bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.3 → 6.0.0-alpha.5

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/README.md

@@ -1,493 +0,0 @@
-# Test Design and Risk Assessment Workflow
-
-Plans comprehensive test coverage strategy with risk assessment (probability × impact scoring), priority classification (P0-P3), and resource estimation. This workflow generates a test design document that identifies high-risk areas, maps requirements to appropriate test levels, and provides execution ordering for optimal feedback.
-
-## Usage
-
-```bash
-bmad tea *test-design
-```
-
-The TEA agent runs this workflow when:
-
-- Planning test coverage before development starts
-- Assessing risks for an epic or story
-- Prioritizing test scenarios by business impact
-- Estimating testing effort and resources
-
-## Inputs
-
-**Required Context Files:**
-
-- **Story markdown**: Acceptance criteria and requirements
-- **PRD or epics.md**: High-level product context
-- **Architecture docs** (optional): Technical constraints and integration points
-
-**Workflow Variables:**
-
-- `epic_num`: Epic number for scoped design
-- `story_path`: Specific story for design (optional)
-- `design_level`: full/targeted/minimal (default: full)
-- `risk_threshold`: Score for high-priority flag (default: 6)
-- `risk_categories`: TECH,SEC,PERF,DATA,BUS,OPS (all enabled)
-- `priority_levels`: P0,P1,P2,P3 (all enabled)
-
-## Outputs
-
-**Primary Deliverable:**
-
-**Test Design Document** (`test-design-epic-{N}.md`):
-
-1. **Risk Assessment Matrix**
-   - Risk ID, category, description
-   - Probability (1-3) × Impact (1-3) = Score
-   - Scores ≥6 flagged as high-priority
-   - Mitigation plans with owners and timelines
-
-2. **Coverage Matrix**
-   - Requirement → Test Level (E2E/API/Component/Unit)
-   - Priority assignment (P0-P3)
-   - Risk linkage
-   - Test count estimates
-
-3. **Execution Order**
-   - Smoke tests (P0 subset, <5 min)
-   - P0 tests (critical paths, <10 min)
-   - P1 tests (important features, <30 min)
-   - P2/P3 tests (full regression, <60 min)
-
-4. **Resource Estimates**
-   - Hours per priority level
-   - Total effort in days
-   - Tooling and data prerequisites
-
-5. **Quality Gate Criteria**
-   - P0 pass rate: 100%
-   - P1 pass rate: ≥95%
-   - High-risk mitigations: 100%
-   - Coverage target: ≥80%
-
-## Key Features
-
-### Risk Scoring Framework
-
-**Probability × Impact = Risk Score**
-
-**Probability** (1-3):
-
-- 1 (Unlikely): <10% chance
-- 2 (Possible): 10-50% chance
-- 3 (Likely): >50% chance
-
-**Impact** (1-3):
-
-- 1 (Minor): Cosmetic, workaround exists
-- 2 (Degraded): Feature impaired, difficult workaround
-- 3 (Critical): System failure, no workaround
-
-**Scores**:
-
-- 1-2: Low risk (monitor)
-- 3-4: Medium risk (plan mitigation)
-- **6-9: High risk** (immediate mitigation required)
-
-### Risk Categories (6 types)
-
-**TECH** (Technical/Architecture):
-
-- Architecture flaws, integration failures
-- Scalability issues, technical debt
-
-**SEC** (Security):
-
-- Missing access controls, auth bypass
-- Data exposure, injection vulnerabilities
-
-**PERF** (Performance):
-
-- SLA violations, response time degradation
-- Resource exhaustion, scalability limits
-
-**DATA** (Data Integrity):
-
-- Data loss/corruption, inconsistent state
-- Migration failures
-
-**BUS** (Business Impact):
-
-- UX degradation, business logic errors
-- Revenue impact, compliance violations
-
-**OPS** (Operations):
-
-- Deployment failures, configuration errors
-- Monitoring gaps, rollback issues
-
-### Priority Classification (P0-P3)
-
-**P0 (Critical)** - Run on every commit:
-
-- Blocks core user journey
-- High-risk (score ≥6)
-- Revenue-impacting or security-critical
-
-**P1 (High)** - Run on PR to main:
-
-- Important user features
-- Medium-risk (score 3-4)
-- Common workflows
-
-**P2 (Medium)** - Run nightly/weekly:
-
-- Secondary features
-- Low-risk (score 1-2)
-- Edge cases
-
-**P3 (Low)** - Run on-demand:
-
-- Nice-to-have, exploratory
-- Performance benchmarks
-
-### Test Level Selection
-
-**E2E (End-to-End)**:
-
-- Critical user journeys
-- Multi-system integration
-- Highest confidence, slowest
-
-**API (Integration)**:
-
-- Service contracts
-- Business logic validation
-- Fast feedback, stable
-
-**Component**:
-
-- UI component behavior
-- Visual regression
-- Fast, isolated
-
-**Unit**:
-
-- Business logic, edge cases
-- Error handling
-- Fastest, most granular
-
-**Key principle**: Avoid duplicate coverage - don't test same behavior at multiple levels.
-
-### Exploratory Mode (NEW - Phase 2.5)
-
-**test-design** supports UI exploration for brownfield applications with missing documentation.
-
-**Activation**: Automatic when requirements missing/incomplete for brownfield apps
-
-- If config.tea_use_mcp_enhancements is true + MCP available → MCP-assisted exploration
-- Otherwise → Manual exploration with user documentation
-
-**When to Use Exploratory Mode:**
-
-- ✅ Brownfield projects with missing documentation
-- ✅ Legacy systems lacking requirements
-- ✅ Undocumented features needing test coverage
-- ✅ Unknown user journeys requiring discovery
-- ❌ NOT for greenfield projects with clear requirements
-
-**Exploration Modes:**
-
-1. **MCP-Assisted Exploration** (if Playwright MCP available):
-   - Interactive browser exploration using MCP tools
-   - `planner_setup_page` - Initialize browser
-   - `browser_navigate` - Explore pages
-   - `browser_click` - Interact with UI elements
-   - `browser_hover` - Reveal hidden menus
-   - `browser_snapshot` - Capture state at each step
-   - `browser_screenshot` - Document visually
-   - `browser_console_messages` - Find JavaScript errors
-   - `browser_network_requests` - Identify API endpoints
-
-2. **Manual Exploration** (fallback without MCP):
-   - User explores application manually
-   - Documents findings in markdown:
-     - Pages/features discovered
-     - User journeys identified
-     - API endpoints observed (DevTools Network)
-     - JavaScript errors noted (DevTools Console)
-     - Critical workflows mapped
-   - Provides exploration findings to workflow
-
-**Exploration Workflow:**
-
-```
-1. Enable exploratory_mode and set exploration_url
-2. IF MCP available:
-   - Use planner_setup_page to init browser
-   - Explore UI with browser_* tools
-   - Capture snapshots and screenshots
-   - Monitor console and network
-   - Document discoveries
-3. IF MCP unavailable:
-   - Notify user to explore manually
-   - Wait for exploration findings
-4. Convert discoveries to testable requirements
-5. Continue with standard risk assessment (Step 2)
-```
-
-**Example Output from Exploratory Mode:**
-
-```markdown
-## Exploration Findings - Legacy Admin Panel
-
-**Exploration URL**: https://admin.example.com
-**Mode**: MCP-Assisted
-
-### Discovered Features:
-
-1. User Management (/admin/users)
-   - List users (table with 10 columns)
-   - Edit user (modal form)
-   - Delete user (confirmation dialog)
-   - Export to CSV (download button)
-
-2. Reporting Dashboard (/admin/reports)
-   - Date range picker
-   - Filter by department
-   - Generate PDF report
-   - Email report to stakeholders
-
-3. API Endpoints Discovered:
-   - GET /api/admin/users
-   - PUT /api/admin/users/:id
-   - DELETE /api/admin/users/:id
-   - POST /api/reports/generate
-
-### User Journeys Mapped:
-
-1. Admin deletes inactive user
-   - Navigate to /admin/users
-   - Click delete icon
-   - Confirm in modal
-   - User removed from table
-
-2. Admin generates monthly report
-   - Navigate to /admin/reports
-   - Select date range (last month)
-   - Click generate
-   - Download PDF
-
-### Risks Identified (from exploration):
-
-- R-001 (SEC): No RBAC check observed (any admin can delete any user)
-- R-002 (DATA): No confirmation on bulk delete
-- R-003 (PERF): User table loads slowly (5s for 1000 rows)
-
-**Next**: Proceed to risk assessment with discovered requirements
-```
-
-**Graceful Degradation:**
-
-- Exploratory mode is OPTIONAL (default: disabled)
-- Works without Playwright MCP (manual fallback)
-- If exploration fails, can disable mode and provide requirements documentation
-- Seamlessly transitions to standard risk assessment workflow
-
-### Knowledge Base Integration
-
-Automatically consults TEA knowledge base:
-
-- `risk-governance.md` - Risk classification framework
-- `probability-impact.md` - Risk scoring methodology
-- `test-levels-framework.md` - Test level selection
-- `test-priorities-matrix.md` - P0-P3 prioritization
-
-## Integration with Other Workflows
-
-**Before test-design:**
-
-- **prd** (Phase 2): Creates PRD and epics
-- **architecture** (Phase 3): Defines technical approach
-- **tech-spec** (Phase 3): Implementation details
-
-**After test-design:**
-
-- **atdd**: Generate failing tests for P0 scenarios
-- **automate**: Expand coverage for P1/P2 scenarios
-- **trace (Phase 2)**: Use quality gate criteria for release decisions
-
-**Coordinates with:**
-
-- **framework**: Test infrastructure must exist
-- **ci**: Execution order maps to CI stages
-
-**Updates:**
-
-- `bmm-workflow-status.md`: Adds test design to Quality & Testing Progress
-
-## Important Notes
-
-### Evidence-Based Assessment
-
-**Critical principle**: Base risk assessment on **evidence**, not speculation.
-
-**Evidence sources:**
-
-- PRD and user research
-- Architecture documentation
-- Historical bug data
-- User feedback
-- Security audit results
-
-**When uncertain**: Document assumptions, request user clarification.
-
-**Avoid**:
-
-- Guessing business impact
-- Assuming user behavior
-- Inventing requirements
-
-### Resource Estimation Formula
-
-```
-P0: 2 hours per test (setup + complex scenarios)
-P1: 1 hour per test (standard coverage)
-P2: 0.5 hours per test (simple scenarios)
-P3: 0.25 hours per test (exploratory)
-
-Total Days = Total Hours / 8
-```
-
-Example:
-
-- 15 P0 × 2h = 30h
-- 25 P1 × 1h = 25h
-- 40 P2 × 0.5h = 20h
-- **Total: 75 hours (~10 days)**
-
-### Execution Order Strategy
-
-**Smoke tests** (subset of P0, <5 min):
-
-- Login successful
-- Dashboard loads
-- Core API responds
-
-**Purpose**: Fast feedback, catch build-breaking issues immediately.
-
-**P0 tests** (critical paths, <10 min):
-
-- All scenarios blocking user journeys
-- Security-critical flows
-
-**P1 tests** (important features, <30 min):
-
-- Common workflows
-- Medium-risk areas
-
-**P2/P3 tests** (full regression, <60 min):
-
-- Edge cases
-- Performance benchmarks
-
-### Quality Gate Criteria
-
-**Pass/Fail thresholds:**
-
-- P0: 100% pass (no exceptions)
-- P1: ≥95% pass (2-3 failures acceptable with waivers)
-- P2/P3: ≥90% pass (informational)
-- High-risk items: All mitigated or have approved waivers
-
-**Coverage targets:**
-
-- Critical paths: ≥80%
-- Security scenarios: 100%
-- Business logic: ≥70%
-
-## Validation Checklist
-
-After workflow completion:
-
-- [ ] Risk assessment complete (all categories)
-- [ ] Risks scored (probability × impact)
-- [ ] High-priority risks (≥6) flagged
-- [ ] Coverage matrix maps requirements to test levels
-- [ ] Priorities assigned (P0-P3)
-- [ ] Execution order defined
-- [ ] Resource estimates provided
-- [ ] Quality gate criteria defined
-- [ ] Output file created
-
-Refer to `checklist.md` for comprehensive validation.
-
-## Example Execution
-
-**Scenario: E-commerce checkout epic**
-
-```bash
-bmad tea *test-design
-# Epic 3: Checkout flow redesign
-
-# Risk Assessment identifies:
-- R-001 (SEC): Payment bypass, P=2 × I=3 = 6 (HIGH)
-- R-002 (PERF): Cart load time, P=3 × I=2 = 6 (HIGH)
-- R-003 (BUS): Order confirmation email, P=2 × I=2 = 4 (MEDIUM)
-
-# Coverage Plan:
-P0 scenarios: 12 tests (payment security, order creation)
-P1 scenarios: 18 tests (cart management, promo codes)
-P2 scenarios: 25 tests (edge cases, error handling)
-
-Total effort: 65 hours (~8 days)
-
-# Test Levels:
-- E2E: 8 tests (critical checkout path)
-- API: 30 tests (business logic, payment processing)
-- Unit: 17 tests (calculations, validations)
-
-# Execution Order:
-1. Smoke: Payment successful, order created (2 min)
-2. P0: All payment & security flows (8 min)
-3. P1: Cart & promo codes (20 min)
-4. P2: Edge cases (40 min)
-
-# Quality Gates:
-- P0 pass rate: 100%
-- P1 pass rate: ≥95%
-- R-001 mitigated: Add payment validation layer
-- R-002 mitigated: Implement cart caching
-```
-
-## Troubleshooting
-
-**Issue: "Unable to score risks - missing context"**
-
-- **Cause**: Insufficient documentation
-- **Solution**: Request PRD, architecture docs, or user clarification
-
-**Issue: "All tests marked as P0"**
-
-- **Cause**: Over-prioritization
-- **Solution**: Apply strict P0 criteria (blocks core journey + high risk + no workaround)
-
-**Issue: "Duplicate coverage at multiple test levels"**
-
-- **Cause**: Not following test pyramid
-- **Solution**: Use E2E for critical paths only, API for logic, unit for edge cases
-
-**Issue: "Resource estimates too high"**
-
-- **Cause**: Complex test setup or insufficient automation
-- **Solution**: Invest in fixtures/factories upfront, reduce per-test setup time
-
-## Related Workflows
-
-- **atdd**: Generate failing tests → [atdd/README.md](../atdd/README.md)
-- **automate**: Expand regression coverage → [automate/README.md](../automate/README.md)
-- **trace**: Traceability and quality gate decisions → [trace/README.md](../trace/README.md)
-- **framework**: Test infrastructure → [framework/README.md](../framework/README.md)
-
-## Version History
-
-- **v4.0 (BMad v6)**: Pure markdown instructions, risk scoring framework, template-based output
-- **v3.x**: XML format instructions
-- **v2.x**: Legacy task-based approach