@cregis-dev/cckit 0.4.1 → 0.6.1

package/templates/bmad/tea/testarch/knowledge/adr-quality-readiness-checklist.md

@@ -1,377 +0,0 @@
-# ADR Quality Readiness Checklist
-
-**Purpose:** Standardized 8-category, 29-criteria framework for evaluating system testability and NFR compliance during architecture review (Phase 3) and NFR assessment.
-
-**When to Use:**
-
-- System-level test design (Phase 3): Identify testability gaps in architecture
-- NFR assessment workflow: Structured evaluation with evidence
-- Gate decisions: Quantifiable criteria (X/29 met = PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
-
-**How to Use:**
-
-1. For each criterion, assess status: ✅ Covered / ⚠️ Gap / ⬜ Not Assessed
-2. Document gap description if ⚠️
-3. Describe risk if criterion unmet
-4. Map to test scenarios (what tests validate this criterion)
-
----
-
-## 1. Testability & Automation
-
-**Question:** Can we verify this effectively without manual toil?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                                                                  | Risk if Unmet                                  | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                                                          |
-| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| 1.1 | **Isolation:** Can the service be tested with all downstream dependencies (DBs, APIs, Queues) mocked or stubbed?                           | Flaky tests; inability to test in isolation    | P1: Service runs with mocked DB, P1: Service runs with mocked API, P2: Integration tests with real deps |
-| 1.2 | **Headless Interaction:** Is 100% of the business logic accessible via API (REST/gRPC) to bypass the UI for testing?                       | Slow, brittle UI-based automation              | P0: All core logic callable via API, P1: No UI dependency for critical paths                            |
-| 1.3 | **State Control:** Do we have "Seeding APIs" or scripts to inject specific data states (e.g., "User with expired subscription") instantly? | Long setup times; inability to test edge cases | P0: Seed baseline data, P0: Inject edge case data states, P1: Cleanup after tests                       |
-| 1.4 | **Sample Requests:** Are there valid and invalid cURL/JSON sample requests provided in the design doc for QA to build upon?                | Ambiguity on how to consume the service        | P1: Valid request succeeds, P1: Invalid request fails with clear error                                  |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- No mock endpoints for external services (Athena, Milvus, third-party APIs)
-- Business logic tightly coupled to UI (requires E2E tests for everything)
-- No seeding APIs (manual database setup required)
-- ADR has architecture diagrams but no sample API requests
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 1.1 (Isolation): Provide mock endpoints, dependency injection, interface abstractions
-- 1.2 (Headless): Expose all business logic via REST/GraphQL APIs
-- 1.3 (State Control): Implement `/api/test-data` seeding endpoints (dev/staging only)
-- 1.4 (Sample Requests): Add "Example API Calls" section to ADR with cURL commands
-
----
-
-## 2. Test Data Strategy
-
-**Question:** How do we fuel our tests safely?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                                                             | Risk if Unmet                                | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                                                 |
-| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| 2.1 | **Segregation:** Does the design support multi-tenancy or specific headers (e.g., x-test-user) to keep test data out of prod metrics? | Skewed business analytics; data pollution    | P0: Multi-tenant isolation (customer A ≠ customer B), P1: Test data excluded from prod metrics |
-| 2.2 | **Generation:** Can we use synthetic data, or do we rely on scrubbing production data (GDPR/PII risk)?                                | Privacy violations; dependency on stale data | P0: Faker-based synthetic data, P1: No production data in tests                                |
-| 2.3 | **Teardown:** Is there a mechanism to "reset" the environment or clean up data after destructive tests?                               | Environment rot; subsequent test failures    | P0: Automated cleanup after tests, P2: Environment reset script                                |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- No `customer_id` scoping in queries (cross-tenant data leakage risk)
-- Reliance on production data dumps (GDPR/PII violations)
-- No cleanup mechanism (tests leave data behind, polluting environment)
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 2.1 (Segregation): Enforce `customer_id` in all queries, add test-specific headers
-- 2.2 (Generation): Use Faker library, create synthetic data generators, prohibit prod dumps
-- 2.3 (Teardown): Auto-cleanup hooks in test framework, isolated test customer IDs
-
----
-
-## 3. Scalability & Availability
-
-**Question:** Can it grow, and will it stay up?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                                                   | Risk if Unmet                                     | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                                                       |
-| --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| 3.1 | **Statelessness:** Is the service stateless? If not, how is session state replicated across instances?                      | Inability to auto-scale horizontally              | P1: Service restart mid-request → no data loss, P2: Horizontal scaling under load                    |
-| 3.2 | **Bottlenecks:** Have we identified the weakest link (e.g., database connections, API rate limits) under load?              | System crash during peak traffic                  | P2: Load test identifies bottleneck, P2: Connection pool exhaustion handled                          |
-| 3.3 | **SLA Definitions:** What is the target Availability (e.g., 99.9%) and does the architecture support redundancy to meet it? | Breach of contract; customer churn                | P1: Availability target defined, P2: Redundancy validated (multi-region/zone)                        |
-| 3.4 | **Circuit Breakers:** If a dependency fails, does this service fail fast or hang?                                           | Cascading failures taking down the whole platform | P1: Circuit breaker opens on 5 failures, P1: Auto-reset after recovery, P2: Timeout prevents hanging |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- Stateful session management (can't scale horizontally)
-- No load testing, bottlenecks unknown
-- SLA undefined or unrealistic (99.99% without redundancy)
-- No circuit breakers (cascading failures)
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 3.1 (Statelessness): Externalize session to Redis/JWT, design for horizontal scaling
-- 3.2 (Bottlenecks): Load test with k6, monitor connection pools, identify weak links
-- 3.3 (SLA): Define realistic SLA (99.9% = 43 min/month downtime), add redundancy
-- 3.4 (Circuit Breakers): Implement circuit breakers (Hystrix pattern), fail fast on errors
-
----
-
-## 4. Disaster Recovery (DR)
-
-**Question:** What happens when the worst-case scenario occurs?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                                            | Risk if Unmet                                  | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                          |
-| --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| 4.1 | **RTO/RPO:** What is the Recovery Time Objective (how long to restore) and Recovery Point Objective (max data loss)? | Extended outages; data loss liability          | P2: RTO defined and tested, P2: RPO validated (backup frequency)        |
-| 4.2 | **Failover:** Is region/zone failover automated or manual? Has it been practiced?                                    | "Heroics" required during outages; human error | P2: Automated failover works, P2: Manual failover documented and tested |
-| 4.3 | **Backups:** Are backups immutable and tested for restoration integrity?                                             | Ransomware vulnerability; corrupted backups    | P2: Backup restore succeeds, P2: Backup immutability validated          |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- RTO/RPO undefined (no recovery plan)
-- Failover never tested (manual process, prone to errors)
-- Backups exist but restoration never validated (untested backups = no backups)
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 4.1 (RTO/RPO): Define RTO (e.g., 4 hours) and RPO (e.g., 1 hour), document recovery procedures
-- 4.2 (Failover): Automate multi-region failover, practice failover drills quarterly
-- 4.3 (Backups): Implement immutable backups (S3 versioning), test restore monthly
-
----
-
-## 5. Security
-
-**Question:** Is the design safe by default?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                                        | Risk if Unmet                            | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                                                                   |
-| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| 5.1 | **AuthN/AuthZ:** Does it implement standard protocols (OAuth2/OIDC)? Are permissions granular (Least Privilege)? | Unauthorized access; data leaks          | P0: OAuth flow works, P0: Expired token rejected, P0: Insufficient permissions return 403, P1: Scope enforcement |
-| 5.2 | **Encryption:** Is data encrypted at rest (DB) and in transit (TLS)?                                             | Compliance violations; data theft        | P1: Milvus data-at-rest encrypted, P1: TLS 1.2+ enforced, P2: Certificate rotation works                         |
-| 5.3 | **Secrets:** Are API keys/passwords stored in a Vault (not in code or config files)?                             | Credentials leaked in git history        | P1: No hardcoded secrets in code, P1: Secrets loaded from AWS Secrets Manager                                    |
-| 5.4 | **Input Validation:** Are inputs sanitized against Injection attacks (SQLi, XSS)?                                | System compromise via malicious payloads | P1: SQL injection sanitized, P1: XSS escaped, P2: Command injection prevented                                    |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- Weak authentication (no OAuth, hardcoded API keys)
-- No encryption at rest (plaintext in database)
-- Secrets in git (API keys, passwords in config files)
-- No input validation (vulnerable to SQLi, XSS, command injection)
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 5.1 (AuthN/AuthZ): Implement OAuth 2.1/OIDC, enforce least privilege, validate scopes
-- 5.2 (Encryption): Enable TDE (Transparent Data Encryption), enforce TLS 1.2+
-- 5.3 (Secrets): Migrate to AWS Secrets Manager/Vault, scan git history for leaks
-- 5.4 (Input Validation): Sanitize all inputs, use parameterized queries, escape outputs
-
----
-
-## 6. Monitorability, Debuggability & Manageability
-
-**Question:** Can we operate and fix this in production?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                            | Risk if Unmet                                      | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                                                    |
-| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| 6.1 | **Tracing:** Does the service propagate W3C Trace Context / Correlation IDs for distributed tracing? | Impossible to debug errors across microservices    | P2: W3C Trace Context propagated (EventBridge → Lambda → Service), P2: Correlation ID in all logs |
-| 6.2 | **Logs:** Can log levels (INFO vs DEBUG) be toggled dynamically without a redeploy?                  | Inability to diagnose issues in real-time          | P2: Log level toggle works without redeploy, P2: Logs structured (JSON format)                    |
-| 6.3 | **Metrics:** Does it expose RED metrics (Rate, Errors, Duration) for Prometheus/Datadog?             | Flying blind regarding system health               | P2: /metrics endpoint exposes RED metrics, P2: Prometheus/Datadog scrapes successfully            |
-| 6.4 | **Config:** Is configuration externalized? Can we change behavior without a code build?              | Rigid system; full deploys needed for minor tweaks | P2: Config change without code build, P2: Feature flags toggle behavior                           |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- No distributed tracing (can't debug across microservices)
-- Static log levels (requires redeploy to enable DEBUG)
-- No metrics endpoint (blind to system health)
-- Configuration hardcoded (requires full deploy for minor changes)
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 6.1 (Tracing): Implement W3C Trace Context, add correlation IDs to all logs
-- 6.2 (Logs): Use dynamic log levels (environment variable), structured logging (JSON)
-- 6.3 (Metrics): Expose /metrics endpoint, track RED metrics (Rate, Errors, Duration)
-- 6.4 (Config): Externalize config (AWS SSM/AppConfig), use feature flags (LaunchDarkly)
-
----
-
-## 7. QoS (Quality of Service) & QoE (Quality of Experience)
-
-**Question:** How does it perform, and how does it feel?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                            | Risk if Unmet                                          | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                                                  |
-| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-| 7.1 | **Latency (QoS):** What are the P95 and P99 latency targets?                                         | Slow API responses affecting throughput                | P3: P95 latency <Xs (load test), P3: P99 latency <Ys (load test)                                |
-| 7.2 | **Throttling (QoS):** Is there Rate Limiting to prevent "noisy neighbors" or DDoS?                   | Service degradation for all users due to one bad actor | P2: Rate limiting enforced, P2: 429 returned when limit exceeded                                |
-| 7.3 | **Perceived Performance (QoE):** Does the UI show optimistic updates or skeletons while loading?     | App feels sluggish to the user                         | P2: Skeleton/spinner shown while loading (E2E), P2: Optimistic updates (E2E)                    |
-| 7.4 | **Degradation (QoE):** If the service is slow, does it show a friendly message or a raw stack trace? | Poor user trust; frustration                           | P2: Friendly error message shown (not stack trace), P1: Error boundary catches exceptions (E2E) |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- Latency targets undefined (no SLOs)
-- No rate limiting (vulnerable to DDoS, noisy neighbors)
-- Poor perceived performance (blank screen while loading)
-- Raw error messages (stack traces exposed to users)
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 7.1 (Latency): Define SLOs (P95 <2s, P99 <5s), load test to validate
-- 7.2 (Throttling): Implement rate limiting (per-user, per-IP), return 429 with Retry-After
-- 7.3 (Perceived Performance): Add skeleton screens, optimistic updates, progressive loading
-- 7.4 (Degradation): Implement error boundaries, show friendly messages, log stack traces server-side
-
----
-
-## 8. Deployability
-
-**Question:** How easily can we ship this?
-
-| #   | Criterion                                                                                  | Risk if Unmet                                          | Typical Test Scenarios (P0-P2)                                                 |
-| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
-| 8.1 | **Zero Downtime:** Does the design support Blue/Green or Canary deployments?               | Maintenance windows required (downtime)                | P2: Blue/Green deployment works, P2: Canary deployment gradual rollout         |
-| 8.2 | **Backward Compatibility:** Can we deploy the DB changes separately from the Code changes? | "Lock-step" deployments; high risk of breaking changes | P2: DB migration before code deploy, P2: Code handles old and new schema       |
-| 8.3 | **Rollback:** Is there an automated rollback trigger if Health Checks fail post-deploy?    | Prolonged outages after a bad deploy                   | P2: Health check fails → automated rollback, P2: Rollback completes within RTO |
-
-**Common Gaps:**
-
-- No zero-downtime strategy (requires maintenance window)
-- Tight coupling between DB and code (lock-step deployments)
-- No automated rollback (manual intervention required)
-
-**Mitigation Examples:**
-
-- 8.1 (Zero Downtime): Implement Blue/Green or Canary deployments, use feature flags
-- 8.2 (Backward Compatibility): Separate DB migrations from code deploys, support N-1 schema
-- 8.3 (Rollback): Automate rollback on health check failures, test rollback procedures
-
----
-
-## Usage in Test Design Workflow
-
-**System-Level Mode (Phase 3):**
-
-**In test-design-architecture.md:**
-
-- Add "NFR Testability Requirements" section after ASRs
-- Use 8 categories with checkboxes (29 criteria)
-- For each criterion: Status (⬜ Not Assessed, ⚠️ Gap, ✅ Covered), Gap description, Risk if unmet
-- Example:
-
-```markdown
-## NFR Testability Requirements
-
-**Based on ADR Quality Readiness Checklist**
-
-### 1. Testability & Automation
-
-Can we verify this effectively without manual toil?
-
-| Criterion                                                        | Status          | Gap/Requirement                      | Risk if Unmet                           |
-| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------- |
-| ⬜ Isolation: Can service be tested with downstream deps mocked? | ⚠️ Gap          | No mock endpoints for Athena queries | Flaky tests; can't test in isolation    |
-| ⬜ Headless: 100% business logic accessible via API?             | ✅ Covered      | All MCP tools are REST APIs          | N/A                                     |
-| ⬜ State Control: Seeding APIs to inject data states?            | ⚠️ Gap          | Need `/api/test-data` endpoints      | Long setup times; can't test edge cases |
-| ⬜ Sample Requests: Valid/invalid cURL/JSON samples provided?    | ⬜ Not Assessed | Pending ADR Tool schemas finalized   | Ambiguity on how to consume service     |
-
-**Actions Required:**
-
-- [ ] Backend: Implement mock endpoints for Athena (R-002 blocker)
-- [ ] Backend: Implement `/api/test-data` seeding APIs (R-002 blocker)
-- [ ] PM: Finalize ADR Tool schemas with sample requests (Q4)
-```
-
-**In test-design-qa.md:**
-
-- Map each criterion to test scenarios
-- Add "NFR Test Coverage Plan" section with P0/P1/P2 priority for each category
-- Reference Architecture doc gaps
-- Example:
-
-```markdown
-## NFR Test Coverage Plan
-
-**Based on ADR Quality Readiness Checklist**
-
-### 1. Testability & Automation (4 criteria)
-
-**Prerequisites from Architecture doc:**
-
-- [ ] R-002: Test data seeding APIs implemented (blocker)
-- [ ] Mock endpoints available for Athena queries
-
-| Criterion                       | Test Scenarios                                                       | Priority | Test Count | Owner            |
-| ------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- | ---------------- |
-| Isolation: Mock downstream deps | Mock Athena queries, Mock Milvus, Service runs isolated              | P1       | 3          | Backend Dev + QA |
-| Headless: API-accessible logic  | All MCP tools callable via REST, No UI dependency for business logic | P0       | 5          | QA               |
-| State Control: Seeding APIs     | Create test customer, Seed 1000 transactions, Inject edge cases      | P0       | 4          | QA               |
-| Sample Requests: cURL examples  | Valid request succeeds, Invalid request fails with clear error       | P1       | 2          | QA               |
-
-**Detailed Test Scenarios:**
-
-- [ ] Isolation: Service runs with Athena mocked (returns fixture data)
-- [ ] Isolation: Service runs with Milvus mocked (returns ANN fixture)
-- [ ] State Control: Seed test customer with 1000 baseline transactions
-- [ ] State Control: Inject edge case (expired subscription user)
-```
-
----
-
-## Usage in NFR Assessment Workflow
-
-**Output Structure:**
-
-```markdown
-# NFR Assessment: {Feature Name}
-
-**Based on ADR Quality Readiness Checklist (8 categories, 29 criteria)**
-
-## Assessment Summary
-
-| Category                      | Status      | Criteria Met | Evidence                               | Next Action          |
-| ----------------------------- | ----------- | ------------ | -------------------------------------- | -------------------- |
-| 1. Testability & Automation   | ⚠️ CONCERNS | 2/4          | Mock endpoints missing                 | Implement R-002      |
-| 2. Test Data Strategy         | ✅ PASS     | 3/3          | Faker + auto-cleanup                   | None                 |
-| 3. Scalability & Availability | ⚠️ CONCERNS | 1/4          | SLA undefined                          | Define SLA           |
-| 4. Disaster Recovery          | ⚠️ CONCERNS | 0/3          | No RTO/RPO defined                     | Define recovery plan |
-| 5. Security                   | ✅ PASS     | 4/4          | OAuth 2.1 + TLS + Vault + Sanitization | None                 |
-| 6. Monitorability             | ⚠️ CONCERNS | 2/4          | No metrics endpoint                    | Add /metrics         |
-| 7. QoS & QoE                  | ⚠️ CONCERNS | 1/4          | Latency targets undefined              | Define SLOs          |
-| 8. Deployability              | ✅ PASS     | 3/3          | Blue/Green + DB migrations + Rollback  | None                 |
-
-**Overall:** 14/29 criteria met (48%) → ⚠️ CONCERNS
-
-**Gate Decision:** CONCERNS (requires mitigation plan before GA)
-
----
-
-## Detailed Assessment
-
-### 1. Testability & Automation (2/4 criteria met)
-
-**Question:** Can we verify this effectively without manual toil?
-
-| Criterion                    | Status | Evidence                 | Gap/Action                 |
-| ---------------------------- | ------ | ------------------------ | -------------------------- |
-| ⬜ Isolation: Mock deps      | ⚠️     | No Athena mock           | Implement mock endpoints   |
-| ⬜ Headless: API-accessible  | ✅     | All MCP tools are REST   | N/A                        |
-| ⬜ State Control: Seeding    | ⚠️     | `/api/test-data` pending | Pre-implementation blocker |
-| ⬜ Sample Requests: Examples | ⬜     | Pending schemas          | Finalize ADR Tools         |
-
-**Overall Status:** ⚠️ CONCERNS (2/4 criteria met)
-
-**Next Actions:**
-
-- [ ] Backend: Implement Athena mock endpoints (pre-implementation)
-- [ ] Backend: Implement `/api/test-data` (pre-implementation)
-- [ ] PM: Finalize sample requests (implementation phase)
-
-{Repeat for all 8 categories}
-```
-
----
-
-## Benefits
-
-**For test-design workflow:**
-
-- ✅ Standard NFR structure (same 8 categories every project)
-- ✅ Clear testability requirements for Architecture team
-- ✅ Direct mapping: criterion → requirement → test scenario
-- ✅ Comprehensive coverage (29 criteria = no blind spots)
-
-**For nfr-assess workflow:**
-
-- ✅ Structured assessment (not ad-hoc)
-- ✅ Quantifiable (X/29 criteria met)
-- ✅ Evidence-based (each criterion has evidence field)
-- ✅ Actionable (gaps → next actions with owners)
-
-**For Architecture teams:**
-
-- ✅ Clear checklist (29 yes/no questions)
-- ✅ Risk-aware (each criterion has "risk if unmet")
-- ✅ Scoped work (only implement what's needed, not everything)
-
-**For QA teams:**
-
-- ✅ Comprehensive test coverage (29 criteria → test scenarios)
-- ✅ Clear priorities (P0 for security/isolation, P1 for monitoring, etc.)
-- ✅ No ambiguity (each criterion has specific test scenarios)