aios-core 2.1.6 → 2.2.0

package/.aios-core/product/checklists/change-checklist.md

@@ -1,183 +1,183 @@
-# Change Navigation Checklist
-
-**Purpose:** To systematically guide the selected Agent and user through the analysis and planning required when a significant change (pivot, tech issue, missing requirement, failed story) is identified during the AIOS workflow.
-
-**Instructions:** Review each item with the user. Mark `[x]` for completed/confirmed, `[N/A]` if not applicable, or add notes for discussion points.
-
-[[LLM: INITIALIZATION INSTRUCTIONS - CHANGE NAVIGATION
-
-Changes during development are inevitable, but how we handle them determines project success or failure.
-
-Before proceeding, understand:
-
-1. This checklist is for SIGNIFICANT changes that affect the project direction
-2. Minor adjustments within a story don't require this process
-3. The goal is to minimize wasted work while adapting to new realities
-4. User buy-in is critical - they must understand and approve changes
-
-Required context:
-
-- The triggering story or issue
-- Current project state (completed stories, current epic)
-- Access to PRD, architecture, and other key documents
-- Understanding of remaining work planned
-
-APPROACH:
-This is an interactive process with the user. Work through each section together, discussing implications and options. The user makes final decisions, but provide expert guidance on technical feasibility and impact.
-
-REMEMBER: Changes are opportunities to improve, not failures. Handle them professionally and constructively.]]
-
----
-
-## 1. Understand the Trigger & Context
-
-[[LLM: Start by fully understanding what went wrong and why. Don't jump to solutions yet. Ask probing questions:
-
-- What exactly happened that triggered this review?
-- Is this a one-time issue or symptomatic of a larger problem?
-- Could this have been anticipated earlier?
-- What assumptions were incorrect?
-
-Be specific and factual, not blame-oriented.]]
-
-- [ ] **Identify Triggering Story:** Clearly identify the story (or stories) that revealed the issue.
-- [ ] **Define the Issue:** Articulate the core problem precisely.
-  - [ ] Is it a technical limitation/dead-end?
-  - [ ] Is it a newly discovered requirement?
-  - [ ] Is it a fundamental misunderstanding of existing requirements?
-  - [ ] Is it a necessary pivot based on feedback or new information?
-  - [ ] Is it a failed/abandoned story needing a new approach?
-- [ ] **Assess Initial Impact:** Describe the immediate observed consequences (e.g., blocked progress, incorrect functionality, non-viable tech).
-- [ ] **Gather Evidence:** Note any specific logs, error messages, user feedback, or analysis that supports the issue definition.
-
-## 2. Epic Impact Assessment
-
-[[LLM: Changes ripple through the project structure. Systematically evaluate:
-
-1. Can we salvage the current epic with modifications?
-2. Do future epics still make sense given this change?
-3. Are we creating or eliminating dependencies?
-4. Does the epic sequence need reordering?
-
-Think about both immediate and downstream effects.]]
-
-- [ ] **Analyze Current Epic:**
-  - [ ] Can the current epic containing the trigger story still be completed?
-  - [ ] Does the current epic need modification (story changes, additions, removals)?
-  - [ ] Should the current epic be abandoned or fundamentally redefined?
-- [ ] **Analyze Future Epics:**
-  - [ ] Review all remaining planned epics.
-  - [ ] Does the issue require changes to planned stories in future epics?
-  - [ ] Does the issue invalidate any future epics?
-  - [ ] Does the issue necessitate the creation of entirely new epics?
-  - [ ] Should the order/priority of future epics be changed?
-- [ ] **Summarize Epic Impact:** Briefly document the overall effect on the project's epic structure and flow.
-
-## 3. Artifact Conflict & Impact Analysis
-
-[[LLM: Documentation drives development in AIOS. Check each artifact:
-
-1. Does this change invalidate documented decisions?
-2. Are architectural assumptions still valid?
-3. Do user flows need rethinking?
-4. Are technical constraints different than documented?
-
-Be thorough - missed conflicts cause future problems.]]
-
-- [ ] **Review PRD:**
-  - [ ] Does the issue conflict with the core goals or requirements stated in the PRD?
-  - [ ] Does the PRD need clarification or updates based on the new understanding?
-- [ ] **Review Architecture Document:**
-  - [ ] Does the issue conflict with the documented architecture (components, patterns, tech choices)?
-  - [ ] Are specific components/diagrams/sections impacted?
-  - [ ] Does the technology list need updating?
-  - [ ] Do data models or schemas need revision?
-  - [ ] Are external API integrations affected?
-- [ ] **Review Frontend Spec (if applicable):**
-  - [ ] Does the issue conflict with the FE architecture, component library choice, or UI/UX design?
-  - [ ] Are specific FE components or user flows impacted?
-- [ ] **Review Other Artifacts (if applicable):**
-  - [ ] Consider impact on deployment scripts, IaC, monitoring setup, etc.
-- [ ] **Summarize Artifact Impact:** List all artifacts requiring updates and the nature of the changes needed.
-
-## 4. Path Forward Evaluation
-
-[[LLM: Present options clearly with pros/cons. For each path:
-
-1. What's the effort required?
-2. What work gets thrown away?
-3. What risks are we taking?
-4. How does this affect timeline?
-5. Is this sustainable long-term?
-
-Be honest about trade-offs. There's rarely a perfect solution.]]
-
-- [ ] **Option 1: Direct Adjustment / Integration:**
-  - [ ] Can the issue be addressed by modifying/adding future stories within the existing plan?
-  - [ ] Define the scope and nature of these adjustments.
-  - [ ] Assess feasibility, effort, and risks of this path.
-- [ ] **Option 2: Potential Rollback:**
-  - [ ] Would reverting completed stories significantly simplify addressing the issue?
-  - [ ] Identify specific stories/commits to consider for rollback.
-  - [ ] Assess the effort required for rollback.
-  - [ ] Assess the impact of rollback (lost work, data implications).
-  - [ ] Compare the net benefit/cost vs. Direct Adjustment.
-- [ ] **Option 3: PRD MVP Review & Potential Re-scoping:**
-  - [ ] Is the original PRD MVP still achievable given the issue and constraints?
-  - [ ] Does the MVP scope need reduction (removing features/epics)?
-  - [ ] Do the core MVP goals need modification?
-  - [ ] Are alternative approaches needed to meet the original MVP intent?
-  - [ ] **Extreme Case:** Does the issue necessitate a fundamental replan or potentially a new PRD V2 (to be handled by PM)?
-- [ ] **Select Recommended Path:** Based on the evaluation, agree on the most viable path forward.
-
-## 5. Sprint Change Proposal Components
-
-[[LLM: The proposal must be actionable and clear. Ensure:
-
-1. The issue is explained in plain language
-2. Impacts are quantified where possible
-3. The recommended path has clear rationale
-4. Next steps are specific and assigned
-5. Success criteria for the change are defined
-
-This proposal guides all subsequent work.]]
-
-(Ensure all agreed-upon points from previous sections are captured in the proposal)
-
-- [ ] **Identified Issue Summary:** Clear, concise problem statement.
-- [ ] **Epic Impact Summary:** How epics are affected.
-- [ ] **Artifact Adjustment Needs:** List of documents to change.
-- [ ] **Recommended Path Forward:** Chosen solution with rationale.
-- [ ] **PRD MVP Impact:** Changes to scope/goals (if any).
-- [ ] **High-Level Action Plan:** Next steps for stories/updates.
-- [ ] **Agent Handoff Plan:** Identify roles needed (PM, Arch, Design Arch, PO).
-
-## 6. Final Review & Handoff
-
-[[LLM: Changes require coordination. Before concluding:
-
-1. Is the user fully aligned with the plan?
-2. Do all stakeholders understand the impacts?
-3. Are handoffs to other agents clear?
-4. Is there a rollback plan if the change fails?
-5. How will we validate the change worked?
-
-Get explicit approval - implicit agreement causes problems.
-
-FINAL REPORT:
-After completing the checklist, provide a concise summary:
-
-- What changed and why
-- What we're doing about it
-- Who needs to do what
-- When we'll know if it worked
-
-Keep it action-oriented and forward-looking.]]
-
-- [ ] **Review Checklist:** Confirm all relevant items were discussed.
-- [ ] **Review Sprint Change Proposal:** Ensure it accurately reflects the discussion and decisions.
-- [ ] **User Approval:** Obtain explicit user approval for the proposal.
-- [ ] **Confirm Next Steps:** Reiterate the handoff plan and the next actions to be taken by specific agents.
-
----
+# Change Navigation Checklist
+
+**Purpose:** To systematically guide the selected Agent and user through the analysis and planning required when a significant change (pivot, tech issue, missing requirement, failed story) is identified during the AIOS workflow.
+
+**Instructions:** Review each item with the user. Mark `[x]` for completed/confirmed, `[N/A]` if not applicable, or add notes for discussion points.
+
+[[LLM: INITIALIZATION INSTRUCTIONS - CHANGE NAVIGATION
+
+Changes during development are inevitable, but how we handle them determines project success or failure.
+
+Before proceeding, understand:
+
+1. This checklist is for SIGNIFICANT changes that affect the project direction
+2. Minor adjustments within a story don't require this process
+3. The goal is to minimize wasted work while adapting to new realities
+4. User buy-in is critical - they must understand and approve changes
+
+Required context:
+
+- The triggering story or issue
+- Current project state (completed stories, current epic)
+- Access to PRD, architecture, and other key documents
+- Understanding of remaining work planned
+
+APPROACH:
+This is an interactive process with the user. Work through each section together, discussing implications and options. The user makes final decisions, but provide expert guidance on technical feasibility and impact.
+
+REMEMBER: Changes are opportunities to improve, not failures. Handle them professionally and constructively.]]
+
+---
+
+## 1. Understand the Trigger & Context
+
+[[LLM: Start by fully understanding what went wrong and why. Don't jump to solutions yet. Ask probing questions:
+
+- What exactly happened that triggered this review?
+- Is this a one-time issue or symptomatic of a larger problem?
+- Could this have been anticipated earlier?
+- What assumptions were incorrect?
+
+Be specific and factual, not blame-oriented.]]
+
+- [ ] **Identify Triggering Story:** Clearly identify the story (or stories) that revealed the issue.
+- [ ] **Define the Issue:** Articulate the core problem precisely.
+  - [ ] Is it a technical limitation/dead-end?
+  - [ ] Is it a newly discovered requirement?
+  - [ ] Is it a fundamental misunderstanding of existing requirements?
+  - [ ] Is it a necessary pivot based on feedback or new information?
+  - [ ] Is it a failed/abandoned story needing a new approach?
+- [ ] **Assess Initial Impact:** Describe the immediate observed consequences (e.g., blocked progress, incorrect functionality, non-viable tech).
+- [ ] **Gather Evidence:** Note any specific logs, error messages, user feedback, or analysis that supports the issue definition.
+
+## 2. Epic Impact Assessment
+
+[[LLM: Changes ripple through the project structure. Systematically evaluate:
+
+1. Can we salvage the current epic with modifications?
+2. Do future epics still make sense given this change?
+3. Are we creating or eliminating dependencies?
+4. Does the epic sequence need reordering?
+
+Think about both immediate and downstream effects.]]
+
+- [ ] **Analyze Current Epic:**
+  - [ ] Can the current epic containing the trigger story still be completed?
+  - [ ] Does the current epic need modification (story changes, additions, removals)?
+  - [ ] Should the current epic be abandoned or fundamentally redefined?
+- [ ] **Analyze Future Epics:**
+  - [ ] Review all remaining planned epics.
+  - [ ] Does the issue require changes to planned stories in future epics?
+  - [ ] Does the issue invalidate any future epics?
+  - [ ] Does the issue necessitate the creation of entirely new epics?
+  - [ ] Should the order/priority of future epics be changed?
+- [ ] **Summarize Epic Impact:** Briefly document the overall effect on the project's epic structure and flow.
+
+## 3. Artifact Conflict & Impact Analysis
+
+[[LLM: Documentation drives development in AIOS. Check each artifact:
+
+1. Does this change invalidate documented decisions?
+2. Are architectural assumptions still valid?
+3. Do user flows need rethinking?
+4. Are technical constraints different than documented?
+
+Be thorough - missed conflicts cause future problems.]]
+
+- [ ] **Review PRD:**
+  - [ ] Does the issue conflict with the core goals or requirements stated in the PRD?
+  - [ ] Does the PRD need clarification or updates based on the new understanding?
+- [ ] **Review Architecture Document:**
+  - [ ] Does the issue conflict with the documented architecture (components, patterns, tech choices)?
+  - [ ] Are specific components/diagrams/sections impacted?
+  - [ ] Does the technology list need updating?
+  - [ ] Do data models or schemas need revision?
+  - [ ] Are external API integrations affected?
+- [ ] **Review Frontend Spec (if applicable):**
+  - [ ] Does the issue conflict with the FE architecture, component library choice, or UI/UX design?
+  - [ ] Are specific FE components or user flows impacted?
+- [ ] **Review Other Artifacts (if applicable):**
+  - [ ] Consider impact on deployment scripts, IaC, monitoring setup, etc.
+- [ ] **Summarize Artifact Impact:** List all artifacts requiring updates and the nature of the changes needed.
+
+## 4. Path Forward Evaluation
+
+[[LLM: Present options clearly with pros/cons. For each path:
+
+1. What's the effort required?
+2. What work gets thrown away?
+3. What risks are we taking?
+4. How does this affect timeline?
+5. Is this sustainable long-term?
+
+Be honest about trade-offs. There's rarely a perfect solution.]]
+
+- [ ] **Option 1: Direct Adjustment / Integration:**
+  - [ ] Can the issue be addressed by modifying/adding future stories within the existing plan?
+  - [ ] Define the scope and nature of these adjustments.
+  - [ ] Assess feasibility, effort, and risks of this path.
+- [ ] **Option 2: Potential Rollback:**
+  - [ ] Would reverting completed stories significantly simplify addressing the issue?
+  - [ ] Identify specific stories/commits to consider for rollback.
+  - [ ] Assess the effort required for rollback.
+  - [ ] Assess the impact of rollback (lost work, data implications).
+  - [ ] Compare the net benefit/cost vs. Direct Adjustment.
+- [ ] **Option 3: PRD MVP Review & Potential Re-scoping:**
+  - [ ] Is the original PRD MVP still achievable given the issue and constraints?
+  - [ ] Does the MVP scope need reduction (removing features/epics)?
+  - [ ] Do the core MVP goals need modification?
+  - [ ] Are alternative approaches needed to meet the original MVP intent?
+  - [ ] **Extreme Case:** Does the issue necessitate a fundamental replan or potentially a new PRD V2 (to be handled by PM)?
+- [ ] **Select Recommended Path:** Based on the evaluation, agree on the most viable path forward.
+
+## 5. Sprint Change Proposal Components
+
+[[LLM: The proposal must be actionable and clear. Ensure:
+
+1. The issue is explained in plain language
+2. Impacts are quantified where possible
+3. The recommended path has clear rationale
+4. Next steps are specific and assigned
+5. Success criteria for the change are defined
+
+This proposal guides all subsequent work.]]
+
+(Ensure all agreed-upon points from previous sections are captured in the proposal)
+
+- [ ] **Identified Issue Summary:** Clear, concise problem statement.
+- [ ] **Epic Impact Summary:** How epics are affected.
+- [ ] **Artifact Adjustment Needs:** List of documents to change.
+- [ ] **Recommended Path Forward:** Chosen solution with rationale.
+- [ ] **PRD MVP Impact:** Changes to scope/goals (if any).
+- [ ] **High-Level Action Plan:** Next steps for stories/updates.
+- [ ] **Agent Handoff Plan:** Identify roles needed (PM, Arch, Design Arch, PO).
+
+## 6. Final Review & Handoff
+
+[[LLM: Changes require coordination. Before concluding:
+
+1. Is the user fully aligned with the plan?
+2. Do all stakeholders understand the impacts?
+3. Are handoffs to other agents clear?
+4. Is there a rollback plan if the change fails?
+5. How will we validate the change worked?
+
+Get explicit approval - implicit agreement causes problems.
+
+FINAL REPORT:
+After completing the checklist, provide a concise summary:
+
+- What changed and why
+- What we're doing about it
+- Who needs to do what
+- When we'll know if it worked
+
+Keep it action-oriented and forward-looking.]]
+
+- [ ] **Review Checklist:** Confirm all relevant items were discussed.
+- [ ] **Review Sprint Change Proposal:** Ensure it accurately reflects the discussion and decisions.
+- [ ] **User Approval:** Obtain explicit user approval for the proposal.
+- [ ] **Confirm Next Steps:** Reiterate the handoff plan and the next actions to be taken by specific agents.
+
+---
  

package/.aios-core/product/checklists/component-quality-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# Component Quality Checklist
+
+**Purpose:** Validate component before marking complete
+**Agent:** Atlas (Design System Builder)
+**Standard:** Production-ready React/TypeScript components
+
+---
+
+## CODE QUALITY
+
+- [ ] TypeScript (strict) compiles with zero errors
+- [ ] No `any` types used (prefer discriminated unions / utility types)
+- [ ] Props fully typed (VariantProps + component-specific interface)
+- [ ] ForwardRef + displayName implemented when required
+- [ ] TSDoc comments describe props, defaults, accessibility
+- [ ] Component exported as named export (tree-shakeable)
+
+---
+
+## STYLING
+
+- [ ] Tailwind utilities reference semantic tokens (no hardcoded values)
+- [ ] `cva` variant catalogue defined with defaults + compound variants
+- [ ] `cn` (tailwind-merge) handles conditional classes (no conflicts)
+- [ ] Responsive/density variants implemented where required
+- [ ] Dark mode parity confirmed (`data-theme="dark"`)
+
+---
+
+## ACCESSIBILITY (WCAG AA MINIMUM)
+
+- [ ] Semantic HTML elements used (button vs div, etc.)
+- [ ] ARIA attributes present (aria-expanded, aria-busy, aria-live, etc.)
+- [ ] WCAG 2.2 AA & APCA contrast thresholds satisfied (light + dark)
+- [ ] Keyboard navigation works (Tab/Shift+Tab, Enter, Space)
+- [ ] focus-visible styling present with 3:1 contrast
+- [ ] Loading/disabled states handled correctly (aria-busy/aria-disabled)
+- [ ] Screen reader testing (VoiceOver/NVDA) recorded or delegated
+
+---
+
+## TESTING
+
+- [ ] Unit tests written (React Testing Library)
+- [ ] Variants/sizes/compound states tested
+- [ ] Loading + disabled behaviour covered
+- [ ] Event handlers tested (click, keyboard, pointer)
+- [ ] jest-axe (or equivalent) accessibility audit passes
+- [ ] Test coverage ≥85% (statements/functions/branches)
+- [ ] All tests pass locally & in CI
+
+---
+
+## DOCUMENTATION
+
+- [ ] Component.md (or MDX) created
+- [ ] Props + Variant tables documented
+- [ ] Usage examples include light/dark + loading states
+- [ ] Accessibility considerations recorded (ARIA, keyboard)
+- [ ] Migration notes / design rationale captured if applicable
+
+---
+
+## STORYBOOK (if enabled)
+
+- [ ] Stories file created (Storybook 8 CSF)
+- [ ] Story per variant/size + loading/disabled states
+- [ ] Controls/args configured (Docs tab updated)
+- [ ] Visual regression baselines captured (if enabled)
+
+---
+
+**Reviewer:** ________ **Date:** ________
+**Quality Gate:** [ ] PASS [ ] FAIL