aios-core 2.1.0

package/.aios-core/development/tasks/qa-review-story.md

@@ -0,0 +1,683 @@
+---
+tools:
+  - github-cli        # Code review and PR management
+  - browser           # End-to-end testing and UI validation
+  - context7          # Research testing frameworks and best practices
+  - supabase          # Database testing and data validation
+checklists:
+  - qa-master-checklist.md
+---
+
+# review-story
+
+Perform a comprehensive test architecture review with quality gate decision. This adaptive, risk-aware review creates both a story update and a detailed gate file.
+
+## Execution Modes
+
+**Choose your execution mode:**
+
+### 1. YOLO Mode - Fast, Autonomous (0-1 prompts)
+- Autonomous decision making with logging
+- Minimal user interaction
+- **Best for:** Simple, deterministic tasks
+
+### 2. Interactive Mode - Balanced, Educational (5-10 prompts) **[DEFAULT]**
+- Explicit decision checkpoints
+- Educational explanations
+- **Best for:** Learning, complex decisions
+
+### 3. Pre-Flight Planning - Comprehensive Upfront Planning
+- Task analysis phase (identify all ambiguities)
+- Zero ambiguity execution
+- **Best for:** Ambiguous requirements, critical work
+
+**Parameter:** `mode` (optional, default: `interactive`)
+
+---
+
+## Task Definition (AIOS Task Format V1.0)
+
+```yaml
+task: qaReviewStory()
+responsável: Quinn (Guardian)
+responsavel_type: Agente
+atomic_layer: Strategy
+
+**Entrada:**
+- campo: target
+  tipo: string
+  origem: User Input
+  obrigatório: true
+  validação: Must exist
+
+- campo: criteria
+  tipo: array
+  origem: config
+  obrigatório: true
+  validação: Non-empty validation criteria
+
+- campo: strict
+  tipo: boolean
+  origem: User Input
+  obrigatório: false
+  validação: Default: true
+
+**Saída:**
+- campo: validation_result
+  tipo: boolean
+  destino: Return value
+  persistido: false
+
+- campo: errors
+  tipo: array
+  destino: Memory
+  persistido: false
+
+- campo: report
+  tipo: object
+  destino: File (.ai/*.json)
+  persistido: true
+```
+
+---
+
+## Pre-Conditions
+
+**Purpose:** Validate prerequisites BEFORE task execution (blocking)
+
+**Checklist:**
+
+```yaml
+pre-conditions:
+  - [ ] Validation rules loaded; target available for validation
+    tipo: pre-condition
+    blocker: true
+    validação: |
+      Check validation rules loaded; target available for validation
+    error_message: "Pre-condition failed: Validation rules loaded; target available for validation"
+```
+
+---
+
+## Post-Conditions
+
+**Purpose:** Validate execution success AFTER task completes
+
+**Checklist:**
+
+```yaml
+post-conditions:
+  - [ ] Validation executed; results accurate; report generated
+    tipo: post-condition
+    blocker: true
+    validação: |
+      Verify validation executed; results accurate; report generated
+    error_message: "Post-condition failed: Validation executed; results accurate; report generated"
+```
+
+---
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+**Purpose:** Definitive pass/fail criteria for task completion
+
+**Checklist:**
+
+```yaml
+acceptance-criteria:
+  - [ ] Validation rules applied; pass/fail accurate; actionable feedback
+    tipo: acceptance-criterion
+    blocker: true
+    validação: |
+      Assert validation rules applied; pass/fail accurate; actionable feedback
+    error_message: "Acceptance criterion not met: Validation rules applied; pass/fail accurate; actionable feedback"
+```
+
+---
+
+## Tools
+
+**External/shared resources used by this task:**
+
+- **Tool:** validation-engine
+  - **Purpose:** Rule-based validation and reporting
+  - **Source:** .aios-core/utils/validation-engine.js
+
+- **Tool:** schema-validator
+  - **Purpose:** JSON/YAML schema validation
+  - **Source:** ajv or similar
+
+---
+
+## Scripts
+
+**Agent-specific code for this task:**
+
+- **Script:** run-validation.js
+  - **Purpose:** Execute validation rules and generate report
+  - **Language:** JavaScript
+  - **Location:** .aios-core/scripts/run-validation.js
+
+---
+
+## Error Handling
+
+**Strategy:** retry
+
+**Common Errors:**
+
+1. **Error:** Validation Criteria Missing
+   - **Cause:** Required validation rules not defined
+   - **Resolution:** Ensure validation criteria loaded from config
+   - **Recovery:** Use default validation rules, log warning
+
+2. **Error:** Invalid Schema
+   - **Cause:** Target does not match expected schema
+   - **Resolution:** Update schema or fix target structure
+   - **Recovery:** Detailed validation error report
+
+3. **Error:** Dependency Missing
+   - **Cause:** Required dependency for validation not found
+   - **Resolution:** Install missing dependencies
+   - **Recovery:** Abort with clear dependency list
+
+---
+
+## Performance
+
+**Expected Metrics:**
+
+```yaml
+duration_expected: 5-20 min (estimated)
+cost_estimated: $0.003-0.015
+token_usage: ~2,000-8,000 tokens
+```
+
+**Optimization Notes:**
+- Iterative analysis with depth limits; cache intermediate results; batch similar operations
+
+---
+
+## Metadata
+
+```yaml
+story: N/A
+version: 1.0.0
+dependencies:
+  - N/A
+tags:
+  - quality-assurance
+  - testing
+updated_at: 2025-11-17
+```
+
+---
+
+
+## Inputs
+
+```yaml
+required:
+  - story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
+  - story_path: '{devStoryLocation}/{epic}.{story}.*.md' # Path from core-config.yaml
+  - story_title: '{title}' # If missing, derive from story file H1
+  - story_slug: '{slug}' # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
+```
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- Story status must be "Review"
+- Developer has completed all tasks and updated the File List
+- All automated tests are passing
+
+## Review Process - Adaptive Test Architecture
+
+### 0. CodeRabbit Full Self-Healing Loop (Story 6.3.3)
+
+**Purpose**: Automated code quality scanning with self-healing before human review
+
+**Configuration**: Full self-healing (max 3 iterations, CRITICAL + HIGH issues)
+
+Execute CodeRabbit self-healing **FIRST** before manual review:
+
+```
+┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                   CODERABBIT SELF-HEALING                         │
+│                    (Full Mode - @qa)                              │
+├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                                                   │
+│  iteration = 0                                                    │
+│  max_iterations = 3                                               │
+│                                                                   │
+│  WHILE iteration < max_iterations:                                │
+│    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐   │
+│    │ 1. Run CodeRabbit CLI                                   │   │
+│    │    wsl bash -c 'cd /mnt/c/.../aios-fullstack &&         │   │
+│    │    ~/.local/bin/coderabbit --prompt-only                │   │
+│    │    -t committed --base main'                            │   │
+│    │                                                          │   │
+│    │ 2. Parse output for all severity levels                 │   │
+│    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   │
+│                          │                                        │
+│                          ▼                                        │
+│    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐   │
+│    │ critical = filter(severity == "CRITICAL")               │   │
+│    │ high = filter(severity == "HIGH")                       │   │
+│    │ medium = filter(severity == "MEDIUM")                   │   │
+│    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   │
+│                          │                                        │
+│                          ▼                                        │
+│    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐   │
+│    │ IF critical.length == 0 AND high.length == 0:           │   │
+│    │   - IF medium.length > 0:                               │   │
+│    │       - Create tech debt issues for each MEDIUM         │   │
+│    │   - Log: "✅ CodeRabbit passed"                         │   │
+│    │   - BREAK → Proceed to manual review                    │   │
+│    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   │
+│                          │                                        │
+│                          ▼                                        │
+│    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐   │
+│    │ IF CRITICAL or HIGH issues found:                       │   │
+│    │   - Attempt auto-fix for each CRITICAL issue            │   │
+│    │   - Attempt auto-fix for each HIGH issue                │   │
+│    │   - iteration++                                         │   │
+│    │   - CONTINUE loop                                       │   │
+│    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   │
+│                          │                                        │
+│                          ▼                                        │
+│  IF iteration == 3 AND (CRITICAL or HIGH issues remain):         │
+│    - Log: "❌ Issues remain after 3 iterations"                  │
+│    - Generate detailed QA gate report                            │
+│    - Set gate: FAIL                                              │
+│    - HALT and require human intervention                         │
+│                                                                   │
+└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+#### Severity Handling
+
+| Severity | Behavior | Notes |
+|----------|----------|-------|
+| **CRITICAL** | Auto-fix (max 3 attempts) | Security vulnerabilities, breaking bugs |
+| **HIGH** | Auto-fix (max 3 attempts) | Significant quality problems |
+| **MEDIUM** | Create tech debt issue | Document for future sprint |
+| **LOW** | Note in review | Nits, no action required |
+
+#### Implementation Code
+
+```javascript
+async function runQACodeRabbitSelfHealing(storyPath) {
+  const maxIterations = 3;
+  let iteration = 0;
+
+  console.log('🐰 Starting CodeRabbit Full Self-Healing Loop...');
+  console.log(`   Mode: Full (CRITICAL + HIGH)`);
+  console.log(`   Max Iterations: ${maxIterations}\n`);
+
+  while (iteration < maxIterations) {
+    console.log(`📋 Iteration ${iteration + 1}/${maxIterations}`);
+
+    // Run CodeRabbit CLI against main branch
+    const output = await runCodeRabbitCLI('committed --base main');
+    const issues = parseCodeRabbitOutput(output);
+
+    const criticalIssues = issues.filter(i => i.severity === 'CRITICAL');
+    const highIssues = issues.filter(i => i.severity === 'HIGH');
+    const mediumIssues = issues.filter(i => i.severity === 'MEDIUM');
+
+    console.log(`   Found: ${criticalIssues.length} CRITICAL, ${highIssues.length} HIGH, ${mediumIssues.length} MEDIUM`);
+
+    // No CRITICAL or HIGH issues = success
+    if (criticalIssues.length === 0 && highIssues.length === 0) {
+      if (mediumIssues.length > 0) {
+        console.log(`\n📝 Creating tech debt issues for ${mediumIssues.length} MEDIUM issues...`);
+        await createTechDebtIssues(storyPath, mediumIssues);
+      }
+      console.log('\n✅ CodeRabbit Self-Healing: PASSED');
+      return { success: true, iterations: iteration + 1, proceedToManual: true };
+    }
+
+    // Attempt auto-fix for CRITICAL and HIGH issues
+    const allIssues = [...criticalIssues, ...highIssues];
+    console.log(`\n🔧 Attempting auto-fix for ${allIssues.length} issues...`);
+    for (const issue of allIssues) {
+      await attemptAutoFix(issue);
+    }
+
+    iteration++;
+  }
+
+  // Max iterations reached with issues
+  console.log('\n❌ CodeRabbit Self-Healing: FAILED');
+  console.log(`   CRITICAL/HIGH issues remain after ${maxIterations} iterations.`);
+  console.log('   Setting gate: FAIL - Manual intervention required.');
+
+  return { success: false, iterations: maxIterations, gateStatus: 'FAIL' };
+}
+```
+
+#### Timeout
+
+- **Default**: 30 minutes per CodeRabbit run
+- **Total max**: ~90 minutes (3 iterations)
+
+#### Integration with Gate Decision
+
+If self-healing fails:
+- Gate automatically set to FAIL
+- `top_issues` populated from remaining CodeRabbit issues
+- `status_reason` includes "CodeRabbit self-healing exhausted"
+
+---
+
+### 1. Risk Assessment (Determines Review Depth)
+
+**Auto-escalate to deep review when:**
+
+- Auth/payment/security files touched
+- No tests added to story
+- Diff > 500 lines
+- Previous gate was FAIL/CONCERNS
+- Story has > 5 acceptance criteria
+
+### 2. Comprehensive Analysis
+
+**A. Requirements Traceability**
+
+- Map each acceptance criteria to its validating tests (document mapping with Given-When-Then, not test code)
+- Identify coverage gaps
+- Verify all requirements have corresponding test cases
+
+**B. Code Quality Review**
+
+- Architecture and design patterns
+- Refactoring opportunities (and perform them)
+- Code duplication or inefficiencies
+- Performance optimizations
+- Security vulnerabilities
+- Best practices adherence
+
+**C. Test Architecture Assessment**
+
+- Test coverage adequacy at appropriate levels
+- Test level appropriateness (what should be unit vs integration vs e2e)
+- Test design quality and maintainability
+- Test data management strategy
+- Mock/stub usage appropriateness
+- Edge case and error scenario coverage
+- Test execution time and reliability
+
+**D. Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)**
+
+- Security: Authentication, authorization, data protection
+- Performance: Response times, resource usage
+- Reliability: Error handling, recovery mechanisms
+- Maintainability: Code clarity, documentation
+
+**E. Testability Evaluation**
+
+- Controllability: Can we control the inputs?
+- Observability: Can we observe the outputs?
+- Debuggability: Can we debug failures easily?
+
+**F. Technical Debt Identification**
+
+- Accumulated shortcuts
+- Missing tests
+- Outdated dependencies
+- Architecture violations
+
+### 3. Active Refactoring
+
+- Refactor code where safe and appropriate
+- Run tests to ensure changes don't break functionality
+- Document all changes in QA Results section with clear WHY and HOW
+- Do NOT alter story content beyond QA Results section
+- Do NOT change story Status or File List; recommend next status only
+
+### 4. Standards Compliance Check
+
+- Verify adherence to `docs/coding-standards.md`
+- Check compliance with `docs/unified-project-structure.md`
+- Validate testing approach against `docs/testing-strategy.md`
+- Ensure all guidelines mentioned in the story are followed
+
+### 5. Acceptance Criteria Validation
+
+- Verify each AC is fully implemented
+- Check for any missing functionality
+- Validate edge cases are handled
+
+### 6. Documentation and Comments
+
+- Verify code is self-documenting where possible
+- Add comments for complex logic if missing
+- Ensure any API changes are documented
+
+## Output 1: Update Story File - QA Results Section ONLY
+
+**CRITICAL**: You are ONLY authorized to update the "QA Results" section of the story file. DO NOT modify any other sections.
+
+**QA Results Anchor Rule:**
+
+- If `## QA Results` doesn't exist, append it at end of file
+- If it exists, append a new dated entry below existing entries
+- Never edit other sections
+
+After review and any refactoring, append your results to the story file in the QA Results section:
+
+```markdown
+## QA Results
+
+### Review Date: [Date]
+
+### Reviewed By: Quinn (Test Architect)
+
+### Code Quality Assessment
+
+[Overall assessment of implementation quality]
+
+### Refactoring Performed
+
+[List any refactoring you performed with explanations]
+
+- **File**: [filename]
+  - **Change**: [what was changed]
+  - **Why**: [reason for change]
+  - **How**: [how it improves the code]
+
+### Compliance Check
+
+- Coding Standards: [✓/✗] [notes if any]
+- Project Structure: [✓/✗] [notes if any]
+- Testing Strategy: [✓/✗] [notes if any]
+- All ACs Met: [✓/✗] [notes if any]
+
+### Improvements Checklist
+
+[Check off items you handled yourself, leave unchecked for dev to address]
+
+- [x] Refactored user service for better error handling (services/user.service.ts)
+- [x] Added missing edge case tests (services/user.service.test.ts)
+- [ ] Consider extracting validation logic to separate validator class
+- [ ] Add integration test for error scenarios
+- [ ] Update API documentation for new error codes
+
+### Security Review
+
+[Any security concerns found and whether addressed]
+
+### Performance Considerations
+
+[Any performance issues found and whether addressed]
+
+### Files Modified During Review
+
+[If you modified files, list them here - ask Dev to update File List]
+
+### Gate Status
+
+Gate: {STATUS} → qa.qaLocation/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml
+Risk profile: qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+NFR assessment: qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+
+# Note: Paths should reference core-config.yaml for custom configurations
+
+### Recommended Status
+
+[✓ Ready for Done] / [✗ Changes Required - See unchecked items above]
+(Story owner decides final status)
+```
+
+## Output 2: Create Quality Gate File
+
+**Template and Directory:**
+
+- Render from `../templates/qa-gate-tmpl.yaml`
+- Create directory defined in `qa.qaLocation/gates` (see `.aios-core/core-config.yaml`) if missing
+- Save to: `qa.qaLocation/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml`
+
+Gate file structure:
+
+```yaml
+schema: 1
+story: '{epic}.{story}'
+story_title: '{story title}'
+gate: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED
+status_reason: '1-2 sentence explanation of gate decision'
+reviewer: 'Quinn (Test Architect)'
+updated: '{ISO-8601 timestamp}'
+
+top_issues: [] # Empty if no issues
+waiver: { active: false } # Set active: true only if WAIVED
+
+# Extended fields (optional but recommended):
+quality_score: 0-100 # 100 - (20*FAILs) - (10*CONCERNS) or use technical-preferences.md weights
+expires: '{ISO-8601 timestamp}' # Typically 2 weeks from review
+
+evidence:
+  tests_reviewed: { count }
+  risks_identified: { count }
+  trace:
+    ac_covered: [1, 2, 3] # AC numbers with test coverage
+    ac_gaps: [4] # AC numbers lacking coverage
+
+nfr_validation:
+  security:
+    status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
+    notes: 'Specific findings'
+  performance:
+    status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
+    notes: 'Specific findings'
+  reliability:
+    status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
+    notes: 'Specific findings'
+  maintainability:
+    status: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL
+    notes: 'Specific findings'
+
+recommendations:
+  immediate: # Must fix before production
+    - action: 'Add rate limiting'
+      refs: ['api/auth/login.ts']
+  future: # Can be addressed later
+    - action: 'Consider caching'
+      refs: ['services/data.ts']
+```
+
+### Gate Decision Criteria
+
+**Deterministic rule (apply in order):**
+
+If risk_summary exists, apply its thresholds first (≥9 → FAIL, ≥6 → CONCERNS), then NFR statuses, then top_issues severity.
+
+1. **Risk thresholds (if risk_summary present):**
+   - If any risk score ≥ 9 → Gate = FAIL (unless waived)
+   - Else if any score ≥ 6 → Gate = CONCERNS
+
+2. **Test coverage gaps (if trace available):**
+   - If any P0 test from test-design is missing → Gate = CONCERNS
+   - If security/data-loss P0 test missing → Gate = FAIL
+
+3. **Issue severity:**
+   - If any `top_issues.severity == high` → Gate = FAIL (unless waived)
+   - Else if any `severity == medium` → Gate = CONCERNS
+
+4. **NFR statuses:**
+   - If any NFR status is FAIL → Gate = FAIL
+   - Else if any NFR status is CONCERNS → Gate = CONCERNS
+   - Else → Gate = PASS
+
+- WAIVED only when waiver.active: true with reason/approver
+
+Detailed criteria:
+
+- **PASS**: All critical requirements met, no blocking issues
+- **CONCERNS**: Non-critical issues found, team should review
+- **FAIL**: Critical issues that should be addressed
+- **WAIVED**: Issues acknowledged but explicitly waived by team
+
+### Quality Score Calculation
+
+```text
+quality_score = 100 - (20 × number of FAILs) - (10 × number of CONCERNS)
+Bounded between 0 and 100
+```
+
+If `technical-preferences.md` defines custom weights, use those instead.
+
+### Suggested Owner Convention
+
+For each issue in `top_issues`, include a `suggested_owner`:
+
+- `dev`: Code changes needed
+- `sm`: Requirements clarification needed
+- `po`: Business decision needed
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- You are a Test Architect providing comprehensive quality assessment
+- You have the authority to improve code directly when appropriate
+- Always explain your changes for learning purposes
+- Balance between perfection and pragmatism
+- Focus on risk-based prioritization
+- Provide actionable recommendations with clear ownership
+
+## Blocking Conditions
+
+Stop the review and request clarification if:
+
+- Story file is incomplete or missing critical sections
+- File List is empty or clearly incomplete
+- No tests exist when they were required
+- Code changes don't align with story requirements
+- Critical architectural issues that require discussion
+
+## Completion
+
+After review:
+
+1. Update the QA Results section in the story file
+2. Create the gate file in directory from `qa.qaLocation/gates`
+3. Recommend status: "Ready for Done" or "Changes Required" (owner decides)
+4. If files were modified, list them in QA Results and ask Dev to update File List
+5. Always provide constructive feedback and actionable recommendations
+
+## ClickUp Synchronization
+
+**Automatic Sync**: When you save the story file with QA Results updates, the story-manager.js module automatically syncs changes to ClickUp:
+
+- **What Gets Synced**:
+  - Full story markdown updated in ClickUp task description
+  - Story status changes reflected in custom field
+  - Changelog comment posted with detected changes
+
+- **Change Detection**:
+  - Status changes (e.g., Review → Done)
+  - Task completions (checkboxes marked)
+  - File list modifications
+  - Dev Notes or Acceptance Criteria updates
+
+- **No Action Required**: The sync happens transparently when using story-manager utilities. If sync fails, story file is still saved locally with a warning message.
+
+- **Manual Sync**: If needed, use: `npm run sync-story -- --story {epic}.{story}`