agentic-qe 3.7.9 → 3.7.11

package/assets/skills/qe-quality-assessment/evals/qe-quality-assessment.yaml

@@ -1,506 +1,506 @@
-# =============================================================================
-# AQE Skill Evaluation Test Suite: QE Quality Assessment v1.0.0
-# =============================================================================
-#
-# Comprehensive evaluation suite for the qe-quality-assessment skill.
-# Tests quality gates, metrics aggregation, trend analysis, deployment
-# readiness evaluation, and quality scoring.
-#
-# Schema: .claude/skills/.validation/schemas/skill-eval.schema.json
-# Validator: .claude/skills/qe-quality-assessment/scripts/validate-config.json
-#
-# Coverage:
-# - Code quality metrics (complexity, maintainability, duplication)
-# - Quality gates with pass/fail criteria
-# - Deployment readiness assessment
-# - Quality scoring and grading
-# - Trend analysis and alerts
-#
-# =============================================================================
-
-skill: qe-quality-assessment
-version: 1.0.0
-description: >
-  Comprehensive evaluation suite for the qe-quality-assessment skill.
-  Tests automated quality gates, metrics aggregation, trend analysis,
-  deployment readiness evaluation, quality scoring with grading, and
-  comprehensive quality dashboards.
-
-# =============================================================================
-# Multi-Model Configuration
-# =============================================================================
-
-models_to_test:
-  - claude-3.5-sonnet
-  - claude-3-haiku
-
-# =============================================================================
-# MCP Integration Configuration
-# =============================================================================
-
-mcp_integration:
-  enabled: true
-  namespace: skill-validation
-
-  query_patterns: true
-  track_outcomes: true
-  store_patterns: true
-  share_learning: true
-  update_quality_gate: true
-
-  target_agents:
-    - qe-learning-coordinator
-    - qe-queen-coordinator
-    - qe-quality-analyzer
-    - qe-deployment-advisor
-
-# =============================================================================
-# ReasoningBank Learning Configuration
-# =============================================================================
-
-learning:
-  store_success_patterns: true
-  store_failure_patterns: true
-  pattern_ttl_days: 90
-  min_confidence_to_store: 0.7
-  cross_model_comparison: true
-
-# =============================================================================
-# Result Format Configuration
-# =============================================================================
-
-result_format:
-  json_output: true
-  markdown_report: true
-  include_raw_output: false
-  include_timing: true
-  include_token_usage: true
-
-# =============================================================================
-# Environment Setup
-# =============================================================================
-
-setup:
-  required_tools:
-    - jq
-  environment_variables:
-    QUALITY_GATE_BLOCKING: "true"
-    MIN_QUALITY_SCORE: "70"
-  fixtures: []
-
-# =============================================================================
-# TEST CASES
-# =============================================================================
-
-test_cases:
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-  # CATEGORY: Code Quality Metrics
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-  - id: tc001_code_complexity_assessment
-    description: "Assess code complexity across multiple metrics"
-    category: code_quality
-    priority: critical
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Assess code quality for UserService module:
-        - Cyclomatic complexity (max 15, warn 10)
-        - Cognitive complexity (max 20, warn 15)
-        - Method length (max 50 lines, warn 30)
-        - Nesting depth (max 4, warn 3)
-        - Duplicate code (max 3%, warn 5%)
-
-        For each metric, assign status (OK/WARN/FAIL).
-        What's the overall code quality score?
-      context:
-        scope: "src/services/UserService.ts"
-        metrics: "all"
-        include_recommendations: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "complexity"
-        - "cyclomatic"
-        - "cognitive"
-        - "quality"
-        - "score"
-      must_not_contain:
-        - "error"
-        - "cannot assess"
-      severity_classification: critical
-      finding_count:
-        min: 1
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
-      reasoning_quality_min: 0.75
-
-  - id: tc002_maintainability_index
-    description: "Calculate maintainability index for codebase"
-    category: code_quality
-    priority: high
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Calculate maintainability index (0-100) for src/:
-        - Lines of code
-        - Cyclomatic complexity
-        - Halstead volume
-        - Comment ratio
-
-        Score: 86-100 = A, 66-85 = B, 51-65 = C, 36-50 = D, <36 = F
-
-        What does score B mean and how to improve?
-      context:
-        metric: "maintainability_index"
-        include_grade: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "maintainability"
-        - "index"
-        - "grade"
-        - "improve"
-        - "score"
-      severity_classification: high
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
-
-  - id: tc003_documentation_coverage
-    description: "Assess API documentation completeness"
-    category: code_quality
-    priority: high
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Assess documentation coverage:
-        - Public APIs (classes, functions) must have JSDoc
-        - Parameters and return types documented
-        - Complex functions need usage examples
-        - Critical modules need overview comments
-
-        Target: >= 80% for public APIs
-        How would you measure and track this?
-      context:
-        scope: "src/**/*.ts"
-        coverage_target: 0.8
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "documentation"
-        - "coverage"
-        - "API"
-        - "JSDoc"
-        - "track"
-      finding_count:
-        min: 1
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
-
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-  # CATEGORY: Quality Gates
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-  - id: tc004_quality_gate_evaluation
-    description: "Evaluate code against quality gates"
-    category: gates
-    priority: critical
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Evaluate PR against quality gates:
-        1. Coverage gate: new code >= 85% (ACTUAL: 82%) -> FAIL
-        2. Complexity gate: cyclomatic max 15 (ACTUAL: 18) -> FAIL
-        3. Vulnerabilities gate: critical = 0 (ACTUAL: 1) -> FAIL
-        4. Duplication gate: max 3% (ACTUAL: 2%) -> PASS
-        5. Tech debt gate: max 5% (ACTUAL: 6%) -> FAIL
-
-        Should this merge be blocked?
-      context:
-        gates: "all"
-        block_on_fail: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "gate"
-        - "fail"
-        - "block"
-        - "threshold"
-        - "blocked"
-      must_not_contain:
-        - "pass"
-        - "approved"
-      severity_classification: critical
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
-      reasoning_quality_min: 0.75
-
-  - id: tc005_gate_failure_remediation
-    description: "Help fix quality gate failures"
-    category: gates
-    priority: high
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Fix the gate failures from previous test:
-        1. Coverage 82% (need 85%): What tests to add?
-        2. Complexity 18 (max 15): Refactor strategy?
-        3. Vulnerabilities: 1 critical - fix?
-        4. Tech debt 6% (max 5%): Paydown plan?
-
-        Prioritize by effort vs impact.
-      context:
-        failures: "critical"
-        remediation_guidance: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "fix"
-        - "test"
-        - "refactor"
-        - "prioritize"
-        - "remediation"
-      finding_count:
-        min: 1
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
-
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-  # CATEGORY: Deployment Readiness
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-  - id: tc006_deployment_readiness_check
-    description: "Assess if release is ready for production"
-    category: deployment
-    priority: critical
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Assess release v2.1.0 for production readiness:
-
-        TESTING:
-        - Unit tests: PASS (all 245 passing)
-        - Integration tests: PASS (all 89 passing)
-        - E2E tests: 95% pass (1 flaky test)
-        - Performance tests: P95 latency 425ms (target 500ms) PASS
-
-        QUALITY:
-        - Coverage: 84% (target 80%) PASS
-        - Vulnerabilities: 0 critical (target 0) PASS
-        - Code review: 2 approvals PASS
-        - Documentation: Updated PASS
-
-        OPERATIONS:
-        - Changelog: Complete
-        - Rollback plan: Ready
-        - Monitoring: Configured
-
-        GO or NO-GO?
-      context:
-        release_version: "v2.1.0"
-        strict_checks: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "ready"
-        - "deployment"
-        - "pass"
-        - "go"
-        - "production"
-      must_not_contain:
-        - "concerns"
-        - "risks"
-      severity_classification: critical
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
-      reasoning_quality_min: 0.75
-
-  - id: tc007_pre_deployment_risks
-    description: "Identify risks before deployment"
-    category: deployment
-    priority: critical
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Identify pre-deployment risks for v2.2.0:
-        - 45 files changed (large change set)
-        - Database migration required (can't rollback easily)
-        - Changes to payment processing (high-risk)
-        - New external API integration
-        - Only 3 days of staging testing
-
-        Risk level: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW?
-        Recommended actions?
-      context:
-        risk_assessment: true
-        recommendations: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "risk"
-        - "high"
-        - "action"
-        - "recommend"
-      severity_classification: critical
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
-
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-  # CATEGORY: Quality Scoring
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-  - id: tc008_quality_score_calculation
-    description: "Calculate overall quality score"
-    category: scoring
-    priority: critical
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Calculate quality score for project using:
-        1. Test coverage: 82% (weight 25%) -> 82*0.25 = 20.5
-        2. Code quality: 78/100 (weight 20%) -> 78*0.20 = 15.6
-        3. Security: 8/10 vulns (weight 25%) -> 80*0.25 = 20
-        4. Reliability: 99.5% uptime (weight 20%) -> 99.5*0.20 = 19.9
-        5. Documentation: 75% (weight 10%) -> 75*0.10 = 7.5
-
-        Total: 20.5 + 15.6 + 20 + 19.9 + 7.5 = 83.5
-
-        Grade: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), F (<60)
-        Grade: B
-
-        How would you explain this to stakeholders?
-      context:
-        weights: "default"
-        include_grade: true
-        executive_summary: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "score"
-        - "grade"
-        - "quality"
-        - "weight"
-        - "coverage"
-      must_not_contain:
-        - "error"
-        - "invalid"
-      severity_classification: critical
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
-
-  - id: tc009_quality_trend_tracking
-    description: "Track quality score trends over time"
-    category: scoring
-    priority: high
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Track quality score trend:
-        - Week 1: 75 (C)
-        - Week 2: 77 (C)
-        - Week 3: 80 (B) - improvement!
-        - Week 4: 78 (C) - regression
-
-        Trend: Volatile, slightly improving
-        Next: Monitor closely, spike team focus
-
-        How would you alert on declining quality?
-      context:
-        trend_period: "4 weeks"
-        alert_triggers: true
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "trend"
-        - "score"
-        - "quality"
-        - "alert"
-        - "monitor"
-      finding_count:
-        min: 1
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
-
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-  # CATEGORY: Quality Dashboard
-  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-  - id: tc010_quality_dashboard_design
-    description: "Design comprehensive quality dashboard"
-    category: dashboard
-    priority: high
-
-    input:
-      prompt: |
-        Design quality dashboard showing:
-        1. Overall quality score (prominent)
-        2. Dimension breakdown (coverage, complexity, security, reliability)
-        3. Gate status (all gates, pass/fail)
-        4. Trend charts (30-day, 90-day)
-        5. Top issues (critical, high priority)
-        6. Deployment readiness
-        7. Team recommendations
-
-        What visualizations would be most useful?
-      context:
-        dashboard_scope: "comprehensive"
-        stakeholders: ["engineers", "managers", "executives"]
-
-    expected_output:
-      must_contain:
-        - "dashboard"
-        - "quality"
-        - "metric"
-        - "trend"
-        - "visualization"
-      finding_count:
-        min: 1
-
-    validation:
-      schema_check: true
-      allow_partial: true
-
-# =============================================================================
-# SUCCESS CRITERIA
-# =============================================================================
-
-success_criteria:
-  pass_rate: 0.8
-  critical_pass_rate: 1.0
-  avg_reasoning_quality: 0.75
-  max_execution_time_ms: 300000
-  cross_model_variance: 0.15
-
-# =============================================================================
-# METADATA
-# =============================================================================
-
-metadata:
-  author: "qe-quality-analyzer"
-  created: "2026-02-02"
-  last_updated: "2026-02-02"
-  coverage_target: >
-    Code complexity metrics (cyclomatic, cognitive, nesting), maintainability
-    index calculation, documentation coverage assessment, quality gates with
-    fail criteria and remediation guidance, deployment readiness evaluation with
-    pre-deployment risk identification, quality scoring with multi-factor
-    weighting and grading (A-F), trend analysis and alerting, and comprehensive
-    quality dashboards for all stakeholders.
+# =============================================================================
+# AQE Skill Evaluation Test Suite: QE Quality Assessment v1.0.0
+# =============================================================================
+#
+# Comprehensive evaluation suite for the qe-quality-assessment skill.
+# Tests quality gates, metrics aggregation, trend analysis, deployment
+# readiness evaluation, and quality scoring.
+#
+# Schema: .claude/skills/.validation/schemas/skill-eval.schema.json
+# Validator: .claude/skills/qe-quality-assessment/scripts/validate-config.json
+#
+# Coverage:
+# - Code quality metrics (complexity, maintainability, duplication)
+# - Quality gates with pass/fail criteria
+# - Deployment readiness assessment
+# - Quality scoring and grading
+# - Trend analysis and alerts
+#
+# =============================================================================
+
+skill: qe-quality-assessment
+version: 1.0.0
+description: >
+  Comprehensive evaluation suite for the qe-quality-assessment skill.
+  Tests automated quality gates, metrics aggregation, trend analysis,
+  deployment readiness evaluation, quality scoring with grading, and
+  comprehensive quality dashboards.
+
+# =============================================================================
+# Multi-Model Configuration
+# =============================================================================
+
+models_to_test:
+  - claude-3.5-sonnet
+  - claude-3-haiku
+
+# =============================================================================
+# MCP Integration Configuration
+# =============================================================================
+
+mcp_integration:
+  enabled: true
+  namespace: skill-validation
+
+  query_patterns: true
+  track_outcomes: true
+  store_patterns: true
+  share_learning: true
+  update_quality_gate: true
+
+  target_agents:
+    - qe-learning-coordinator
+    - qe-queen-coordinator
+    - qe-quality-analyzer
+    - qe-deployment-advisor
+
+# =============================================================================
+# ReasoningBank Learning Configuration
+# =============================================================================
+
+learning:
+  store_success_patterns: true
+  store_failure_patterns: true
+  pattern_ttl_days: 90
+  min_confidence_to_store: 0.7
+  cross_model_comparison: true
+
+# =============================================================================
+# Result Format Configuration
+# =============================================================================
+
+result_format:
+  json_output: true
+  markdown_report: true
+  include_raw_output: false
+  include_timing: true
+  include_token_usage: true
+
+# =============================================================================
+# Environment Setup
+# =============================================================================
+
+setup:
+  required_tools:
+    - jq
+  environment_variables:
+    QUALITY_GATE_BLOCKING: "true"
+    MIN_QUALITY_SCORE: "70"
+  fixtures: []
+
+# =============================================================================
+# TEST CASES
+# =============================================================================
+
+test_cases:
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  # CATEGORY: Code Quality Metrics
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+  - id: tc001_code_complexity_assessment
+    description: "Assess code complexity across multiple metrics"
+    category: code_quality
+    priority: critical
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Assess code quality for UserService module:
+        - Cyclomatic complexity (max 15, warn 10)
+        - Cognitive complexity (max 20, warn 15)
+        - Method length (max 50 lines, warn 30)
+        - Nesting depth (max 4, warn 3)
+        - Duplicate code (max 3%, warn 5%)
+
+        For each metric, assign status (OK/WARN/FAIL).
+        What's the overall code quality score?
+      context:
+        scope: "src/services/UserService.ts"
+        metrics: "all"
+        include_recommendations: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "complexity"
+        - "cyclomatic"
+        - "cognitive"
+        - "quality"
+        - "score"
+      must_not_contain:
+        - "error"
+        - "cannot assess"
+      severity_classification: critical
+      finding_count:
+        min: 1
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
+      reasoning_quality_min: 0.75
+
+  - id: tc002_maintainability_index
+    description: "Calculate maintainability index for codebase"
+    category: code_quality
+    priority: high
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Calculate maintainability index (0-100) for src/:
+        - Lines of code
+        - Cyclomatic complexity
+        - Halstead volume
+        - Comment ratio
+
+        Score: 86-100 = A, 66-85 = B, 51-65 = C, 36-50 = D, <36 = F
+
+        What does score B mean and how to improve?
+      context:
+        metric: "maintainability_index"
+        include_grade: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "maintainability"
+        - "index"
+        - "grade"
+        - "improve"
+        - "score"
+      severity_classification: high
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
+
+  - id: tc003_documentation_coverage
+    description: "Assess API documentation completeness"
+    category: code_quality
+    priority: high
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Assess documentation coverage:
+        - Public APIs (classes, functions) must have JSDoc
+        - Parameters and return types documented
+        - Complex functions need usage examples
+        - Critical modules need overview comments
+
+        Target: >= 80% for public APIs
+        How would you measure and track this?
+      context:
+        scope: "src/**/*.ts"
+        coverage_target: 0.8
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "documentation"
+        - "coverage"
+        - "API"
+        - "JSDoc"
+        - "track"
+      finding_count:
+        min: 1
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
+
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  # CATEGORY: Quality Gates
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+  - id: tc004_quality_gate_evaluation
+    description: "Evaluate code against quality gates"
+    category: gates
+    priority: critical
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Evaluate PR against quality gates:
+        1. Coverage gate: new code >= 85% (ACTUAL: 82%) -> FAIL
+        2. Complexity gate: cyclomatic max 15 (ACTUAL: 18) -> FAIL
+        3. Vulnerabilities gate: critical = 0 (ACTUAL: 1) -> FAIL
+        4. Duplication gate: max 3% (ACTUAL: 2%) -> PASS
+        5. Tech debt gate: max 5% (ACTUAL: 6%) -> FAIL
+
+        Should this merge be blocked?
+      context:
+        gates: "all"
+        block_on_fail: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "gate"
+        - "fail"
+        - "block"
+        - "threshold"
+        - "blocked"
+      must_not_contain:
+        - "pass"
+        - "approved"
+      severity_classification: critical
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
+      reasoning_quality_min: 0.75
+
+  - id: tc005_gate_failure_remediation
+    description: "Help fix quality gate failures"
+    category: gates
+    priority: high
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Fix the gate failures from previous test:
+        1. Coverage 82% (need 85%): What tests to add?
+        2. Complexity 18 (max 15): Refactor strategy?
+        3. Vulnerabilities: 1 critical - fix?
+        4. Tech debt 6% (max 5%): Paydown plan?
+
+        Prioritize by effort vs impact.
+      context:
+        failures: "critical"
+        remediation_guidance: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "fix"
+        - "test"
+        - "refactor"
+        - "prioritize"
+        - "remediation"
+      finding_count:
+        min: 1
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
+
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  # CATEGORY: Deployment Readiness
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+  - id: tc006_deployment_readiness_check
+    description: "Assess if release is ready for production"
+    category: deployment
+    priority: critical
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Assess release v2.1.0 for production readiness:
+
+        TESTING:
+        - Unit tests: PASS (all 245 passing)
+        - Integration tests: PASS (all 89 passing)
+        - E2E tests: 95% pass (1 flaky test)
+        - Performance tests: P95 latency 425ms (target 500ms) PASS
+
+        QUALITY:
+        - Coverage: 84% (target 80%) PASS
+        - Vulnerabilities: 0 critical (target 0) PASS
+        - Code review: 2 approvals PASS
+        - Documentation: Updated PASS
+
+        OPERATIONS:
+        - Changelog: Complete
+        - Rollback plan: Ready
+        - Monitoring: Configured
+
+        GO or NO-GO?
+      context:
+        release_version: "v2.1.0"
+        strict_checks: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "ready"
+        - "deployment"
+        - "pass"
+        - "go"
+        - "production"
+      must_not_contain:
+        - "concerns"
+        - "risks"
+      severity_classification: critical
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
+      reasoning_quality_min: 0.75
+
+  - id: tc007_pre_deployment_risks
+    description: "Identify risks before deployment"
+    category: deployment
+    priority: critical
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Identify pre-deployment risks for v2.2.0:
+        - 45 files changed (large change set)
+        - Database migration required (can't rollback easily)
+        - Changes to payment processing (high-risk)
+        - New external API integration
+        - Only 3 days of staging testing
+
+        Risk level: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW?
+        Recommended actions?
+      context:
+        risk_assessment: true
+        recommendations: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "risk"
+        - "high"
+        - "action"
+        - "recommend"
+      severity_classification: critical
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
+
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  # CATEGORY: Quality Scoring
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+  - id: tc008_quality_score_calculation
+    description: "Calculate overall quality score"
+    category: scoring
+    priority: critical
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Calculate quality score for project using:
+        1. Test coverage: 82% (weight 25%) -> 82*0.25 = 20.5
+        2. Code quality: 78/100 (weight 20%) -> 78*0.20 = 15.6
+        3. Security: 8/10 vulns (weight 25%) -> 80*0.25 = 20
+        4. Reliability: 99.5% uptime (weight 20%) -> 99.5*0.20 = 19.9
+        5. Documentation: 75% (weight 10%) -> 75*0.10 = 7.5
+
+        Total: 20.5 + 15.6 + 20 + 19.9 + 7.5 = 83.5
+
+        Grade: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), F (<60)
+        Grade: B
+
+        How would you explain this to stakeholders?
+      context:
+        weights: "default"
+        include_grade: true
+        executive_summary: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "score"
+        - "grade"
+        - "quality"
+        - "weight"
+        - "coverage"
+      must_not_contain:
+        - "error"
+        - "invalid"
+      severity_classification: critical
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
+
+  - id: tc009_quality_trend_tracking
+    description: "Track quality score trends over time"
+    category: scoring
+    priority: high
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Track quality score trend:
+        - Week 1: 75 (C)
+        - Week 2: 77 (C)
+        - Week 3: 80 (B) - improvement!
+        - Week 4: 78 (C) - regression
+
+        Trend: Volatile, slightly improving
+        Next: Monitor closely, spike team focus
+
+        How would you alert on declining quality?
+      context:
+        trend_period: "4 weeks"
+        alert_triggers: true
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "trend"
+        - "score"
+        - "quality"
+        - "alert"
+        - "monitor"
+      finding_count:
+        min: 1
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.75
+
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+  # CATEGORY: Quality Dashboard
+  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+  - id: tc010_quality_dashboard_design
+    description: "Design comprehensive quality dashboard"
+    category: dashboard
+    priority: high
+
+    input:
+      prompt: |
+        Design quality dashboard showing:
+        1. Overall quality score (prominent)
+        2. Dimension breakdown (coverage, complexity, security, reliability)
+        3. Gate status (all gates, pass/fail)
+        4. Trend charts (30-day, 90-day)
+        5. Top issues (critical, high priority)
+        6. Deployment readiness
+        7. Team recommendations
+
+        What visualizations would be most useful?
+      context:
+        dashboard_scope: "comprehensive"
+        stakeholders: ["engineers", "managers", "executives"]
+
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "dashboard"
+        - "quality"
+        - "metric"
+        - "trend"
+        - "visualization"
+      finding_count:
+        min: 1
+
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      allow_partial: true
+
+# =============================================================================
+# SUCCESS CRITERIA
+# =============================================================================
+
+success_criteria:
+  pass_rate: 0.8
+  critical_pass_rate: 1.0
+  avg_reasoning_quality: 0.75
+  max_execution_time_ms: 300000
+  cross_model_variance: 0.15
+
+# =============================================================================
+# METADATA
+# =============================================================================
+
+metadata:
+  author: "qe-quality-analyzer"
+  created: "2026-02-02"
+  last_updated: "2026-02-02"
+  coverage_target: >
+    Code complexity metrics (cyclomatic, cognitive, nesting), maintainability
+    index calculation, documentation coverage assessment, quality gates with
+    fail criteria and remediation guidance, deployment readiness evaluation with
+    pre-deployment risk identification, quality scoring with multi-factor
+    weighting and grading (A-F), trend analysis and alerting, and comprehensive
+    quality dashboards for all stakeholders.