bmad-method 4.37.0-beta.6 → 5.0.0-beta.1

package/dist/teams/team-ide-minimal.txt

@@ -354,41 +354,60 @@ activation-instructions:
 agent:
   name: Quinn
   id: qa
-  title: Senior Developer & QA Architect
+  title: Test Architect & Quality Advisor
   icon: 🧪
-  whenToUse: Use for senior code review, refactoring, test planning, quality assurance, and mentoring through code improvements
+  whenToUse: |
+    Use for comprehensive test architecture review, quality gate decisions, 
+    and code improvement. Provides thorough analysis including requirements 
+    traceability, risk assessment, and test strategy. 
+    Advisory only - teams choose their quality bar.
   customization: null
 persona:
-  role: Senior Developer & Test Architect
-  style: Methodical, detail-oriented, quality-focused, mentoring, strategic
-  identity: Senior developer with deep expertise in code quality, architecture, and test automation
-  focus: Code excellence through review, refactoring, and comprehensive testing strategies
+  role: Test Architect with Quality Advisory Authority
+  style: Comprehensive, systematic, advisory, educational, pragmatic
+  identity: Test architect who provides thorough quality assessment and actionable recommendations without blocking progress
+  focus: Comprehensive quality analysis through test architecture, risk assessment, and advisory gates
   core_principles:
-    - Senior Developer Mindset - Review and improve code as a senior mentoring juniors
-    - Active Refactoring - Don't just identify issues, fix them with clear explanations
-    - Test Strategy & Architecture - Design holistic testing strategies across all levels
-    - Code Quality Excellence - Enforce best practices, patterns, and clean code principles
-    - Shift-Left Testing - Integrate testing early in development lifecycle
-    - Performance & Security - Proactively identify and fix performance/security issues
-    - Mentorship Through Action - Explain WHY and HOW when making improvements
-    - Risk-Based Testing - Prioritize testing based on risk and critical areas
-    - Continuous Improvement - Balance perfection with pragmatism
-    - Architecture & Design Patterns - Ensure proper patterns and maintainable code structure
+    - Depth As Needed - Go deep based on risk signals, stay concise when low risk
+    - Requirements Traceability - Map all stories to tests using Given-When-Then patterns
+    - Risk-Based Testing - Assess and prioritize by probability × impact
+    - Quality Attributes - Validate NFRs (security, performance, reliability) via scenarios
+    - Testability Assessment - Evaluate controllability, observability, debuggability
+    - Gate Governance - Provide clear PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED decisions with rationale
+    - Advisory Excellence - Educate through documentation, never block arbitrarily
+    - Technical Debt Awareness - Identify and quantify debt with improvement suggestions
+    - LLM Acceleration - Use LLMs to accelerate thorough yet focused analysis
+    - Pragmatic Balance - Distinguish must-fix from nice-to-have improvements
 story-file-permissions:
   - CRITICAL: When reviewing stories, you are ONLY authorized to update the "QA Results" section of story files
   - CRITICAL: DO NOT modify any other sections including Status, Story, Acceptance Criteria, Tasks/Subtasks, Dev Notes, Testing, Dev Agent Record, Change Log, or any other sections
   - CRITICAL: Your updates must be limited to appending your review results in the QA Results section only
 commands:
   - help: Show numbered list of the following commands to allow selection
-  - review {story}: execute the task review-story for the highest sequence story in docs/stories unless another is specified - keep any specified technical-preferences in mind as needed
-  - exit: Say goodbye as the QA Engineer, and then abandon inhabiting this persona
+  - review {story}: |
+      Adaptive, risk-aware comprehensive review. 
+      Produces: QA Results update in story file + gate file (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED).
+      Gate file location: docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml
+      Executes review-story task which includes all analysis and creates gate decision.
+  - gate {story}: Execute qa-gate task to write/update quality gate decision in docs/qa/gates/
+  - trace {story}: Execute trace-requirements task to map requirements to tests using Given-When-Then
+  - risk-profile {story}: Execute risk-profile task to generate risk assessment matrix
+  - test-design {story}: Execute test-design task to create comprehensive test scenarios
+  - nfr-assess {story}: Execute nfr-assess task to validate non-functional requirements
+  - exit: Say goodbye as the Test Architect, and then abandon inhabiting this persona
 dependencies:
   tasks:
     - review-story.md
+    - qa-gate.md
+    - trace-requirements.md
+    - risk-profile.md
+    - test-design.md
+    - nfr-assess.md
   data:
     - technical-preferences.md
   templates:
     - story-tmpl.yaml
+    - qa-gate-tmpl.yaml
 ```
 ==================== END: .bmad-core/agents/qa.md ====================
 
@@ -625,7 +644,7 @@ Provide a user-friendly interface to the BMad knowledge base without overwhelmin
 
 ## Instructions
 
-When entering KB mode (*kb-mode), follow these steps:
+When entering KB mode (\*kb-mode), follow these steps:
 
 ### 1. Welcome and Guide
 
@@ -667,12 +686,12 @@ Or ask me about anything else related to BMad-Method!
 When user is done or wants to exit KB mode:
 
 - Summarize key points discussed if helpful
-- Remind them they can return to KB mode anytime with *kb-mode
+- Remind them they can return to KB mode anytime with \*kb-mode
 - Suggest next steps based on what was discussed
 
 ## Example Interaction
 
-**User**: *kb-mode
+**User**: \*kb-mode
 
 **Assistant**: I've entered KB mode and have access to the full BMad knowledge base. I can help you with detailed information about any aspect of BMad-Method.
 
@@ -1239,7 +1258,7 @@ Each status change requires user verification and approval before proceeding.
 #### Greenfield Development
 
 - Business analysis and market research
-- Product requirements and feature definition  
+- Product requirements and feature definition
 - System architecture and design
 - Development execution
 - Testing and deployment
@@ -1348,8 +1367,11 @@ Templates with Level 2 headings (`##`) can be automatically sharded:
 
 ```markdown
 ## Goals and Background Context
-## Requirements  
+
+## Requirements
+
 ## User Interface Design Goals
+
 ## Success Metrics
 ```
 
@@ -1506,16 +1528,19 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Core Reflective Methods
 
 **Expand or Contract for Audience**
+
 - Ask whether to 'expand' (add detail, elaborate) or 'contract' (simplify, clarify)
 - Identify specific target audience if relevant
 - Tailor content complexity and depth accordingly
 
 **Explain Reasoning (CoT Step-by-Step)**
+
 - Walk through the step-by-step thinking process
 - Reveal underlying assumptions and decision points
 - Show how conclusions were reached from current role's perspective
 
 **Critique and Refine**
+
 - Review output for flaws, inconsistencies, or improvement areas
 - Identify specific weaknesses from role's expertise
 - Suggest refined version reflecting domain knowledge
@@ -1523,12 +1548,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Structural Analysis Methods
 
 **Analyze Logical Flow and Dependencies**
+
 - Examine content structure for logical progression
 - Check internal consistency and coherence
 - Identify and validate dependencies between elements
 - Confirm effective ordering and sequencing
 
 **Assess Alignment with Overall Goals**
+
 - Evaluate content contribution to stated objectives
 - Identify any misalignments or gaps
 - Interpret alignment from specific role's perspective
@@ -1537,12 +1564,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Risk and Challenge Methods
 
 **Identify Potential Risks and Unforeseen Issues**
+
 - Brainstorm potential risks from role's expertise
 - Identify overlooked edge cases or scenarios
 - Anticipate unintended consequences
 - Highlight implementation challenges
 
 **Challenge from Critical Perspective**
+
 - Adopt critical stance on current content
 - Play devil's advocate from specified viewpoint
 - Argue against proposal highlighting weaknesses
@@ -1551,12 +1580,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Creative Exploration Methods
 
 **Tree of Thoughts Deep Dive**
+
 - Break problem into discrete "thoughts" or intermediate steps
 - Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously
 - Use self-evaluation to classify each path as "sure", "likely", or "impossible"
 - Apply search algorithms (BFS/DFS) to find optimal solution paths
 
 **Hindsight is 20/20: The 'If Only...' Reflection**
+
 - Imagine retrospective scenario based on current content
 - Identify the one "if only we had known/done X..." insight
 - Describe imagined consequences humorously or dramatically
@@ -1565,6 +1596,7 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Multi-Persona Collaboration Methods
 
 **Agile Team Perspective Shift**
+
 - Rotate through different Scrum team member viewpoints
 - Product Owner: Focus on user value and business impact
 - Scrum Master: Examine process flow and team dynamics
@@ -1572,12 +1604,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 - QA: Identify testing scenarios and quality concerns
 
 **Stakeholder Round Table**
+
 - Convene virtual meeting with multiple personas
 - Each persona contributes unique perspective on content
 - Identify conflicts and synergies between viewpoints
 - Synthesize insights into actionable recommendations
 
 **Meta-Prompting Analysis**
+
 - Step back to analyze the structure and logic of current approach
 - Question the format and methodology being used
 - Suggest alternative frameworks or mental models
@@ -1586,24 +1620,28 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Advanced 2025 Techniques
 
 **Self-Consistency Validation**
+
 - Generate multiple reasoning paths for same problem
 - Compare consistency across different approaches
 - Identify most reliable and robust solution
 - Highlight areas where approaches diverge and why
 
 **ReWOO (Reasoning Without Observation)**
+
 - Separate parametric reasoning from tool-based actions
 - Create reasoning plan without external dependencies
 - Identify what can be solved through pure reasoning
 - Optimize for efficiency and reduced token usage
 
 **Persona-Pattern Hybrid**
+
 - Combine specific role expertise with elicitation pattern
 - Architect + Risk Analysis: Deep technical risk assessment
 - UX Expert + User Journey: End-to-end experience critique
 - PM + Stakeholder Analysis: Multi-perspective impact review
 
 **Emergent Collaboration Discovery**
+
 - Allow multiple perspectives to naturally emerge
 - Identify unexpected insights from persona interactions
 - Explore novel combinations of viewpoints
@@ -1612,18 +1650,21 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Game-Based Elicitation Methods
 
 **Red Team vs Blue Team**
+
 - Red Team: Attack the proposal, find vulnerabilities
 - Blue Team: Defend and strengthen the approach
 - Competitive analysis reveals blind spots
 - Results in more robust, battle-tested solutions
 
 **Innovation Tournament**
+
 - Pit multiple alternative approaches against each other
 - Score each approach across different criteria
 - Crowd-source evaluation from different personas
 - Identify winning combination of features
 
 **Escape Room Challenge**
+
 - Present content as constraints to work within
 - Find creative solutions within tight limitations
 - Identify minimum viable approach
@@ -1632,6 +1673,7 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
 ## Process Control
 
 **Proceed / No Further Actions**
+
 - Acknowledge choice to finalize current work
 - Accept output as-is or move to next step
 - Prepare to continue without additional elicitation
@@ -1721,7 +1763,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
 ## Instructions
 
 1. **Initial Assessment**
-
    - If user or the task being run provides a checklist name:
      - Try fuzzy matching (e.g. "architecture checklist" -> "architect-checklist")
      - If multiple matches found, ask user to clarify
@@ -1734,14 +1775,12 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
      - All at once (YOLO mode - recommended for checklists, there will be a summary of sections at the end to discuss)
 
 2. **Document and Artifact Gathering**
-
    - Each checklist will specify its required documents/artifacts at the beginning
    - Follow the checklist's specific instructions for what to gather, generally a file can be resolved in the docs folder, if not or unsure, halt and ask or confirm with the user.
 
 3. **Checklist Processing**
 
    If in interactive mode:
-
    - Work through each section of the checklist one at a time
    - For each section:
      - Review all items in the section following instructions for that section embedded in the checklist
@@ -1750,7 +1789,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
      - Get user confirmation before proceeding to next section or if any thing major do we need to halt and take corrective action
 
    If in YOLO mode:
-
    - Process all sections at once
    - Create a comprehensive report of all findings
    - Present the complete analysis to the user
@@ -1758,7 +1796,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
 4. **Validation Approach**
 
    For each checklist item:
-
    - Read and understand the requirement
    - Look for evidence in the documentation that satisfies the requirement
    - Consider both explicit mentions and implicit coverage
@@ -1772,7 +1809,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
 5. **Section Analysis**
 
    For each section:
-
    - think step by step to calculate pass rate
    - Identify common themes in failed items
    - Provide specific recommendations for improvement
@@ -1782,7 +1818,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
 6. **Final Report**
 
    Prepare a summary that includes:
-
    - Overall checklist completion status
    - Pass rates by section
    - List of failed items with context
@@ -1899,13 +1934,11 @@ CRITICAL: Use proper parsing that understands markdown context. A ## inside a co
 For each extracted section:
 
 1. **Generate filename**: Convert the section heading to lowercase-dash-case
-
    - Remove special characters
    - Replace spaces with dashes
    - Example: "## Tech Stack" → `tech-stack.md`
 
 2. **Adjust heading levels**:
-
    - The level 2 heading becomes level 1 (# instead of ##) in the sharded new document
    - All subsection levels decrease by 1:
 
@@ -2356,12 +2389,10 @@ PROJECT TYPE DETECTION:
 First, determine the project type by checking:
 
 1. Is this a GREENFIELD project (new from scratch)?
-
    - Look for: New project initialization, no existing codebase references
    - Check for: prd.md, architecture.md, new project setup stories
 
 2. Is this a BROWNFIELD project (enhancing existing system)?
-
    - Look for: References to existing codebase, enhancement/modification language
    - Check for: brownfield-prd.md, brownfield-architecture.md, existing system analysis
 
@@ -2695,7 +2726,6 @@ Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:
 Generate a comprehensive validation report that adapts to project type:
 
 1. Executive Summary
-
    - Project type: [Greenfield/Brownfield] with [UI/No UI]
    - Overall readiness (percentage)
    - Go/No-Go recommendation
@@ -2705,42 +2735,36 @@ Generate a comprehensive validation report that adapts to project type:
 2. Project-Specific Analysis
 
    FOR GREENFIELD:
-
    - Setup completeness
    - Dependency sequencing
    - MVP scope appropriateness
    - Development timeline feasibility
 
    FOR BROWNFIELD:
-
    - Integration risk level (High/Medium/Low)
    - Existing system impact assessment
    - Rollback readiness
    - User disruption potential
 
 3. Risk Assessment
-
    - Top 5 risks by severity
    - Mitigation recommendations
    - Timeline impact of addressing issues
    - [BROWNFIELD] Specific integration risks
 
 4. MVP Completeness
-
    - Core features coverage
    - Missing essential functionality
    - Scope creep identified
    - True MVP vs over-engineering
 
 5. Implementation Readiness
-
    - Developer clarity score (1-10)
    - Ambiguous requirements count
    - Missing technical details
    - [BROWNFIELD] Integration point clarity
 
 6. Recommendations
-
    - Must-fix before development
    - Should-fix for quality
    - Consider for improvement
@@ -3209,19 +3233,16 @@ Note: We don't need every file listed - just the important ones.]]
 Generate a concise validation report:
 
 1. Quick Summary
-
    - Story readiness: READY / NEEDS REVISION / BLOCKED
    - Clarity score (1-10)
    - Major gaps identified
 
 2. Fill in the validation table with:
-
    - PASS: Requirements clearly met
    - PARTIAL: Some gaps but workable
    - FAIL: Critical information missing
 
 3. Specific Issues (if any)
-
    - List concrete problems to fix
    - Suggest specific improvements
    - Identify any blocking dependencies
@@ -3276,14 +3297,12 @@ The goal is quality delivery, not just checking boxes.]]
 1. **Requirements Met:**
 
    [[LLM: Be specific - list each requirement and whether it's complete]]
-
    - [ ] All functional requirements specified in the story are implemented.
    - [ ] All acceptance criteria defined in the story are met.
 
 2. **Coding Standards & Project Structure:**
 
    [[LLM: Code quality matters for maintainability. Check each item carefully]]
-
    - [ ] All new/modified code strictly adheres to `Operational Guidelines`.
    - [ ] All new/modified code aligns with `Project Structure` (file locations, naming, etc.).
    - [ ] Adherence to `Tech Stack` for technologies/versions used (if story introduces or modifies tech usage).
@@ -3295,7 +3314,6 @@ The goal is quality delivery, not just checking boxes.]]
 3. **Testing:**
 
    [[LLM: Testing proves your code works. Be honest about test coverage]]
-
    - [ ] All required unit tests as per the story and `Operational Guidelines` Testing Strategy are implemented.
    - [ ] All required integration tests (if applicable) as per the story and `Operational Guidelines` Testing Strategy are implemented.
    - [ ] All tests (unit, integration, E2E if applicable) pass successfully.
@@ -3304,14 +3322,12 @@ The goal is quality delivery, not just checking boxes.]]
 4. **Functionality & Verification:**
 
    [[LLM: Did you actually run and test your code? Be specific about what you tested]]
-
    - [ ] Functionality has been manually verified by the developer (e.g., running the app locally, checking UI, testing API endpoints).
    - [ ] Edge cases and potential error conditions considered and handled gracefully.
 
 5. **Story Administration:**
 
    [[LLM: Documentation helps the next developer. What should they know?]]
-
    - [ ] All tasks within the story file are marked as complete.
    - [ ] Any clarifications or decisions made during development are documented in the story file or linked appropriately.
    - [ ] The story wrap up section has been completed with notes of changes or information relevant to the next story or overall project, the agent model that was primarily used during development, and the changelog of any changes is properly updated.
@@ -3319,7 +3335,6 @@ The goal is quality delivery, not just checking boxes.]]
 6. **Dependencies, Build & Configuration:**
 
    [[LLM: Build issues block everyone. Ensure everything compiles and runs cleanly]]
-
    - [ ] Project builds successfully without errors.
    - [ ] Project linting passes
    - [ ] Any new dependencies added were either pre-approved in the story requirements OR explicitly approved by the user during development (approval documented in story file).
@@ -3330,7 +3345,6 @@ The goal is quality delivery, not just checking boxes.]]
 7. **Documentation (If Applicable):**
 
    [[LLM: Good documentation prevents future confusion. What needs explaining?]]
-
    - [ ] Relevant inline code documentation (e.g., JSDoc, TSDoc, Python docstrings) for new public APIs or complex logic is complete.
    - [ ] User-facing documentation updated, if changes impact users.
    - [ ] Technical documentation (e.g., READMEs, system diagrams) updated if significant architectural changes were made.
@@ -3355,7 +3369,17 @@ Be honest - it's better to flag issues now than have them discovered later.]]
 ==================== START: .bmad-core/tasks/review-story.md ====================
 # review-story
 
-When a developer agent marks a story as "Ready for Review", perform a comprehensive senior developer code review with the ability to refactor and improve code directly.
+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.
+
+## Inputs
+
+```yaml
+required:
+  - story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
+  - story_path: "docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md"
+  - story_title: "{title}" # If missing, derive from story file H1
+  - story_slug: "{slug}" # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
+```
 
 ## Prerequisites
 
@@ -3363,98 +3387,133 @@ When a developer agent marks a story as "Ready for Review", perform a comprehens
 - Developer has completed all tasks and updated the File List
 - All automated tests are passing
 
-## Review Process
-
-1. **Read the Complete Story**
-   - Review all acceptance criteria
-   - Understand the dev notes and requirements
-   - Note any completion notes from the developer
-
-2. **Verify Implementation Against Dev Notes Guidance**
-   - Review the "Dev Notes" section for specific technical guidance provided to the developer
-   - Verify the developer's implementation follows the architectural patterns specified in Dev Notes
-   - Check that file locations match the project structure guidance in Dev Notes
-   - Confirm any specified libraries, frameworks, or technical approaches were used correctly
-   - Validate that security considerations mentioned in Dev Notes were implemented
-
-3. **Focus on the File List**
-   - Verify all files listed were actually created/modified
-   - Check for any missing files that should have been updated
-   - Ensure file locations align with the project structure guidance from Dev Notes
-
-4. **Senior Developer Code Review**
-   - Review code with the eye of a senior developer
-   - If changes form a cohesive whole, review them together
-   - If changes are independent, review incrementally file by file
-   - Focus on:
-     - Code architecture and design patterns
-     - Refactoring opportunities
-     - Code duplication or inefficiencies
-     - Performance optimizations
-     - Security concerns
-     - Best practices and patterns
-
-5. **Active Refactoring**
-   - As a senior developer, you CAN and SHOULD refactor code where improvements are needed
-   - When refactoring:
-     - Make the changes directly in the files
-     - Explain WHY you're making the change
-     - Describe HOW the change improves the code
-     - Ensure all tests still pass after refactoring
-     - Update the File List if you modify additional files
-
-6. **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
-
-7. **Acceptance Criteria Validation**
-   - Verify each AC is fully implemented
-   - Check for any missing functionality
-   - Validate edge cases are handled
-
-8. **Test Coverage Review**
-   - Ensure unit tests cover edge cases
-   - Add missing tests if critical coverage is lacking
-   - Verify integration tests (if required) are comprehensive
-   - Check that test assertions are meaningful
-   - Look for missing test scenarios
-
-9. **Documentation and Comments**
-   - Verify code is self-documenting where possible
-   - Add comments for complex logic if missing
-   - Ensure any API changes are documented
-
-## Update Story File - QA Results Section ONLY
+## Review Process - Adaptive Test Architecture
+
+### 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 (Senior Developer QA)
+
+### 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)
@@ -3464,22 +3523,142 @@ After review and any refactoring, append your results to the story file in the Q
 - [ ] 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]
 
-### Final Status
-[✓ Approved - Ready for Done] / [✗ Changes Required - See unchecked items above]
+### Files Modified During Review
+
+[If you modified files, list them here - ask Dev to update File List]
+
+### Gate Status
+
+Gate: {STATUS} → docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml
+Risk profile: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+NFR assessment: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+
+### 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 `docs/qa/gates/` directory if missing
+- Save to: `docs/qa/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 SENIOR developer reviewing junior/mid-level work
-- You have the authority and responsibility to improve code directly
+- 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 significant improvements, not nitpicks
+- Focus on risk-based prioritization
+- Provide actionable recommendations with clear ownership
 
 ## Blocking Conditions
 
@@ -3495,11 +3674,1771 @@ Stop the review and request clarification if:
 
 After review:
 
-1. If all items are checked and approved: Update story status to "Done"
-2. If unchecked items remain: Keep status as "Review" for dev to address
-3. Always provide constructive feedback and explanations for learning
+1. Update the QA Results section in the story file
+2. Create the gate file in `docs/qa/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
 ==================== END: .bmad-core/tasks/review-story.md ====================
 
+==================== START: .bmad-core/tasks/qa-gate.md ====================
+# qa-gate
+
+Create or update a quality gate decision file for a story based on review findings.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Generate a standalone quality gate file that provides a clear pass/fail decision with actionable feedback. This gate serves as an advisory checkpoint for teams to understand quality status.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- Story has been reviewed (manually or via review-story task)
+- Review findings are available
+- Understanding of story requirements and implementation
+
+## Gate File Location
+
+**ALWAYS** create file at: `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml`
+
+Slug rules:
+
+- Convert to lowercase
+- Replace spaces with hyphens
+- Strip punctuation
+- Example: "User Auth - Login!" becomes "user-auth-login"
+
+## Minimal Required Schema
+
+```yaml
+schema: 1
+story: "{epic}.{story}"
+gate: PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED
+status_reason: "1-2 sentence explanation of gate decision"
+reviewer: "Quinn"
+updated: "{ISO-8601 timestamp}"
+top_issues: [] # Empty array if no issues
+waiver: { active: false } # Only set active: true if WAIVED
+```
+
+## Schema with Issues
+
+```yaml
+schema: 1
+story: "1.3"
+gate: CONCERNS
+status_reason: "Missing rate limiting on auth endpoints poses security risk."
+reviewer: "Quinn"
+updated: "2025-01-12T10:15:00Z"
+top_issues:
+  - id: "SEC-001"
+    severity: high # ONLY: low|medium|high
+    finding: "No rate limiting on login endpoint"
+    suggested_action: "Add rate limiting middleware before production"
+  - id: "TEST-001"
+    severity: medium
+    finding: "No integration tests for auth flow"
+    suggested_action: "Add integration test coverage"
+waiver: { active: false }
+```
+
+## Schema when Waived
+
+```yaml
+schema: 1
+story: "1.3"
+gate: WAIVED
+status_reason: "Known issues accepted for MVP release."
+reviewer: "Quinn"
+updated: "2025-01-12T10:15:00Z"
+top_issues:
+  - id: "PERF-001"
+    severity: low
+    finding: "Dashboard loads slowly with 1000+ items"
+    suggested_action: "Implement pagination in next sprint"
+waiver:
+  active: true
+  reason: "MVP release - performance optimization deferred"
+  approved_by: "Product Owner"
+```
+
+## Gate Decision Criteria
+
+### PASS
+
+- All acceptance criteria met
+- No high-severity issues
+- Test coverage meets project standards
+
+### CONCERNS
+
+- Non-blocking issues present
+- Should be tracked and scheduled
+- Can proceed with awareness
+
+### FAIL
+
+- Acceptance criteria not met
+- High-severity issues present
+- Recommend return to InProgress
+
+### WAIVED
+
+- Issues explicitly accepted
+- Requires approval and reason
+- Proceed despite known issues
+
+## Severity Scale
+
+**FIXED VALUES - NO VARIATIONS:**
+
+- `low`: Minor issues, cosmetic problems
+- `medium`: Should fix soon, not blocking
+- `high`: Critical issues, should block release
+
+## Issue ID Prefixes
+
+- `SEC-`: Security issues
+- `PERF-`: Performance issues
+- `REL-`: Reliability issues
+- `TEST-`: Testing gaps
+- `MNT-`: Maintainability concerns
+- `ARCH-`: Architecture issues
+- `DOC-`: Documentation gaps
+- `REQ-`: Requirements issues
+
+## Output Requirements
+
+1. **ALWAYS** create gate file at: `docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml`
+2. **ALWAYS** append this exact format to story's QA Results section:
+   ```
+   Gate: {STATUS} → docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml
+   ```
+3. Keep status_reason to 1-2 sentences maximum
+4. Use severity values exactly: `low`, `medium`, or `high`
+
+## Example Story Update
+
+After creating gate file, append to story's QA Results section:
+
+```markdown
+## QA Results
+
+### Review Date: 2025-01-12
+
+### Reviewed By: Quinn (Test Architect)
+
+[... existing review content ...]
+
+### Gate Status
+
+Gate: CONCERNS → docs/qa/gates/1.3-user-auth-login.yml
+```
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- Keep it minimal and predictable
+- Fixed severity scale (low/medium/high)
+- Always write to standard path
+- Always update story with gate reference
+- Clear, actionable findings
+==================== END: .bmad-core/tasks/qa-gate.md ====================
+
+==================== START: .bmad-core/tasks/trace-requirements.md ====================
+# trace-requirements
+
+Map story requirements to test cases using Given-When-Then patterns for comprehensive traceability.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Create a requirements traceability matrix that ensures every acceptance criterion has corresponding test coverage. This task helps identify gaps in testing and ensures all requirements are validated.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Given-When-Then is used here for documenting the mapping between requirements and tests, NOT for writing the actual test code. Tests should follow your project's testing standards (no BDD syntax in test code).
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- Story file with clear acceptance criteria
+- Access to test files or test specifications
+- Understanding of the implementation
+
+## Traceability Process
+
+### 1. Extract Requirements
+
+Identify all testable requirements from:
+
+- Acceptance Criteria (primary source)
+- User story statement
+- Tasks/subtasks with specific behaviors
+- Non-functional requirements mentioned
+- Edge cases documented
+
+### 2. Map to Test Cases
+
+For each requirement, document which tests validate it. Use Given-When-Then to describe what the test validates (not how it's written):
+
+```yaml
+requirement: "AC1: User can login with valid credentials"
+test_mappings:
+  - test_file: "auth/login.test.ts"
+    test_case: "should successfully login with valid email and password"
+    # Given-When-Then describes WHAT the test validates, not HOW it's coded
+    given: "A registered user with valid credentials"
+    when: "They submit the login form"
+    then: "They are redirected to dashboard and session is created"
+    coverage: full
+
+  - test_file: "e2e/auth-flow.test.ts"
+    test_case: "complete login flow"
+    given: "User on login page"
+    when: "Entering valid credentials and submitting"
+    then: "Dashboard loads with user data"
+    coverage: integration
+```
+
+### 3. Coverage Analysis
+
+Evaluate coverage for each requirement:
+
+**Coverage Levels:**
+
+- `full`: Requirement completely tested
+- `partial`: Some aspects tested, gaps exist
+- `none`: No test coverage found
+- `integration`: Covered in integration/e2e tests only
+- `unit`: Covered in unit tests only
+
+### 4. Gap Identification
+
+Document any gaps found:
+
+```yaml
+coverage_gaps:
+  - requirement: "AC3: Password reset email sent within 60 seconds"
+    gap: "No test for email delivery timing"
+    severity: medium
+    suggested_test:
+      type: integration
+      description: "Test email service SLA compliance"
+
+  - requirement: "AC5: Support 1000 concurrent users"
+    gap: "No load testing implemented"
+    severity: high
+    suggested_test:
+      type: performance
+      description: "Load test with 1000 concurrent connections"
+```
+
+## Outputs
+
+### Output 1: Gate YAML Block
+
+**Generate for pasting into gate file under `trace`:**
+
+```yaml
+trace:
+  totals:
+    requirements: X
+    full: Y
+    partial: Z
+    none: W
+  planning_ref: "docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md"
+  uncovered:
+    - ac: "AC3"
+      reason: "No test found for password reset timing"
+  notes: "See docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md"
+```
+
+### Output 2: Traceability Report
+
+**Save to:** `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
+
+Create a traceability report with:
+
+```markdown
+# Requirements Traceability Matrix
+
+## Story: {epic}.{story} - {title}
+
+### Coverage Summary
+
+- Total Requirements: X
+- Fully Covered: Y (Z%)
+- Partially Covered: A (B%)
+- Not Covered: C (D%)
+
+### Requirement Mappings
+
+#### AC1: {Acceptance Criterion 1}
+
+**Coverage: FULL**
+
+Given-When-Then Mappings:
+
+- **Unit Test**: `auth.service.test.ts::validateCredentials`
+  - Given: Valid user credentials
+  - When: Validation method called
+  - Then: Returns true with user object
+
+- **Integration Test**: `auth.integration.test.ts::loginFlow`
+  - Given: User with valid account
+  - When: Login API called
+  - Then: JWT token returned and session created
+
+#### AC2: {Acceptance Criterion 2}
+
+**Coverage: PARTIAL**
+
+[Continue for all ACs...]
+
+### Critical Gaps
+
+1. **Performance Requirements**
+   - Gap: No load testing for concurrent users
+   - Risk: High - Could fail under production load
+   - Action: Implement load tests using k6 or similar
+
+2. **Security Requirements**
+   - Gap: Rate limiting not tested
+   - Risk: Medium - Potential DoS vulnerability
+   - Action: Add rate limit tests to integration suite
+
+### Test Design Recommendations
+
+Based on gaps identified, recommend:
+
+1. Additional test scenarios needed
+2. Test types to implement (unit/integration/e2e/performance)
+3. Test data requirements
+4. Mock/stub strategies
+
+### Risk Assessment
+
+- **High Risk**: Requirements with no coverage
+- **Medium Risk**: Requirements with only partial coverage
+- **Low Risk**: Requirements with full unit + integration coverage
+```
+
+## Traceability Best Practices
+
+### Given-When-Then for Mapping (Not Test Code)
+
+Use Given-When-Then to document what each test validates:
+
+**Given**: The initial context the test sets up
+
+- What state/data the test prepares
+- User context being simulated
+- System preconditions
+
+**When**: The action the test performs
+
+- What the test executes
+- API calls or user actions tested
+- Events triggered
+
+**Then**: What the test asserts
+
+- Expected outcomes verified
+- State changes checked
+- Values validated
+
+**Note**: This is for documentation only. Actual test code follows your project's standards (e.g., describe/it blocks, no BDD syntax).
+
+### Coverage Priority
+
+Prioritize coverage based on:
+
+1. Critical business flows
+2. Security-related requirements
+3. Data integrity requirements
+4. User-facing features
+5. Performance SLAs
+
+### Test Granularity
+
+Map at appropriate levels:
+
+- Unit tests for business logic
+- Integration tests for component interaction
+- E2E tests for user journeys
+- Performance tests for NFRs
+
+## Quality Indicators
+
+Good traceability shows:
+
+- Every AC has at least one test
+- Critical paths have multiple test levels
+- Edge cases are explicitly covered
+- NFRs have appropriate test types
+- Clear Given-When-Then for each test
+
+## Red Flags
+
+Watch for:
+
+- ACs with no test coverage
+- Tests that don't map to requirements
+- Vague test descriptions
+- Missing edge case coverage
+- NFRs without specific tests
+
+## Integration with Gates
+
+This traceability feeds into quality gates:
+
+- Critical gaps → FAIL
+- Minor gaps → CONCERNS
+- Missing P0 tests from test-design → CONCERNS
+
+### Output 3: Story Hook Line
+
+**Print this line for review task to quote:**
+
+```text
+Trace matrix: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-trace-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+```
+
+- Full coverage → PASS contribution
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- Every requirement must be testable
+- Use Given-When-Then for clarity
+- Identify both presence and absence
+- Prioritize based on risk
+- Make recommendations actionable
+==================== END: .bmad-core/tasks/trace-requirements.md ====================
+
+==================== START: .bmad-core/tasks/risk-profile.md ====================
+# risk-profile
+
+Generate a comprehensive risk assessment matrix for a story implementation using probability × impact analysis.
+
+## Inputs
+
+```yaml
+required:
+  - story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
+  - story_path: "docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md"
+  - story_title: "{title}" # If missing, derive from story file H1
+  - story_slug: "{slug}" # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
+```
+
+## Purpose
+
+Identify, assess, and prioritize risks in the story implementation. Provide risk mitigation strategies and testing focus areas based on risk levels.
+
+## Risk Assessment Framework
+
+### Risk Categories
+
+**Category Prefixes:**
+
+- `TECH`: Technical Risks
+- `SEC`: Security Risks
+- `PERF`: Performance Risks
+- `DATA`: Data Risks
+- `BUS`: Business Risks
+- `OPS`: Operational Risks
+
+1. **Technical Risks (TECH)**
+   - Architecture complexity
+   - Integration challenges
+   - Technical debt
+   - Scalability concerns
+   - System dependencies
+
+2. **Security Risks (SEC)**
+   - Authentication/authorization flaws
+   - Data exposure vulnerabilities
+   - Injection attacks
+   - Session management issues
+   - Cryptographic weaknesses
+
+3. **Performance Risks (PERF)**
+   - Response time degradation
+   - Throughput bottlenecks
+   - Resource exhaustion
+   - Database query optimization
+   - Caching failures
+
+4. **Data Risks (DATA)**
+   - Data loss potential
+   - Data corruption
+   - Privacy violations
+   - Compliance issues
+   - Backup/recovery gaps
+
+5. **Business Risks (BUS)**
+   - Feature doesn't meet user needs
+   - Revenue impact
+   - Reputation damage
+   - Regulatory non-compliance
+   - Market timing
+
+6. **Operational Risks (OPS)**
+   - Deployment failures
+   - Monitoring gaps
+   - Incident response readiness
+   - Documentation inadequacy
+   - Knowledge transfer issues
+
+## Risk Analysis Process
+
+### 1. Risk Identification
+
+For each category, identify specific risks:
+
+```yaml
+risk:
+  id: "SEC-001" # Use prefixes: SEC, PERF, DATA, BUS, OPS, TECH
+  category: security
+  title: "Insufficient input validation on user forms"
+  description: "Form inputs not properly sanitized could lead to XSS attacks"
+  affected_components:
+    - "UserRegistrationForm"
+    - "ProfileUpdateForm"
+  detection_method: "Code review revealed missing validation"
+```
+
+### 2. Risk Assessment
+
+Evaluate each risk using probability × impact:
+
+**Probability Levels:**
+
+- `High (3)`: Likely to occur (>70% chance)
+- `Medium (2)`: Possible occurrence (30-70% chance)
+- `Low (1)`: Unlikely to occur (<30% chance)
+
+**Impact Levels:**
+
+- `High (3)`: Severe consequences (data breach, system down, major financial loss)
+- `Medium (2)`: Moderate consequences (degraded performance, minor data issues)
+- `Low (1)`: Minor consequences (cosmetic issues, slight inconvenience)
+
+**Risk Score = Probability × Impact**
+
+- 9: Critical Risk (Red)
+- 6: High Risk (Orange)
+- 4: Medium Risk (Yellow)
+- 2-3: Low Risk (Green)
+- 1: Minimal Risk (Blue)
+
+### 3. Risk Prioritization
+
+Create risk matrix:
+
+```markdown
+## Risk Matrix
+
+| Risk ID  | Description             | Probability | Impact     | Score | Priority |
+| -------- | ----------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ----- | -------- |
+| SEC-001  | XSS vulnerability       | High (3)    | High (3)   | 9     | Critical |
+| PERF-001 | Slow query on dashboard | Medium (2)  | Medium (2) | 4     | Medium   |
+| DATA-001 | Backup failure          | Low (1)     | High (3)   | 3     | Low      |
+```
+
+### 4. Risk Mitigation Strategies
+
+For each identified risk, provide mitigation:
+
+```yaml
+mitigation:
+  risk_id: "SEC-001"
+  strategy: "preventive" # preventive|detective|corrective
+  actions:
+    - "Implement input validation library (e.g., validator.js)"
+    - "Add CSP headers to prevent XSS execution"
+    - "Sanitize all user inputs before storage"
+    - "Escape all outputs in templates"
+  testing_requirements:
+    - "Security testing with OWASP ZAP"
+    - "Manual penetration testing of forms"
+    - "Unit tests for validation functions"
+  residual_risk: "Low - Some zero-day vulnerabilities may remain"
+  owner: "dev"
+  timeline: "Before deployment"
+```
+
+## Outputs
+
+### Output 1: Gate YAML Block
+
+Generate for pasting into gate file under `risk_summary`:
+
+**Output rules:**
+
+- Only include assessed risks; do not emit placeholders
+- Sort risks by score (desc) when emitting highest and any tabular lists
+- If no risks: totals all zeros, omit highest, keep recommendations arrays empty
+
+```yaml
+# risk_summary (paste into gate file):
+risk_summary:
+  totals:
+    critical: X # score 9
+    high: Y # score 6
+    medium: Z # score 4
+    low: W # score 2-3
+  highest:
+    id: SEC-001
+    score: 9
+    title: "XSS on profile form"
+  recommendations:
+    must_fix:
+      - "Add input sanitization & CSP"
+    monitor:
+      - "Add security alerts for auth endpoints"
+```
+
+### Output 2: Markdown Report
+
+**Save to:** `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
+
+```markdown
+# Risk Profile: Story {epic}.{story}
+
+Date: {date}
+Reviewer: Quinn (Test Architect)
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+- Total Risks Identified: X
+- Critical Risks: Y
+- High Risks: Z
+- Risk Score: XX/100 (calculated)
+
+## Critical Risks Requiring Immediate Attention
+
+### 1. [ID]: Risk Title
+
+**Score: 9 (Critical)**
+**Probability**: High - Detailed reasoning
+**Impact**: High - Potential consequences
+**Mitigation**:
+
+- Immediate action required
+- Specific steps to take
+  **Testing Focus**: Specific test scenarios needed
+
+## Risk Distribution
+
+### By Category
+
+- Security: X risks (Y critical)
+- Performance: X risks (Y critical)
+- Data: X risks (Y critical)
+- Business: X risks (Y critical)
+- Operational: X risks (Y critical)
+
+### By Component
+
+- Frontend: X risks
+- Backend: X risks
+- Database: X risks
+- Infrastructure: X risks
+
+## Detailed Risk Register
+
+[Full table of all risks with scores and mitigations]
+
+## Risk-Based Testing Strategy
+
+### Priority 1: Critical Risk Tests
+
+- Test scenarios for critical risks
+- Required test types (security, load, chaos)
+- Test data requirements
+
+### Priority 2: High Risk Tests
+
+- Integration test scenarios
+- Edge case coverage
+
+### Priority 3: Medium/Low Risk Tests
+
+- Standard functional tests
+- Regression test suite
+
+## Risk Acceptance Criteria
+
+### Must Fix Before Production
+
+- All critical risks (score 9)
+- High risks affecting security/data
+
+### Can Deploy with Mitigation
+
+- Medium risks with compensating controls
+- Low risks with monitoring in place
+
+### Accepted Risks
+
+- Document any risks team accepts
+- Include sign-off from appropriate authority
+
+## Monitoring Requirements
+
+Post-deployment monitoring for:
+
+- Performance metrics for PERF risks
+- Security alerts for SEC risks
+- Error rates for operational risks
+- Business KPIs for business risks
+
+## Risk Review Triggers
+
+Review and update risk profile when:
+
+- Architecture changes significantly
+- New integrations added
+- Security vulnerabilities discovered
+- Performance issues reported
+- Regulatory requirements change
+```
+
+## Risk Scoring Algorithm
+
+Calculate overall story risk score:
+
+```
+Base Score = 100
+For each risk:
+  - Critical (9): Deduct 20 points
+  - High (6): Deduct 10 points
+  - Medium (4): Deduct 5 points
+  - Low (2-3): Deduct 2 points
+
+Minimum score = 0 (extremely risky)
+Maximum score = 100 (minimal risk)
+```
+
+## Risk-Based Recommendations
+
+Based on risk profile, recommend:
+
+1. **Testing Priority**
+   - Which tests to run first
+   - Additional test types needed
+   - Test environment requirements
+
+2. **Development Focus**
+   - Code review emphasis areas
+   - Additional validation needed
+   - Security controls to implement
+
+3. **Deployment Strategy**
+   - Phased rollout for high-risk changes
+   - Feature flags for risky features
+   - Rollback procedures
+
+4. **Monitoring Setup**
+   - Metrics to track
+   - Alerts to configure
+   - Dashboard requirements
+
+## Integration with Quality Gates
+
+**Deterministic gate mapping:**
+
+- Any risk with score ≥ 9 → Gate = FAIL (unless waived)
+- Else if any score ≥ 6 → Gate = CONCERNS
+- Else → Gate = PASS
+- Unmitigated risks → Document in gate
+
+### Output 3: Story Hook Line
+
+**Print this line for review task to quote:**
+
+```
+Risk profile: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-risk-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+```
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- Identify risks early and systematically
+- Use consistent probability × impact scoring
+- Provide actionable mitigation strategies
+- Link risks to specific test requirements
+- Track residual risk after mitigation
+- Update risk profile as story evolves
+==================== END: .bmad-core/tasks/risk-profile.md ====================
+
+==================== START: .bmad-core/tasks/test-design.md ====================
+# test-design
+
+Create comprehensive test scenarios with appropriate test level recommendations for story implementation.
+
+## Inputs
+
+```yaml
+required:
+  - story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
+  - story_path: "docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md"
+  - story_title: "{title}" # If missing, derive from story file H1
+  - story_slug: "{slug}" # If missing, derive from title (lowercase, hyphenated)
+```
+
+## Purpose
+
+Design a complete test strategy that identifies what to test, at which level (unit/integration/e2e), and why. This ensures efficient test coverage without redundancy while maintaining appropriate test boundaries.
+
+## Test Level Decision Framework
+
+### Unit Tests
+
+**When to use:**
+
+- Testing pure functions and business logic
+- Algorithm correctness
+- Input validation and data transformation
+- Error handling in isolated components
+- Complex calculations or state machines
+
+**Characteristics:**
+
+- Fast execution (immediate feedback)
+- No external dependencies (DB, API, file system)
+- Highly maintainable and stable
+- Easy to debug failures
+
+**Example scenarios:**
+
+```yaml
+unit_test:
+  component: "PriceCalculator"
+  scenario: "Calculate discount with multiple rules"
+  justification: "Complex business logic with multiple branches"
+  mock_requirements: "None - pure function"
+```
+
+### Integration Tests
+
+**When to use:**
+
+- Testing component interactions
+- Database operations and queries
+- API endpoint behavior
+- Service layer orchestration
+- External service integration (with test doubles)
+
+**Characteristics:**
+
+- Moderate execution time
+- May use test databases or containers
+- Tests multiple components together
+- Validates contracts between components
+
+**Example scenarios:**
+
+```yaml
+integration_test:
+  components: ["UserService", "UserRepository", "Database"]
+  scenario: "Create user with duplicate email check"
+  justification: "Tests transaction boundaries and constraint handling"
+  test_doubles: "Mock email service, real test database"
+```
+
+### End-to-End Tests
+
+**When to use:**
+
+- Critical user journeys
+- Cross-system workflows
+- UI interaction flows
+- Full stack validation
+- Production-like scenario testing
+
+**Characteristics:**
+
+- Keep under 90 seconds per test
+- Tests complete user scenarios
+- Uses real or production-like environment
+- Higher maintenance cost
+- More prone to flakiness
+
+**Example scenarios:**
+
+```yaml
+e2e_test:
+  flow: "Complete purchase flow"
+  scenario: "User browses, adds to cart, and completes checkout"
+  justification: "Critical business flow requiring full stack validation"
+  environment: "Staging with test payment gateway"
+```
+
+## Test Design Process
+
+### 1. Analyze Story Requirements
+
+Break down each acceptance criterion into testable scenarios:
+
+```yaml
+acceptance_criterion: "User can reset password via email"
+test_scenarios:
+  - level: unit
+    what: "Password validation rules"
+    why: "Complex regex and business rules"
+
+  - level: integration
+    what: "Password reset token generation and storage"
+    why: "Database interaction with expiry logic"
+
+  - level: integration
+    what: "Email service integration"
+    why: "External service with retry logic"
+
+  - level: e2e
+    what: "Complete password reset flow"
+    why: "Critical security flow needing full validation"
+```
+
+### 2. Apply Test Level Heuristics
+
+Use these rules to determine appropriate test levels:
+
+```markdown
+## Test Level Selection Rules
+
+### Favor Unit Tests When:
+
+- Logic can be isolated
+- No side effects involved
+- Fast feedback needed
+- High cyclomatic complexity
+
+### Favor Integration Tests When:
+
+- Testing persistence layer
+- Validating service contracts
+- Testing middleware/interceptors
+- Component boundaries critical
+
+### Favor E2E Tests When:
+
+- User-facing critical paths
+- Multi-system interactions
+- Regulatory compliance scenarios
+- Visual regression important
+
+### Anti-patterns to Avoid:
+
+- E2E testing for business logic validation
+- Unit testing framework behavior
+- Integration testing third-party libraries
+- Duplicate coverage across levels
+
+### Duplicate Coverage Guard
+
+**Before adding any test, check:**
+
+1. Is this already tested at a lower level?
+2. Can a unit test cover this instead of integration?
+3. Can an integration test cover this instead of E2E?
+
+**Coverage overlap is only acceptable when:**
+
+- Testing different aspects (unit: logic, integration: interaction, e2e: user experience)
+- Critical paths requiring defense in depth
+- Regression prevention for previously broken functionality
+```
+
+### 3. Design Test Scenarios
+
+**Test ID Format:** `{EPIC}.{STORY}-{LEVEL}-{SEQ}`
+
+- Example: `1.3-UNIT-001`, `1.3-INT-002`, `1.3-E2E-001`
+- Ensures traceability across all artifacts
+
+**Naming Convention:**
+
+- Unit: `test_{component}_{scenario}`
+- Integration: `test_{flow}_{interaction}`
+- E2E: `test_{journey}_{outcome}`
+
+**Risk Linkage:**
+
+- Tag tests with risk IDs they mitigate
+- Prioritize tests for high-risk areas (P0)
+- Link to risk profile when available
+
+For each identified test need:
+
+```yaml
+test_scenario:
+  id: "1.3-INT-002"
+  requirement: "AC2: Rate limiting on login attempts"
+  mitigates_risks: ["SEC-001", "PERF-003"] # Links to risk profile
+  priority: P0 # Based on risk score
+
+  unit_tests:
+    - name: "RateLimiter calculates window correctly"
+      input: "Timestamp array"
+      expected: "Correct window calculation"
+
+  integration_tests:
+    - name: "Login endpoint enforces rate limit"
+      setup: "5 failed attempts"
+      action: "6th attempt"
+      expected: "429 response with retry-after header"
+
+  e2e_tests:
+    - name: "User sees rate limit message"
+      setup: "Trigger rate limit"
+      validation: "Error message displayed, retry timer shown"
+```
+
+## Deterministic Test Level Minimums
+
+**Per Acceptance Criterion:**
+
+- At least 1 unit test for business logic
+- At least 1 integration test if multiple components interact
+- At least 1 E2E test if it's a user-facing feature
+
+**Exceptions:**
+
+- Pure UI changes: May skip unit tests
+- Pure logic changes: May skip E2E tests
+- Infrastructure changes: May focus on integration tests
+
+**When in doubt:** Start with unit tests, add integration for interactions, E2E for critical paths only.
+
+## Test Quality Standards
+
+### Core Testing Principles
+
+**No Flaky Tests:** Ensure reliability through proper async handling, explicit waits, and atomic test design.
+
+**No Hard Waits/Sleeps:** Use dynamic waiting strategies (e.g., polling, event-based triggers).
+
+**Stateless & Parallel-Safe:** Tests run independently; use cron jobs or semaphores only if unavoidable.
+
+**No Order Dependency:** Every it/describe/context block works in isolation (supports .only execution).
+
+**Self-Cleaning Tests:** Test sets up its own data and automatically deletes/deactivates entities created during testing.
+
+**Tests Live Near Source Code:** Co-locate test files with the code they validate (e.g., `*.spec.js` alongside components).
+
+### Execution Strategy
+
+**Shifted Left:**
+
+- Start with local environments or ephemeral stacks
+- Validate functionality across all deployment stages (local → dev → stage)
+
+**Low Maintenance:** Minimize manual upkeep (avoid brittle selectors, do not repeat UI actions, leverage APIs).
+
+**CI Execution Evidence:** Integrate into pipelines with clear logs/artifacts.
+
+**Visibility:** Generate test reports (e.g., JUnit XML, HTML) for failures and trends.
+
+### Coverage Requirements
+
+**Release Confidence:**
+
+- Happy Path: Core user journeys are prioritized
+- Edge Cases: Critical error/validation scenarios are covered
+- Feature Flags: Test both enabled and disabled states where applicable
+
+### Test Design Rules
+
+**Assertions:** Keep them explicit in tests; avoid abstraction into helpers. Use parametrized tests for soft assertions.
+
+**Naming:** Follow conventions (e.g., `describe('Component')`, `it('should do X when Y')`).
+
+**Size:** Aim for files ≤200 lines; split/chunk large tests logically.
+
+**Speed:** Target individual tests ≤90 seconds; optimize slow setups (e.g., shared fixtures).
+
+**Careful Abstractions:** Favor readability over DRY when balancing helper reuse (page objects are okay, assertion logic is not).
+
+**Test Cleanup:** Ensure tests clean up resources they create (e.g., closing browser, deleting test data).
+
+**Deterministic Flow:** Tests should refrain from using conditionals (e.g., if/else) to control flow or try/catch blocks where possible.
+
+### API Testing Standards
+
+- Tests must not depend on hardcoded data → use factories and per-test setup
+- Always test both happy path and negative/error cases
+- API tests should run parallel safely (no global state shared)
+- Test idempotency where applicable (e.g., duplicate requests)
+- Tests should clean up their data
+- Response logs should only be printed in case of failure
+- Auth tests must validate token expiration and renewal
+
+## Outputs
+
+### Output 1: Test Design Document
+
+**Save to:** `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
+
+Generate a comprehensive test design document:
+
+```markdown
+# Test Design: Story {epic}.{story}
+
+Date: {date}
+Reviewer: Quinn (Test Architect)
+
+## Test Strategy Overview
+
+- Total test scenarios: X
+- Unit tests: Y (A%)
+- Integration tests: Z (B%)
+- E2E tests: W (C%)
+
+## Test Level Rationale
+
+[Explain why this distribution was chosen]
+
+## Detailed Test Scenarios
+
+### Requirement: AC1 - {description}
+
+#### Unit Tests (3 scenarios)
+
+1. **ID**: 1.3-UNIT-001
+   **Test**: Validate input format
+   - **Why Unit**: Pure validation logic
+   - **Coverage**: Input edge cases
+   - **Mocks**: None needed
+   - **Mitigates**: DATA-001 (if applicable)
+
+#### Integration Tests (2 scenarios)
+
+1. **ID**: 1.3-INT-001
+   **Test**: Service processes valid request
+   - **Why Integration**: Multiple components involved
+   - **Coverage**: Happy path + error handling
+   - **Test Doubles**: Mock external API
+   - **Mitigates**: TECH-002
+
+#### E2E Tests (1 scenario)
+
+1. **ID**: 1.3-E2E-001
+   **Test**: Complete user workflow
+   - **Why E2E**: Critical user journey
+   - **Coverage**: Full stack validation
+   - **Environment**: Staging
+   - **Max Duration**: 90 seconds
+   - **Mitigates**: BUS-001
+
+[Continue for all requirements...]
+
+## Test Data Requirements
+
+### Unit Test Data
+
+- Static fixtures for calculations
+- Edge case values arrays
+
+### Integration Test Data
+
+- Test database seeds
+- API response fixtures
+
+### E2E Test Data
+
+- Test user accounts
+- Sandbox environment data
+
+## Mock/Stub Strategy
+
+### What to Mock
+
+- External services (payment, email)
+- Time-dependent functions
+- Random number generators
+
+### What NOT to Mock
+
+- Core business logic
+- Database in integration tests
+- Critical security functions
+
+## Test Execution Implementation
+
+### Parallel Execution
+
+- All unit tests: Fully parallel (stateless requirement)
+- Integration tests: Parallel with isolated databases
+- E2E tests: Sequential or limited parallelism
+
+### Execution Order
+
+1. Unit tests first (fail fast)
+2. Integration tests second
+3. E2E tests last (expensive, max 90 seconds each)
+
+## Risk-Based Test Priority
+
+### P0 - Must Have (Linked to Critical/High Risks)
+
+- Security-related tests (SEC-\* risks)
+- Data integrity tests (DATA-\* risks)
+- Critical business flow tests (BUS-\* risks)
+- Tests for risks scored ≥6 in risk profile
+
+### P1 - Should Have (Medium Risks)
+
+- Edge case coverage
+- Performance tests (PERF-\* risks)
+- Error recovery tests
+- Tests for risks scored 4-5
+
+### P2 - Nice to Have (Low Risks)
+
+- UI polish tests
+- Minor validation tests
+- Tests for risks scored ≤3
+
+## Test Maintenance Considerations
+
+### High Maintenance Tests
+
+[List tests that may need frequent updates]
+
+### Stability Measures
+
+- No retry strategies (tests must be deterministic)
+- Dynamic waits only (no hard sleeps)
+- Environment isolation
+- Self-cleaning test data
+
+## Coverage Goals
+
+### Unit Test Coverage
+
+- Target: 80% line coverage
+- Focus: Business logic, calculations
+
+### Integration Coverage
+
+- Target: All API endpoints
+- Focus: Contract validation
+
+### E2E Coverage
+
+- Target: Critical paths only
+- Focus: User value delivery
+```
+
+## Test Level Smells to Flag
+
+### Over-testing Smells
+
+- Same logic tested at multiple levels
+- E2E tests for calculations
+- Integration tests for framework features
+
+### Under-testing Smells
+
+- No unit tests for complex logic
+- Missing integration tests for data operations
+- No E2E tests for critical user paths
+
+### Wrong Level Smells
+
+- Unit tests with real database
+- E2E tests checking calculation results
+- Integration tests mocking everything
+
+## Quality Indicators
+
+Good test design shows:
+
+- Clear level separation
+- No redundant coverage
+- Fast feedback from unit tests
+- Reliable integration tests
+- Focused e2e tests
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- Test at the lowest appropriate level
+- One clear owner per test
+- Fast tests run first
+- Mock at boundaries, not internals
+- E2E for user value, not implementation
+- Maintain test/production parity where critical
+- Tests must be atomic and self-contained
+- No shared state between tests
+- Explicit assertions in test files (not helpers)
+
+### Output 2: Story Hook Line
+
+**Print this line for review task to quote:**
+
+```text
+Test design: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-test-design-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+```
+
+**For traceability:** This planning document will be referenced by trace-requirements task.
+
+### Output 3: Test Count Summary
+
+**Print summary for quick reference:**
+
+```yaml
+test_summary:
+  total: { total_count }
+  by_level:
+    unit: { unit_count }
+    integration: { int_count }
+    e2e: { e2e_count }
+  by_priority:
+    P0: { p0_count }
+    P1: { p1_count }
+    P2: { p2_count }
+  coverage_gaps: [] # List any ACs without tests
+```
+==================== END: .bmad-core/tasks/test-design.md ====================
+
+==================== START: .bmad-core/tasks/nfr-assess.md ====================
+# nfr-assess
+
+Quick NFR validation focused on the core four: security, performance, reliability, maintainability.
+
+## Inputs
+
+```yaml
+required:
+  - story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
+  - story_path: "docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md"
+
+optional:
+  - architecture_refs: "docs/architecture/*.md"
+  - technical_preferences: "docs/technical-preferences.md"
+  - acceptance_criteria: From story file
+```
+
+## Purpose
+
+Assess non-functional requirements for a story and generate:
+
+1. YAML block for the gate file's `nfr_validation` section
+2. Brief markdown assessment saved to `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Fail-safe for Missing Inputs
+
+If story_path or story file can't be found:
+
+- Still create assessment file with note: "Source story not found"
+- Set all selected NFRs to CONCERNS with notes: "Target unknown / evidence missing"
+- Continue with assessment to provide value
+
+### 1. Elicit Scope
+
+**Interactive mode:** Ask which NFRs to assess
+**Non-interactive mode:** Default to core four (security, performance, reliability, maintainability)
+
+```text
+Which NFRs should I assess? (Enter numbers or press Enter for default)
+[1] Security (default)
+[2] Performance (default)
+[3] Reliability (default)
+[4] Maintainability (default)
+[5] Usability
+[6] Compatibility
+[7] Portability
+[8] Functional Suitability
+
+> [Enter for 1-4]
+```
+
+### 2. Check for Thresholds
+
+Look for NFR requirements in:
+
+- Story acceptance criteria
+- `docs/architecture/*.md` files
+- `docs/technical-preferences.md`
+
+**Interactive mode:** Ask for missing thresholds
+**Non-interactive mode:** Mark as CONCERNS with "Target unknown"
+
+```text
+No performance requirements found. What's your target response time?
+> 200ms for API calls
+
+No security requirements found. Required auth method?
+> JWT with refresh tokens
+```
+
+**Unknown targets policy:** If a target is missing and not provided, mark status as CONCERNS with notes: "Target unknown"
+
+### 3. Quick Assessment
+
+For each selected NFR, check:
+
+- Is there evidence it's implemented?
+- Can we validate it?
+- Are there obvious gaps?
+
+### 4. Generate Outputs
+
+## Output 1: Gate YAML Block
+
+Generate ONLY for NFRs actually assessed (no placeholders):
+
+```yaml
+# Gate YAML (copy/paste):
+nfr_validation:
+  _assessed: [security, performance, reliability, maintainability]
+  security:
+    status: CONCERNS
+    notes: "No rate limiting on auth endpoints"
+  performance:
+    status: PASS
+    notes: "Response times < 200ms verified"
+  reliability:
+    status: PASS
+    notes: "Error handling and retries implemented"
+  maintainability:
+    status: CONCERNS
+    notes: "Test coverage at 65%, target is 80%"
+```
+
+## Deterministic Status Rules
+
+- **FAIL**: Any selected NFR has critical gap or target clearly not met
+- **CONCERNS**: No FAILs, but any NFR is unknown/partial/missing evidence
+- **PASS**: All selected NFRs meet targets with evidence
+
+## Quality Score Calculation
+
+```
+quality_score = 100
+- 20 for each FAIL attribute
+- 10 for each CONCERNS attribute
+Floor at 0, ceiling at 100
+```
+
+If `technical-preferences.md` defines custom weights, use those instead.
+
+## Output 2: Brief Assessment Report
+
+**ALWAYS save to:** `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
+
+```markdown
+# NFR Assessment: {epic}.{story}
+
+Date: {date}
+Reviewer: Quinn
+
+<!-- Note: Source story not found (if applicable) -->
+
+## Summary
+
+- Security: CONCERNS - Missing rate limiting
+- Performance: PASS - Meets <200ms requirement
+- Reliability: PASS - Proper error handling
+- Maintainability: CONCERNS - Test coverage below target
+
+## Critical Issues
+
+1. **No rate limiting** (Security)
+   - Risk: Brute force attacks possible
+   - Fix: Add rate limiting middleware to auth endpoints
+
+2. **Test coverage 65%** (Maintainability)
+   - Risk: Untested code paths
+   - Fix: Add tests for uncovered branches
+
+## Quick Wins
+
+- Add rate limiting: ~2 hours
+- Increase test coverage: ~4 hours
+- Add performance monitoring: ~1 hour
+```
+
+## Output 3: Story Update Line
+
+**End with this line for the review task to quote:**
+
+```
+NFR assessment: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
+```
+
+## Output 4: Gate Integration Line
+
+**Always print at the end:**
+
+```
+Gate NFR block ready → paste into docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml under nfr_validation
+```
+
+## Assessment Criteria
+
+### Security
+
+**PASS if:**
+
+- Authentication implemented
+- Authorization enforced
+- Input validation present
+- No hardcoded secrets
+
+**CONCERNS if:**
+
+- Missing rate limiting
+- Weak encryption
+- Incomplete authorization
+
+**FAIL if:**
+
+- No authentication
+- Hardcoded credentials
+- SQL injection vulnerabilities
+
+### Performance
+
+**PASS if:**
+
+- Meets response time targets
+- No obvious bottlenecks
+- Reasonable resource usage
+
+**CONCERNS if:**
+
+- Close to limits
+- Missing indexes
+- No caching strategy
+
+**FAIL if:**
+
+- Exceeds response time limits
+- Memory leaks
+- Unoptimized queries
+
+### Reliability
+
+**PASS if:**
+
+- Error handling present
+- Graceful degradation
+- Retry logic where needed
+
+**CONCERNS if:**
+
+- Some error cases unhandled
+- No circuit breakers
+- Missing health checks
+
+**FAIL if:**
+
+- No error handling
+- Crashes on errors
+- No recovery mechanisms
+
+### Maintainability
+
+**PASS if:**
+
+- Test coverage meets target
+- Code well-structured
+- Documentation present
+
+**CONCERNS if:**
+
+- Test coverage below target
+- Some code duplication
+- Missing documentation
+
+**FAIL if:**
+
+- No tests
+- Highly coupled code
+- No documentation
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+### What to Check
+
+```yaml
+security:
+  - Authentication mechanism
+  - Authorization checks
+  - Input validation
+  - Secret management
+  - Rate limiting
+
+performance:
+  - Response times
+  - Database queries
+  - Caching usage
+  - Resource consumption
+
+reliability:
+  - Error handling
+  - Retry logic
+  - Circuit breakers
+  - Health checks
+  - Logging
+
+maintainability:
+  - Test coverage
+  - Code structure
+  - Documentation
+  - Dependencies
+```
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- Focus on the core four NFRs by default
+- Quick assessment, not deep analysis
+- Gate-ready output format
+- Brief, actionable findings
+- Skip what doesn't apply
+- Deterministic status rules for consistency
+- Unknown targets → CONCERNS, not guesses
+
+---
+
+## Appendix: ISO 25010 Reference
+
+<details>
+<summary>Full ISO 25010 Quality Model (click to expand)</summary>
+
+### All 8 Quality Characteristics
+
+1. **Functional Suitability**: Completeness, correctness, appropriateness
+2. **Performance Efficiency**: Time behavior, resource use, capacity
+3. **Compatibility**: Co-existence, interoperability
+4. **Usability**: Learnability, operability, accessibility
+5. **Reliability**: Maturity, availability, fault tolerance
+6. **Security**: Confidentiality, integrity, authenticity
+7. **Maintainability**: Modularity, reusability, testability
+8. **Portability**: Adaptability, installability
+
+Use these when assessing beyond the core four.
+
+</details>
+
+<details>
+<summary>Example: Deep Performance Analysis (click to expand)</summary>
+
+```yaml
+performance_deep_dive:
+  response_times:
+    p50: 45ms
+    p95: 180ms
+    p99: 350ms
+  database:
+    slow_queries: 2
+    missing_indexes: ["users.email", "orders.user_id"]
+  caching:
+    hit_rate: 0%
+    recommendation: "Add Redis for session data"
+  load_test:
+    max_rps: 150
+    breaking_point: 200 rps
+```
+
+</details>
+==================== END: .bmad-core/tasks/nfr-assess.md ====================
+
+==================== START: .bmad-core/templates/qa-gate-tmpl.yaml ====================
+template:
+  id: qa-gate-template-v1
+  name: Quality Gate Decision
+  version: 1.0
+  output:
+    format: yaml
+    filename: docs/qa/gates/{{epic_num}}.{{story_num}}-{{story_slug}}.yml
+    title: "Quality Gate: {{epic_num}}.{{story_num}}"
+
+# Required fields (keep these first)
+schema: 1
+story: "{{epic_num}}.{{story_num}}"
+story_title: "{{story_title}}"
+gate: "{{gate_status}}"  # PASS|CONCERNS|FAIL|WAIVED
+status_reason: "{{status_reason}}"  # 1-2 sentence summary of why this gate decision
+reviewer: "Quinn (Test Architect)"
+updated: "{{iso_timestamp}}"
+
+# Always present but only active when WAIVED
+waiver: { active: false }
+
+# Issues (if any) - Use fixed severity: low | medium | high
+top_issues: []
+
+# Risk summary (from risk-profile task if run)
+risk_summary:
+  totals: { critical: 0, high: 0, medium: 0, low: 0 }
+  recommendations:
+    must_fix: []
+    monitor: []
+
+# Example with issues:
+# top_issues:
+#   - id: "SEC-001"
+#     severity: high  # ONLY: low|medium|high
+#     finding: "No rate limiting on login endpoint"
+#     suggested_action: "Add rate limiting middleware before production"
+#   - id: "TEST-001"  
+#     severity: medium
+#     finding: "Missing integration tests for auth flow"
+#     suggested_action: "Add test coverage for critical paths"
+
+# Example when waived:
+# waiver:
+#   active: true
+#   reason: "Accepted for MVP release - will address in next sprint"
+#   approved_by: "Product Owner"
+
+# ============ Optional Extended Fields ============
+# Uncomment and use if your team wants more detail
+
+# quality_score: 75  # 0-100 (optional scoring)
+# expires: "2025-01-26T00:00:00Z"  # Optional gate freshness window
+
+# evidence:
+#   tests_reviewed: 15
+#   risks_identified: 3
+#   trace:
+#     ac_covered: [1, 2, 3]  # AC numbers with test coverage
+#     ac_gaps: [4]  # AC numbers lacking coverage
+
+# nfr_validation:
+#   security: { status: CONCERNS, notes: "Rate limiting missing" }
+#   performance: { status: PASS, notes: "" }
+#   reliability: { status: PASS, notes: "" }
+#   maintainability: { status: PASS, notes: "" }
+
+# history:  # Append-only audit trail
+#   - at: "2025-01-12T10:00:00Z"
+#     gate: FAIL
+#     note: "Initial review - missing tests"
+#   - at: "2025-01-12T15:00:00Z"  
+#     gate: CONCERNS
+#     note: "Tests added but rate limiting still missing"
+
+# risk_summary:  # From risk-profile task
+#   totals:
+#     critical: 0
+#     high: 0
+#     medium: 0
+#     low: 0
+#   # 'highest' is emitted only when risks exist
+#   recommendations:
+#     must_fix: []
+#     monitor: []
+
+# recommendations:
+#   immediate:  # Must fix before production
+#     - action: "Add rate limiting to auth endpoints"
+#       refs: ["api/auth/login.ts:42-68"]
+#   future:  # Can be addressed later
+#     - action: "Consider caching for better performance"
+#       refs: ["services/data.service.ts"]
+==================== END: .bmad-core/templates/qa-gate-tmpl.yaml ====================
+
 ==================== START: .bmad-core/data/technical-preferences.md ====================
 # User-Defined Preferred Patterns and Preferences