bmad-studio 0.1.0

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/bmad-testarch-test-review/steps-c/step-04-generate-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+---
+name: 'step-04-generate-report'
+description: 'Create test-review report and validate'
+outputFile: '{test_artifacts}/test-review.md'
+---
+
+# Step 4: Generate Report & Validate
+
+## STEP GOAL
+
+Produce the test-review report and validate against checklist.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES
+
+- 📖 Read the entire step file before acting
+- ✅ Speak in `{communication_language}`
+
+---
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Follow the MANDATORY SEQUENCE exactly
+- 💾 Record outputs before proceeding
+- 📖 Load the next step only when instructed
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: config, loaded artifacts, and knowledge fragments
+- Focus: this step's goal only
+- Limits: do not execute future steps
+- Dependencies: prior steps' outputs (if any)
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly. Do not skip, reorder, or improvise.
+
+## 1. Report Generation
+
+Use `test-review-template.md` to produce `{outputFile}` including:
+
+- Score summary
+- Critical findings with fixes
+- Warnings and recommendations
+- Context references (story/test-design if available)
+- Coverage boundary note: `test-review` does not score coverage. Direct coverage findings to `trace`.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Polish Output
+
+Before finalizing, review the complete output document for quality:
+
+1. **Remove duplication**: Progressive-append workflow may have created repeated sections — consolidate
+2. **Verify consistency**: Ensure terminology, risk scores, and references are consistent throughout
+3. **Check completeness**: All template sections should be populated or explicitly marked N/A
+4. **Format cleanup**: Ensure markdown formatting is clean (tables aligned, headers consistent, no orphaned references)
+
+---
+
+## 3. Validation
+
+Validate against `checklist.md` and fix any gaps.
+
+- [ ] CLI sessions cleaned up (no orphaned browsers)
+- [ ] Temp artifacts stored in `{test_artifacts}/` not random locations
+
+---
+
+## 4. Save Progress
+
+**Save this step's accumulated work to `{outputFile}`.**
+
+- **If `{outputFile}` does not exist** (first save), create it using the workflow template (if available) with YAML frontmatter:
+
+  ```yaml
+  ---
+  stepsCompleted: ['step-04-generate-report']
+  lastStep: 'step-04-generate-report'
+  lastSaved: '{date}'
+  ---
+  ```
+
+  Then write this step's output below the frontmatter.
+
+- **If `{outputFile}` already exists**, update:
+  - Add `'step-04-generate-report'` to `stepsCompleted` array (only if not already present)
+  - Set `lastStep: 'step-04-generate-report'`
+  - Set `lastSaved: '{date}'`
+  - Append this step's output to the appropriate section of the document.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Completion Summary
+
+Report:
+
+- Scope reviewed
+- Overall score
+- Critical blockers
+- Next recommended workflow (e.g., `automate` or `trace`)
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS:
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Step completed in full with required outputs
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Skipped sequence steps or missing outputs
+  **Master Rule:** Skipping steps is FORBIDDEN.

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/bmad-testarch-test-review/steps-e/step-01-assess.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: 'step-01-assess'
+description: 'Load an existing output for editing'
+nextStepFile: './step-02-apply-edit.md'
+---
+
+# Step 1: Assess Edit Target
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Identify which output should be edited and load it.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 📖 Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- ✅ Speak in `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are the Master Test Architect
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Ask the user which output file to edit
+- 🚫 Do not edit until target is confirmed
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Follow the MANDATORY SEQUENCE exactly
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: existing outputs
+- Focus: select edit target
+- Limits: no edits yet
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly.
+
+### 1. Identify Target
+
+Ask the user to provide the output file path or select from known outputs.
+
+### 2. Load Target
+
+Read the provided output file in full.
+
+### 3. Confirm
+
+Confirm the target and proceed to edit.
+
+Load next step: `{nextStepFile}`
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS:
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Target identified and loaded
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Proceeding without a confirmed target

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/bmad-testarch-test-review/steps-e/step-02-apply-edit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+name: 'step-02-apply-edit'
+description: 'Apply edits to the selected output'
+---
+
+# Step 2: Apply Edits
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Apply the requested edits to the selected output and confirm changes.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 📖 Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- ✅ Speak in `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are the Master Test Architect
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Only apply edits explicitly requested by the user
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Follow the MANDATORY SEQUENCE exactly
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: selected output and user changes
+- Focus: apply edits only
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly.
+
+### 1. Confirm Requested Changes
+
+Restate what will be changed and confirm.
+
+### 2. Apply Changes
+
+Update the output file accordingly.
+
+### 3. Report
+
+Summarize the edits applied.
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS:
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Changes applied and confirmed
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Unconfirmed edits or missing update

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/bmad-testarch-test-review/steps-v/step-01-validate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: 'step-01-validate'
+description: 'Validate workflow outputs against checklist'
+outputFile: '{test_artifacts}/test-review-validation-report.md'
+validationChecklist: '../checklist.md'
+---
+
+# Step 1: Validate Outputs
+
+## STEP GOAL:
+
+Validate outputs using the workflow checklist and record findings.
+
+## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
+
+### Universal Rules:
+
+- 📖 Read the complete step file before taking any action
+- ✅ Speak in `{communication_language}`
+
+### Role Reinforcement:
+
+- ✅ You are the Master Test Architect
+
+### Step-Specific Rules:
+
+- 🎯 Validate against `{validationChecklist}`
+- 🚫 Do not skip checks
+
+## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
+
+- 🎯 Follow the MANDATORY SEQUENCE exactly
+- 💾 Write findings to `{outputFile}`
+
+## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
+
+- Available context: workflow outputs and checklist
+- Focus: validation only
+- Limits: do not modify outputs in this step
+
+## MANDATORY SEQUENCE
+
+**CRITICAL:** Follow this sequence exactly.
+
+### 1. Load Checklist
+
+Read `{validationChecklist}` and list all criteria.
+
+### 2. Validate Outputs
+
+Evaluate outputs against each checklist item.
+
+### 3. Write Report
+
+Write a validation report to `{outputFile}` with PASS/WARN/FAIL per section.
+
+## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS:
+
+### ✅ SUCCESS:
+
+- Validation report written
+- All checklist items evaluated
+
+### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
+
+- Skipped checklist items
+- No report produced

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

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+---
+stepsCompleted: []
+lastStep: ''
+lastSaved: ''
+workflowType: 'testarch-test-review'
+inputDocuments: []
+---
+
+# Test Quality Review: {test_filename}
+
+**Quality Score**: {score}/100 ({grade} - {assessment})
+**Review Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
+**Review Scope**: {single | directory | suite}
+**Reviewer**: {user_name or TEA Agent}
+
+---
+
+Note: This review audits existing tests; it does not generate tests.
+Coverage mapping and coverage gates are out of scope here. Use `trace` for coverage decisions.
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Overall Assessment**: {Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Critical Issues}
+
+**Recommendation**: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}
+
+### Key Strengths
+
+✅ {strength_1}
+✅ {strength_2}
+✅ {strength_3}
+
+### Key Weaknesses
+
+❌ {weakness_1}
+❌ {weakness_2}
+❌ {weakness_3}
+
+### Summary
+
+{1-2 paragraph summary of overall test quality, highlighting major findings and recommendation rationale}
+
+---
+
+## Quality Criteria Assessment
+
+| Criterion                            | Status                          | Violations | Notes        |
+| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------ |
+| BDD Format (Given-When-Then)         | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Test IDs                             | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Priority Markers (P0/P1/P2/P3)       | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Hard Waits (sleep, waitForTimeout)   | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Determinism (no conditionals)        | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Isolation (cleanup, no shared state) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Fixture Patterns                     | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Data Factories                       | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Network-First Pattern                | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Explicit Assertions                  | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+| Test Length (≤300 lines)             | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {lines}    | {brief_note} |
+| Test Duration (≤1.5 min)             | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {duration} | {brief_note} |
+| Flakiness Patterns                   | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count}    | {brief_note} |
+
+**Total Violations**: {critical_count} Critical, {high_count} High, {medium_count} Medium, {low_count} Low
+
+---
+
+## Quality Score Breakdown
+
+```
+Starting Score:          100
+Critical Violations:     -{critical_count} × 10 = -{critical_deduction}
+High Violations:         -{high_count} × 5 = -{high_deduction}
+Medium Violations:       -{medium_count} × 2 = -{medium_deduction}
+Low Violations:          -{low_count} × 1 = -{low_deduction}
+
+Bonus Points:
+  Excellent BDD:         +{0|5}
+  Comprehensive Fixtures: +{0|5}
+  Data Factories:        +{0|5}
+  Network-First:         +{0|5}
+  Perfect Isolation:     +{0|5}
+  All Test IDs:          +{0|5}
+                         --------
+Total Bonus:             +{bonus_total}
+
+Final Score:             {final_score}/100
+Grade:                   {grade}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
+
+{If no critical issues: "No critical issues detected. ✅"}
+
+{For each critical issue:}
+
+### {issue_number}. {Issue Title}
+
+**Severity**: P0 (Critical)
+**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
+**Criterion**: {criterion_name}
+**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
+
+**Issue Description**:
+{Detailed explanation of what the problem is and why it's critical}
+
+**Current Code**:
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Bad (current implementation)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_problem;
+}
+```
+
+**Recommended Fix**:
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Good (recommended approach)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_solution;
+}
+```
+
+**Why This Matters**:
+{Explanation of impact - flakiness risk, maintainability, reliability}
+
+**Related Violations**:
+{If similar issue appears elsewhere, note line numbers}
+
+---
+
+## Recommendations (Should Fix)
+
+{If no recommendations: "No additional recommendations. Test quality is excellent. ✅"}
+
+{For each recommendation:}
+
+### {rec_number}. {Recommendation Title}
+
+**Severity**: {P1 (High) | P2 (Medium) | P3 (Low)}
+**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
+**Criterion**: {criterion_name}
+**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
+
+**Issue Description**:
+{Detailed explanation of what could be improved and why}
+
+**Current Code**:
+
+```typescript
+// ⚠️ Could be improved (current implementation)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_current_approach;
+}
+```
+
+**Recommended Improvement**:
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Better approach (recommended)
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_improvement;
+}
+```
+
+**Benefits**:
+{Explanation of benefits - maintainability, readability, reusability}
+
+**Priority**:
+{Why this is P1/P2/P3 - urgency and impact}
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices Found
+
+{If good patterns found, highlight them}
+
+{For each best practice:}
+
+### {practice_number}. {Best Practice Title}
+
+**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
+**Pattern**: {pattern_name}
+**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
+
+**Why This Is Good**:
+{Explanation of why this pattern is excellent}
+
+**Code Example**:
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Excellent pattern demonstrated in this test
+{
+  code_snippet_showing_best_practice;
+}
+```
+
+**Use as Reference**:
+{Encourage using this pattern in other tests}
+
+---
+
+## Test File Analysis
+
+### File Metadata
+
+- **File Path**: `{relative_path_from_project_root}`
+- **File Size**: {line_count} lines, {kb_size} KB
+- **Test Framework**: {Playwright | Jest | Cypress | Vitest | Other}
+- **Language**: {TypeScript | JavaScript}
+
+### Test Structure
+
+- **Describe Blocks**: {describe_count}
+- **Test Cases (it/test)**: {test_count}
+- **Average Test Length**: {avg_lines_per_test} lines per test
+- **Fixtures Used**: {fixture_count} ({fixture_names})
+- **Data Factories Used**: {factory_count} ({factory_names})
+
+### Test Scope
+
+- **Test IDs**: {test_id_list}
+- **Priority Distribution**:
+  - P0 (Critical): {p0_count} tests
+  - P1 (High): {p1_count} tests
+  - P2 (Medium): {p2_count} tests
+  - P3 (Low): {p3_count} tests
+  - Unknown: {unknown_count} tests
+
+### Assertions Analysis
+
+- **Total Assertions**: {assertion_count}
+- **Assertions per Test**: {avg_assertions_per_test} (avg)
+- **Assertion Types**: {assertion_types_used}
+
+---
+
+## Context and Integration
+
+### Related Artifacts
+
+{If story file found:}
+
+- **Story File**: [{story_filename}]({story_path})
+
+{If test-design found:}
+
+- **Test Design**: [{test_design_filename}]({test_design_path})
+- **Risk Assessment**: {risk_level}
+- **Priority Framework**: P0-P3 applied
+
+---
+
+## Knowledge Base References
+
+This review consulted the following knowledge base fragments:
+
+- **[test-quality.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-quality.md)** - Definition of Done for tests (no hard waits, <300 lines, <1.5 min, self-cleaning)
+- **[fixture-architecture.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/fixture-architecture.md)** - Pure function → Fixture → mergeTests pattern
+- **[network-first.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/network-first.md)** - Route intercept before navigate (race condition prevention)
+- **[data-factories.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/data-factories.md)** - Factory functions with overrides, API-first setup
+- **[test-levels-framework.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-levels-framework.md)** - E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit appropriateness
+- **[tdd-cycles.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/tdd-cycles.md)** - Red-Green-Refactor patterns
+- **[selective-testing.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/selective-testing.md)** - Duplicate coverage detection
+- **[ci-burn-in.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/ci-burn-in.md)** - Flakiness detection patterns (10-iteration loop)
+- **[test-priorities.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-priorities.md)** - P0/P1/P2/P3 classification framework
+
+For coverage mapping, consult `trace` workflow outputs.
+
+See [tea-index.csv](../../../testarch/tea-index.csv) for complete knowledge base.
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+### Immediate Actions (Before Merge)
+
+1. **{action_1}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
+   - Owner: {team_or_person}
+   - Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}
+
+2. **{action_2}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
+   - Owner: {team_or_person}
+   - Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}
+
+### Follow-up Actions (Future PRs)
+
+1. **{action_1}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P2 | P3}
+   - Target: {next_milestone | backlog}
+
+2. **{action_2}** - {description}
+   - Priority: {P2 | P3}
+   - Target: {next_milestone | backlog}
+
+### Re-Review Needed?
+
+{✅ No re-review needed - approve as-is}
+{⚠️ Re-review after critical fixes - request changes, then re-review}
+{❌ Major refactor required - block merge, pair programming recommended}
+
+---
+
+## Decision
+
+**Recommendation**: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}
+
+**Rationale**:
+{1-2 paragraph explanation of recommendation based on findings}
+
+**For Approve**:
+
+> Test quality is excellent/good with {score}/100 score. {Minor issues noted can be addressed in follow-up PRs.} Tests are production-ready and follow best practices.
+
+**For Approve with Comments**:
+
+> Test quality is acceptable with {score}/100 score. {High-priority recommendations should be addressed but don't block merge.} Critical issues resolved, but improvements would enhance maintainability.
+
+**For Request Changes**:
+
+> Test quality needs improvement with {score}/100 score. {Critical issues must be fixed before merge.} {X} critical violations detected that pose flakiness/maintainability risks.
+
+**For Block**:
+
+> Test quality is insufficient with {score}/100 score. {Multiple critical issues make tests unsuitable for production.} Recommend pairing session with QA engineer to apply patterns from knowledge base.
+
+---
+
+## Appendix
+
+### Violation Summary by Location
+
+{Table of all violations sorted by line number:}
+
+| Line   | Severity      | Criterion   | Issue         | Fix         |
+| ------ | ------------- | ----------- | ------------- | ----------- |
+| {line} | {P0/P1/P2/P3} | {criterion} | {brief_issue} | {brief_fix} |
+| {line} | {P0/P1/P2/P3} | {criterion} | {brief_issue} | {brief_fix} |
+
+### Quality Trends
+
+{If reviewing same file multiple times, show trend:}
+
+| Review Date  | Score         | Grade     | Critical Issues | Trend       |
+| ------------ | ------------- | --------- | --------------- | ----------- |
+| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_1}/100 | {grade_1} | {count_1}       | ⬆️ Improved |
+| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_2}/100 | {grade_2} | {count_2}       | ⬇️ Declined |
+| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_3}/100 | {grade_3} | {count_3}       | ➡️ Stable   |
+
+### Related Reviews
+
+{If reviewing multiple files in directory/suite:}
+
+| File     | Score       | Grade   | Critical | Status             |
+| -------- | ----------- | ------- | -------- | ------------------ |
+| {file_1} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count}  | {Approved/Blocked} |
+| {file_2} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count}  | {Approved/Blocked} |
+| {file_3} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count}  | {Approved/Blocked} |
+
+**Suite Average**: {avg_score}/100 ({avg_grade})
+
+---
+
+## Review Metadata
+
+**Generated By**: BMad TEA Agent (Test Architect)
+**Workflow**: testarch-test-review v4.0
+**Review ID**: test-review-{filename}-{YYYYMMDD}
+**Timestamp**: {YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS}
+**Version**: 1.0
+
+---
+
+## Feedback on This Review
+
+If you have questions or feedback on this review:
+
+1. Review patterns in knowledge base: `testarch/knowledge/`
+2. Consult tea-index.csv for detailed guidance
+3. Request clarification on specific violations
+4. Pair with QA engineer to apply patterns
+
+This review is guidance, not rigid rules. Context matters - if a pattern is justified, document it with a comment.