@cregis-dev/cckit 0.4.1 → 0.5.0

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/nfr-assess/checklist.md

@@ -1,407 +0,0 @@
-# Non-Functional Requirements Assessment - Validation Checklist
-
-**Workflow:** `testarch-nfr`
-**Purpose:** Ensure comprehensive and evidence-based NFR assessment with actionable recommendations
-
----
-
-Note: `nfr-assess` evaluates existing evidence; it does not run tests or CI workflows.
-
-## Prerequisites Validation
-
-- [ ] Implementation is deployed and accessible for evaluation
-- [ ] Evidence sources are available (test results, metrics, logs, CI results)
-- [ ] NFR categories are determined (performance, security, reliability, maintainability, custom)
-- [ ] Evidence directories exist and are accessible (`test_results_dir`, `metrics_dir`, `logs_dir`)
-- [ ] Knowledge base is loaded (nfr-criteria, ci-burn-in, test-quality)
-
----
-
-## Context Loading
-
-- [ ] Tech-spec.md loaded successfully (if available)
-- [ ] PRD.md loaded (if available)
-- [ ] Story file loaded (if applicable)
-- [ ] Relevant knowledge fragments loaded from `tea-index.csv`:
-  - [ ] `nfr-criteria.md`
-  - [ ] `ci-burn-in.md`
-  - [ ] `test-quality.md`
-  - [ ] `playwright-config.md` (if using Playwright)
-
----
-
-## NFR Categories and Thresholds
-
-### Performance
-
-- [ ] Response time threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Throughput threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Resource usage thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Scalability requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-
-### Security
-
-- [ ] Authentication requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Authorization requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Data protection requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Vulnerability management thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Compliance requirements identified (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.)
-
-### Reliability
-
-- [ ] Availability (uptime) threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Error rate threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] MTTR (Mean Time To Recovery) threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Fault tolerance requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Disaster recovery requirements defined (RTO, RPO) or marked as UNKNOWN
-
-### Maintainability
-
-- [ ] Test coverage threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Code quality threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Technical debt threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Documentation completeness threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-
-### Custom NFR Categories (if applicable)
-
-- [ ] Custom NFR category 1: Thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Custom NFR category 2: Thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] Custom NFR category 3: Thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-
----
-
-## Evidence Gathering
-
-### Performance Evidence
-
-- [ ] Load test results collected (JMeter, k6, Gatling, etc.)
-- [ ] Application metrics collected (response times, throughput, resource usage)
-- [ ] APM data collected (New Relic, Datadog, Dynatrace, etc.)
-- [ ] Lighthouse reports collected (if web app)
-- [ ] Playwright performance traces collected (if applicable)
-
-### Security Evidence
-
-- [ ] SAST results collected (SonarQube, Checkmarx, Veracode, etc.)
-- [ ] DAST results collected (OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, etc.)
-- [ ] Dependency scanning results collected (Snyk, Dependabot, npm audit)
-- [ ] Penetration test reports collected (if available)
-- [ ] Security audit logs collected
-- [ ] Compliance audit results collected (if applicable)
-
-### Reliability Evidence
-
-- [ ] Uptime monitoring data collected (Pingdom, UptimeRobot, StatusCake)
-- [ ] Error logs collected
-- [ ] Error rate metrics collected
-- [ ] CI burn-in results collected (stability over time)
-- [ ] Chaos engineering test results collected (if available)
-- [ ] Failover/recovery test results collected (if available)
-- [ ] Incident reports and postmortems collected (if applicable)
-
-### Maintainability Evidence
-
-- [ ] Code coverage reports collected (Istanbul, NYC, c8, JaCoCo)
-- [ ] Static analysis results collected (ESLint, SonarQube, CodeClimate)
-- [ ] Technical debt metrics collected
-- [ ] Documentation audit results collected
-- [ ] Test review report collected (from test-review workflow, if available)
-- [ ] Git metrics collected (code churn, commit frequency, etc.)
-
----
-
-## NFR Assessment with Deterministic Rules
-
-### Performance Assessment
-
-- [ ] Response time assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Throughput assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Resource usage assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Scalability assessed against requirements
-- [ ] Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
-- [ ] Evidence source documented (file path, metric name)
-
-### Security Assessment
-
-- [ ] Authentication strength assessed against requirements
-- [ ] Authorization controls assessed against requirements
-- [ ] Data protection assessed against requirements
-- [ ] Vulnerability management assessed against thresholds
-- [ ] Compliance assessed against requirements
-- [ ] Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
-- [ ] Evidence source documented (file path, scan result)
-
-### Reliability Assessment
-
-- [ ] Availability (uptime) assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Error rate assessed against threshold
-- [ ] MTTR assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Fault tolerance assessed against requirements
-- [ ] Disaster recovery assessed against requirements (RTO, RPO)
-- [ ] CI burn-in assessed (stability over time)
-- [ ] Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
-- [ ] Evidence source documented (file path, monitoring data)
-
-### Maintainability Assessment
-
-- [ ] Test coverage assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Code quality assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Technical debt assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Documentation completeness assessed against threshold
-- [ ] Test quality assessed (from test-review, if available)
-- [ ] Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
-- [ ] Evidence source documented (file path, coverage report)
-
-### Custom NFR Assessment (if applicable)
-
-- [ ] Custom NFR 1 assessed against threshold with justification
-- [ ] Custom NFR 2 assessed against threshold with justification
-- [ ] Custom NFR 3 assessed against threshold with justification
-
----
-
-## Status Classification Validation
-
-### PASS Criteria Verified
-
-- [ ] Evidence exists for PASS status
-- [ ] Evidence meets or exceeds threshold
-- [ ] No concerns flagged in evidence
-- [ ] Quality is acceptable
-
-### CONCERNS Criteria Verified
-
-- [ ] Threshold is UNKNOWN (documented) OR
-- [ ] Evidence is MISSING or INCOMPLETE (documented) OR
-- [ ] Evidence is close to threshold (within 10%, documented) OR
-- [ ] Evidence shows intermittent issues (documented)
-
-### FAIL Criteria Verified
-
-- [ ] Evidence exists BUT does not meet threshold (documented) OR
-- [ ] Critical evidence is MISSING (documented) OR
-- [ ] Evidence shows consistent failures (documented) OR
-- [ ] Quality is unacceptable (documented)
-
-### No Threshold Guessing
-
-- [ ] All thresholds are either defined or marked as UNKNOWN
-- [ ] No thresholds were guessed or inferred
-- [ ] All UNKNOWN thresholds result in CONCERNS status
-
----
-
-## Quick Wins and Recommended Actions
-
-### Quick Wins Identified
-
-- [ ] Low-effort, high-impact improvements identified for CONCERNS/FAIL
-- [ ] Configuration changes (no code changes) identified
-- [ ] Optimization opportunities identified (caching, indexing, compression)
-- [ ] Monitoring additions identified (detect issues before failures)
-
-### Recommended Actions
-
-- [ ] Specific remediation steps provided (not generic advice)
-- [ ] Priority assigned (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
-- [ ] Estimated effort provided (hours, days)
-- [ ] Owner suggestions provided (dev, ops, security)
-
-### Monitoring Hooks
-
-- [ ] Performance monitoring suggested (APM, synthetic monitoring)
-- [ ] Error tracking suggested (Sentry, Rollbar, error logs)
-- [ ] Security monitoring suggested (intrusion detection, audit logs)
-- [ ] Alerting thresholds suggested (notify before breach)
-
-### Fail-Fast Mechanisms
-
-- [ ] Circuit breakers suggested for reliability
-- [ ] Rate limiting suggested for performance
-- [ ] Validation gates suggested for security
-- [ ] Smoke tests suggested for maintainability
-
----
-
-## Deliverables Generated
-
-### NFR Assessment Report
-
-- [ ] File created at `{test_artifacts}/nfr-assessment.md`
-- [ ] Template from `nfr-report-template.md` used
-- [ ] Executive summary included (overall status, critical issues)
-- [ ] Assessment by category included (performance, security, reliability, maintainability)
-- [ ] Evidence for each NFR documented
-- [ ] Status classifications documented (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
-- [ ] Findings summary included (PASS count, CONCERNS count, FAIL count)
-- [ ] Quick wins section included
-- [ ] Recommended actions section included
-- [ ] Evidence gaps checklist included
-
-### Gate YAML Snippet (if enabled)
-
-- [ ] YAML snippet generated
-- [ ] Date included
-- [ ] Categories status included (performance, security, reliability, maintainability)
-- [ ] Overall status included (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
-- [ ] Issue counts included (critical, high, medium, concerns)
-- [ ] Blockers flag included (true/false)
-- [ ] Recommendations included
-
-### Evidence Checklist (if enabled)
-
-- [ ] All NFRs with MISSING or INCOMPLETE evidence listed
-- [ ] Owners assigned for evidence collection
-- [ ] Suggested evidence sources provided
-- [ ] Deadlines set for evidence collection
-
-### Updated Story File (if enabled and requested)
-
-- [ ] "NFR Assessment" section added to story markdown
-- [ ] Link to NFR assessment report included
-- [ ] Overall status and critical issues included
-- [ ] Gate status included
-
----
-
-## Quality Assurance
-
-### Accuracy Checks
-
-- [ ] All NFR categories assessed (none skipped)
-- [ ] All thresholds documented (defined or UNKNOWN)
-- [ ] All evidence sources documented (file paths, metric names)
-- [ ] Status classifications are deterministic and consistent
-- [ ] No false positives (status correctly assigned)
-- [ ] No false negatives (all issues identified)
-
-### Completeness Checks
-
-- [ ] All NFR categories covered (performance, security, reliability, maintainability, custom)
-- [ ] All evidence sources checked (test results, metrics, logs, CI results)
-- [ ] All status types used appropriately (PASS, CONCERNS, FAIL)
-- [ ] All NFRs with CONCERNS/FAIL have recommendations
-- [ ] All evidence gaps have owners and deadlines
-
-### Actionability Checks
-
-- [ ] Recommendations are specific (not generic)
-- [ ] Remediation steps are clear and actionable
-- [ ] Priorities are assigned (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
-- [ ] Effort estimates are provided (hours, days)
-- [ ] Owners are suggested (dev, ops, security)
-
----
-
-## Integration with BMad Artifacts
-
-### With tech-spec.md
-
-- [ ] Tech spec loaded for NFR requirements and thresholds
-- [ ] Performance targets extracted
-- [ ] Security requirements extracted
-- [ ] Reliability SLAs extracted
-- [ ] Architectural decisions considered
-
-### With test-design.md
-
-- [ ] Test design loaded for NFR test plan
-- [ ] Test priorities referenced (P0/P1/P2/P3)
-- [ ] Assessment aligned with planned NFR validation
-
-### With PRD.md
-
-- [ ] PRD loaded for product-level NFR context
-- [ ] User experience goals considered
-- [ ] Unstated requirements checked
-- [ ] Product-level SLAs referenced
-
----
-
-## Quality Gates Validation
-
-### Release Blocker (FAIL)
-
-- [ ] Critical NFR status checked (security, reliability)
-- [ ] Performance failures assessed for user impact
-- [ ] Release blocker flagged if critical NFR has FAIL status
-
-### PR Blocker (HIGH CONCERNS)
-
-- [ ] High-priority NFR status checked
-- [ ] Multiple CONCERNS assessed
-- [ ] PR blocker flagged if HIGH priority issues exist
-
-### Warning (CONCERNS)
-
-- [ ] Any NFR with CONCERNS status flagged
-- [ ] Missing or incomplete evidence documented
-- [ ] Warning issued to address before next release
-
-### Pass (PASS)
-
-- [ ] All NFRs have PASS status
-- [ ] No blockers or concerns exist
-- [ ] Ready for release confirmed
-
----
-
-## Non-Prescriptive Validation
-
-- [ ] NFR categories adapted to team needs
-- [ ] Thresholds appropriate for project context
-- [ ] Assessment criteria customized as needed
-- [ ] Teams can extend with custom NFR categories
-- [ ] Integration with external tools supported (New Relic, Datadog, SonarQube, JIRA)
-
----
-
-## Documentation and Communication
-
-- [ ] NFR assessment report is readable and well-formatted
-- [ ] Tables render correctly in markdown
-- [ ] Code blocks have proper syntax highlighting
-- [ ] Links are valid and accessible
-- [ ] Recommendations are clear and prioritized
-- [ ] Overall status is prominent and unambiguous
-- [ ] Executive summary provides quick understanding
-
----
-
-## Final Validation
-
-- [ ] All prerequisites met
-- [ ] All NFR categories assessed with evidence (or gaps documented)
-- [ ] No thresholds were guessed (all defined or UNKNOWN)
-- [ ] Status classifications are deterministic and justified
-- [ ] Quick wins identified for all CONCERNS/FAIL
-- [ ] Recommended actions are specific and actionable
-- [ ] Evidence gaps documented with owners and deadlines
-- [ ] NFR assessment report generated and saved
-- [ ] Gate YAML snippet generated (if enabled)
-- [ ] Evidence checklist generated (if enabled)
-- [ ] Workflow completed successfully
-
----
-
-## Sign-Off
-
-**NFR Assessment Status:**
-
-- [ ] ✅ PASS - All NFRs meet requirements, ready for release
-- [ ] ⚠️ CONCERNS - Some NFRs have concerns, address before next release
-- [ ] ❌ FAIL - Critical NFRs not met, BLOCKER for release
-
-**Next Actions:**
-
-- If PASS ✅: Proceed to `*gate` workflow or release
-- If CONCERNS ⚠️: Address HIGH/CRITICAL issues, re-run `*nfr-assess`
-- If FAIL ❌: Resolve FAIL status NFRs, re-run `*nfr-assess`
-
-**Critical Issues:** {COUNT}
-**High Priority Issues:** {COUNT}
-**Concerns:** {COUNT}
-
----
-
-<!-- Powered by BMAD-CORE™ -->

package/templates/bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/nfr-assess/instructions.md

@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
-# Non-Functional Requirements Assessment
-
-**Workflow:** `testarch-nfr`
-**Version:** 5.0 (Step-File Architecture)
-
----
-
-## Overview
-
-Assess non-functional requirements (performance, security, reliability, maintainability) with evidence-based validation and deterministic PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL outcomes.
-
----
-
-## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
-
-This workflow uses **step-file architecture**:
-
-- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is self-contained
-- **JIT Loading**: Only the current step file is in memory
-- **Sequential Enforcement**: Execute steps in order
-
----
-
-## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
-
-### 1. Configuration Loading
-
-From `workflow.yaml`, resolve:
-
-- `config_source`, `test_artifacts`, `user_name`, `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `date`
-- `custom_nfr_categories`
-
-### 2. First Step
-
-Load, read completely, and execute:
-`{project-root}/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/nfr-assess/steps-c/step-01-load-context.md`
-
-### 3. Resume Support
-
-If the user selects **Resume** mode, load, read completely, and execute:
-`{project-root}/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/nfr-assess/steps-c/step-01b-resume.md`
-
-This checks the output document for progress tracking frontmatter and routes to the next incomplete step.