bmad-method 6.0.0-alpha.4 → 6.0.0-alpha.5

package/src/modules/bmm/docs/workflows-testing.md

@@ -1,1572 +0,0 @@
-# BMM Testing & QA Workflows (Testarch)
-
-**Reading Time:** ~18 minutes
-
-## Overview
-
-Testarch workflows provide comprehensive testing infrastructure and quality assurance. Unlike Phases 1-4 which are sequential, **testing workflows run in parallel** with implementation and can be invoked as needed throughout the project lifecycle.
-
-**Key principle:** Testing is not a phase—it's a continuous practice integrated into every story.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Workflow            | Duration          | When to Run            | Purpose                                |
-| ------------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------- |
-| **framework**       | 1-2 hours         | Once (setup)           | Scaffold test infrastructure           |
-| **test-design**     | 2-4 hours         | Before implementation  | Risk assessment and test planning      |
-| **atdd**            | 30-90 min/story   | Per story (before dev) | Generate failing acceptance tests      |
-| **automate**        | 1-3 hours/feature | After dev-story        | Expand regression suite                |
-| **ci**              | 1-2 hours         | Once (after framework) | CI/CD pipeline with burn-in            |
-| **trace** (Phase 1) | 15-30 min         | After tests written    | Traceability matrix                    |
-| **trace** (Phase 2) | 15-30 min         | Before release         | Quality gate decision                  |
-| **nfr-assess**      | 1-2 hours         | Before release         | Non-functional requirements validation |
-| **test-review**     | 30-60 min         | After test creation    | Test quality validation                |
-
----
-
-## Understanding Testarch
-
-### TEA Agent (Test Architect)
-
-All testarch workflows are executed by the **TEA agent** - your dedicated test architect and quality assurance specialist.
-
-**TEA's Responsibilities:**
-
-- Design test strategies
-- Generate test code
-- Validate test quality
-- Ensure coverage
-- Make quality gate decisions
-
-**TEA's Knowledge Base:**
-
-- 22+ knowledge fragments (tea-index.csv)
-- Best practices for Playwright, Cypress, Jest, Vitest
-- Test patterns: fixtures, factories, network-first, burn-in
-- Quality standards: determinism, isolation, no flakiness
-
-### Testing Integration with Implementation
-
-**Parallel Execution Model:**
-
-```
-Implementation (Phase 4)          Testing (Continuous)
-─────────────────────            ───────────────────
-framework (once)          →      Test infrastructure ready
-test-design (per epic)    →      Risk assessment complete
-create-story              →      atdd (generate failing tests)
-dev-story                 →      Tests now pass
-                          →      automate (expand coverage)
-code-review               →      test-review (validate quality)
-                          →      trace (check coverage)
-sprint complete           →      nfr-assess (validate NFRs)
-                          →      trace Phase 2 (quality gate)
-```
-
-### Testarch vs Traditional QA
-
-| Aspect          | Traditional QA     | Testarch                  |
-| --------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------- |
-| **When**        | After development  | Throughout development    |
-| **Who**         | QA team            | TEA agent + DEV agent     |
-| **Tests**       | Manual → Automated | Generated → Validated     |
-| **Coverage**    | Variable           | Systematic (P0-P3)        |
-| **Integration** | Separate process   | Built into workflows      |
-| **Knowledge**   | Tribal             | Codified (knowledge base) |
-
----
-
-## framework
-
-### Purpose
-
-Scaffold production-ready test infrastructure including framework configuration, directory structure, fixtures, factories, and helper utilities.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:** Once at project start (before implementation)
-**Duration:** 1-2 hours
-**Required:** Yes (for all projects with tests)
-
-### When to Use
-
-Run **before writing any tests** to establish test infrastructure.
-
-**Trigger Points:**
-
-- After Phase 3 (Solutioning) completes
-- Before first dev-story workflow
-- When starting a new project
-
-**Skip if:**
-
-- Tests already exist (brownfield with good test setup)
-- Prototype/POC without tests
-
-### What Framework Provides
-
-**1. Framework Configuration**
-
-- playwright.config.ts (or cypress.config.ts, jest.config.js)
-- Environment-based configuration
-- Browser/device targeting
-- Parallel execution setup
-- Reporter configuration
-
-**2. Directory Structure**
-
-```
-/tests
-  /e2e              - End-to-end tests
-  /api              - API/integration tests
-  /component        - Component tests
-  /unit             - Unit tests
-  /support
-    /fixtures       - Test fixtures (setup/teardown)
-    /factories      - Data factories (test data generation)
-    /helpers        - Utility functions
-  /reports          - Test reports
-  README.md         - Test documentation
-```
-
-**3. Base Fixtures**
-
-- Authentication fixtures
-- Database fixtures (if applicable)
-- API client fixtures
-- Common test utilities
-
-**4. Data Factories**
-
-- User factory (with faker.js)
-- Common entity factories
-- Factory utilities
-
-**5. Helper Utilities**
-
-- Wait utilities
-- Retry utilities
-- API helpers
-- Database helpers
-
-### Process Overview
-
-**Phase 1: Framework Selection (Steps 1-2)**
-
-- Detect project type (web app, API, mobile, desktop)
-- Recommend framework (Playwright, Cypress, Jest, Vitest, etc.)
-- Confirm with user
-
-**Phase 2: Configuration (Steps 3-5)**
-
-- Generate framework config file
-- Configure environments (local, CI, staging, prod)
-- Set up parallel execution
-- Configure reporters
-
-**Phase 3: Directory Structure (Step 6)**
-
-- Create test directories
-- Generate README with test guidelines
-
-**Phase 4: Fixtures and Factories (Steps 7-9)**
-
-- Generate base fixtures
-- Generate data factories
-- Create helper utilities
-
-**Phase 5: Validation (Step 10)**
-
-- Generate sample test
-- Run sample test to verify setup
-- Document test execution commands
-
-### Inputs
-
-Required:
-
-- Project type (web, API, mobile, desktop)
-- Framework preference (optional, will recommend)
-
-Optional:
-
-- Existing package.json
-- Technology stack (React, Vue, Node, etc.)
-
-### Outputs
-
-**Primary Outputs:**
-
-1. **Framework Configuration File**
-   - `playwright.config.ts` (Playwright)
-   - `cypress.config.ts` (Cypress)
-   - `jest.config.js` (Jest)
-   - `vitest.config.ts` (Vitest)
-
-2. **Directory Structure** (all directories created)
-
-3. **Base Fixtures** (`/tests/support/fixtures/`)
-   - `auth.fixture.ts` - Authentication fixture
-   - `base.fixture.ts` - Base fixture utilities
-
-4. **Data Factories** (`/tests/support/factories/`)
-   - `user.factory.ts` - User data factory
-   - `factory-utils.ts` - Factory utilities
-
-5. **Helpers** (`/tests/support/helpers/`)
-   - `wait.ts` - Wait utilities
-   - `retry.ts` - Retry utilities
-
-6. **Documentation**
-   - `/tests/README.md` - Test execution guide
-
-7. **Sample Test**
-   - `/tests/e2e/sample.spec.ts` - Verify setup works
-
-### Example Output: Playwright Configuration
-
-```typescript
-// playwright.config.ts
-import { defineConfig, devices } from '@playwright/test';
-
-export default defineConfig({
-  testDir: './tests',
-  fullyParallel: true,
-  forbidOnly: !!process.env.CI,
-  retries: process.env.CI ? 2 : 0,
-  workers: process.env.CI ? 4 : undefined,
-  reporter: [
-    ['html', { outputFolder: 'tests/reports' }],
-    ['json', { outputFile: 'tests/reports/results.json' }],
-  ],
-  use: {
-    baseURL: process.env.BASE_URL || 'http://localhost:3000',
-    trace: 'on-first-retry',
-    screenshot: 'only-on-failure',
-    video: 'retain-on-failure',
-  },
-  projects: [
-    {
-      name: 'chromium',
-      use: { ...devices['Desktop Chrome'] },
-    },
-    {
-      name: 'firefox',
-      use: { ...devices['Desktop Firefox'] },
-    },
-    {
-      name: 'webkit',
-      use: { ...devices['Desktop Safari'] },
-    },
-    {
-      name: 'mobile-chrome',
-      use: { ...devices['Pixel 5'] },
-    },
-  ],
-  webServer: {
-    command: 'npm run dev',
-    url: 'http://localhost:3000',
-    reuseExistingServer: !process.env.CI,
-  },
-});
-```
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **ci** - Configure CI/CD using framework config
-- **test-design** - Plan test coverage using framework
-- **atdd** - Generate tests using framework
-
----
-
-## test-design
-
-### Purpose
-
-Plan comprehensive test coverage strategy with risk assessment (probability × impact scoring), priority classification (P0-P3), and resource estimation.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:** Before implementation (per epic or per project)
-**Duration:** 2-4 hours
-**Required:** Recommended for Level 3-4, Optional for Level 2
-
-### When to Use
-
-Run **before implementing tests** to plan coverage strategy.
-
-**Trigger Points:**
-
-- After PRD/GDD creation (project-wide planning)
-- Before each epic (epic-specific planning)
-- When assessing test coverage needs
-
-**Skip if:**
-
-- Level 0-1 (simple changes, test strategy obvious)
-- Continuing existing project with established strategy
-
-### Risk Assessment Framework
-
-**Risk Score = Probability × Impact**
-
-**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
-- 3 (Critical): System failure, no workaround
-
-**Risk Scores:**
-
-- **6-9 (High)**: Immediate attention, P0 tests required
-- **3-4 (Medium)**: Plan mitigation, P1-P2 tests
-- **1-2 (Low)**: Monitor, P3 tests optional
-
-### Priority Classification (P0-P3)
-
-| Priority | Run Frequency | Coverage Requirement | Characteristics                          |
-| -------- | ------------- | -------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
-| **P0**   | Every commit  | 100%                 | Critical paths, security, data integrity |
-| **P1**   | PR to main    | 90%                  | Important features, common workflows     |
-| **P2**   | Nightly       | 80%                  | Edge cases, secondary features           |
-| **P3**   | On-demand     | No requirement       | Nice-to-have, exploratory                |
-
-### Process Overview
-
-**Phase 1: Context Loading (Steps 1-2)**
-
-- Load PRD/GDD
-- Load architecture
-- Load story files
-
-**Phase 2: Risk Assessment (Steps 3-5)**
-
-- Identify risk categories (TECH, SEC, PERF, DATA, BUS, OPS)
-- Score risks (probability × impact)
-- Flag high-risk items (≥6)
-
-**Phase 3: Coverage Planning (Steps 6-8)**
-
-- Map requirements to test levels (E2E/API/Component/Unit)
-- Assign priorities (P0/P1/P2/P3)
-- Avoid duplicate coverage
-
-**Phase 4: Resource Estimation (Steps 9-10)**
-
-- Estimate hours per priority
-- Calculate total effort
-- Define execution order
-
-**Phase 5: Documentation (Step 11)**
-
-- Generate test-design document
-- Create coverage matrix
-- Define quality gates
-
-### Inputs
-
-Required:
-
-- PRD.md or GDD.md
-- Epic files (for epic-specific design)
-
-Optional:
-
-- architecture.md
-- Historical bug data
-- Security audit results
-
-### Outputs
-
-**Primary Output:** `test-design-epic-{N}.md` or `test-design-project.md`
-
-**Document Structure:**
-
-1. **Risk Assessment Matrix**
-   - Risk ID, category, description
-   - Probability × Impact = Score
-   - High-priority risks flagged
-
-2. **Coverage Matrix**
-   - Requirement → Test Level mapping
-   - Priority assignment (P0-P3)
-   - 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
-
-5. **Quality Gate Criteria**
-   - P0 pass rate: 100%
-   - P1 pass rate: ≥95%
-   - Coverage targets
-
-### Example: Test Design for Authentication Epic
-
-**Risk Assessment:**
-
-- R-001 (SEC): Password bypass, P=2 × I=3 = **6 (HIGH)** → P0 tests required
-- R-002 (SEC): Session hijacking, P=2 × I=3 = **6 (HIGH)** → P0 tests required
-- R-003 (PERF): Login slow, P=2 × I=2 = 4 (MEDIUM) → P1 tests
-
-**Coverage Plan:**
-
-| Requirement         | Test Level | Priority | Test Count |
-| ------------------- | ---------- | -------- | ---------- |
-| User registration   | E2E        | P0       | 1          |
-| Password validation | Unit       | P0       | 5          |
-| Login flow          | E2E        | P0       | 1          |
-| Session creation    | API        | P0       | 2          |
-| Password reset      | E2E        | P1       | 1          |
-| Email verification  | E2E        | P1       | 1          |
-| Remember me         | E2E        | P2       | 1          |
-
-**Total:** 12 tests (P0: 9, P1: 2, P2: 1)
-
-**Effort Estimate:**
-
-- P0: 9 tests × 2h = 18 hours
-- P1: 2 tests × 1h = 2 hours
-- P2: 1 test × 0.5h = 0.5 hours
-- **Total: 20.5 hours (~3 days)**
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **atdd** - Generate P0 tests from design
-- **automate** - Generate P1/P2 tests from design
-- **trace** - Validate coverage against design
-
----
-
-## atdd (Acceptance Test-Driven Development)
-
-### Purpose
-
-Generate failing acceptance tests from story acceptance criteria before implementation. Creates deterministic, production-quality tests using BDD patterns and knowledge base best practices.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:** Before dev-story (per story)
-**Duration:** 30-90 minutes per story
-**Required:** Recommended for P0/P1 stories
-
-### When to Use
-
-Run **before implementing a story** to create failing tests first.
-
-**Trigger Points:**
-
-- After create-story workflow
-- Before dev-story workflow
-- For P0/P1 stories (required)
-- For P2/P3 stories (optional)
-
-**Workflow Sequence:**
-
-```
-create-story → atdd (failing tests) → dev-story (make tests pass) → code-review
-```
-
-### Test-Driven Development Approach
-
-**Red-Green-Refactor Cycle:**
-
-1. **Red**: Write failing test (atdd workflow)
-2. **Green**: Make test pass (dev-story workflow)
-3. **Refactor**: Improve code (dev-story workflow)
-
-**Benefits:**
-
-- Tests define behavior first
-- Implementation guided by tests
-- Higher confidence in correctness
-- Better test quality (not retrofitted)
-
-### Process Overview
-
-**Phase 1: Story Loading (Steps 1-2)**
-
-- Load story file
-- Load story-context.xml
-- Extract acceptance criteria
-
-**Phase 2: Test Planning (Steps 3-4)**
-
-- Map AC to test levels (E2E, API, Component, Unit)
-- Identify test scenarios (happy path, sad path, edge cases)
-- Plan test fixtures and data
-
-**Phase 3: Test Generation (Steps 5-8)**
-
-- Generate E2E tests (critical user journeys)
-- Generate API tests (business logic validation)
-- Generate Component tests (UI behavior)
-- Generate Unit tests (pure logic)
-
-**Phase 4: Quality Validation (Steps 9-10)**
-
-- Apply knowledge base patterns
-- Ensure Given-When-Then structure
-- Use data-testid selectors
-- Network-first patterns
-- No hard waits or flaky patterns
-
-**Phase 5: Execution (Step 11)**
-
-- Run tests (should fail - RED)
-- Verify tests fail for right reasons
-- Document expected behavior
-
-### Test Generation Modes
-
-**1. AI Generation (Default)**
-
-- TEA generates tests using knowledge base
-- Fast, consistent, high quality
-- Best for standard patterns
-
-**2. Recording Mode (MCP-Enhanced)**
-
-- Interactive browser recording
-- TEA records user actions
-- Best for complex UI flows
-- Requires Playwright MCP server
-
-**Selection Logic:**
-
-- Simple CRUD, standard forms → AI generation
-- Complex wizards, drag-drop → Recording mode
-- API-only → AI generation (no UI to record)
-
-### Inputs
-
-Required:
-
-- story-{epic}.{num}-{title}.md
-- story-{epic}.{num}-context.xml
-
-Optional:
-
-- test-design-epic-{N}.md (risk/priority context)
-- Playwright MCP (for recording mode)
-
-### Outputs
-
-**Test Files Created:**
-
-- `/tests/e2e/{story-id}-{feature}.spec.ts` (E2E tests)
-- `/tests/api/{story-id}-{feature}.api.spec.ts` (API tests)
-- `/tests/component/{ComponentName}.test.tsx` (Component tests)
-- `/tests/unit/{module}.test.ts` (Unit tests)
-
-**Supporting Files:**
-
-- `/tests/support/fixtures/{feature}.fixture.ts` (if needed)
-- `/tests/support/factories/{entity}.factory.ts` (if needed)
-
-**Test Structure (Example E2E):**
-
-```typescript
-// tests/e2e/1.2-login.spec.ts
-import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test';
-import { authenticatedUser } from '../support/fixtures/auth.fixture';
-
-test.describe('1.2-E2E-001: User Login Flow', () => {
-  test('[P0] should login with valid credentials and redirect to dashboard', async ({ page }) => {
-    // GIVEN: User is on login page
-    await page.goto('/login');
-
-    // WHEN: User submits valid credentials
-    await page.fill('[data-testid="email-input"]', 'user@example.com');
-    await page.fill('[data-testid="password-input"]', 'ValidPassword123!');
-    await page.click('[data-testid="login-button"]');
-
-    // THEN: User is redirected to dashboard
-    await expect(page).toHaveURL('/dashboard');
-    await expect(page.locator('[data-testid="user-menu"]')).toBeVisible();
-  });
-
-  test('[P1] should show error message for invalid credentials', async ({ page }) => {
-    // GIVEN: User is on login page
-    await page.goto('/login');
-
-    // WHEN: User submits invalid credentials
-    await page.fill('[data-testid="email-input"]', 'user@example.com');
-    await page.fill('[data-testid="password-input"]', 'WrongPassword');
-    await page.click('[data-testid="login-button"]');
-
-    // THEN: Error message is displayed
-    await expect(page.locator('[data-testid="error-message"]')).toContainText('Invalid credentials');
-    await expect(page).toHaveURL('/login'); // Still on login page
-  });
-});
-```
-
-### Quality Standards Enforced
-
-**All generated tests must:**
-
-- ✅ Use Given-When-Then format
-- ✅ Have priority tags ([P0], [P1], [P2], [P3])
-- ✅ Use data-testid selectors (not CSS classes)
-- ✅ No hard waits (page.waitForTimeout)
-- ✅ Network-first pattern (route intercept before navigate)
-- ✅ Self-cleaning (fixtures with auto-cleanup)
-- ✅ Deterministic (no conditionals, try-catch)
-- ✅ Test IDs: {STORY_ID}-{LEVEL}-{SEQ} (e.g., 1.2-E2E-001)
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **test-design** - Provides test planning context
-- **dev-story** - Makes failing tests pass
-- **test-review** - Validates test quality
-- **automate** - Expands beyond ATDD tests
-
----
-
-## automate
-
-### Purpose
-
-Expand test automation coverage by generating comprehensive test suites at appropriate levels (E2E, API, Component, Unit) with supporting infrastructure. Works seamlessly WITH or WITHOUT BMad artifacts.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:** After dev-story (per story or feature)
-**Duration:** 1-3 hours per feature
-**Required:** Recommended for comprehensive coverage
-
-### Dual-Mode Operation
-
-**1. BMad-Integrated Mode** (story available):
-
-- Uses story acceptance criteria
-- Aligns with test-design priorities
-- Expands ATDD tests with edge cases
-- **Story enhances coverage but NOT required**
-
-**2. Standalone Mode** (no story):
-
-- Analyzes source code independently
-- Identifies coverage gaps automatically
-- Works with any project (BMad or non-BMad)
-- "Work out of thin air"
-
-**3. Auto-Discover Mode** (no targets):
-
-- Scans codebase for features needing tests
-- Prioritizes features with no coverage
-- Generates comprehensive test plan
-
-### When to Use
-
-**BMad-Integrated:**
-
-- After dev-story completes
-- To expand beyond ATDD tests
-- For P1/P2 edge cases and regression
-
-**Standalone:**
-
-- Brownfield project with missing tests
-- Non-BMad projects
-- Point TEA at any codebase/feature
-
-**Auto-Discover:**
-
-- No specific targets
-- Want comprehensive coverage audit
-- Identify coverage gaps
-
-### Process Overview
-
-**Phase 1: Mode Detection (Step 1)**
-
-- Check if story file exists
-- Check if target feature specified
-- Auto-detect mode (BMad/Standalone/Auto-discover)
-
-**Phase 2: Context Loading (Steps 2-3)**
-
-- BMad mode: Load story, tech-spec, test-design
-- Standalone: Load source code, existing tests
-- Auto-discover: Scan codebase for features
-
-**Phase 3: Gap Analysis (Steps 4-5)**
-
-- Identify coverage gaps (missing tests)
-- Prioritize by risk (P0-P3)
-- Avoid duplicate coverage
-
-**Phase 4: Test Generation (Steps 6-10)**
-
-- Generate E2E tests (critical paths only)
-- Generate API tests (business logic variations)
-- Generate Component tests (UI edge cases)
-- Generate Unit tests (pure logic edge cases)
-- Generate fixtures and factories
-
-**Phase 5: Validation & Healing (Steps 11-13)**
-
-- Run generated tests (if auto_validate enabled)
-- Heal failures (if auto_heal_failures enabled)
-- Mark unfixable as test.fixme()
-
-### Test Healing Capabilities (NEW)
-
-**Automatic Test Healing:**
-When tests fail after generation, TEA can automatically heal them.
-
-**Configuration:** `config.tea_use_mcp_enhancements` (default: true)
-
-- If true + MCP available → MCP-assisted healing
-- If true + MCP unavailable → Pattern-based healing
-- If false → No healing, document failures
-
-**Pattern-Based Healing** (always available):
-
-1. Parse error messages from test output
-2. Match patterns against known failures
-3. Apply fixes from healing knowledge fragments:
-   - `test-healing-patterns.md` - Common failures
-   - `selector-resilience.md` - Selector fixes
-   - `timing-debugging.md` - Race condition fixes
-4. Re-run tests (max 3 iterations)
-5. Mark unfixable as `test.fixme()`
-
-**MCP-Enhanced Healing** (when Playwright MCP available):
-
-- **Interactive debugging** before pattern fixes
-- **Visual context** with browser snapshots
-- **Live DOM inspection** to find correct selectors
-- **Console analysis** for JS errors
-- **Network inspection** for API failures
-
-**Example Healing:**
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ Original (failing): CSS class selector
-await page.locator('.submit-btn').click();
-
-// ✅ Healed: data-testid selector
-await page.getByTestId('submit-button').click();
-```
-
-### Recording Mode (MCP-Enhanced)
-
-**Complex UI interactions** can be recorded instead of AI-generated.
-
-**When Recording Mode Activates:**
-
-- Complex scenarios: drag-drop, wizards, multi-page flows
-- Visual workflows: modals, animations
-- Fallback: AI generation (automatic, silent)
-
-**Recording Workflow:**
-
-1. Use `browser_*` tools to interact with UI
-2. Capture interactions as test steps
-3. Add verifications with `browser_verify_*`
-4. Generate test file from recording
-5. Enhance with knowledge base patterns
-
-### Inputs
-
-**BMad-Integrated Mode:**
-
-- story file (optional, enhances coverage)
-- tech-spec (optional)
-- test-design (optional)
-
-**Standalone Mode:**
-
-- target_feature: Feature name or directory (e.g., "user-authentication" or "src/auth/")
-- target_files: Specific files (comma-separated)
-
-**Both Modes:**
-
-- Framework config (playwright.config.ts)
-- Existing tests (for gap analysis)
-- Knowledge base fragments
-
-### Outputs
-
-**Test Files Created:**
-
-- E2E tests: `/tests/e2e/{feature}.spec.ts`
-- API tests: `/tests/api/{feature}.api.spec.ts`
-- Component tests: `/tests/component/{ComponentName}.test.tsx`
-- Unit tests: `/tests/unit/{module}.test.ts`
-
-**Supporting Infrastructure:**
-
-- Fixtures: `/tests/support/fixtures/{feature}.fixture.ts`
-- Factories: `/tests/support/factories/{entity}.factory.ts`
-- Helpers: `/tests/support/helpers/{utility}.ts`
-
-**Documentation:**
-
-- **automation-summary.md**: Comprehensive report with:
-  - Execution mode (BMad/Standalone/Auto-discover)
-  - Feature analysis (coverage gaps)
-  - Tests created (counts, paths, priorities)
-  - Infrastructure created
-  - Healing report (if enabled)
-  - Next steps
-
-### Example: Standalone Mode
-
-**Input:**
-
-```bash
-bmad tea *automate --target-feature "src/auth/"
-```
-
-**Output:**
-
-```markdown
-# Automation Summary - src/auth/
-
-**Mode:** Standalone (no story)
-**Date:** 2025-11-02
-
-## Feature Analysis
-
-**Source Files Analyzed:**
-
-- src/auth/login.ts
-- src/auth/session.ts
-- src/auth/validation.ts
-
-**Existing Coverage:** 0 tests found
-
-**Coverage Gaps:**
-
-- ❌ No E2E tests for login flow
-- ❌ No API tests for /auth/login endpoint
-- ❌ No unit tests for validateEmail()
-
-## Tests Created
-
-### E2E Tests (2 tests, P0-P1)
-
-- tests/e2e/user-authentication.spec.ts (87 lines)
-  - [P0] Login with valid credentials → Dashboard
-  - [P1] Invalid credentials → Error message
-
-### API Tests (3 tests, P1-P2)
-
-- tests/api/auth.api.spec.ts (102 lines)
-  - [P1] POST /auth/login - valid → 200 + token
-  - [P1] POST /auth/login - invalid → 401
-  - [P2] POST /auth/login - missing fields → 400
-
-### Unit Tests (4 tests, P2)
-
-- tests/unit/validation.test.ts (45 lines)
-  - [P2] validateEmail - valid formats
-  - [P2] validateEmail - invalid formats
-  - [P2] validatePassword - strength rules
-  - [P2] validatePassword - edge cases
-
-## Infrastructure Created
-
-- Fixtures: tests/support/fixtures/auth.fixture.ts
-- Factories: tests/support/factories/user.factory.ts
-
-## Coverage Analysis
-
-**Total:** 9 tests (P0: 1, P1: 4, P2: 4)
-**Levels:** E2E: 2, API: 3, Unit: 4
-
-✅ Critical paths covered (E2E + API)
-✅ Error cases covered (API)
-✅ Edge cases covered (Unit)
-
-## Recommendations
-
-1. **High Priority (P0-P1):**
-   - Add E2E test for password reset flow
-   - Add API tests for token refresh endpoint
-
-2. **Medium Priority (P2):**
-   - Add unit tests for session timeout logic
-```
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **atdd** - atdd creates P0 tests, automate expands with P1/P2
-- **test-design** - Provides priority context
-- **trace** - Validates coverage
-- **test-review** - Validates quality
-
----
-
-## ci (CI/CD Pipeline)
-
-### Purpose
-
-Scaffold production-ready CI/CD quality pipeline with test execution, burn-in loops for flaky test detection, parallel sharding, and artifact collection.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:** Once (after framework setup)
-**Duration:** 1-2 hours
-**Required:** Recommended for all projects
-
-### When to Use
-
-Run **after framework workflow** to enable continuous integration.
-
-**Trigger Points:**
-
-- After framework setup complete
-- Before first sprint
-- When ready to enable CI/CD
-
-### Key Features
-
-**1. Burn-In Loop** (flaky test detection):
-
-- Runs tests 10 times consecutively
-- Catches non-deterministic failures
-- Prevents flaky tests from reaching main
-
-**2. Parallel Sharding** (4 shards):
-
-- 75% time reduction (40 min → 10 min per shard)
-- Configurable shard count
-- Faster feedback on PRs
-
-**3. Smart Caching**:
-
-- Node modules + browser binaries cached
-- 2-5 min savings per run
-- Automatic invalidation on dependency changes
-
-**4. Selective Testing**:
-
-- Run only tests affected by code changes
-- 50-80% time reduction for focused PRs
-- Full suite still runs on main branch
-
-**5. Failure-Only Artifacts**:
-
-- Upload traces/screenshots/videos only on failure
-- 90% storage cost reduction
-- 30-day retention default
-
-### Process Overview
-
-**Phase 1: Platform Detection (Steps 1-2)**
-
-- Auto-detect CI platform (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Circle CI)
-- Confirm with user
-
-**Phase 2: Pipeline Configuration (Steps 3-6)**
-
-- Generate CI config file
-- Configure parallel sharding (4 jobs)
-- Configure burn-in loop (10 iterations)
-- Configure caching (dependencies + browsers)
-- Configure artifact collection (failure-only)
-
-**Phase 3: Helper Scripts (Steps 7-9)**
-
-- Generate test-changed.sh (selective testing)
-- Generate ci-local.sh (local CI mirror)
-- Generate burn-in.sh (standalone burn-in)
-
-**Phase 4: Documentation (Step 10)**
-
-- Generate ci.md (pipeline guide)
-- Generate ci-secrets-checklist.md (required secrets)
-
-### Inputs
-
-Required:
-
-- Framework config (playwright.config.ts, etc.)
-- package.json
-
-Optional:
-
-- .git/config (for platform auto-detection)
-- .nvmrc (Node version)
-
-### Outputs
-
-**1. CI Configuration File:**
-
-- `.github/workflows/test.yml` (GitHub Actions)
-- `.gitlab-ci.yml` (GitLab CI)
-
-**2. Helper Scripts:**
-
-- `scripts/test-changed.sh`
-- `scripts/ci-local.sh`
-- `scripts/burn-in.sh`
-
-**3. Documentation:**
-
-- `docs/ci.md`
-- `docs/ci-secrets-checklist.md`
-
-### Example: GitHub Actions Pipeline
-
-```yaml
-# .github/workflows/test.yml
-name: Test
-
-on:
-  pull_request:
-  push:
-    branches: [main]
-
-jobs:
-  lint:
-    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
-    steps:
-      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
-      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
-        with:
-          node-version: 20
-          cache: 'npm'
-      - run: npm ci
-      - run: npm run lint
-
-  test:
-    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
-    strategy:
-      matrix:
-        shard: [1, 2, 3, 4]
-    steps:
-      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
-      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
-        with:
-          node-version: 20
-          cache: 'npm'
-      - run: npm ci
-      - run: npx playwright install --with-deps
-      - run: npm run test:e2e -- --shard=${{ matrix.shard }}/4
-      - uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
-        if: failure()
-        with:
-          name: test-results-${{ matrix.shard }}
-          path: test-results/
-          retention-days: 30
-
-  burn-in:
-    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
-    if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'
-    steps:
-      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
-      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
-        with:
-          node-version: 20
-          cache: 'npm'
-      - run: npm ci
-      - run: npx playwright install --with-deps
-      - name: Burn-in loop
-        run: |
-          for i in {1..10}; do
-            echo "🔥 Burn-in iteration $i/10"
-            npm run test:e2e || exit 1
-          done
-```
-
-**Performance Targets:**
-
-- Lint: <2 minutes
-- Test (per shard): <10 minutes
-- Burn-in: <30 minutes
-- **Total: <45 minutes** (20× faster than sequential)
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **framework** - Must run before ci
-- **trace** (Phase 2) - Uses CI results for gate decision
-
----
-
-## trace (Traceability & Quality Gate)
-
-### Purpose
-
-**Two-phase workflow:** (1) Generate requirements-to-tests traceability matrix, then (2) Make deterministic quality gate decision for deployment readiness.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:**
-
-- **Phase 1**: After tests written (per story/epic)
-- **Phase 2**: Before release (quality gate)
-  **Duration:**
-- **Phase 1**: 15-30 minutes
-- **Phase 2**: 15-30 minutes
-
-### Phase 1: Requirements Traceability
-
-**Purpose:** Map acceptance criteria to tests, identify coverage gaps.
-
-**Process:**
-
-1. Load story file (acceptance criteria)
-2. Auto-discover tests related to story
-3. Map AC to test cases
-4. Classify coverage (FULL, PARTIAL, NONE)
-5. Generate traceability matrix
-
-**Output:** `traceability-matrix.md`
-
-**Example:**
-
-```markdown
-# Traceability Matrix - Story 1.2
-
-## Coverage Summary
-
-| Priority | Total | FULL | Coverage % | Status  |
-| -------- | ----- | ---- | ---------- | ------- |
-| P0       | 3     | 3    | 100%       | ✅ PASS |
-| P1       | 2     | 2    | 100%       | ✅ PASS |
-
-## Detailed Mapping
-
-### AC-1: User can login with valid credentials
-
-**Tests:**
-
-- 1.2-E2E-001: Login happy path ✅
-- 1.2-API-001: POST /auth/login valid creds ✅
-
-**Coverage:** FULL ✅
-
-### AC-2: Invalid credentials show error
-
-**Tests:**
-
-- 1.2-E2E-002: Login with invalid password ✅
-- 1.2-API-002: POST /auth/login invalid creds ✅
-
-**Coverage:** FULL ✅
-
-## Gap Analysis
-
-**Critical Gaps:** None ✅
-**High Priority Gaps:** None ✅
-**Medium Priority Gaps:** None ✅
-```
-
-### Phase 2: Quality Gate Decision
-
-**Purpose:** Make PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED decision for deployment.
-
-**Process:**
-
-1. Load traceability results (Phase 1)
-2. Load test execution results (CI/CD reports)
-3. Load NFR assessment (if exists)
-4. Apply deterministic decision rules
-5. Generate gate decision document
-
-**Decision Rules:**
-
-**PASS** ✅ (All criteria met):
-
-- P0 coverage = 100%
-- P1 coverage ≥ 90%
-- P0 pass rate = 100%
-- P1 pass rate ≥ 95%
-- Security issues = 0
-- Critical NFRs met
-
-**CONCERNS** ⚠️ (P0 met, P1 degraded):
-
-- P0 coverage = 100%
-- P1 coverage 80-89%
-- P1 pass rate 90-94%
-- No security issues
-
-**FAIL** ❌ (P0 criteria failed):
-
-- P0 coverage <100%
-- P0 pass rate <100%
-- Security issues >0
-- Critical NFRs failed
-
-**WAIVED** 🔓 (FAIL + business approval):
-
-- FAIL status + VP/CTO approval
-- Business justification documented
-- Remediation plan with timeline
-- **Never waive: security, data corruption**
-
-**Output:** `gate-decision-story-{X}.{X}.md`
-
-**Example:**
-
-```markdown
-# Quality Gate Decision: Story 1.2
-
-**Decision:** ✅ PASS
-**Date:** 2025-11-02
-
-## Evidence
-
-- P0 Coverage: 100% ✅ (3/3 AC covered)
-- P1 Coverage: 100% ✅ (2/2 AC covered)
-- P0 Pass Rate: 100% ✅ (5/5 tests passing)
-- P1 Pass Rate: 100% ✅ (4/4 tests passing)
-- Overall Pass Rate: 100% ✅ (9/9 tests passing)
-- Security Issues: 0 ✅
-
-## Next Steps
-
-1. Deploy to staging
-2. Monitor for 24 hours
-3. Deploy to production
-```
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **test-design** - Defines P0-P3 priorities
-- **atdd** / **automate** - Generate tests that trace validates
-- **nfr-assess** - Provides NFR validation for gate
-
----
-
-## nfr-assess (Non-Functional Requirements)
-
-### Purpose
-
-Assess non-functional requirements (performance, security, reliability, maintainability) against defined thresholds using evidence-based validation.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:** Before release (after implementation)
-**Duration:** 1-2 hours
-**Required:** Recommended for releases
-
-### When to Use
-
-Run **before quality gate decision** to validate NFRs.
-
-**Trigger Points:**
-
-- Before release
-- Before major deployment
-- After performance/security testing
-
-### NFR Categories
-
-**Performance:**
-
-- Response time (p95: 500ms)
-- Throughput (100 RPS)
-- CPU usage (<70%)
-- Memory usage (<80%)
-
-**Security:**
-
-- Security score (≥85/100)
-- Critical vulnerabilities (0)
-- High vulnerabilities (<3)
-- MFA enabled
-
-**Reliability:**
-
-- Uptime (≥99.9%)
-- Error rate (<0.1%)
-- MTTR (<15 min)
-- CI burn-in (100 runs)
-
-**Maintainability:**
-
-- Test coverage (≥80%)
-- Code quality (≥85/100)
-- Technical debt (<5%)
-- Documentation (≥90%)
-
-### Process Overview
-
-**Phase 1: Load Context (Steps 1-2)**
-
-- Load tech-spec/PRD for NFR requirements
-- Load test results, metrics, logs
-
-**Phase 2: Assess NFRs (Steps 3-6)**
-
-- Performance assessment (against thresholds)
-- Security assessment
-- Reliability assessment
-- Maintainability assessment
-
-**Phase 3: Evidence Validation (Steps 7-8)**
-
-- Validate evidence exists and is fresh
-- Apply deterministic PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL rules
-
-**Phase 4: Reporting (Step 9)**
-
-- Generate NFR assessment report
-- Identify quick wins
-- Provide recommendations
-
-### Assessment Rules
-
-**PASS** ✅: Evidence exists AND meets/exceeds threshold
-**CONCERNS** ⚠️: Threshold unknown OR evidence missing/incomplete OR close to threshold
-**FAIL** ❌: Evidence exists BUT does NOT meet threshold
-
-### Example Output
-
-```markdown
-# NFR Assessment - Story 1.2
-
-**Overall Status:** PASS ✅
-
-## Performance Assessment
-
-- Response Time p95: PASS ✅ (320ms < 500ms)
-- Throughput: PASS ✅ (250 RPS > 100 RPS)
-
-**Evidence:** Load test results (2025-11-02)
-
-## Security Assessment
-
-- Authentication: PASS ✅ (MFA enforced)
-- Data Protection: PASS ✅ (AES-256 + TLS 1.3)
-
-**Evidence:** Security audit (2025-11-02)
-
-## Reliability Assessment
-
-- Uptime: PASS ✅ (99.95% > 99.9%)
-- Error Rate: PASS ✅ (0.05% < 0.1%)
-- CI Burn-in: PASS ✅ (100 consecutive runs, 0 failures)
-
-**Evidence:** Monitoring data (last 7 days), CI logs
-
-## Maintainability Assessment
-
-- Test Coverage: PASS ✅ (87% > 80%)
-- Code Quality: PASS ✅ (92/100 > 85/100)
-
-**Evidence:** Coverage report, SonarQube scan
-
-Gate Status: PASS ✅ - All NFRs met
-```
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **trace** (Phase 2) - Uses NFR assessment in gate decision
-
----
-
-## test-review
-
-### Purpose
-
-Perform comprehensive quality validation of test code using TEA's knowledge base, detecting flaky patterns, validating structure, and providing actionable feedback.
-
-**Agent:** TEA (Test Architect)
-**When to Run:** After test creation (per test file or suite)
-**Duration:** 30-60 minutes
-**Required:** Recommended for critical tests
-
-### When to Use
-
-Run **after test creation** to validate quality.
-
-**Trigger Points:**
-
-- After atdd workflow
-- After automate workflow
-- After developer writes tests
-- Before code-review workflow
-- Periodic quality audits
-
-### Quality Scoring (0-100)
-
-**Score Calculation:**
-
-```
-Starting Score: 100
-
-Deductions:
-- Critical (P0): -10 points each
-- High (P1): -5 points each
-- Medium (P2): -2 points each
-- Low (P3): -1 point each
-
-Bonus (max +30):
-+ Excellent BDD structure: +5
-+ Comprehensive fixtures: +5
-+ Data factories: +5
-+ Network-first pattern: +5
-+ Perfect isolation: +5
-+ All test IDs present: +5
-```
-
-**Quality Grades:**
-
-- **90-100 (A+)**: Excellent - Production-ready
-- **80-89 (A)**: Good - Minor improvements
-- **70-79 (B)**: Acceptable - Some issues
-- **60-69 (C)**: Needs Improvement
-- **<60 (F)**: Critical Issues
-
-### Quality Criteria Checked
-
-1. **BDD Format** (Given-When-Then)
-2. **Test IDs** ({STORY_ID}-{LEVEL}-{SEQ})
-3. **Priority Markers** (P0/P1/P2/P3)
-4. **No Hard Waits** (page.waitForTimeout)
-5. **Determinism** (no conditionals/try-catch)
-6. **Isolation** (tests clean up, no shared state)
-7. **Fixture Patterns** (pure function → fixture → mergeTests)
-8. **Data Factories** (faker.js, no hardcoded data)
-9. **Network-First Pattern** (route before navigate)
-10. **Explicit Assertions**
-11. **Test Length** (≤300 lines)
-12. **Test Duration** (≤1.5 min)
-13. **Flakiness Patterns** (tight timeouts, race conditions)
-
-### Example Output
-
-```markdown
-# Test Quality Review: login.spec.ts
-
-**Quality Score:** 92/100 (A+ - Excellent)
-**Recommendation:** Approve - Production Ready
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-Excellent test quality with comprehensive coverage and best practices.
-
-**Strengths:**
-✅ Clear Given-When-Then structure
-✅ All test IDs present (1.2-E2E-001, 1.2-E2E-002)
-✅ Network-first pattern used consistently
-✅ Perfect test isolation with cleanup
-✅ Data factories for test data
-
-**Minor Issues:**
-⚠️ One test slightly verbose (245 lines) - consider helper function
-
-**Recommendation:** Approve without changes.
-```
-
-### Related Workflows
-
-- **atdd** - Review after ATDD generation
-- **automate** - Review after automation expansion
-- **code-review** - Test quality feeds into overall review
-
----
-
-## Testing Workflow Integration
-
-### With Implementation Workflows
-
-```
-Phase 4: Implementation          Testarch (Parallel)
-──────────────────────          ───────────────────
-
-                        → framework (once at start)
-                        → test-design (per epic)
-
-create-story            → atdd (P0/P1 failing tests)
-story-context
-dev-story               → Tests pass (RED → GREEN)
-                        → automate (expand P1/P2 coverage)
-code-review             → test-review (validate quality)
-story-done
-                        → trace Phase 1 (coverage check)
-
-Epic complete           → retrospective
-                        → nfr-assess (NFRs)
-                        → trace Phase 2 (quality gate)
-```
-
-### Recommended Testing Strategy
-
-**Level 0-1 Projects:**
-
-- framework (optional)
-- atdd (optional, if tests needed)
-- Skip test-design, automate
-
-**Level 2 Projects:**
-
-- framework (required)
-- test-design (optional)
-- atdd (P0 stories)
-- automate (optional)
-- trace Phase 1 (optional)
-
-**Level 3-4 Projects:**
-
-- framework (required)
-- test-design (required)
-- atdd (all P0/P1 stories)
-- automate (comprehensive coverage)
-- ci (required)
-- trace Phase 1 (required)
-- nfr-assess (before release)
-- trace Phase 2 (quality gate)
-- test-review (critical tests)
-
----
-
-## Best Practices
-
-### 1. Test Early, Test Often
-
-Run **atdd before dev-story** for P0/P1 stories. Write failing tests first.
-
-### 2. Use Test Design for Complex Projects
-
-Don't skip test-design for Level 3-4. Risk assessment prevents gaps.
-
-### 3. Trust the Burn-In Loop
-
-Flaky tests are poison. Always run burn-in in CI to catch them.
-
-### 4. Review Test Quality
-
-Don't assume generated tests are perfect. Run test-review for critical tests.
-
-### 5. Make Quality Gates Explicit
-
-Use trace Phase 2 for release decisions. Document gate criteria.
-
-### 6. Heal Failures Automatically
-
-Enable auto-healing for faster iteration. Pattern-based healing works without MCP.
-
----
-
-## Summary
-
-Testarch workflows provide comprehensive testing infrastructure:
-
-| Workflow            | Frequency         | Critical For            |
-| ------------------- | ----------------- | ----------------------- |
-| **framework**       | Once              | All projects with tests |
-| **test-design**     | Per epic/project  | Level 3-4 planning      |
-| **atdd**            | Per story (P0/P1) | Test-driven development |
-| **automate**        | Per feature       | Comprehensive coverage  |
-| **ci**              | Once              | Continuous integration  |
-| **trace** (Phase 1) | Per story/epic    | Coverage validation     |
-| **trace** (Phase 2) | Before release    | Quality gate            |
-| **nfr-assess**      | Before release    | NFR validation          |
-| **test-review**     | As needed         | Test quality            |
-
-**Key Takeaway:** Testing is not a phase—it's a continuous practice integrated throughout implementation. Use testarch workflows to ensure comprehensive, high-quality test coverage.