bmad-method 5.1.3 → 6.0.0-Beta.1

package/docs/tea/explanation/test-quality-standards.md

@@ -0,0 +1,907 @@
+---
+title: "Test Quality Standards Explained"
+description: Understanding TEA's Definition of Done for deterministic, isolated, and maintainable tests
+---
+
+# Test Quality Standards Explained
+
+Test quality standards define what makes a test "good" in TEA. These aren't suggestions - they're the Definition of Done that prevents tests from rotting in review.
+
+## Overview
+
+**TEA's Quality Principles:**
+- **Deterministic** - Same result every run
+- **Isolated** - No dependencies on other tests
+- **Explicit** - Assertions visible in test body
+- **Focused** - Single responsibility, appropriate size
+- **Fast** - Execute in reasonable time
+
+**Why these matter:** Tests that violate these principles create maintenance burden, slow down development, and lose team trust.
+
+## The Problem
+
+### Tests That Rot in Review
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ The anti-pattern: This test will rot
+test('user can do stuff', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/');
+  await page.waitForTimeout(5000);  // Non-deterministic
+
+  if (await page.locator('.banner').isVisible()) {  // Conditional
+    await page.click('.dismiss');
+  }
+
+  try {  // Try-catch for flow control
+    await page.click('#load-more');
+  } catch (e) {
+    // Silently continue
+  }
+
+  // ... 300 more lines of test logic
+  // ... no clear assertions
+});
+```
+
+**What's wrong:**
+- **Hard wait** - Flaky, wastes time
+- **Conditional** - Non-deterministic behavior
+- **Try-catch** - Hides failures
+- **Too large** - Hard to maintain
+- **Vague name** - Unclear purpose
+- **No explicit assertions** - What's being tested?
+
+**Result:** PR review comments: "This test is flaky, please fix" → never merged → test deleted → coverage lost
+
+### AI-Generated Tests Without Standards
+
+AI-generated tests without quality guardrails:
+
+```typescript
+// AI generates 50 tests like this:
+test('test1', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/');
+  await page.waitForTimeout(3000);
+  // ... flaky, vague, redundant
+});
+
+test('test2', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/');
+  await page.waitForTimeout(3000);
+  // ... duplicates test1
+});
+
+// ... 48 more similar tests
+```
+
+**Result:** 50 tests, 80% redundant, 90% flaky, 0% trusted by team - low-quality outputs that create maintenance burden.
+
+## The Solution: TEA's Quality Standards
+
+### 1. Determinism (No Flakiness)
+
+**Rule:** Test produces same result every run.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- ❌ No hard waits (`waitForTimeout`)
+- ❌ No conditionals for flow control (`if/else`)
+- ❌ No try-catch for flow control
+- ✅ Use network-first patterns (wait for responses)
+- ✅ Use explicit waits (waitForSelector, waitForResponse)
+
+**Bad Example:**
+```typescript
+test('flaky test', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.click('button');
+  await page.waitForTimeout(2000);  // ❌ Might be too short
+
+  if (await page.locator('.modal').isVisible()) {  // ❌ Non-deterministic
+    await page.click('.dismiss');
+  }
+
+  try {  // ❌ Silently handles errors
+    await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();
+  } catch (e) {
+    // Test passes even if assertion fails!
+  }
+});
+```
+
+**Good Example (Vanilla Playwright):**
+```typescript
+test('deterministic test', async ({ page }) => {
+  const responsePromise = page.waitForResponse(
+    resp => resp.url().includes('/api/submit') && resp.ok()
+  );
+
+  await page.click('button');
+  await responsePromise;  // ✅ Wait for actual response
+
+  // Modal should ALWAYS show (make it deterministic)
+  await expect(page.locator('.modal')).toBeVisible();
+  await page.click('.dismiss');
+
+  // Explicit assertion (fails if not visible)
+  await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();
+});
+```
+
+**With Playwright Utils (Even Cleaner):**
+```typescript
+import { test } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/fixtures';
+import { expect } from '@playwright/test';
+
+test('deterministic test', async ({ page, interceptNetworkCall }) => {
+  const submitCall = interceptNetworkCall({
+    method: 'POST',
+    url: '**/api/submit'
+  });
+
+  await page.click('button');
+
+  // Wait for actual response (automatic JSON parsing)
+  const { status, responseJson } = await submitCall;
+  expect(status).toBe(200);
+
+  // Modal should ALWAYS show (make it deterministic)
+  await expect(page.locator('.modal')).toBeVisible();
+  await page.click('.dismiss');
+
+  // Explicit assertion (fails if not visible)
+  await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();
+});
+```
+
+**Why both work:**
+- Waits for actual event (network response)
+- No conditionals (behavior is deterministic)
+- Assertions fail loudly (no silent failures)
+- Same result every run (deterministic)
+
+**Playwright Utils additional benefits:**
+- Automatic JSON parsing
+- `{ status, responseJson }` structure (can validate response data)
+- No manual `await response.json()`
+
+### 2. Isolation (No Dependencies)
+
+**Rule:** Test runs independently, no shared state.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- ✅ Self-cleaning (cleanup after test)
+- ✅ No global state dependencies
+- ✅ Can run in parallel
+- ✅ Can run in any order
+- ✅ Use unique test data
+
+**Bad Example:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ Tests depend on execution order
+let userId: string;  // Shared global state
+
+test('create user', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
+  const { body } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'POST',
+    path: '/api/users',
+    body: { email: 'test@example.com' }   (hard-coded)
+  });
+  userId = body.id;  // Store in global
+});
+
+test('update user', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
+  // Depends on previous test setting userId
+  await apiRequest({
+    method: 'PATCH',
+    path: `/api/users/${userId}`,
+    body: { name: 'Updated' }  
+  });
+  // No cleanup - leaves user in database
+});
+```
+
+**Problems:**
+- Tests must run in order (can't parallelize)
+- Second test fails if first skipped (`.only`)
+- Hard-coded data causes conflicts
+- No cleanup (database fills with test data)
+
+**Good Example (Vanilla Playwright):**
+```typescript
+test('should update user profile', async ({ request }) => {
+  // Create unique test data
+  const testEmail = `test-${Date.now()}@example.com`;
+
+  // Setup: Create user
+  const createResp = await request.post('/api/users', {
+    data: { email: testEmail, name: 'Original' }
+  });
+  const user = await createResp.json();
+
+  // Test: Update user
+  const updateResp = await request.patch(`/api/users/${user.id}`, {
+    data: { name: 'Updated' }
+  });
+  const updated = await updateResp.json();
+
+  expect(updated.name).toBe('Updated');
+
+  // Cleanup: Delete user
+  await request.delete(`/api/users/${user.id}`);
+});
+```
+
+**Even Better (With Playwright Utils):**
+```typescript
+import { test } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/api-request/fixtures';
+import { expect } from '@playwright/test';
+import { faker } from '@faker-js/faker';
+
+test('should update user profile', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
+  // Dynamic unique test data
+  const testEmail = faker.internet.email();
+
+  // Setup: Create user
+  const { status: createStatus, body: user } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'POST',
+    path: '/api/users',
+    body: { email: testEmail, name: faker.person.fullName() }  
+  });
+
+  expect(createStatus).toBe(201);
+
+  // Test: Update user
+  const { status, body: updated } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'PATCH',
+    path: `/api/users/${user.id}`,
+    body: { name: 'Updated Name' }  
+  });
+
+  expect(status).toBe(200);
+  expect(updated.name).toBe('Updated Name');
+
+  // Cleanup: Delete user
+  await apiRequest({
+    method: 'DELETE',
+    path: `/api/users/${user.id}`
+  });
+});
+```
+
+**Playwright Utils Benefits:**
+- `{ status, body }` destructuring (cleaner than `response.status()` + `await response.json()`)
+- No manual `await response.json()`
+- Automatic retry for 5xx errors
+- Optional schema validation with `.validateSchema()`
+
+**Why it works:**
+- No global state
+- Unique test data (no conflicts)
+- Self-cleaning (deletes user)
+- Can run in parallel
+- Can run in any order
+
+### 3. Explicit Assertions (No Hidden Validation)
+
+**Rule:** Assertions visible in test body, not abstracted.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- ✅ Assertions in test code (not helper functions)
+- ✅ Specific assertions (not generic `toBeTruthy`)
+- ✅ Meaningful expectations (test actual behavior)
+
+**Bad Example:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ Assertions hidden in helper
+async function verifyProfilePage(page: Page) {
+  // Assertions buried in helper (not visible in test)
+  await expect(page.locator('h1')).toBeVisible();
+  await expect(page.locator('.email')).toContainText('@');
+  await expect(page.locator('.name')).not.toBeEmpty();
+}
+
+test('profile page', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+  await verifyProfilePage(page);  // What's being verified?
+});
+```
+
+**Problems:**
+- Can't see what's tested (need to read helper)
+- Hard to debug failures (which assertion failed?)
+- Reduces test readability
+- Hides important validation
+
+**Good Example:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ Assertions explicit in test
+test('should display profile with correct data', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+
+  // Explicit assertions - clear what's tested
+  await expect(page.locator('h1')).toContainText('Test User');
+  await expect(page.locator('.email')).toContainText('test@example.com');
+  await expect(page.locator('.bio')).toContainText('Software Engineer');
+  await expect(page.locator('img[alt="Avatar"]')).toBeVisible();
+});
+```
+
+**Why it works:**
+- See what's tested at a glance
+- Debug failures easily (know which assertion failed)
+- Test is self-documenting
+- No hidden behavior
+
+**Exception:** Use helper for setup/cleanup, not assertions.
+
+### 4. Focused Tests (Appropriate Size)
+
+**Rule:** Test has single responsibility, reasonable size.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- ✅ Test size < 300 lines
+- ✅ Single responsibility (test one thing well)
+- ✅ Clear describe/test names
+- ✅ Appropriate scope (not too granular, not too broad)
+
+**Bad Example:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ 500-line test testing everything
+test('complete user flow', async ({ page }) => {
+  // Registration (50 lines)
+  await page.goto('/register');
+  await page.fill('#email', 'test@example.com');
+  // ... 48 more lines
+
+  // Profile setup (100 lines)
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+  // ... 98 more lines
+
+  // Settings configuration (150 lines)
+  await page.goto('/settings');
+  // ... 148 more lines
+
+  // Data export (200 lines)
+  await page.goto('/export');
+  // ... 198 more lines
+
+  // Total: 500 lines, testing 4 different features
+});
+```
+
+**Problems:**
+- Failure in line 50 prevents testing lines 51-500
+- Hard to understand (what's being tested?)
+- Slow to execute (testing too much)
+- Hard to debug (which feature failed?)
+
+**Good Example:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ Focused tests - one responsibility each
+
+test('should register new user', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/register');
+  await page.fill('#email', 'test@example.com');
+  await page.fill('#password', 'password123');
+  await page.click('button[type="submit"]');
+
+  await expect(page).toHaveURL('/welcome');
+  await expect(page.locator('h1')).toContainText('Welcome');
+});
+
+test('should configure user profile', async ({ page, authSession }) => {
+  await authSession.login({ email: 'test@example.com', password: 'pass' });
+  await page.goto('/profile');
+
+  await page.fill('#name', 'Test User');
+  await page.fill('#bio', 'Software Engineer');
+  await page.click('button:has-text("Save")');
+
+  await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();
+});
+
+// ... separate tests for settings, export (each < 50 lines)
+```
+
+**Why it works:**
+- Each test has one responsibility
+- Failure is easy to diagnose
+- Can run tests independently
+- Test names describe exactly what's tested
+
+### 5. Fast Execution (Performance Budget)
+
+**Rule:** Individual test executes in < 1.5 minutes.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- ✅ Test execution < 90 seconds
+- ✅ Efficient selectors (getByRole > XPath)
+- ✅ Minimal redundant actions
+- ✅ Parallel execution enabled
+
+**Bad Example:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ Slow test (3+ minutes)
+test('slow test', async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto('/');
+  await page.waitForTimeout(10000);  // 10s wasted
+
+  // Navigate through 10 pages (2 minutes)
+  for (let i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
+    await page.click(`a[href="/page-${i}"]`);
+    await page.waitForTimeout(5000);  // 5s per page = 50s wasted
+  }
+
+  // Complex XPath selector (slow)
+  await page.locator('//div[@class="container"]/section[3]/div[2]/p').click();
+
+  // More waiting
+  await page.waitForTimeout(30000);  // 30s wasted
+
+  await expect(page.locator('.result')).toBeVisible();
+});
+```
+
+**Total time:** 3+ minutes (95 seconds wasted on hard waits)
+
+**Good Example (Vanilla Playwright):**
+```typescript
+// ✅ Fast test (< 10 seconds)
+test('fast test', async ({ page }) => {
+  // Set up response wait
+  const apiPromise = page.waitForResponse(
+    resp => resp.url().includes('/api/result') && resp.ok()
+  );
+
+  await page.goto('/');
+
+  // Direct navigation (skip intermediate pages)
+  await page.goto('/page-10');
+
+  // Efficient selector
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Submit' }).click();
+
+  // Wait for actual response (fast when API is fast)
+  await apiPromise;
+
+  await expect(page.locator('.result')).toBeVisible();
+});
+```
+
+**With Playwright Utils:**
+```typescript
+import { test } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/fixtures';
+import { expect } from '@playwright/test';
+
+test('fast test', async ({ page, interceptNetworkCall }) => {
+  // Set up interception
+  const resultCall = interceptNetworkCall({
+    method: 'GET',
+    url: '**/api/result'
+  });
+
+  await page.goto('/');
+
+  // Direct navigation (skip intermediate pages)
+  await page.goto('/page-10');
+
+  // Efficient selector
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Submit' }).click();
+
+  // Wait for actual response (automatic JSON parsing)
+  const { status, responseJson } = await resultCall;
+
+  expect(status).toBe(200);
+  await expect(page.locator('.result')).toBeVisible();
+
+  // Can also validate response data if needed
+  // expect(responseJson.data).toBeDefined();
+});
+```
+
+**Total time:** < 10 seconds (no wasted waits)
+
+**Both examples achieve:**
+- No hard waits (wait for actual events)
+- Direct navigation (skip unnecessary steps)
+- Efficient selectors (getByRole)
+- Fast execution
+
+**Playwright Utils bonus:**
+- Can validate API response data easily
+- Automatic JSON parsing
+- Cleaner API
+
+## TEA's Quality Scoring
+
+TEA reviews tests against these standards in `test-review`:
+
+### Scoring Categories (100 points total)
+
+**Determinism (35 points):**
+- No hard waits: 10 points
+- No conditionals: 10 points
+- No try-catch flow: 10 points
+- Network-first patterns: 5 points
+
+**Isolation (25 points):**
+- Self-cleaning: 15 points
+- No global state: 5 points
+- Parallel-safe: 5 points
+
+**Assertions (20 points):**
+- Explicit in test body: 10 points
+- Specific and meaningful: 10 points
+
+**Structure (10 points):**
+- Test size < 300 lines: 5 points
+- Clear naming: 5 points
+
+**Performance (10 points):**
+- Execution time < 1.5 min: 10 points
+
+#### Quality Scoring Breakdown
+
+```mermaid
+%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'fontSize':'14px'}}}%%
+pie title Test Quality Score (100 points)
+    "Determinism" : 35
+    "Isolation" : 25
+    "Assertions" : 20
+    "Structure" : 10
+    "Performance" : 10
+```
+
+```mermaid
+%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'fontSize':'13px'}}}%%
+flowchart LR
+    subgraph Det[Determinism - 35 pts]
+        D1[No hard waits<br/>10 pts]
+        D2[No conditionals<br/>10 pts]
+        D3[No try-catch flow<br/>10 pts]
+        D4[Network-first<br/>5 pts]
+    end
+
+    subgraph Iso[Isolation - 25 pts]
+        I1[Self-cleaning<br/>15 pts]
+        I2[No global state<br/>5 pts]
+        I3[Parallel-safe<br/>5 pts]
+    end
+
+    subgraph Assrt[Assertions - 20 pts]
+        A1[Explicit in body<br/>10 pts]
+        A2[Specific/meaningful<br/>10 pts]
+    end
+
+    subgraph Struct[Structure - 10 pts]
+        S1[Size < 300 lines<br/>5 pts]
+        S2[Clear naming<br/>5 pts]
+    end
+
+    subgraph Perf[Performance - 10 pts]
+        P1[Time < 1.5 min<br/>10 pts]
+    end
+
+    Det --> Total([Total: 100 points])
+    Iso --> Total
+    Assrt --> Total
+    Struct --> Total
+    Perf --> Total
+
+    style Det fill:#ffebee,stroke:#c62828,stroke-width:2px
+    style Iso fill:#e3f2fd,stroke:#1565c0,stroke-width:2px
+    style Assrt fill:#f3e5f5,stroke:#6a1b9a,stroke-width:2px
+    style Struct fill:#fff9c4,stroke:#f57f17,stroke-width:2px
+    style Perf fill:#e8f5e9,stroke:#2e7d32,stroke-width:2px
+    style Total fill:#fff,stroke:#000,stroke-width:3px
+```
+
+### Score Interpretation
+
+| Score      | Interpretation | Action                                 |
+| ---------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------- |
+| **90-100** | Excellent      | Production-ready, minimal changes      |
+| **80-89**  | Good           | Minor improvements recommended         |
+| **70-79**  | Acceptable     | Address recommendations before release |
+| **60-69**  | Needs Work     | Fix critical issues                    |
+| **< 60**   | Critical       | Significant refactoring needed         |
+
+## Comparison: Good vs Bad Tests
+
+### Example: User Login
+
+**Bad Test (Score: 45/100):**
+```typescript
+test('login test', async ({ page }) => {  // Vague name
+  await page.goto('/login');
+  await page.waitForTimeout(3000);  // -10 (hard wait)
+
+  await page.fill('[name="email"]', 'test@example.com');
+  await page.fill('[name="password"]', 'password');
+
+  if (await page.locator('.remember-me').isVisible()) {  // -10 (conditional)
+    await page.click('.remember-me');
+  }
+
+  await page.click('button');
+
+  try {  // -10 (try-catch flow)
+    await page.waitForURL('/dashboard', { timeout: 5000 });
+  } catch (e) {
+    // Ignore navigation failure
+  }
+
+  // No assertions! -10
+  // No cleanup! -10
+});
+```
+
+**Issues:**
+- Determinism: 5/35 (hard wait, conditional, try-catch)
+- Isolation: 10/25 (no cleanup)
+- Assertions: 0/20 (no assertions!)
+- Structure: 15/10 (okay)
+- Performance: 5/10 (slow)
+- **Total: 45/100**
+
+**Good Test (Score: 95/100):**
+```typescript
+test('should login with valid credentials and redirect to dashboard', async ({ page, authSession }) => {
+  // Use fixture for deterministic auth
+  const loginPromise = page.waitForResponse(
+    resp => resp.url().includes('/api/auth/login') && resp.ok()
+  );
+
+  await page.goto('/login');
+  await page.getByLabel('Email').fill('test@example.com');
+  await page.getByLabel('Password').fill('password123');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Sign in' }).click();
+
+  // Wait for actual API response
+  const response = await loginPromise;
+  const { token } = await response.json();
+
+  // Explicit assertions
+  expect(token).toBeDefined();
+  await expect(page).toHaveURL('/dashboard');
+  await expect(page.getByText('Welcome back')).toBeVisible();
+
+  // Cleanup handled by authSession fixture
+});
+```
+
+**Quality:**
+- Determinism: 35/35 (network-first, no conditionals)
+- Isolation: 25/25 (fixture handles cleanup)
+- Assertions: 20/20 (explicit and specific)
+- Structure: 10/10 (clear name, focused)
+- Performance: 5/10 (< 1 min)
+- **Total: 95/100**
+
+### Example: API Testing
+
+**Bad Test (Score: 50/100):**
+```typescript
+test('api test', async ({ request }) => {
+  const response = await request.post('/api/users', {
+    data: { email: 'test@example.com' }  // Hard-coded (conflicts)
+  });
+
+  if (response.ok()) {  // Conditional
+    const user = await response.json();
+    // Weak assertion
+    expect(user).toBeTruthy();
+  }
+
+  // No cleanup - user left in database
+});
+```
+
+**Good Test (Score: 92/100):**
+```typescript
+test('should create user with valid data', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
+  // Unique test data
+  const testEmail = `test-${Date.now()}@example.com`;
+
+  // Create user
+  const { status, body } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'POST',
+    path: '/api/users',
+    body: { email: testEmail, name: 'Test User' }
+  });
+
+  // Explicit assertions
+  expect(status).toBe(201);
+  expect(body.id).toBeDefined();
+  expect(body.email).toBe(testEmail);
+  expect(body.name).toBe('Test User');
+
+  // Cleanup
+  await apiRequest({
+    method: 'DELETE',
+    path: `/api/users/${body.id}`
+  });
+});
+```
+
+## How TEA Enforces Standards
+
+### During Test Generation (`atdd`, `automate`)
+
+TEA generates tests following standards by default:
+
+```typescript
+// TEA-generated test (automatically follows standards)
+test('should submit contact form', async ({ page }) => {
+  // Network-first pattern (no hard waits)
+  const submitPromise = page.waitForResponse(
+    resp => resp.url().includes('/api/contact') && resp.ok()
+  );
+
+  // Accessible selectors (resilient)
+  await page.getByLabel('Name').fill('Test User');
+  await page.getByLabel('Email').fill('test@example.com');
+  await page.getByLabel('Message').fill('Test message');
+  await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Send' }).click();
+
+  const response = await submitPromise;
+  const result = await response.json();
+
+  // Explicit assertions
+  expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+  await expect(page.getByText('Message sent')).toBeVisible();
+
+  // Size: 15 lines (< 300 ✓)
+  // Execution: ~2 seconds (< 90s ✓)
+});
+```
+
+### During Test Review (`test-review`)
+
+TEA audits tests and flags violations:
+
+```markdown
+## Critical Issues
+
+### Hard Wait Detected (tests/login.spec.ts:23)
+**Issue:** `await page.waitForTimeout(3000)`
+**Score Impact:** -10 (Determinism)
+**Fix:** Use network-first pattern
+
+### Conditional Flow Control (tests/profile.spec.ts:45)
+**Issue:** `if (await page.locator('.banner').isVisible())`
+**Score Impact:** -10 (Determinism)
+**Fix:** Make banner presence deterministic
+
+## Recommendations
+
+### Extract Fixture (tests/auth.spec.ts)
+**Issue:** Login code repeated 5 times
+**Score Impact:** -3 (Structure)
+**Fix:** Extract to authSession fixture
+```
+
+## Definition of Done Checklist
+
+When is a test "done"?
+
+**Test Quality DoD:**
+- [ ] No hard waits (`waitForTimeout`)
+- [ ] No conditionals for flow control
+- [ ] No try-catch for flow control
+- [ ] Network-first patterns used
+- [ ] Assertions explicit in test body
+- [ ] Test size < 300 lines
+- [ ] Clear, descriptive test name
+- [ ] Self-cleaning (cleanup in afterEach or test)
+- [ ] Unique test data (no hard-coded values)
+- [ ] Execution time < 1.5 minutes
+- [ ] Can run in parallel
+- [ ] Can run in any order
+
+**Code Review DoD:**
+- [ ] Test quality score > 80
+- [ ] No critical issues from `test-review`
+- [ ] Follows project patterns (fixtures, selectors)
+- [ ] Test reviewed by team member
+
+## Common Quality Issues
+
+### Issue: "My test needs conditionals for optional elements"
+
+**Wrong approach:**
+```typescript
+if (await page.locator('.banner').isVisible()) {
+  await page.click('.dismiss');
+}
+```
+
+**Right approach - Make it deterministic:**
+```typescript
+// Option 1: Always expect banner
+await expect(page.locator('.banner')).toBeVisible();
+await page.click('.dismiss');
+
+// Option 2: Test both scenarios separately
+test('should show banner for new users', ...);
+test('should not show banner for returning users', ...);
+```
+
+### Issue: "My test needs try-catch for error handling"
+
+**Wrong approach:**
+```typescript
+try {
+  await page.click('#optional-button');
+} catch (e) {
+  // Silently continue
+}
+```
+
+**Right approach - Make failures explicit:**
+```typescript
+// Option 1: Button should exist
+await page.click('#optional-button');  // Fails loudly if missing
+
+// Option 2: Button might not exist (test both)
+test('should work with optional button', async ({ page }) => {
+  const hasButton = await page.locator('#optional-button').count() > 0;
+  if (hasButton) {
+    await page.click('#optional-button');
+  }
+  // But now you're testing optional behavior explicitly
+});
+```
+
+### Issue: "Hard waits are easier than network patterns"
+
+**Short-term:** Hard waits seem simpler
+**Long-term:** Flaky tests waste more time than learning network patterns
+
+**Investment:**
+- 30 minutes to learn network-first patterns
+- Prevents hundreds of hours debugging flaky tests
+- Tests run faster (no wasted waits)
+- Team trusts test suite
+
+## Technical Implementation
+
+For detailed test quality patterns, see:
+- [Test Quality Fragment](/docs/tea/reference/knowledge-base.md#quality-standards)
+- [Test Levels Framework Fragment](/docs/tea/reference/knowledge-base.md#quality-standards)
+- [Complete Knowledge Base Index](/docs/tea/reference/knowledge-base.md)
+
+## Related Concepts
+
+**Core TEA Concepts:**
+- [Risk-Based Testing](/docs/tea/explanation/risk-based-testing.md) - Quality scales with risk
+- [Knowledge Base System](/docs/tea/explanation/knowledge-base-system.md) - How standards are enforced
+- [Engagement Models](/docs/tea/explanation/engagement-models.md) - Quality in different models
+
+**Technical Patterns:**
+- [Network-First Patterns](/docs/tea/explanation/network-first-patterns.md) - Determinism explained
+- [Fixture Architecture](/docs/tea/explanation/fixture-architecture.md) - Isolation through fixtures
+
+**Overview:**
+- [TEA Overview](/docs/tea/explanation/tea-overview.md) - Quality standards in lifecycle
+- [Testing as Engineering](/docs/tea/explanation/testing-as-engineering.md) - Why quality matters
+
+## Practical Guides
+
+**Workflow Guides:**
+- [How to Run Test Review](/docs/tea/how-to/workflows/run-test-review.md) - Audit against these standards
+- [How to Run ATDD](/docs/tea/how-to/workflows/run-atdd.md) - Generate quality tests
+- [How to Run Automate](/docs/tea/how-to/workflows/run-automate.md) - Expand with quality
+
+**Use-Case Guides:**
+- [Using TEA with Existing Tests](/docs/tea/how-to/brownfield/use-tea-with-existing-tests.md) - Improve legacy quality
+- [Running TEA for Enterprise](/docs/tea/how-to/brownfield/use-tea-for-enterprise.md) - Enterprise quality thresholds
+
+## Reference
+
+- [TEA Command Reference](/docs/tea/reference/commands.md) - `test-review` command
+- [Knowledge Base Index](/docs/tea/reference/knowledge-base.md) - Test quality fragment
+- [Glossary](/docs/tea/glossary/index.md#test-architect-tea-concepts) - TEA terminology
+
+---
+
+Generated with [BMad Method](https://bmad-method.org) - TEA (Test Architect)