arey-pi 0.2.0 → 0.4.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/README.md +19 -6
- package/agents/README.md +35 -6
- package/agents/engineering-reviewer.md +2 -1
- package/agents/tdd-implementer.md +5 -1
- package/agents/tech-lead.md +15 -7
- package/assets/arey-pi-logo.png +0 -0
- package/docs/adoption.md +218 -0
- package/docs/commands.md +81 -5
- package/docs/pi-subagents.md +292 -0
- package/docs/templates.md +146 -0
- package/docs/workflow-diagram.md +92 -0
- package/docs/workflows.md +213 -0
- package/extensions/arey-pi/core.ts +121 -0
- package/extensions/{arey-pi.ts → arey-pi/index.ts} +78 -73
- package/package.json +8 -4
- package/rules/assessment/project-readiness.md +1 -0
- package/rules/core/definition-of-done.md +3 -1
- package/rules/engineering/tdd.md +31 -1
- package/rules/engineering/test-quality.md +33 -2
- package/templates/AGENTS.md +151 -0
- package/templates/adr.md +129 -0
- package/templates/architecture-readme.md +9 -0
- package/templates/database-readme.md +10 -0
- package/templates/database.dbml +57 -0
- package/templates/decisions-readme.md +11 -0
- package/templates/docs-readme.md +9 -0
- package/templates/feature.feature +38 -0
- package/templates/features-readme.md +7 -0
- package/templates/glossary.md +19 -0
- package/templates/project-readiness-report.md +120 -0
- package/templates/specs-readme.md +6 -0
package/rules/engineering/tdd.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -16,13 +16,16 @@ Red → Green → Refactor
|
|
|
16
16
|
|
|
17
17
|
This applies to features, bug fixes, behaviour changes, risky refactors, API/CLI behaviour, validation, permissions, persistence, and error handling.
|
|
18
18
|
|
|
19
|
+
Tests must live outside production source directories by default.
|
|
20
|
+
Do not colocate test files beside production files in `src/` or equivalent source trees unless an existing project convention explicitly requires it or the user approves an exception.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
19
22
|
## Red
|
|
20
23
|
|
|
21
24
|
Before implementation, create, update, or identify a test that fails for the intended reason.
|
|
22
25
|
|
|
23
26
|
Valid Red evidence includes:
|
|
24
27
|
|
|
25
|
-
- a newly added failing test;
|
|
28
|
+
- a newly added failing test in the dedicated test directory;
|
|
26
29
|
- an updated failing test;
|
|
27
30
|
- an existing failing test that already captures the intended behaviour;
|
|
28
31
|
- a documented inability to run the test, including the exact intended command and reason.
|
|
@@ -46,6 +49,32 @@ After Green, refactor only while tests remain green.
|
|
|
46
49
|
|
|
47
50
|
Refactoring should improve clarity, structure, duplication, or maintainability without expanding scope or changing behaviour.
|
|
48
51
|
|
|
52
|
+
## Test Location
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
Use a dedicated test/spec directory for automated tests.
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
Preferred locations include project conventions such as:
|
|
57
|
+
|
|
58
|
+
```txt
|
|
59
|
+
tests/
|
|
60
|
+
test/
|
|
61
|
+
__tests__/
|
|
62
|
+
spec/
|
|
63
|
+
```
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
When adding tests for code under `src/`, mirror the production module structure under the chosen test directory instead of creating sibling test files inside `src/`.
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
Example:
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
```txt
|
|
70
|
+
src/domain/accounts/password-reset.ts
|
|
71
|
+
tests/domain/accounts/password-reset.test.ts
|
|
72
|
+
```
|
|
73
|
+
|
|
74
|
+
If a repository already has a clear separate test root, follow it.
|
|
75
|
+
If it only has colocated tests, ask before continuing the pattern or migrating it.
|
|
76
|
+
If a framework mandates colocated tests, document the constraint in the final evidence.
|
|
77
|
+
|
|
49
78
|
## Bug Fixes
|
|
50
79
|
|
|
51
80
|
Every bug fix requires a regression test.
|
|
@@ -82,5 +111,6 @@ Completion must report:
|
|
|
82
111
|
- Green evidence;
|
|
83
112
|
- refactor status;
|
|
84
113
|
- commands run;
|
|
114
|
+
- test location and any exception to separate test directories;
|
|
85
115
|
- tests not run and why;
|
|
86
116
|
- residual risks.
|
|
@@ -23,6 +23,36 @@ Agents should assess test quality across these dimensions:
|
|
|
23
23
|
5. **Minimal coupling:** the test avoids depending on private implementation details unless intentionally characterizing legacy code before refactor.
|
|
24
24
|
6. **Maintainability:** the test is readable, focused, deterministic, and not overly broad.
|
|
25
25
|
7. **Regression value:** for bug fixes, the test would have failed before the fix.
|
|
26
|
+
8. **Source separation:** tests live in a dedicated test/spec directory rather than being colocated with production files, unless an explicit project or framework constraint justifies an exception.
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
## Test Organisation
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
Tests should be organised outside production source directories.
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
Prefer a project-level test root such as:
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
```txt
|
|
35
|
+
tests/
|
|
36
|
+
test/
|
|
37
|
+
__tests__/
|
|
38
|
+
spec/
|
|
39
|
+
```
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
Mirror production structure inside that test root when useful.
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
Avoid creating files such as:
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
```txt
|
|
46
|
+
src/foo.test.ts
|
|
47
|
+
src/foo.spec.ts
|
|
48
|
+
src/foo.test.py
|
|
49
|
+
```
|
|
50
|
+
|
|
51
|
+
unless the repository has an established, user-approved, or framework-mandated colocated test convention.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
This keeps production source trees clean,
|
|
54
|
+
makes generated tests easier to audit,
|
|
55
|
+
and avoids mixing executable product code with validation artefacts.
|
|
26
56
|
|
|
27
57
|
## Coverage
|
|
28
58
|
|
|
@@ -101,7 +131,8 @@ Agents must reject or improve tests that:
|
|
|
101
131
|
- over-mock collaborators so the real contract is not exercised;
|
|
102
132
|
- assert private structure instead of observable behaviour;
|
|
103
133
|
- pass even if important logic is removed;
|
|
104
|
-
- lack a clear connection to a spec, bug, or requirement
|
|
134
|
+
- lack a clear connection to a spec, bug, or requirement;
|
|
135
|
+
- are colocated with production source files without an explicit project convention or approved exception.
|
|
105
136
|
|
|
106
137
|
## Negative and Edge Cases
|
|
107
138
|
|
|
@@ -130,7 +161,7 @@ If the answer is no, the test is probably weak.
|
|
|
130
161
|
|
|
131
162
|
For non-trivial production changes, agents should report:
|
|
132
163
|
|
|
133
|
-
- tests added or modified;
|
|
164
|
+
- tests added or modified, including their dedicated test directory location;
|
|
134
165
|
- related Gherkin scenarios or requirements;
|
|
135
166
|
- Red evidence;
|
|
136
167
|
- Green evidence;
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Agent Instructions
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This project uses Arey Pi.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Delivery Rules
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
- Treat canonical specs as the source of truth.
|
|
8
|
+
- Use Gherkin for behaviour specs.
|
|
9
|
+
- Use DBML for database specs when the project has persistence.
|
|
10
|
+
- Follow TDD for production behaviour changes.
|
|
11
|
+
- Put tests in a dedicated test/spec directory outside production source trees unless a documented project or framework convention requires otherwise.
|
|
12
|
+
- Keep specs, tests, code, DBML, ADRs, glossary, architecture docs, README files, docs, AGENTS.md, commands, and tooling instructions synchronised.
|
|
13
|
+
- Capture significant technical decisions in high-quality ADRs.
|
|
14
|
+
- Run formatter, lint/static analysis, typecheck, tests, and relevant dynamic analysis where available.
|
|
15
|
+
- Use incremental Conventional Commits for meaningful steps.
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
## Project Commands
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
Document the project-specific commands here.
|
|
20
|
+
Agents should run the narrowest relevant validation first,
|
|
21
|
+
then the composed project check before completion.
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
```bash
|
|
24
|
+
# Install dependencies
|
|
25
|
+
<package-manager> install
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
# Format
|
|
28
|
+
<package-manager> run format
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
# Lint/static analysis
|
|
31
|
+
<package-manager> run lint
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
# Typecheck
|
|
34
|
+
<package-manager> run typecheck
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
# Test
|
|
37
|
+
<package-manager> run test
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
# Full validation
|
|
40
|
+
<package-manager> run check
|
|
41
|
+
```
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
## Specs and Documentation
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
Canonical specs should live under:
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
```txt
|
|
48
|
+
specs/features/
|
|
49
|
+
specs/database/
|
|
50
|
+
specs/architecture/
|
|
51
|
+
specs/decisions/
|
|
52
|
+
specs/glossary.md
|
|
53
|
+
```
|
|
54
|
+
|
|
55
|
+
Project-facing documentation should live under:
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
```txt
|
|
58
|
+
docs/
|
|
59
|
+
README.md
|
|
60
|
+
AGENTS.md
|
|
61
|
+
```
|
|
62
|
+
|
|
63
|
+
Every completed change should report:
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
```txt
|
|
66
|
+
Specs updated
|
|
67
|
+
```
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
or:
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
```txt
|
|
72
|
+
Specs unaffected: <reason>
|
|
73
|
+
```
|
|
74
|
+
|
|
75
|
+
and:
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
```txt
|
|
78
|
+
Docs updated
|
|
79
|
+
```
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
or:
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
```txt
|
|
84
|
+
Docs unaffected: <reason>
|
|
85
|
+
```
|
|
86
|
+
|
|
87
|
+
## Test Layout
|
|
88
|
+
|
|
89
|
+
Keep tests outside production source directories by default.
|
|
90
|
+
|
|
91
|
+
Preferred examples:
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
```txt
|
|
94
|
+
src/domain/accounts/password-reset.ts
|
|
95
|
+
tests/domain/accounts/password-reset.test.ts
|
|
96
|
+
```
|
|
97
|
+
|
|
98
|
+
Avoid creating colocated tests such as:
|
|
99
|
+
|
|
100
|
+
```txt
|
|
101
|
+
src/domain/accounts/password-reset.test.ts
|
|
102
|
+
```
|
|
103
|
+
|
|
104
|
+
unless this repository documents that convention explicitly.
|
|
105
|
+
|
|
106
|
+
## Subagents
|
|
107
|
+
|
|
108
|
+
Keep orchestration in the parent Pi session.
|
|
109
|
+
Child agents should receive concrete,
|
|
110
|
+
bounded tasks and should not launch their own subagent workflows unless explicitly assigned a bounded fanout job.
|
|
111
|
+
|
|
112
|
+
Project-local Arey Pi subagents live in:
|
|
113
|
+
|
|
114
|
+
```txt
|
|
115
|
+
.pi/agents/arey-pi/
|
|
116
|
+
```
|
|
117
|
+
|
|
118
|
+
Use them through pi-subagents when available.
|
|
119
|
+
Run `/subagents-doctor` if subagent discovery or async coordination looks wrong.
|
|
120
|
+
|
|
121
|
+
Suggested Arey Pi roles:
|
|
122
|
+
|
|
123
|
+
- `arey-pi.tech-lead` for orchestration;
|
|
124
|
+
- `arey-pi.spec-author` for canonical specs;
|
|
125
|
+
- `arey-pi.tdd-implementer` for Red-Green-Refactor;
|
|
126
|
+
- `arey-pi.spec-syncer` for spec and documentation alignment;
|
|
127
|
+
- `arey-pi.engineering-reviewer` for adversarial quality review;
|
|
128
|
+
- `arey-pi.project-evaluator` for readiness assessment.
|
|
129
|
+
|
|
130
|
+
Useful builtin `pi-subagents` roles:
|
|
131
|
+
|
|
132
|
+
- `scout` for fast codebase reconnaissance;
|
|
133
|
+
- `context-builder` for stronger planning handoff context;
|
|
134
|
+
- `planner` for implementation plans;
|
|
135
|
+
- `worker` for approved generic implementation;
|
|
136
|
+
- `reviewer` for fresh-context reviews;
|
|
137
|
+
- `oracle` for risky decisions and second opinions;
|
|
138
|
+
- `researcher` for external evidence when web access is available.
|
|
139
|
+
|
|
140
|
+
Prefer fresh reviewers for independent review.
|
|
141
|
+
Use `oracle` when prior conversation context and decision drift matter.
|
|
142
|
+
Keep one writer in the active worktree at a time.
|
|
143
|
+
|
|
144
|
+
## Local Overrides
|
|
145
|
+
|
|
146
|
+
Add repository-specific technology,
|
|
147
|
+
architecture,
|
|
148
|
+
safety,
|
|
149
|
+
and validation instructions below.
|
|
150
|
+
|
|
151
|
+
Nested `AGENTS.md` files may override or extend these instructions for specific subtrees.
|
package/templates/adr.md
ADDED
|
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# ADR-NNNN: Decision Title
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Status
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Proposed
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
Accepted values:
|
|
8
|
+
Proposed,
|
|
9
|
+
Accepted,
|
|
10
|
+
Superseded,
|
|
11
|
+
Deprecated.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Date
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
YYYY-MM-DD
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
## Context
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
Describe the forces,
|
|
20
|
+
constraints,
|
|
21
|
+
requirements,
|
|
22
|
+
and tradeoffs that make this decision necessary.
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
Include:
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
- the problem being solved;
|
|
27
|
+
- relevant canonical specs or ADRs;
|
|
28
|
+
- operational constraints;
|
|
29
|
+
- security,
|
|
30
|
+
privacy,
|
|
31
|
+
performance,
|
|
32
|
+
reliability,
|
|
33
|
+
or maintainability concerns;
|
|
34
|
+
- what happens if no decision is made.
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
## Decision Drivers
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
- Driver 1
|
|
39
|
+
- Driver 2
|
|
40
|
+
- Driver 3
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
## Options Considered
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
### Option 1: Name
|
|
45
|
+
|
|
46
|
+
Summary.
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
Pros:
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
- ...
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
Cons:
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
- ...
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
### Option 2: Name
|
|
57
|
+
|
|
58
|
+
Summary.
|
|
59
|
+
|
|
60
|
+
Pros:
|
|
61
|
+
|
|
62
|
+
- ...
|
|
63
|
+
|
|
64
|
+
Cons:
|
|
65
|
+
|
|
66
|
+
- ...
|
|
67
|
+
|
|
68
|
+
## Decision
|
|
69
|
+
|
|
70
|
+
State the chosen option clearly.
|
|
71
|
+
|
|
72
|
+
Explain why it best satisfies the decision drivers.
|
|
73
|
+
|
|
74
|
+
## Consequences
|
|
75
|
+
|
|
76
|
+
Expected positive consequences:
|
|
77
|
+
|
|
78
|
+
- ...
|
|
79
|
+
|
|
80
|
+
Expected negative consequences or costs:
|
|
81
|
+
|
|
82
|
+
- ...
|
|
83
|
+
|
|
84
|
+
Operational impact:
|
|
85
|
+
|
|
86
|
+
- ...
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
Follow-up work:
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
- ...
|
|
91
|
+
|
|
92
|
+
## Validation
|
|
93
|
+
|
|
94
|
+
Describe how the decision will be validated.
|
|
95
|
+
|
|
96
|
+
Examples:
|
|
97
|
+
|
|
98
|
+
- tests;
|
|
99
|
+
- operational metrics;
|
|
100
|
+
- migration checks;
|
|
101
|
+
- architecture review;
|
|
102
|
+
- project readiness assessment.
|
|
103
|
+
|
|
104
|
+
## Supersession and Relationships
|
|
105
|
+
|
|
106
|
+
Supersedes:
|
|
107
|
+
|
|
108
|
+
- None
|
|
109
|
+
|
|
110
|
+
Superseded by:
|
|
111
|
+
|
|
112
|
+
- None
|
|
113
|
+
|
|
114
|
+
Related ADRs:
|
|
115
|
+
|
|
116
|
+
- None
|
|
117
|
+
|
|
118
|
+
Overlapping decisions:
|
|
119
|
+
|
|
120
|
+
- None
|
|
121
|
+
|
|
122
|
+
## Revisit Conditions
|
|
123
|
+
|
|
124
|
+
Revisit this decision if:
|
|
125
|
+
|
|
126
|
+
- a listed constraint changes;
|
|
127
|
+
- implementation cost differs materially from expectations;
|
|
128
|
+
- operational evidence contradicts assumptions;
|
|
129
|
+
- a simpler option becomes viable.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
// Canonical database specification.
|
|
2
|
+
// Keep this DBML synchronised with migrations,
|
|
3
|
+
// ORM models,
|
|
4
|
+
// SQL DDL,
|
|
5
|
+
// constraints,
|
|
6
|
+
// indexes,
|
|
7
|
+
// relationships,
|
|
8
|
+
// and persistence tests.
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
Project project_name {
|
|
11
|
+
database_type: 'PostgreSQL'
|
|
12
|
+
Note: '''
|
|
13
|
+
Replace this starter DBML with the canonical project schema.
|
|
14
|
+
Document the database engine,
|
|
15
|
+
important extensions,
|
|
16
|
+
ownership boundaries,
|
|
17
|
+
and migration constraints here.
|
|
18
|
+
'''
|
|
19
|
+
}
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Enum example_status {
|
|
22
|
+
active
|
|
23
|
+
archived
|
|
24
|
+
}
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
Table example_entities {
|
|
27
|
+
id uuid [pk, note: 'Primary identifier']
|
|
28
|
+
name varchar [not null, unique, note: 'Human-readable unique name']
|
|
29
|
+
status example_status [not null, default: 'active']
|
|
30
|
+
created_at timestamptz [not null]
|
|
31
|
+
updated_at timestamptz [not null]
|
|
32
|
+
|
|
33
|
+
indexes {
|
|
34
|
+
name [unique, name: 'idx_example_entities_name_unique']
|
|
35
|
+
status [name: 'idx_example_entities_status']
|
|
36
|
+
}
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
Note: '''
|
|
39
|
+
Replace this example table with canonical project tables.
|
|
40
|
+
Include constraints,
|
|
41
|
+
indexes,
|
|
42
|
+
relationship intent,
|
|
43
|
+
and relevant domain notes.
|
|
44
|
+
'''
|
|
45
|
+
}
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
Table example_events {
|
|
48
|
+
id uuid [pk]
|
|
49
|
+
entity_id uuid [not null, ref: > example_entities.id]
|
|
50
|
+
event_type varchar [not null]
|
|
51
|
+
occurred_at timestamptz [not null]
|
|
52
|
+
payload jsonb [not null, default: '{}']
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
indexes {
|
|
55
|
+
(entity_id, occurred_at) [name: 'idx_example_events_entity_time']
|
|
56
|
+
}
|
|
57
|
+
}
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
@arey-pi @replace-me
|
|
2
|
+
Feature: Replace with capability name
|
|
3
|
+
This feature is a canonical behaviour spec.
|
|
4
|
+
It should describe externally observable behaviour,
|
|
5
|
+
not implementation details.
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
As a named actor or stakeholder
|
|
8
|
+
I want a concrete capability
|
|
9
|
+
So that a valuable outcome is achieved
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
Rule: Replace with the business rule being protected
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
Background:
|
|
14
|
+
Given relevant starting context
|
|
15
|
+
And any shared preconditions that every scenario needs
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
@happy-path
|
|
18
|
+
Scenario: Primary successful behaviour
|
|
19
|
+
Given a meaningful initial state
|
|
20
|
+
When the actor performs the behaviour
|
|
21
|
+
Then the expected outcome is observable
|
|
22
|
+
And important side effects are visible
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
@validation @edge-case
|
|
25
|
+
Scenario Outline: Important validation or boundary behaviour
|
|
26
|
+
Given <precondition>
|
|
27
|
+
When the actor performs the behaviour with <input>
|
|
28
|
+
Then <outcome> is reported
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
Examples:
|
|
31
|
+
| precondition | input | outcome |
|
|
32
|
+
| valid setup | value | result |
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
@regression
|
|
35
|
+
Scenario: Regression behaviour
|
|
36
|
+
Given the historical failure condition
|
|
37
|
+
When the triggering action occurs
|
|
38
|
+
Then the regression is prevented
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Arey Pi Project Readiness Report
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Overall
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
- Overall Readiness: N/5
|
|
6
|
+
- Lowest Rule Scores:
|
|
7
|
+
- Highest Rule Scores:
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## Executive Summary
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
Summarise the current readiness posture.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Blockers
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
List issues that prevent reliable Arey Pi delivery.
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
## Quick Wins
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
List low-effort improvements with high leverage.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule Scores
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
### Canonical Specs
|
|
24
|
+
|
|
25
|
+
- Score:
|
|
26
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
27
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
28
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
### Gherkin Authoring
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
- Score:
|
|
33
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
34
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
35
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
### Tests/TDD
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
- Score:
|
|
40
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
41
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
42
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
### Test Quality
|
|
45
|
+
|
|
46
|
+
- Score:
|
|
47
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
48
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
49
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
50
|
+
|
|
51
|
+
### Quality Tooling
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
- Score:
|
|
54
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
55
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
56
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
57
|
+
|
|
58
|
+
### Engineering Quality
|
|
59
|
+
|
|
60
|
+
- Score:
|
|
61
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
62
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
63
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
### Spec Sync
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
- Score:
|
|
68
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
69
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
70
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
71
|
+
|
|
72
|
+
### Documentation Sync
|
|
73
|
+
|
|
74
|
+
- Score:
|
|
75
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
76
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
77
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
### Database Specs
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
- Score:
|
|
82
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
83
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
84
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
85
|
+
|
|
86
|
+
### Rebuildability
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
- Score:
|
|
89
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
90
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
91
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
### Architecture Memory and ADRs
|
|
94
|
+
|
|
95
|
+
- Score:
|
|
96
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
97
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
98
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
99
|
+
|
|
100
|
+
### Incremental Commits
|
|
101
|
+
|
|
102
|
+
- Score:
|
|
103
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
104
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
105
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
106
|
+
|
|
107
|
+
### AI Harness
|
|
108
|
+
|
|
109
|
+
- Score:
|
|
110
|
+
- Evidence:
|
|
111
|
+
- Findings:
|
|
112
|
+
- Recommendations:
|
|
113
|
+
|
|
114
|
+
## Recommended Plan
|
|
115
|
+
|
|
116
|
+
1. ...
|
|
117
|
+
|
|
118
|
+
## Residual Risks / Unknowns
|
|
119
|
+
|
|
120
|
+
List what could not be verified.
|