bmad-method 5.1.2 → 6.0.0-Beta.0

package/docs/tea/how-to/workflows/run-trace.md

@@ -0,0 +1,883 @@
+---
+title: "How to Run Trace with TEA"
+description: Map requirements to tests and make quality gate decisions using TEA's trace workflow
+---
+
+# How to Run Trace with TEA
+
+Use TEA's `trace` workflow for requirements traceability and quality gate decisions. This is a two-phase workflow: Phase 1 analyzes coverage, Phase 2 makes the go/no-go decision.
+
+## When to Use This
+
+### Phase 1: Requirements Traceability
+- Map acceptance criteria to implemented tests
+- Identify coverage gaps
+- Prioritize missing tests
+- Refresh coverage after each story/epic
+
+### Phase 2: Quality Gate Decision
+- Make go/no-go decision for release
+- Validate coverage meets thresholds
+- Document gate decision with evidence
+- Support business-approved waivers
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- BMad Method installed
+- TEA agent available
+- Requirements defined (stories, acceptance criteria, test design)
+- Tests implemented
+- For brownfield: Existing codebase with tests
+
+## Steps
+
+### 1. Run the Trace Workflow
+
+```
+trace
+```
+
+### 2. Specify Phase
+
+TEA will ask which phase you're running.
+
+**Phase 1: Requirements Traceability**
+- Analyze coverage
+- Identify gaps
+- Generate recommendations
+
+**Phase 2: Quality Gate Decision**
+- Make PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED decision
+- Requires Phase 1 complete
+
+**Typical flow:** Run Phase 1 first, review gaps, then run Phase 2 for gate decision.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Requirements Traceability
+
+### 3. Provide Requirements Source
+
+TEA will ask where requirements are defined.
+
+**Options:**
+
+| Source          | Example                       | Best For               |
+| --------------- | ----------------------------- | ---------------------- |
+| **Story file**  | `story-profile-management.md` | Single story coverage  |
+| **Test design** | `test-design-epic-1.md`       | Epic coverage          |
+| **PRD**         | `PRD.md`                      | System-level coverage  |
+| **Multiple**    | All of the above              | Comprehensive analysis |
+
+**Example Response:**
+```
+Requirements:
+- story-profile-management.md (acceptance criteria)
+- test-design-epic-1.md (test priorities)
+```
+
+### 4. Specify Test Location
+
+TEA will ask where tests are located.
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Test location: tests/
+Include:
+- tests/api/
+- tests/e2e/
+```
+
+### 5. Specify Focus Areas (Optional)
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Focus on:
+- Profile CRUD operations
+- Validation scenarios
+- Authorization checks
+```
+
+### 6. Review Coverage Matrix
+
+TEA generates a comprehensive traceability matrix.
+
+#### Traceability Matrix (`traceability-matrix.md`):
+
+```markdown
+# Requirements Traceability Matrix
+
+**Date:** 2026-01-13
+**Scope:** Epic 1 - User Profile Management
+**Phase:** Phase 1 (Traceability Analysis)
+
+## Coverage Summary
+
+| Metric                 | Count | Percentage |
+| ---------------------- | ----- | ---------- |
+| **Total Requirements** | 15    | 100%       |
+| **Full Coverage**      | 11    | 73%        |
+| **Partial Coverage**   | 3     | 20%        |
+| **No Coverage**        | 1     | 7%         |
+
+### By Priority
+
+| Priority | Total | Covered | Percentage        |
+| -------- | ----- | ------- | ----------------- |
+| **P0**   | 5     | 5       | 100% ✅            |
+| **P1**   | 6     | 5       | 83% ⚠️             |
+| **P2**   | 3     | 1       | 33% ⚠️             |
+| **P3**   | 1     | 0       | 0% ✅ (acceptable) |
+
+---
+
+## Detailed Traceability
+
+### ✅ Requirement 1: User can view their profile (P0)
+
+**Acceptance Criteria:**
+- User navigates to /profile
+- Profile displays name, email, avatar
+- Data is current (not cached)
+
+**Test Coverage:** FULL ✅
+
+**Tests:**
+- `tests/e2e/profile-view.spec.ts:15` - "should display profile page with current data"
+  - ✅ Navigates to /profile
+  - ✅ Verifies name, email visible
+  - ✅ Verifies avatar displayed
+  - ✅ Validates data freshness via API assertion
+
+- `tests/api/profile.spec.ts:8` - "should fetch user profile via API"
+  - ✅ Calls GET /api/profile
+  - ✅ Validates response schema
+  - ✅ Confirms all fields present
+
+---
+
+### ⚠️ Requirement 2: User can edit profile (P0)
+
+**Acceptance Criteria:**
+- User clicks "Edit Profile"
+- Can modify name, email, bio
+- Can upload avatar
+- Changes are persisted
+- Success message shown
+
+**Test Coverage:** PARTIAL ⚠️
+
+**Tests:**
+- `tests/e2e/profile-edit.spec.ts:22` - "should edit and save profile"
+  - ✅ Clicks edit button
+  - ✅ Modifies name and email
+  - ⚠️ **Does NOT test bio field**
+  - ❌ **Does NOT test avatar upload**
+  - ✅ Verifies persistence
+  - ✅ Verifies success message
+
+- `tests/api/profile.spec.ts:25` - "should update profile via PATCH"
+  - ✅ Calls PATCH /api/profile
+  - ✅ Validates update response
+  - ⚠️ **Only tests name/email, not bio/avatar**
+
+**Missing Coverage:**
+- Bio field not tested in E2E or API
+- Avatar upload not tested
+
+**Gap Severity:** HIGH (P0 requirement, critical path)
+
+---
+
+### ✅ Requirement 3: Invalid email shows validation error (P1)
+
+**Acceptance Criteria:**
+- Enter invalid email format
+- See error message
+- Cannot save changes
+
+**Test Coverage:** FULL ✅
+
+**Tests:**
+- `tests/e2e/profile-edit.spec.ts:45` - "should show validation error for invalid email"
+- `tests/api/profile.spec.ts:50` - "should return 400 for invalid email"
+
+---
+
+### ❌ Requirement 15: Profile export as PDF (P2)
+
+**Acceptance Criteria:**
+- User clicks "Export Profile"
+- PDF downloads with profile data
+
+**Test Coverage:** NONE ❌
+
+**Gap Analysis:**
+- **Priority:** P2 (medium)
+- **Risk:** Low (non-critical feature)
+- **Recommendation:** Add in next iteration (not blocking for release)
+
+---
+
+## Gap Prioritization
+
+### Critical Gaps (Must Fix Before Release)
+
+| Gap | Requirement              | Priority | Risk | Recommendation      |
+| --- | ------------------------ | -------- | ---- | ------------------- |
+| 1   | Bio field not tested     | P0       | High | Add E2E + API tests |
+| 2   | Avatar upload not tested | P0       | High | Add E2E + API tests |
+
+**Estimated Effort:** 3 hours
+**Owner:** QA team
+**Deadline:** Before release
+
+### Non-Critical Gaps (Can Defer)
+
+| Gap | Requirement               | Priority | Risk | Recommendation      |
+| --- | ------------------------- | -------- | ---- | ------------------- |
+| 3   | Profile export not tested | P2       | Low  | Add in v1.3 release |
+
+**Estimated Effort:** 2 hours
+**Owner:** QA team
+**Deadline:** Next release (February)
+
+---
+
+## Recommendations
+
+### 1. Add Bio Field Tests
+
+**Tests Needed (Vanilla Playwright):**
+```typescript
+// tests/e2e/profile-edit.spec.ts
+test('should edit bio field', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Edit' }).click();
+  await page.getByLabel('Bio').fill('New bio text');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Save' }).click();
+  await expect(page.getByText('New bio text')).toBeVisible();
+});
+
+// tests/api/profile.spec.ts
+test('should update bio via API', async ({ request }) => {
+  const response = await request.patch('/api/profile', {
+    data: { bio: 'Updated bio' }
+  });
+  expect(response.ok()).toBeTruthy();
+  const { bio } = await response.json();
+  expect(bio).toBe('Updated bio');
+});
+```
+
+**With Playwright Utils:**
+```typescript
+// tests/e2e/profile-edit.spec.ts
+import { test } from '../support/fixtures';  // Composed with authToken
+
+test('should edit bio field', async ({ page, authToken }) => {
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Edit' }).click();
+  await page.getByLabel('Bio').fill('New bio text');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Save' }).click();
+  await expect(page.getByText('New bio text')).toBeVisible();
+});
+
+// tests/api/profile.spec.ts
+import { test as base, expect } from '@playwright/test';
+import { test as apiRequestFixture } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/api-request/fixtures';
+import { createAuthFixtures } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/auth-session';
+import { mergeTests } from '@playwright/test';
+
+// Merge API request + auth fixtures
+const authFixtureTest = base.extend(createAuthFixtures());
+const test = mergeTests(apiRequestFixture, authFixtureTest);
+
+test('should update bio via API', async ({ apiRequest, authToken }) => {
+  const { status, body } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'PATCH',
+    path: '/api/profile',
+    body: { bio: 'Updated bio' },  
+    headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${authToken}` }
+  });
+
+  expect(status).toBe(200);
+  expect(body.bio).toBe('Updated bio');
+});
+```
+
+**Note:** `authToken` requires auth-session fixture setup. See [Integrate Playwright Utils](/docs/tea/how-to/customization/integrate-playwright-utils.md#auth-session).
+
+### 2. Add Avatar Upload Tests
+
+**Tests Needed:**
+```typescript
+// tests/e2e/profile-edit.spec.ts
+test('should upload avatar image', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Edit' }).click();
+
+  // Upload file
+  await page.setInputFiles('[type="file"]', 'fixtures/avatar.png');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Save' }).click();
+
+  // Verify uploaded image displays
+  await expect(page.locator('img[alt="Profile avatar"]')).toBeVisible();
+});
+
+// tests/api/profile.spec.ts
+import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test';
+import fs from 'fs/promises';
+
+test('should accept valid image upload', async ({ request }) => {
+  const response = await request.post('/api/profile/avatar', {
+    multipart: {
+      file: {
+        name: 'avatar.png',
+        mimeType: 'image/png',
+        buffer: await fs.readFile('fixtures/avatar.png')
+      }
+    }
+  });
+  expect(response.ok()).toBeTruthy();
+});
+```
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+After reviewing traceability:
+
+1. **Fix critical gaps** - Add tests for P0/P1 requirements
+2. **Run `test-review`** - Ensure new tests meet quality standards
+3. **Run Phase 2** - Make gate decision after gaps addressed
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Quality Gate Decision
+
+After Phase 1 coverage analysis is complete, run Phase 2 for the gate decision.
+
+**Prerequisites:**
+- Phase 1 traceability matrix complete
+- Test execution results available (must have test results)
+
+**Note:** Phase 2 will skip if test execution results aren't provided. The workflow requires actual test run results to make gate decisions.
+
+### 7. Run Phase 2
+
+```
+trace
+```
+
+Select "Phase 2: Quality Gate Decision"
+
+### 8. Provide Additional Context
+
+TEA will ask for:
+
+**Gate Type:**
+- Story gate (small release)
+- Epic gate (larger release)
+- Release gate (production deployment)
+- Hotfix gate (emergency fix)
+
+**Decision Mode:**
+- **Deterministic** - Rule-based (coverage %, quality scores)
+- **Manual** - Team decision with TEA guidance
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Gate type: Epic gate
+Decision mode: Deterministic
+```
+
+### 9. Provide Supporting Evidence
+
+TEA will request:
+
+**Phase 1 Results:**
+```
+traceability-matrix.md (from Phase 1)
+```
+
+**Test Quality (Optional):**
+```
+test-review.md (from test-review)
+```
+
+**NFR Assessment (Optional):**
+```
+nfr-assessment.md (from nfr-assess)
+```
+
+### 10. Review Gate Decision
+
+TEA makes evidence-based gate decision and writes to separate file.
+
+#### Gate Decision (`gate-decision-{gate_type}-{story_id}.md`):
+
+```markdown
+---
+
+# Phase 2: Quality Gate Decision
+
+**Gate Type:** Epic Gate
+**Decision:** PASS ✅
+**Date:** 2026-01-13
+**Approvers:** Product Manager, Tech Lead, QA Lead
+
+## Decision Summary
+
+**Verdict:** Ready to release
+
+**Evidence:**
+- P0 coverage: 100% (5/5 requirements)
+- P1 coverage: 100% (6/6 requirements)
+- P2 coverage: 33% (1/3 requirements) - acceptable
+- Test quality score: 84/100
+- NFR assessment: PASS
+
+## Coverage Analysis
+
+| Priority | Required Coverage | Actual Coverage | Status                |
+| -------- | ----------------- | --------------- | --------------------- |
+| **P0**   | 100%              | 100%            | ✅ PASS                |
+| **P1**   | 90%               | 100%            | ✅ PASS                |
+| **P2**   | 50%               | 33%             | ⚠️ Below (acceptable)  |
+| **P3**   | 20%               | 0%              | ✅ PASS (low priority) |
+
+**Rationale:**
+- All critical path (P0) requirements fully tested
+- All high-value (P1) requirements fully tested
+- P2 gap (profile export) is low risk and deferred to next release
+
+## Quality Metrics
+
+| Metric             | Threshold | Actual | Status |
+| ------------------ | --------- | ------ | ------ |
+| P0/P1 Coverage     | >95%      | 100%   | ✅      |
+| Test Quality Score | >80       | 84     | ✅      |
+| NFR Status         | PASS      | PASS   | ✅      |
+
+## Risks and Mitigations
+
+### Accepted Risks
+
+**Risk 1: Profile export not tested (P2)**
+- **Impact:** Medium (users can't export profile)
+- **Mitigation:** Feature flag disabled by default
+- **Plan:** Add tests in v1.3 release (February)
+- **Monitoring:** Track feature flag usage
+
+## Approvals
+
+- [x] **Product Manager** - Business requirements met (Approved: 2026-01-13)
+- [x] **Tech Lead** - Technical quality acceptable (Approved: 2026-01-13)
+- [x] **QA Lead** - Test coverage sufficient (Approved: 2026-01-13)
+
+## Next Steps
+
+### Deployment
+1. Merge to main branch
+2. Deploy to staging
+3. Run smoke tests in staging
+4. Deploy to production
+5. Monitor for 24 hours
+
+### Monitoring
+- Set alerts for profile endpoint (P99 > 200ms)
+- Track error rates (target: <0.1%)
+- Monitor profile export feature flag usage
+
+### Future Work
+- Add profile export tests (v1.3)
+- Expand P2 coverage to 50%
+```
+
+### Gate Decision Rules
+
+TEA uses deterministic rules when decision_mode = "deterministic":
+
+| P0 Coverage | P1 Coverage | Overall Coverage | Decision                     |
+| ----------- | ----------- | ---------------- | ---------------------------- |
+| 100%        | ≥90%        | ≥80%             | **PASS** ✅                   |
+| 100%        | 80-89%      | ≥80%             | **CONCERNS** ⚠️               |
+| <100%       | Any         | Any              | **FAIL** ❌                   |
+| Any         | <80%        | Any              | **FAIL** ❌                   |
+| Any         | Any         | <80%             | **FAIL** ❌                   |
+| Any         | Any         | Any              | **WAIVED** ⏭️ (with approval) |
+
+**Detailed Rules:**
+- **PASS:** P0=100%, P1≥90%, Overall≥80%
+- **CONCERNS:** P0=100%, P1 80-89%, Overall≥80% (below threshold but not critical)
+- **FAIL:** P0<100% OR P1<80% OR Overall<80% (critical gaps)
+
+**PASS** ✅: All criteria met, ready to release
+
+**CONCERNS** ⚠️: Some criteria not met, but:
+- Mitigation plan exists
+- Risk is acceptable
+- Team approves proceeding
+- Monitoring in place
+
+**FAIL** ❌: Critical criteria not met:
+- P0 requirements not tested
+- Critical security vulnerabilities
+- System is broken
+- Cannot deploy
+
+**WAIVED** ⏭️: Business approves proceeding despite concerns:
+- Documented business justification
+- Accepted risks quantified
+- Approver signatures
+- Future plans documented
+
+### Example CONCERNS Decision
+
+```markdown
+## Decision Summary
+
+**Verdict:** CONCERNS ⚠️ - Proceed with monitoring
+
+**Evidence:**
+- P0 coverage: 100%
+- P1 coverage: 85% (below 90% target)
+- Test quality: 78/100 (below 80 target)
+
+**Gaps:**
+- 1 P1 requirement not tested (avatar upload)
+- Test quality score slightly below threshold
+
+**Mitigation:**
+- Avatar upload not critical for v1.2 launch
+- Test quality issues are minor (no flakiness)
+- Monitoring alerts configured
+
+**Approvals:**
+- Product Manager: APPROVED (business priority to launch)
+- Tech Lead: APPROVED (technical risk acceptable)
+```
+
+### Example FAIL Decision
+
+```markdown
+## Decision Summary
+
+**Verdict:** FAIL ❌ - Cannot release
+
+**Evidence:**
+- P0 coverage: 60% (below 95% threshold)
+- Critical security vulnerability (CVE-2024-12345)
+- Test quality: 55/100
+
+**Blockers:**
+1. **Login flow not tested** (P0 requirement)
+   - Critical path completely untested
+   - Must add E2E and API tests
+
+2. **SQL injection vulnerability**
+   - Critical security issue
+   - Must fix before deployment
+
+**Actions Required:**
+1. Add login tests (QA team, 2 days)
+2. Fix SQL injection (backend team, 1 day)
+3. Re-run security scan (DevOps, 1 hour)
+4. Re-run trace after fixes
+
+**Cannot proceed until all blockers resolved.**
+```
+
+## What You Get
+
+### Phase 1: Traceability Matrix
+- Requirement-to-test mapping
+- Coverage classification (FULL/PARTIAL/NONE)
+- Gap identification with priorities
+- Actionable recommendations
+
+### Phase 2: Gate Decision
+- Go/no-go verdict (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED)
+- Evidence summary
+- Approval signatures
+- Next steps and monitoring plan
+
+## Usage Patterns
+
+### Greenfield Projects
+
+**Phase 3:**
+```
+After architecture complete:
+1. Run test-design (system-level)
+2. Run trace Phase 1 (baseline)
+3. Use for implementation-readiness gate
+```
+
+**Phase 4:**
+```
+After each epic/story:
+1. Run trace Phase 1 (refresh coverage)
+2. Identify gaps
+3. Add missing tests
+```
+
+**Release Gate:**
+```
+Before deployment:
+1. Run trace Phase 1 (final coverage check)
+2. Run trace Phase 2 (make gate decision)
+3. Get approvals
+4. Deploy (if PASS or WAIVED)
+```
+
+### Brownfield Projects
+
+**Phase 2:**
+```
+Before planning new work:
+1. Run trace Phase 1 (establish baseline)
+2. Understand existing coverage
+3. Plan testing strategy
+```
+
+**Phase 4:**
+```
+After each epic/story:
+1. Run trace Phase 1 (refresh)
+2. Compare to baseline
+3. Track coverage improvement
+```
+
+**Release Gate:**
+```
+Before deployment:
+1. Run trace Phase 1 (final check)
+2. Run trace Phase 2 (gate decision)
+3. Compare to baseline
+4. Deploy if coverage maintained or improved
+```
+
+## Tips
+
+### Run Phase 1 Frequently
+
+Don't wait until release gate:
+
+```
+After Story 1: trace Phase 1 (identify gaps early)
+After Story 2: trace Phase 1 (refresh)
+After Story 3: trace Phase 1 (refresh)
+Before Release: trace Phase 1 + Phase 2 (final gate)
+```
+
+**Benefit:** Catch gaps early when they're cheap to fix.
+
+### Use Coverage Trends
+
+Track improvement over time:
+
+```markdown
+## Coverage Trend
+
+| Date       | Epic     | P0/P1 Coverage | Quality Score | Status         |
+| ---------- | -------- | -------------- | ------------- | -------------- |
+| 2026-01-01 | Baseline | 45%            | -             | Starting point |
+| 2026-01-08 | Epic 1   | 78%            | 72            | Improving      |
+| 2026-01-15 | Epic 2   | 92%            | 84            | Near target    |
+| 2026-01-20 | Epic 3   | 100%           | 88            | Ready!         |
+```
+
+### Set Coverage Targets by Priority
+
+Don't aim for 100% across all priorities:
+
+**Recommended Targets:**
+- **P0:** 100% (critical path must be tested)
+- **P1:** 90% (high-value scenarios)
+- **P2:** 50% (nice-to-have features)
+- **P3:** 20% (low-value edge cases)
+
+### Use Classification Strategically
+
+**FULL** ✅: Requirement completely tested
+- E2E test covers full user workflow
+- API test validates backend behavior
+- All acceptance criteria covered
+
+**PARTIAL** ⚠️: Some aspects tested
+- E2E test exists but missing scenarios
+- API test exists but incomplete
+- Some acceptance criteria not covered
+
+**NONE** ❌: No tests exist
+- Requirement identified but not tested
+- May be intentional (low priority) or oversight
+
+**Classification helps prioritize:**
+- Fix NONE coverage for P0/P1 requirements first
+- Enhance PARTIAL coverage for P0 requirements
+- Accept PARTIAL or NONE for P2/P3 if time-constrained
+
+### Automate Gate Decisions
+
+Use traceability in CI:
+
+```yaml
+# .github/workflows/gate-check.yml
+- name: Check coverage
+  run: |
+    # Run trace Phase 1
+    # Parse coverage percentages
+    if [ $P0_COVERAGE -lt 95 ]; then
+      echo "P0 coverage below 95%"
+      exit 1
+    fi
+```
+
+### Document Waivers Clearly
+
+If proceeding with WAIVED:
+
+**Required:**
+```markdown
+## Waiver Documentation
+
+**Waived By:** VP Engineering, Product Lead
+**Date:** 2026-01-15
+**Gate Type:** Release Gate v1.2
+
+**Justification:**
+Business critical to launch by Q1 for investor demo.
+Performance concerns acceptable for initial user base.
+
+**Conditions:**
+- Set monitoring alerts for P99 > 300ms
+- Plan optimization for v1.3 (due February 28)
+- Monitor user feedback closely
+
+**Accepted Risks:**
+- 1% of users may experience 350ms latency
+- Avatar upload feature incomplete
+- Profile export deferred to next release
+
+**Quantified Impact:**
+- Affects <100 users at current scale
+- Workaround exists (manual export)
+- Monitoring will catch issues early
+
+**Approvals:**
+- VP Engineering: [Signature] Date: 2026-01-15
+- Product Lead: [Signature] Date: 2026-01-15
+- QA Lead: [Signature] Date: 2026-01-15
+```
+
+## Common Issues
+
+### Too Many Gaps to Fix
+
+**Problem:** Phase 1 shows 50 uncovered requirements.
+
+**Solution:** Prioritize ruthlessly:
+1. Fix all P0 gaps (critical path)
+2. Fix high-risk P1 gaps
+3. Accept low-risk P1 gaps with mitigation
+4. Defer all P2/P3 gaps
+
+**Don't try to fix everything** - focus on what matters for release.
+
+### Can't Find Test Coverage
+
+**Problem:** Tests exist but TEA can't map them to requirements.
+
+**Cause:** Tests don't reference requirements.
+
+**Solution:** Add traceability comments:
+```typescript
+test('should display profile', async ({ page }) => {
+  // Covers: Requirement 1 - User can view profile
+  // Acceptance criteria: Navigate to /profile, see name/email
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+  await expect(page.getByText('Test User')).toBeVisible();
+});
+```
+
+Or use test IDs:
+```typescript
+test('[REQ-1] should display profile', async ({ page }) => {
+  // Test code...
+});
+```
+
+### Unclear What "FULL" vs "PARTIAL" Means
+
+**FULL** ✅: All acceptance criteria tested
+```
+Requirement: User can edit profile
+Acceptance criteria:
+  - Can modify name ✅ Tested
+  - Can modify email ✅ Tested
+  - Can upload avatar ✅ Tested
+  - Changes persist ✅ Tested
+Result: FULL coverage
+```
+
+**PARTIAL** ⚠️: Some criteria tested, some not
+```
+Requirement: User can edit profile
+Acceptance criteria:
+  - Can modify name ✅ Tested
+  - Can modify email ✅ Tested
+  - Can upload avatar ❌ Not tested
+  - Changes persist ✅ Tested
+Result: PARTIAL coverage (3/4 criteria)
+```
+
+### Gate Decision Unclear
+
+**Problem:** Not sure if PASS or CONCERNS is appropriate.
+
+**Guideline:**
+
+**Use PASS** ✅ if:
+- All P0 requirements 100% covered
+- P1 requirements >90% covered
+- No critical issues
+- NFRs met
+
+**Use CONCERNS** ⚠️ if:
+- P1 coverage 85-90% (close to threshold)
+- Minor quality issues (score 70-79)
+- NFRs have mitigation plans
+- Team agrees risk is acceptable
+
+**Use FAIL** ❌ if:
+- P0 coverage <100% (critical path gaps)
+- P1 coverage <85%
+- Critical security/performance issues
+- No mitigation possible
+
+**When in doubt, use CONCERNS** and document the risk.
+
+## Related Guides
+
+- [How to Run Test Design](/docs/tea/how-to/workflows/run-test-design.md) - Provides requirements for traceability
+- [How to Run Test Review](/docs/tea/how-to/workflows/run-test-review.md) - Quality scores feed gate
+- [How to Run NFR Assessment](/docs/tea/how-to/workflows/run-nfr-assess.md) - NFR status feeds gate
+
+## Understanding the Concepts
+
+- [Risk-Based Testing](/docs/tea/explanation/risk-based-testing.md) - Why P0 vs P3 matters
+- [TEA Overview](/docs/tea/explanation/tea-overview.md) - Gate decisions in context
+
+## Reference
+
+- [Command: *trace](/docs/tea/reference/commands.md#trace) - Full command reference
+- [TEA Configuration](/docs/tea/reference/configuration.md) - Config options
+
+---
+
+Generated with [BMad Method](https://bmad-method.org) - TEA (Test Architect)