testarch-test-review
+
+**Validation Started:** 2026-01-27 09:50:21
+**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System (Codex)
+**Standards Version:** BMAD Workflow Standards
+
+## File Structure & Size
+
+- workflow.md present: YES
+- instructions.md present: YES
+- workflow.yaml present: YES
+- step files found: 7
+
+**Step File Sizes:**
+
+- steps-c/step-01-load-context.md: 91 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-c/step-02-discover-tests.md: 63 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-c/step-03-quality-evaluation.md: 69 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-c/step-04-generate-report.md: 65 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-e/step-01-assess.md: 51 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-e/step-02-apply-edit.md: 46 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-v/step-01-validate.md: 53 lines [GOOD]
+- workflow-plan.md present: YES
+
+## Frontmatter Validation
+
+- No frontmatter violations found
+
+## Critical Path Violations
+
+- No {project-root} hardcoded paths detected in body
+- No dead relative links detected
+
+## Menu Handling Validation
+
+- No menu structures detected (linear step flow) [N/A]
+
+## Step Type Validation
+
+- Last step steps-v/step-01-validate.md has no nextStepFile (final step OK)
+- Step type validation assumes linear sequence (no branching/menu). Workflow-plan.md present for reference. [INFO]
+
+## Output Format Validation
+
+- Templates present: test-review-template.md
+- Steps with outputFile in frontmatter:
+  - steps-c/step-04-generate-report.md
+  - steps-v/step-01-validate.md
+
+## Validation Design Check
+
+- checklist.md present: YES
+- Validation steps folder (steps-v) present: YES
+
+## Instruction Style Check
+
+- All steps include STEP GOAL, MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES, EXECUTION PROTOCOLS, CONTEXT BOUNDARIES, and SUCCESS/FAILURE metrics
+
+## Summary
+
+- Validation completed: 2026-01-27 10:03:10
+- Critical issues: 0
+- Warnings: 0 (informational notes only)
+- Readiness: READY (manual review optional)

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/validation-report-20260127-102401.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+validationDate: 2026-01-27
+workflowName: testarch-test-review
+workflowPath: /Users/murat.ozcan/opensource/bmad-method-test-architecture-enterprise/src/workflows/testarch/test-review
+validationStatus: COMPLETE
+completionDate: 2026-01-27 10:24:01
+---
+
+# Validation Report: testarch-test-review
+
+**Validation Started:** 2026-01-27 10:24:01
+**Validator:** BMAD Workflow Validation System (Codex)
+**Standards Version:** BMAD Workflow Standards
+
+## File Structure & Size
+
+- workflow.md present: YES
+- instructions.md present: YES
+- workflow.yaml present: YES
+- step files found: 7
+
+**Step File Sizes:**
+
+- steps-c/step-01-load-context.md: 90 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-c/step-02-discover-tests.md: 62 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-c/step-03-quality-evaluation.md: 68 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-c/step-04-generate-report.md: 64 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-e/step-01-assess.md: 50 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-e/step-02-apply-edit.md: 45 lines [GOOD]
+- steps-v/step-01-validate.md: 52 lines [GOOD]
+- workflow-plan.md present: YES
+
+## Frontmatter Validation
+
+- No frontmatter violations found
+
+## Critical Path Violations
+
+### Config Variables (Exceptions)
+
+Standard BMAD config variables treated as valid exceptions: bmb_creations_output_folder, communication_language, document_output_language, output_folder, planning_artifacts, project-root, project_name, test_artifacts, user_name
+
+- No {project-root} hardcoded paths detected in body
+
+- No dead relative links detected
+
+- No module path assumptions detected
+
+**Status:** ✅ PASS - No critical violations
+
+## Menu Handling Validation
+
+- No menu structures detected (linear step flow) [N/A]
+
+## Step Type Validation
+
+- steps-c/step-01-load-context.md: Init [PASS]
+- steps-c/step-02-discover-tests.md: Middle [PASS]
+- steps-c/step-03-quality-evaluation.md: Middle [PASS]
+- steps-c/step-04-generate-report.md: Final [PASS]
+- Step type validation assumes linear sequence (no branching/menu). Workflow-plan.md present for reference. [INFO]
+
+## Output Format Validation
+
+- Templates present: test-review-template.md
+- Steps with outputFile in frontmatter:
+  - steps-c/step-04-generate-report.md
+  - steps-v/step-01-validate.md
+- checklist.md present: YES
+
+## Validation Design Check
+
+- Validation steps folder (steps-v) present: YES
+- Validation step(s) present: step-01-validate.md
+- Validation steps reference checklist data and auto-proceed
+
+## Instruction Style Check
+
+- Instruction style: Prescriptive (appropriate for TEA quality/compliance workflows)
+- Steps emphasize mandatory sequence, explicit success/failure metrics, and risk-based guidance
+
+## Collaborative Experience Check
+
+- Overall facilitation quality: GOOD
+- Steps use progressive prompts and clear role reinforcement; no laundry-list interrogation detected
+- Flow progression is clear and aligned to workflow goals
+
+## Subprocess Optimization Opportunities
+
+- No high-priority subprocess optimizations identified; workflow already uses step-file architecture
+- Pattern 1 (grep/regex): N/A for most steps
+- Pattern 2 (per-file analysis): already aligned to validation structure
+- Pattern 3 (data ops): minimal data file loads
+- Pattern 4 (parallel): optional for validation only
+
+## Cohesive Review
+
+- Overall assessment: GOOD
+- Flow is linear, goals are clear, and outputs map to TEA artifacts
+- Voice and tone consistent with Test Architect persona
+- Recommendation: READY (minor refinements optional)
+
+## Plan Quality Validation
+
+- Plan file present: workflow-plan.md
+- Planned steps found: 7 (all implemented)
+- Plan implementation status: Fully Implemented
+
+## Summary
+
+- Validation completed: 2026-01-27 10:24:01
+- Critical issues: 0
+- Warnings: 0 (informational notes only)
+- Readiness: READY (manual review optional)

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/workflow-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+    # Workflow Plan: testarch-test-review
+
+    ## Create Mode (steps-c)
+    - step-01-load-context.md
+
+- step-02-discover-tests.md
+- step-03-quality-evaluation.md
+- step-04-generate-report.md
+
+  ## Validate Mode (steps-v)
+  - step-01-validate.md
+
+  ## Edit Mode (steps-e)
+  - step-01-assess.md
+  - step-02-apply-edit.md
+
+  ## Outputs
+  - {test_artifacts}/test-review.md

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+name: testarch-test-review
+description: Review test quality using best practices validation. Use when user says 'lets review tests' or 'I want to evaluate test quality'
+web_bundle: true
+---
+
+# Test Quality Review
+
+**Goal:** Review test quality using comprehensive knowledge base and best practices validation
+
+**Role:** You are the Master Test Architect.
+
+---
+
+## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
+
+This workflow uses **tri-modal step-file architecture**:
+
+- **Create mode (steps-c/)**: primary execution flow
+- **Validate mode (steps-v/)**: validation against checklist
+- **Edit mode (steps-e/)**: revise existing outputs
+
+---
+
+## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
+
+### 1. Mode Determination
+
+"Welcome to the workflow. What would you like to do?"
+
+- **[C] Create** — Run the workflow
+- **[R] Resume** — Resume an interrupted workflow
+- **[V] Validate** — Validate existing outputs
+- **[E] Edit** — Edit existing outputs
+
+### 2. Route to First Step
+
+- **If C:** Load `steps-c/step-01-load-context.md`
+- **If R:** Load `steps-c/step-01b-resume.md`
+- **If V:** Load `steps-v/step-01-validate.md`
+- **If E:** Load `steps-e/step-01-assess.md`

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Test Architect workflow: test-review
+name: testarch-test-review
+description: "Review test quality using best practices validation. Use when the user says 'lets review tests' or 'I want to evaluate test quality'"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/_bmad/tea/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+test_artifacts: "{config_source}:test_artifacts"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Workflow components
+installed_path: "{project-root}/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+template: "{installed_path}/test-review-template.md"
+
+# Variables and inputs
+variables:
+  test_dir: "{project-root}/tests" # Root test directory
+  review_scope: "single" # single (one file), directory (folder), suite (all tests)
+  test_stack_type: "auto" # auto, frontend, backend, fullstack - from config or auto-detected
+
+# Output configuration
+default_output_file: "{test_artifacts}/test-review.md"
+
+# Required tools
+required_tools:
+  - read_file # Read test files, story, test-design
+  - write_file # Create review report
+  - list_files # Discover test files in directory
+  - search_repo # Find tests by patterns
+  - glob # Find test files matching patterns
+
+tags:
+  - qa
+  - test-architect
+  - code-review
+  - quality
+  - best-practices
+
+execution_hints:
+  interactive: false # Minimize prompts
+  autonomous: true # Proceed without user input unless blocked
+  iterative: true # Can review multiple files
+