@hanzlaa/rcode 3.6.16 → 4.0.0

package/rcode/agents/rules/sprint-checker/dimensions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,414 @@
+## Dimension 1: Requirement Coverage
+
+**Question:** Does every phase requirement have task(s) addressing it?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Extract phase goal from ROADMAP.md
+2. Extract requirement IDs from ROADMAP.md `**Requirements:**` line for this phase (strip brackets if present)
+3. Verify each requirement ID appears in at least one plan's `requirements` frontmatter field
+4. For each requirement, find covering task(s) in the plan that claims it
+5. Flag requirements with no coverage or missing from all plans' `requirements` fields
+
+**FAIL the verification** if any requirement ID from the roadmap is absent from all plans' `requirements` fields. This is a blocking issue, not a warning.
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Requirement has zero tasks addressing it
+- Multiple requirements share one vague task ("implement auth" for login, logout, session)
+- Requirement partially covered (login exists but logout doesn't)
+
+**Example issue:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: requirement_coverage
+  severity: blocker
+  description: "AUTH-02 (logout) has no covering task"
+  plan: "16-01"
+  fix_hint: "Add task for logout endpoint in plan 01 or new plan"
+```
+
+## Dimension 2: Task Completeness
+
+**Question:** Does every task have Files + Action + Verify + Done?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Parse each `<task>` element in SPRINT.md
+2. Check for required fields based on task type
+3. Flag incomplete tasks
+
+**Required by task type:**
+| Type | Files | Action | Verify | Done |
+|------|-------|--------|--------|------|
+| `auto` | Required | Required | Required | Required |
+| `checkpoint:*` | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
+| `tdd` | Required | Behavior + Implementation | Test commands | Expected outcomes |
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Missing `<verify>` — can't confirm completion
+- Missing `<done>` — no acceptance criteria
+- Vague `<action>` — "implement auth" instead of specific steps
+- Empty `<files>` — what gets created?
+
+**Example issue:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: task_completeness
+  severity: blocker
+  description: "Task 2 missing <verify> element"
+  plan: "16-01"
+  task: 2
+  fix_hint: "Add verification command for build output"
+```
+
+## Dimension 3: Dependency Correctness
+
+**Question:** Are plan dependencies valid and acyclic?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Parse `depends_on` from each plan frontmatter
+2. Build dependency graph
+3. Check for cycles, missing references, future references
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Plan references non-existent plan (`depends_on: ["99"]` when 99 doesn't exist)
+- Circular dependency (A -> B -> A)
+- Future reference (plan 01 referencing plan 03's output)
+- Wave assignment inconsistent with dependencies
+
+**Dependency rules:**
+- `depends_on: []` = Wave 1 (can run parallel)
+- `depends_on: ["01"]` = Wave 2 minimum (must wait for 01)
+- Wave number = max(deps) + 1
+
+**Example issue:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: dependency_correctness
+  severity: blocker
+  description: "Circular dependency between plans 02 and 03"
+  plans: ["02", "03"]
+  fix_hint: "Plan 02 depends on 03, but 03 depends on 02"
+```
+
+## Dimension 4: Key Links Planned
+
+**Question:** Are artifacts wired together, not just created in isolation?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Identify artifacts in `must_haves.artifacts`
+2. Check that `must_haves.key_links` connects them
+3. Verify tasks actually implement the wiring (not just artifact creation)
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Component created but not imported anywhere
+- API route created but component doesn't call it
+- Database model created but API doesn't query it
+- Form created but submit handler is missing or stub
+
+**What to check:**
+```
+Component -> API: Does action mention fetch/axios call?
+API -> Database: Does action mention Prisma/query?
+Form -> Handler: Does action mention onSubmit implementation?
+State -> Render: Does action mention displaying state?
+```
+
+**Example issue:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: key_links_planned
+  severity: warning
+  description: "Chat.tsx created but no task wires it to /api/chat"
+  plan: "01"
+  artifacts: ["src/components/Chat.tsx", "src/app/api/chat/route.ts"]
+  fix_hint: "Add fetch call in Chat.tsx action or create wiring task"
+```
+
+## Dimension 5: Scope Sanity
+
+**Question:** Will plans complete within context budget?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Count tasks per plan
+2. Estimate files modified per plan
+3. Check against thresholds
+
+**Thresholds:**
+| Metric | Target | Warning | Blocker |
+|--------|--------|---------|---------|
+| Tasks/plan | 2-3 | 4 | 5+ |
+| Files/plan | 5-8 | 10 | 15+ |
+| Total context | ~50% | ~70% | 80%+ |
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Plan with 5+ tasks (quality degrades)
+- Plan with 15+ file modifications
+- Single task with 10+ files
+- Complex work (auth, payments) crammed into one plan
+
+**Example issue:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: scope_sanity
+  severity: warning
+  description: "Plan 01 has 5 tasks - split recommended"
+  plan: "01"
+  metrics:
+    tasks: 5
+    files: 12
+  fix_hint: "Split into 2 plans: foundation (01) and integration (02)"
+```
+
+## Dimension 6: Verification Derivation
+
+**Question:** Do must_haves trace back to phase goal?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Check each plan has `must_haves` in frontmatter
+2. Verify truths are user-observable (not implementation details)
+3. Verify artifacts support the truths
+4. Verify key_links connect artifacts to functionality
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Missing `must_haves` entirely
+- Truths are implementation-focused ("bcrypt installed") not user-observable ("passwords are secure")
+- Artifacts don't map to truths
+- Key links missing for critical wiring
+
+**Example issue:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: verification_derivation
+  severity: warning
+  description: "Plan 02 must_haves.truths are implementation-focused"
+  plan: "02"
+  problematic_truths:
+    - "JWT library installed"
+    - "Prisma schema updated"
+  fix_hint: "Reframe as user-observable: 'User can log in', 'Session persists'"
+```
+
+## Dimension 7: Context Compliance (if CONTEXT.md exists)
+
+**Question:** Do plans honor user decisions from /rcode-discuss-phase?
+
+**Only check if CONTEXT.md was provided in the verification context.**
+
+**Process:**
+1. Parse CONTEXT.md sections: Decisions, the agent's Discretion, Deferred Ideas
+2. Extract all numbered decisions (D-01, D-02, etc.) from the `<decisions>` section
+3. For each locked Decision, find implementing task(s) — check task actions for D-XX references
+4. Verify 100% decision coverage: every D-XX must appear in at least one task's action or rationale
+5. Verify no tasks implement Deferred Ideas (scope creep)
+6. Verify Discretion areas are handled (planner's choice is valid)
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Locked decision has no implementing task
+- Task contradicts a locked decision (e.g., user said "cards layout", plan says "table layout")
+- Task implements something from Deferred Ideas
+- Plan ignores user's stated preference
+
+**Example — contradiction:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: context_compliance
+  severity: blocker
+  description: "Plan contradicts locked decision: user specified 'card layout' but Task 2 implements 'table layout'"
+  plan: "01"
+  task: 2
+  user_decision: "Layout: Cards (from Decisions section)"
+  plan_action: "Create DataTable component with rows..."
+  fix_hint: "Change Task 2 to implement card-based layout per user decision"
+```
+
+**Example — scope creep:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: context_compliance
+  severity: blocker
+  description: "Plan includes deferred idea: 'search functionality' was explicitly deferred"
+  plan: "02"
+  task: 1
+  deferred_idea: "Search/filtering (Deferred Ideas section)"
+  fix_hint: "Remove search task - belongs in future phase per user decision"
+```
+
+## Dimension 8: Nyquist Compliance
+
+Skip if: `workflow.nyquist_validation` is explicitly set to `false` in config.json (absent key = enabled), phase has no RESEARCH.md, or RESEARCH.md has no "Validation Architecture" section. Output: "Dimension 8: SKIPPED (nyquist_validation disabled or not applicable)"
+
+### Check 8e — VALIDATION.md Existence (Gate)
+
+Before running checks 8a-8d, verify VALIDATION.md exists:
+
+```bash
+ls "${PHASE_DIR}"/*-VALIDATION.md 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+**If missing:** **BLOCKING FAIL** — "VALIDATION.md not found for phase {N}. Re-run `/rcode-plan {N} --research` to regenerate."
+Skip checks 8a-8d entirely. Report Dimension 8 as FAIL with this single issue.
+
+**If exists:** Proceed to checks 8a-8d.
+
+### Check 8a — Automated Verify Presence
+
+For each `<task>` in each plan:
+- `<verify>` must contain `<automated>` command, OR a Wave 0 dependency that creates the test first
+- If `<automated>` is absent with no Wave 0 dependency → **BLOCKING FAIL**
+- If `<automated>` says "MISSING", a Wave 0 task must reference the same test file path → **BLOCKING FAIL** if link broken
+
+### Check 8b — Feedback Latency Assessment
+
+For each `<automated>` command:
+- Full E2E suite (playwright, cypress, selenium) → **WARNING** — suggest faster unit/smoke test
+- Watch mode flags (`--watchAll`) → **BLOCKING FAIL**
+- Delays > 30 seconds → **WARNING**
+
+### Check 8c — Sampling Continuity
+
+Map tasks to waves. Per wave, any consecutive window of 3 implementation tasks must have ≥2 with `<automated>` verify. 3 consecutive without → **BLOCKING FAIL**.
+
+### Check 8d — Wave 0 Completeness
+
+For each `<automated>MISSING</automated>` reference:
+- Wave 0 task must exist with matching `<files>` path
+- Wave 0 plan must execute before dependent task
+- Missing match → **BLOCKING FAIL**
+
+### Dimension 8 Output
+
+```
+## Dimension 8: Nyquist Compliance
+
+| Task | Plan | Wave | Automated Command | Status |
+|------|------|------|-------------------|--------|
+| {task} | {plan} | {wave} | `{command}` | ✅ / ❌ |
+
+Sampling: Wave {N}: {X}/{Y} verified → ✅ / ❌
+Wave 0: {test file} → ✅ present / ❌ MISSING
+Overall: ✅ PASS / ❌ FAIL
+```
+
+If FAIL: return to planner with specific fixes. Same revision loop as other dimensions (max 3 loops).
+
+## Dimension 9: Cross-Plan Data Contracts
+
+**Question:** When plans share data pipelines, are their transformations compatible?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Identify data entities in multiple plans' `key_links` or `<action>` elements
+2. For each shared data path, check if one plan's transformation conflicts with another's:
+   - Plan A strips/sanitizes data that Plan B needs in original form
+   - Plan A's output format doesn't match Plan B's expected input
+   - Two plans consume the same stream with incompatible assumptions
+3. Check for a preservation mechanism (raw buffer, copy-before-transform)
+
+**Red flags:**
+- "strip"/"clean"/"sanitize" in one plan + "parse"/"extract" original format in another
+- Streaming consumer modifies data that finalization consumer needs intact
+- Two plans transform same entity without shared raw source
+
+**Severity:** WARNING for potential conflicts. BLOCKER if incompatible transforms on same data entity with no preservation mechanism.
+
+## Dimension 10: CLAUDE.md Compliance
+
+**Question:** Do plans respect project-specific conventions, constraints, and requirements from CLAUDE.md?
+
+**Process:**
+1. Read `./CLAUDE.md` in the working directory (already loaded in `<project_context>`)
+2. Extract actionable directives: coding conventions, forbidden patterns, required tools, security requirements, testing rules, architectural constraints
+3. For each directive, check if any plan task contradicts or ignores it
+4. Flag plans that introduce patterns CLAUDE.md explicitly forbids
+5. Flag plans that skip steps CLAUDE.md explicitly requires (e.g., required linting, specific test frameworks, commit conventions)
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Plan uses a library/pattern CLAUDE.md explicitly forbids
+- Plan skips a required step (e.g., CLAUDE.md says "always run X before Y" but plan omits X)
+- Plan introduces code style that contradicts CLAUDE.md conventions
+- Plan creates files in locations that violate CLAUDE.md's architectural constraints
+- Plan ignores security requirements documented in CLAUDE.md
+
+**Skip condition:** If no `./CLAUDE.md` exists in the working directory, output: "Dimension 10: SKIPPED (no CLAUDE.md found)" and move on.
+
+**Example — forbidden pattern:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: claude_md_compliance
+  severity: blocker
+  description: "Plan uses Jest for testing but CLAUDE.md requires Vitest"
+  plan: "01"
+  task: 1
+  claude_md_rule: "Testing: Always use Vitest, never Jest"
+  plan_action: "Install Jest and create test suite..."
+  fix_hint: "Replace Jest with Vitest per project CLAUDE.md"
+```
+
+**Example — skipped required step:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: claude_md_compliance
+  severity: warning
+  description: "Plan does not include lint step required by CLAUDE.md"
+  plan: "02"
+  claude_md_rule: "All tasks must run eslint before committing"
+  fix_hint: "Add eslint verification step to each task's <verify> block"
+```
+
+## Dimension 11: File References Verification
+
+**Question:** Do plan tasks reference files and symbols that actually exist in the codebase?
+
+**Critical issue this prevents:** Plans hallucinate file names and function names. Without verification, execution starts (switches branches, runs stash) before discovering the references don't exist.
+
+**Process:**
+1. For each task in each plan, extract file and symbol references from `<files>` and `<action>` elements
+2. Use code-references.cjs utility to:
+   - Extract candidate files matching pattern `\b[\w/.-]+\.(py|ts|tsx|js|jsx|md|yaml|yml|json|sh|cjs|mjs|rs|go|java|rb)\b`
+   - Extract symbols (snake_case functions and CamelCase classes)
+   - Extract file:line references
+3. Verify each reference against the project root:
+   - Files: `fs.existsSync(path.join(projectRoot, file))`
+   - Symbols: `grep -r "\bsymbol\b" projectRoot` (sample across source files)
+4. Calculate verification ratio: `verified / (verified + missing)`
+
+**Verification invocation (Bash step before spawning planner):**
+```bash
+PLAN_TEXT=$(cat "$PLAN_PATH")
+VERIFY_RESULT=$(node -e "
+const cr = require('.rcode/bin/lib/code-references.cjs');
+const fs = require('fs');
+const text = fs.readFileSync('$PLAN_PATH', 'utf8');
+const refs = cr.extractReferences(text);
+const result = cr.verifyReferences(refs, process.cwd());
+console.log(JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
+")
+```
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Referenced file doesn't exist in current branch (file will not be found at execute time)
+- Referenced symbol doesn't exist (function name is hallucinated)
+- Verification ratio < 0.5 (more than half the references missing — plan is likely stale)
+- File references in different branch or commit
+
+**Severity rules:**
+- **blocker:** `verified.ratio < 0.5` OR `missing.files.length > 0` → execution will fail immediately on branch switch
+- **warning:** `verified.ratio >= 0.5 AND < 0.8` → some references missing, may require scope adjustment
+- **info:** `verified.ratio >= 0.8` → most references ok, minor gaps
+
+**Example issue:**
+```yaml
+issue:
+  dimension: file_references_verification
+  severity: blocker
+  description: "Plan references nonexistent_file.py and imaginary_function() — verification ratio 0.2"
+  plan: "01"
+  missing_files:
+    - "nonexistent_file.py"
+  missing_symbols:
+    - "imaginary_function"
+  verified_ratio: 0.2
+  fix_hint: "Plan was built on hallucinated findings. Re-run /rcode-debug to verify actual code state before replanning."
+```
+
+</verification_dimensions>
+
+<verification_process>