bmad-studio 0.1.0 → 0.2.0

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/bmad-testarch-test-review/checklist.md

@@ -1,475 +0,0 @@
-# Test Quality Review - Validation Checklist
-
-Use this checklist to validate that the test quality review workflow completed successfully and all quality criteria were properly evaluated.
-
----
-
-## Prerequisites
-
-Note: `test-review` is optional and only audits existing tests; it does not generate tests.
-Coverage analysis is out of scope for this workflow. Use `trace` for coverage metrics and coverage gate decisions.
-
-### Test File Discovery
-
-- [ ] Test file(s) identified for review (single/directory/suite scope)
-- [ ] Test files exist and are readable
-- [ ] Test framework detected (Playwright, Jest, Cypress, Vitest, etc.)
-- [ ] Test framework configuration found (playwright.config.ts, jest.config.js, etc.)
-
-### Knowledge Base Loading
-
-- [ ] tea-index.csv loaded successfully
-- [ ] `test-quality.md` loaded (Definition of Done)
-- [ ] `fixture-architecture.md` loaded (Pure function → Fixture patterns)
-- [ ] `network-first.md` loaded (Route intercept before navigate)
-- [ ] `data-factories.md` loaded (Factory patterns)
-- [ ] `test-levels-framework.md` loaded (E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit)
-- [ ] All other enabled fragments loaded successfully
-
-### Context Gathering
-
-- [ ] Story file discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
-- [ ] Test design document discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
-- [ ] Acceptance criteria extracted from story (if available)
-- [ ] Priority context (P0/P1/P2/P3) extracted from test-design (if available)
-
----
-
-## Process Steps
-
-### Step 1: Context Loading
-
-- [ ] Review scope determined (single/directory/suite)
-- [ ] Test file paths collected
-- [ ] Related artifacts discovered (story, test-design)
-- [ ] Knowledge base fragments loaded successfully
-- [ ] Quality criteria flags read from workflow variables
-
-### Step 2: Test File Parsing
-
-**For Each Test File:**
-
-- [ ] File read successfully
-- [ ] File size measured (lines, KB)
-- [ ] File structure parsed (describe blocks, it blocks)
-- [ ] Test IDs extracted (if present)
-- [ ] Priority markers extracted (if present)
-- [ ] Imports analyzed
-- [ ] Dependencies identified
-
-**Test Structure Analysis:**
-
-- [ ] Describe block count calculated
-- [ ] It/test block count calculated
-- [ ] BDD structure identified (Given-When-Then)
-- [ ] Fixture usage detected
-- [ ] Data factory usage detected
-- [ ] Network interception patterns identified
-- [ ] Assertions counted
-- [ ] Waits and timeouts cataloged
-- [ ] Conditionals (if/else) detected
-- [ ] Try/catch blocks detected
-- [ ] Shared state or globals detected
-
-### Step 3: Quality Criteria Validation
-
-Coverage criteria are intentionally excluded from this checklist.
-
-**For Each Enabled Criterion:**
-
-#### BDD Format (if `check_given_when_then: true`)
-
-- [ ] Given-When-Then structure evaluated
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with line numbers
-- [ ] Examples of good/bad patterns noted
-
-#### Test IDs (if `check_test_ids: true`)
-
-- [ ] Test ID presence validated
-- [ ] Test ID format checked (e.g., 1.3-E2E-001)
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Missing IDs cataloged
-
-#### Priority Markers (if `check_priority_markers: true`)
-
-- [ ] P0/P1/P2/P3 classification validated
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Missing priorities cataloged
-
-#### Hard Waits (if `check_hard_waits: true`)
-
-- [ ] sleep(), waitForTimeout(), hardcoded delays detected
-- [ ] Justification comments checked
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with line numbers and recommended fixes
-
-#### Determinism (if `check_determinism: true`)
-
-- [ ] Conditionals (if/else/switch) detected
-- [ ] Try/catch abuse detected
-- [ ] Random values (Math.random, Date.now) detected
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with recommended fixes
-
-#### Isolation (if `check_isolation: true`)
-
-- [ ] Cleanup hooks (afterEach/afterAll) validated
-- [ ] Shared state detected
-- [ ] Global variable mutations detected
-- [ ] Resource cleanup verified
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with recommended fixes
-
-#### Fixture Patterns (if `check_fixture_patterns: true`)
-
-- [ ] Fixtures detected (test.extend)
-- [ ] Pure functions validated
-- [ ] mergeTests usage checked
-- [ ] beforeEach complexity analyzed
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with recommended fixes
-
-#### Data Factories (if `check_data_factories: true`)
-
-- [ ] Factory functions detected
-- [ ] Hardcoded data (magic strings/numbers) detected
-- [ ] Faker.js or similar usage validated
-- [ ] API-first setup pattern checked
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with recommended fixes
-
-#### Network-First (if `check_network_first: true`)
-
-- [ ] page.route() before page.goto() validated
-- [ ] Race conditions detected (route after navigate)
-- [ ] waitForResponse patterns checked
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with recommended fixes
-
-#### Assertions (if `check_assertions: true`)
-
-- [ ] Explicit assertions counted
-- [ ] Implicit waits without assertions detected
-- [ ] Assertion specificity validated
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with recommended fixes
-
-#### Test Length (if `check_test_length: true`)
-
-- [ ] File line count calculated
-- [ ] Threshold comparison (≤300 lines ideal)
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Splitting recommendations generated (if >300 lines)
-
-#### Test Duration (if `check_test_duration: true`)
-
-- [ ] Test complexity analyzed (as proxy for duration if no execution data)
-- [ ] Threshold comparison (≤1.5 min target)
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Optimization recommendations generated
-
-#### Flakiness Patterns (if `check_flakiness_patterns: true`)
-
-- [ ] Tight timeouts detected (e.g., { timeout: 1000 })
-- [ ] Race conditions detected
-- [ ] Timing-dependent assertions detected
-- [ ] Retry logic detected
-- [ ] Environment-dependent assumptions detected
-- [ ] Status assigned (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-- [ ] Violations recorded with recommended fixes
-
----
-
-### Step 4: Quality Score Calculation
-
-**Violation Counting:**
-
-- [ ] Critical (P0) violations counted
-- [ ] High (P1) violations counted
-- [ ] Medium (P2) violations counted
-- [ ] Low (P3) violations counted
-- [ ] Violation breakdown by criterion recorded
-
-**Score Calculation:**
-
-- [ ] Starting score: 100
-- [ ] Critical violations deducted (-10 each)
-- [ ] High violations deducted (-5 each)
-- [ ] Medium violations deducted (-2 each)
-- [ ] Low violations deducted (-1 each)
-- [ ] Bonus points added (max +30):
-  - [ ] Excellent BDD structure (+5 if applicable)
-  - [ ] Comprehensive fixtures (+5 if applicable)
-  - [ ] Comprehensive data factories (+5 if applicable)
-  - [ ] Network-first pattern (+5 if applicable)
-  - [ ] Perfect isolation (+5 if applicable)
-  - [ ] All test IDs present (+5 if applicable)
-- [ ] Final score calculated: max(0, min(100, Starting - Violations + Bonus))
-
-**Quality Grade:**
-
-- [ ] Grade assigned based on score:
-  - 90-100: A+ (Excellent)
-  - 80-89: A (Good)
-  - 70-79: B (Acceptable)
-  - 60-69: C (Needs Improvement)
-  - <60: F (Critical Issues)
-
----
-
-### Step 5: Review Report Generation
-
-**Report Sections Created:**
-
-- [ ] **Header Section**:
-  - [ ] Test file(s) reviewed listed
-  - [ ] Review date recorded
-  - [ ] Review scope noted (single/directory/suite)
-  - [ ] Quality score and grade displayed
-
-- [ ] **Executive Summary**:
-  - [ ] Overall assessment (Excellent/Good/Needs Improvement/Critical)
-  - [ ] Key strengths listed (3-5 bullet points)
-  - [ ] Key weaknesses listed (3-5 bullet points)
-  - [ ] Recommendation stated (Approve/Approve with comments/Request changes/Block)
-
-- [ ] **Quality Criteria Assessment**:
-  - [ ] Table with all criteria evaluated
-  - [ ] Status for each criterion (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-  - [ ] Violation count per criterion
-
-- [ ] **Critical Issues (Must Fix)**:
-  - [ ] P0/P1 violations listed
-  - [ ] Code location provided for each (file:line)
-  - [ ] Issue explanation clear
-  - [ ] Recommended fix provided with code example
-  - [ ] Knowledge base reference provided
-
-- [ ] **Recommendations (Should Fix)**:
-  - [ ] P2/P3 violations listed
-  - [ ] Code location provided for each (file:line)
-  - [ ] Issue explanation clear
-  - [ ] Recommended improvement provided with code example
-  - [ ] Knowledge base reference provided
-
-- [ ] **Best Practices Examples** (if good patterns found):
-  - [ ] Good patterns highlighted from tests
-  - [ ] Knowledge base fragments referenced
-  - [ ] Examples provided for others to follow
-
-- [ ] **Knowledge Base References**:
-  - [ ] All fragments consulted listed
-  - [ ] Links to detailed guidance provided
-
----
-
-### Step 6: Optional Outputs Generation
-
-**Inline Comments** (if `generate_inline_comments: true`):
-
-- [ ] Inline comments generated at violation locations
-- [ ] Comment format: `// TODO (TEA Review): [Issue] - See test-review-{filename}.md`
-- [ ] Comments added to test files (no logic changes)
-- [ ] Test files remain valid and executable
-
-**Quality Badge** (if `generate_quality_badge: true`):
-
-- [ ] Badge created with quality score (e.g., "Test Quality: 87/100 (A)")
-- [ ] Badge format suitable for README or documentation
-- [ ] Badge saved to output folder
-
-**Story Update** (if `append_to_story: true` and story file exists):
-
-- [ ] "Test Quality Review" section created
-- [ ] Quality score included
-- [ ] Critical issues summarized
-- [ ] Link to full review report provided
-- [ ] Story file updated successfully
-
----
-
-### Step 7: Save and Notify
-
-**Outputs Saved:**
-
-- [ ] Review report saved to `{output_file}`
-- [ ] Inline comments written to test files (if enabled)
-- [ ] Quality badge saved (if enabled)
-- [ ] Story file updated (if enabled)
-- [ ] All outputs are valid and readable
-
-**Summary Message Generated:**
-
-- [ ] Quality score and grade included
-- [ ] Critical issue count stated
-- [ ] Recommendation provided (Approve/Request changes/Block)
-- [ ] Next steps clarified
-- [ ] Message displayed to user
-
----
-
-## Output Validation
-
-### Review Report Completeness
-
-- [ ] All required sections present
-- [ ] No placeholder text or TODOs in report
-- [ ] All code locations are accurate (file:line)
-- [ ] All code examples are valid and demonstrate fix
-- [ ] All knowledge base references are correct
-
-### Review Report Accuracy
-
-- [ ] Quality score matches violation breakdown
-- [ ] Grade matches score range
-- [ ] Violations correctly categorized by severity (P0/P1/P2/P3)
-- [ ] Violations correctly attributed to quality criteria
-- [ ] No false positives (violations are legitimate issues)
-- [ ] No false negatives (critical issues not missed)
-
-### Review Report Clarity
-
-- [ ] Executive summary is clear and actionable
-- [ ] Issue explanations are understandable
-- [ ] Recommended fixes are implementable
-- [ ] Code examples are correct and runnable
-- [ ] Recommendation (Approve/Request changes) is clear
-
----
-
-## Quality Checks
-
-### Knowledge-Based Validation
-
-- [ ] All feedback grounded in knowledge base fragments
-- [ ] Recommendations follow proven patterns
-- [ ] No arbitrary or opinion-based feedback
-- [ ] Knowledge fragment references accurate and relevant
-
-### Actionable Feedback
-
-- [ ] Every issue includes recommended fix
-- [ ] Every fix includes code example
-- [ ] Code examples demonstrate correct pattern
-- [ ] Fixes reference knowledge base for more detail
-
-### Severity Classification
-
-- [ ] Critical (P0) issues are genuinely critical (hard waits, race conditions, no assertions)
-- [ ] High (P1) issues impact maintainability/reliability (missing IDs, hardcoded data)
-- [ ] Medium (P2) issues are nice-to-have improvements (long files, missing priorities)
-- [ ] Low (P3) issues are minor style/preference (verbose tests)
-
-### Context Awareness
-
-- [ ] Review considers project context (some patterns may be justified)
-- [ ] Violations with justification comments noted as acceptable
-- [ ] Edge cases acknowledged
-- [ ] Recommendations are pragmatic, not dogmatic
-
----
-
-## Integration Points
-
-### Story File Integration
-
-- [ ] Story file discovered correctly (if available)
-- [ ] Acceptance criteria extracted and used for context
-- [ ] Test quality section appended to story (if enabled)
-- [ ] Link to review report added to story
-
-### Test Design Integration
-
-- [ ] Test design document discovered correctly (if available)
-- [ ] Priority context (P0/P1/P2/P3) extracted and used
-- [ ] Review validates tests align with prioritization
-- [ ] Misalignment flagged (e.g., P0 scenario missing tests)
-
-### Knowledge Base Integration
-
-- [ ] tea-index.csv loaded successfully
-- [ ] All required fragments loaded
-- [ ] Fragments applied correctly to validation
-- [ ] Fragment references in report are accurate
-
----
-
-## Edge Cases and Special Situations
-
-### Empty or Minimal Tests
-
-- [ ] If test file is empty, report notes "No tests found"
-- [ ] If test file has only boilerplate, report notes "No meaningful tests"
-- [ ] Score reflects lack of content appropriately
-
-### Legacy Tests
-
-- [ ] Legacy tests acknowledged in context
-- [ ] Review provides practical recommendations for improvement
-- [ ] Recognizes that complete refactor may not be feasible
-- [ ] Prioritizes critical issues (flakiness) over style
-
-### Test Framework Variations
-
-- [ ] Review adapts to test framework (Playwright vs Jest vs Cypress)
-- [ ] Framework-specific patterns recognized (e.g., Playwright fixtures)
-- [ ] Framework-specific violations detected (e.g., Cypress anti-patterns)
-- [ ] Knowledge fragments applied appropriately for framework
-
-### Justified Violations
-
-- [ ] Violations with justification comments in code noted as acceptable
-- [ ] Justifications evaluated for legitimacy
-- [ ] Report acknowledges justified patterns
-- [ ] Score not penalized for justified violations
-
----
-
-## Final Validation
-
-### Review Completeness
-
-- [ ] All enabled quality criteria evaluated
-- [ ] All test files in scope reviewed
-- [ ] All violations cataloged
-- [ ] All recommendations provided
-- [ ] Review report is comprehensive
-
-### Review Accuracy
-
-- [ ] Quality score is accurate
-- [ ] Violations are correct (no false positives)
-- [ ] Critical issues not missed (no false negatives)
-- [ ] Code locations are correct
-- [ ] Knowledge base references are accurate
-
-### Review Usefulness
-
-- [ ] Feedback is actionable
-- [ ] Recommendations are implementable
-- [ ] Code examples are correct
-- [ ] Review helps developer improve tests
-- [ ] Review educates on best practices
-
-### Workflow Complete
-
-- [ ] All checklist items completed
-- [ ] All outputs validated and saved
-- [ ] User notified with summary
-- [ ] Review ready for developer consumption
-- [ ] Follow-up actions identified (if any)
-
----
-
-## Notes
-
-Record any issues, observations, or important context during workflow execution:
-
-- **Test Framework**: [Playwright, Jest, Cypress, etc.]
-- **Review Scope**: [single file, directory, full suite]
-- **Quality Score**: [0-100 score, letter grade]
-- **Critical Issues**: [Count of P0/P1 violations]
-- **Recommendation**: [Approve / Approve with comments / Request changes / Block]
-- **Special Considerations**: [Legacy code, justified patterns, edge cases]
-- **Follow-up Actions**: [Re-review after fixes, pair programming, etc.]

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/bmad-testarch-test-review/instructions.md

@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
-# Test Quality Review
-
-**Workflow:** `bmad-testarch-test-review`
-**Version:** 5.0 (Step-File Architecture)
-
----
-
-## Overview
-
-Review test quality using TEA knowledge base and produce a 0–100 quality score with actionable findings.
-
-Coverage assessment is intentionally out of scope for this workflow. Use `trace` for requirements coverage and coverage gate decisions.
-
----
-
-## WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE
-
-This workflow uses **step-file architecture**:
-
-- **Micro-file Design**: Each step is self-contained
-- **JIT Loading**: Only the current step file is in memory
-- **Sequential Enforcement**: Execute steps in order
-
----
-
-## INITIALIZATION SEQUENCE
-
-### 1. Configuration Loading
-
-From `workflow.yaml`, resolve:
-
-- `config_source`, `test_artifacts`, `user_name`, `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `date`
-- `test_dir`, `review_scope`
-
-### 2. First Step
-
-Load, read completely, and execute:
-`./steps-c/step-01-load-context.md`
-
-### 3. Resume Support
-
-If the user selects **Resume** mode, load, read completely, and execute:
-`./steps-c/step-01b-resume.md`
-
-This checks the output document for progress tracking frontmatter and routes to the next incomplete step.