npm - create-byan-agent - Versions diffs - 2.1.0 → 2.1.1 - Mend

create-byan-agent 2.1.0 → 2.1.1

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Files changed (751) hide show

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/workflow.yaml DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
-# Test Architect workflow: test-review
-name: testarch-test-review
-description: "Review test quality using comprehensive knowledge base and best practices validation"
-author: "BMad"
-# Critical variables from config
-config_source: "{project-root}/_bmad/tea/config.yaml"
-output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
-user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
-communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
-document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
-date: system-generated
-# Workflow components
-installed_path: "{project-root}/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review"
-instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
-validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
-template: "{installed_path}/test-review-template.md"
-# Variables and inputs
-variables:
-  test_dir: "{project-root}/tests" # Root test directory
-  review_scope: "single" # single (one file), directory (folder), suite (all tests)
-# Output configuration
-default_output_file: "{output_folder}/test-review.md"
-# Required tools
-required_tools:
-  - read_file # Read test files, story, test-design
-  - write_file # Create review report
-  - list_files # Discover test files in directory
-  - search_repo # Find tests by patterns
-  - glob # Find test files matching patterns
-tags:
-  - qa
-  - test-architect
-  - code-review
-  - quality
-  - best-practices
-execution_hints:
-  interactive: false # Minimize prompts
-  autonomous: true # Proceed without user input unless blocked
-  iterative: true # Can review multiple files

package/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/trace/checklist.md DELETED Viewed

@@ -1,642 +0,0 @@
-# Requirements Traceability & Gate Decision - Validation Checklist
-**Workflow:** `testarch-trace`
-**Purpose:** Ensure complete traceability matrix with actionable gap analysis AND make deployment readiness decision (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED)
-This checklist covers **two sequential phases**:
-- **PHASE 1**: Requirements Traceability (always executed)
-- **PHASE 2**: Quality Gate Decision (executed if `enable_gate_decision: true`)
----
-# PHASE 1: REQUIREMENTS TRACEABILITY
-## Prerequisites Validation
-- [ ] Acceptance criteria are available (from story file OR inline)
-- [ ] Test suite exists (or gaps are acknowledged and documented)
-- [ ] If tests are missing, recommend `*atdd` (trace does not run it automatically)
-- [ ] Test directory path is correct (`test_dir` variable)
-- [ ] Story file is accessible (if using BMad mode)
-- [ ] Knowledge base is loaded (test-priorities, traceability, risk-governance)
----
-## Context Loading
-- [ ] Story file read successfully (if applicable)
-- [ ] Acceptance criteria extracted correctly
-- [ ] Story ID identified (e.g., 1.3)
-- [ ] `test-design.md` loaded (if available)
-- [ ] `tech-spec.md` loaded (if available)
-- [ ] `PRD.md` loaded (if available)
-- [ ] Relevant knowledge fragments loaded from `tea-index.csv`
----
-## Test Discovery and Cataloging
-- [ ] Tests auto-discovered using multiple strategies (test IDs, describe blocks, file paths)
-- [ ] Tests categorized by level (E2E, API, Component, Unit)
-- [ ] Test metadata extracted:
-  - [ ] Test IDs (e.g., 1.3-E2E-001)
-  - [ ] Describe/context blocks
-  - [ ] It blocks (individual test cases)
-  - [ ] Given-When-Then structure (if BDD)
-  - [ ] Priority markers (P0/P1/P2/P3)
-- [ ] All relevant test files found (no tests missed due to naming conventions)
----
-## Criteria-to-Test Mapping
-- [ ] Each acceptance criterion mapped to tests (or marked as NONE)
-- [ ] Explicit references found (test IDs, describe blocks mentioning criterion)
-- [ ] Test level documented (E2E, API, Component, Unit)
-- [ ] Given-When-Then narrative verified for alignment
-- [ ] Traceability matrix table generated:
-  - [ ] Criterion ID
-  - [ ] Description
-  - [ ] Test ID
-  - [ ] Test File
-  - [ ] Test Level
-  - [ ] Coverage Status
----
-## Coverage Classification
-- [ ] Coverage status classified for each criterion:
-  - [ ] **FULL** - All scenarios validated at appropriate level(s)
-  - [ ] **PARTIAL** - Some coverage but missing edge cases or levels
-  - [ ] **NONE** - No test coverage at any level
-  - [ ] **UNIT-ONLY** - Only unit tests (missing integration/E2E validation)
-  - [ ] **INTEGRATION-ONLY** - Only API/Component tests (missing unit confidence)
-- [ ] Classification justifications provided
-- [ ] Edge cases considered in FULL vs PARTIAL determination
----
-## Duplicate Coverage Detection
-- [ ] Duplicate coverage checked across test levels
-- [ ] Acceptable overlap identified (defense in depth for critical paths)
-- [ ] Unacceptable duplication flagged (same validation at multiple levels)
-- [ ] Recommendations provided for consolidation
-- [ ] Selective testing principles applied
----
-## Gap Analysis
-- [ ] Coverage gaps identified:
-  - [ ] Criteria with NONE status
-  - [ ] Criteria with PARTIAL status
-  - [ ] Criteria with UNIT-ONLY status
-  - [ ] Criteria with INTEGRATION-ONLY status
-- [ ] Gaps prioritized by risk level using test-priorities framework:
-  - [ ] **CRITICAL** - P0 criteria without FULL coverage (BLOCKER)
-  - [ ] **HIGH** - P1 criteria without FULL coverage (PR blocker)
-  - [ ] **MEDIUM** - P2 criteria without FULL coverage (nightly gap)
-  - [ ] **LOW** - P3 criteria without FULL coverage (acceptable)
-- [ ] Specific test recommendations provided for each gap:
-  - [ ] Suggested test level (E2E, API, Component, Unit)
-  - [ ] Test description (Given-When-Then)
-  - [ ] Recommended test ID (e.g., 1.3-E2E-004)
-  - [ ] Explanation of why test is needed
----
-## Coverage Metrics
-- [ ] Overall coverage percentage calculated (FULL coverage / total criteria)
-- [ ] P0 coverage percentage calculated
-- [ ] P1 coverage percentage calculated
-- [ ] P2 coverage percentage calculated (if applicable)
-- [ ] Coverage by level calculated:
-  - [ ] E2E coverage %
-  - [ ] API coverage %
-  - [ ] Component coverage %
-  - [ ] Unit coverage %
----
-## Test Quality Verification
-For each mapped test, verify:
-- [ ] Explicit assertions are present (not hidden in helpers)
-- [ ] Test follows Given-When-Then structure
-- [ ] No hard waits or sleeps (deterministic waiting only)
-- [ ] Self-cleaning (test cleans up its data)
-- [ ] File size < 300 lines
-- [ ] Test duration < 90 seconds
-Quality issues flagged:
-- [ ] **BLOCKER** issues identified (missing assertions, hard waits, flaky patterns)
-- [ ] **WARNING** issues identified (large files, slow tests, unclear structure)
-- [ ] **INFO** issues identified (style inconsistencies, missing documentation)
-Knowledge fragments referenced:
-- [ ] `test-quality.md` for Definition of Done
-- [ ] `fixture-architecture.md` for self-cleaning patterns
-- [ ] `network-first.md` for Playwright best practices
-- [ ] `data-factories.md` for test data patterns
----
-## Phase 1 Deliverables Generated
-### Traceability Matrix Markdown
-- [ ] File created at `{output_folder}/traceability-matrix.md`
-- [ ] Template from `trace-template.md` used
-- [ ] Full mapping table included
-- [ ] Coverage status section included
-- [ ] Gap analysis section included
-- [ ] Quality assessment section included
-- [ ] Recommendations section included
-### Coverage Badge/Metric (if enabled)
-- [ ] Badge markdown generated
-- [ ] Metrics exported to JSON for CI/CD integration
-### Updated Story File (if enabled)
-- [ ] "Traceability" section added to story markdown
-- [ ] Link to traceability matrix included
-- [ ] Coverage summary included
----
-## Phase 1 Quality Assurance
-### Accuracy Checks
-- [ ] All acceptance criteria accounted for (none skipped)
-- [ ] Test IDs correctly formatted (e.g., 1.3-E2E-001)
-- [ ] File paths are correct and accessible
-- [ ] Coverage percentages calculated correctly
-- [ ] No false positives (tests incorrectly mapped to criteria)
-- [ ] No false negatives (existing tests missed in mapping)
-### Completeness Checks
-- [ ] All test levels considered (E2E, API, Component, Unit)
-- [ ] All priorities considered (P0, P1, P2, P3)
-- [ ] All coverage statuses used appropriately (FULL, PARTIAL, NONE, UNIT-ONLY, INTEGRATION-ONLY)
-- [ ] All gaps have recommendations
-- [ ] All quality issues have severity and remediation guidance
-### Actionability Checks
-- [ ] Recommendations are specific (not generic)
-- [ ] Test IDs suggested for new tests
-- [ ] Given-When-Then provided for recommended tests
-- [ ] Impact explained for each gap
-- [ ] Priorities clear (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
----
-## Phase 1 Documentation
-- [ ] Traceability matrix is readable and well-formatted
-- [ ] Tables render correctly in markdown
-- [ ] Code blocks have proper syntax highlighting
-- [ ] Links are valid and accessible
-- [ ] Recommendations are clear and prioritized
----
-# PHASE 2: QUALITY GATE DECISION
-**Note**: Phase 2 executes only if `enable_gate_decision: true` in workflow.yaml
----
-## Prerequisites
-### Evidence Gathering
-- [ ] Test execution results obtained (CI/CD pipeline, test framework reports)
-- [ ] Story/epic/release file identified and read
-- [ ] Test design document discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
-- [ ] Traceability matrix discovered or explicitly provided (available from Phase 1)
-- [ ] NFR assessment discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
-- [ ] Code coverage report discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
-- [ ] Burn-in results discovered or explicitly provided (if available)
-### Evidence Validation
-- [ ] Evidence freshness validated (warn if >7 days old, recommend re-running workflows)
-- [ ] All required assessments available or user acknowledged gaps
-- [ ] Test results are complete (not partial or interrupted runs)
-- [ ] Test results match current codebase (not from outdated branch)
-### Knowledge Base Loading
-- [ ] `risk-governance.md` loaded successfully
-- [ ] `probability-impact.md` loaded successfully
-- [ ] `test-quality.md` loaded successfully
-- [ ] `test-priorities.md` loaded successfully
-- [ ] `ci-burn-in.md` loaded (if burn-in results available)
----
-## Process Steps
-### Step 1: Context Loading
-- [ ] Gate type identified (story/epic/release/hotfix)
-- [ ] Target ID extracted (story_id, epic_num, or release_version)
-- [ ] Decision thresholds loaded from workflow variables
-- [ ] Risk tolerance configuration loaded
-- [ ] Waiver policy loaded
-### Step 2: Evidence Parsing
-**Test Results:**
-- [ ] Total test count extracted
-- [ ] Passed test count extracted
-- [ ] Failed test count extracted
-- [ ] Skipped test count extracted
-- [ ] Test duration extracted
-- [ ] P0 test pass rate calculated
-- [ ] P1 test pass rate calculated
-- [ ] Overall test pass rate calculated
-**Quality Assessments:**
-- [ ] P0/P1/P2/P3 scenarios extracted from test-design.md (if available)
-- [ ] Risk scores extracted from test-design.md (if available)
-- [ ] Coverage percentages extracted from traceability-matrix.md (available from Phase 1)
-- [ ] Coverage gaps extracted from traceability-matrix.md (available from Phase 1)
-- [ ] NFR status extracted from nfr-assessment.md (if available)
-- [ ] Security issues count extracted from nfr-assessment.md (if available)
-**Code Coverage:**
-- [ ] Line coverage percentage extracted (if available)
-- [ ] Branch coverage percentage extracted (if available)
-- [ ] Function coverage percentage extracted (if available)
-- [ ] Critical path coverage validated (if available)
-**Burn-in Results:**
-- [ ] Burn-in iterations count extracted (if available)
-- [ ] Flaky tests count extracted (if available)
-- [ ] Stability score calculated (if available)
-### Step 3: Decision Rules Application
-**P0 Criteria Evaluation:**
-- [ ] P0 test pass rate evaluated (must be 100%)
-- [ ] P0 acceptance criteria coverage evaluated (must be 100%)
-- [ ] Security issues count evaluated (must be 0)
-- [ ] Critical NFR failures evaluated (must be 0)
-- [ ] Flaky tests evaluated (must be 0 if burn-in enabled)
-- [ ] P0 decision recorded: PASS or FAIL
-**P1 Criteria Evaluation:**
-- [ ] P1 test pass rate evaluated (threshold: min_p1_pass_rate)
-- [ ] P1 acceptance criteria coverage evaluated (threshold: 95%)
-- [ ] Overall test pass rate evaluated (threshold: min_overall_pass_rate)
-- [ ] Code coverage evaluated (threshold: min_coverage)
-- [ ] P1 decision recorded: PASS or CONCERNS
-**P2/P3 Criteria Evaluation:**
-- [ ] P2 failures tracked (informational, don't block if allow_p2_failures: true)
-- [ ] P3 failures tracked (informational, don't block if allow_p3_failures: true)
-- [ ] Residual risks documented
-**Final Decision:**
-- [ ] Decision determined: PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL / WAIVED
-- [ ] Decision rationale documented
-- [ ] Decision is deterministic (follows rules, not arbitrary)
-### Step 4: Documentation
-**Gate Decision Document Created:**
-- [ ] Story/epic/release info section complete (ID, title, description, links)
-- [ ] Decision clearly stated (PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL / WAIVED)
-- [ ] Decision date recorded
-- [ ] Evaluator recorded (user or agent name)
-**Evidence Summary Documented:**
-- [ ] Test results summary complete (total, passed, failed, pass rates)
-- [ ] Coverage summary complete (P0/P1 criteria, code coverage)
-- [ ] NFR validation summary complete (security, performance, reliability, maintainability)
-- [ ] Flakiness summary complete (burn-in iterations, flaky test count)
-**Rationale Documented:**
-- [ ] Decision rationale clearly explained
-- [ ] Key evidence highlighted
-- [ ] Assumptions and caveats noted (if any)
-**Residual Risks Documented (if CONCERNS or WAIVED):**
-- [ ] Unresolved P1/P2 issues listed
-- [ ] Probability × impact estimated for each risk
-- [ ] Mitigations or workarounds described
-**Waivers Documented (if WAIVED):**
-- [ ] Waiver reason documented (business justification)
-- [ ] Waiver approver documented (name, role)
-- [ ] Waiver expiry date documented
-- [ ] Remediation plan documented (fix in next release, due date)
-- [ ] Monitoring plan documented
-**Critical Issues Documented (if FAIL or CONCERNS):**
-- [ ] Top 5-10 critical issues listed
-- [ ] Priority assigned to each issue (P0/P1/P2)
-- [ ] Owner assigned to each issue
-- [ ] Due date assigned to each issue
-**Recommendations Documented:**
-- [ ] Next steps clearly stated for decision type
-- [ ] Deployment recommendation provided
-- [ ] Monitoring recommendations provided (if applicable)
-- [ ] Remediation recommendations provided (if applicable)
-### Step 5: Status Updates and Notifications
-**Gate YAML Created:**
-- [ ] Gate YAML snippet generated with decision and criteria
-- [ ] Evidence references included in YAML
-- [ ] Next steps included in YAML
-- [ ] YAML file saved to output folder
-**Stakeholder Notification Generated:**
-- [ ] Notification subject line created
-- [ ] Notification body created with summary
-- [ ] Recipients identified (PM, SM, DEV lead, stakeholders)
-- [ ] Notification ready for delivery (if notify_stakeholders: true)
-**Outputs Saved:**
-- [ ] Gate decision document saved to `{output_file}`
-- [ ] Gate YAML saved to `{output_folder}/gate-decision-{target}.yaml`
-- [ ] All outputs are valid and readable
----
-## Phase 2 Output Validation
-### Gate Decision Document
-**Completeness:**
-- [ ] All required sections present (info, decision, evidence, rationale, next steps)
-- [ ] No placeholder text or TODOs left in document
-- [ ] All evidence references are accurate and complete
-- [ ] All links to artifacts are valid
-**Accuracy:**
-- [ ] Decision matches applied criteria rules
-- [ ] Test results match CI/CD pipeline output
-- [ ] Coverage percentages match reports
-- [ ] NFR status matches assessment document
-- [ ] No contradictions or inconsistencies
-**Clarity:**
-- [ ] Decision rationale is clear and unambiguous
-- [ ] Technical jargon is explained or avoided
-- [ ] Stakeholders can understand next steps
-- [ ] Recommendations are actionable
-### Gate YAML
-**Format:**
-- [ ] YAML is valid (no syntax errors)
-- [ ] All required fields present (target, decision, date, evaluator, criteria, evidence)
-- [ ] Field values are correct data types (numbers, strings, dates)
-**Content:**
-- [ ] Criteria values match decision document
-- [ ] Evidence references are accurate
-- [ ] Next steps align with decision type
----
-## Phase 2 Quality Checks
-### Decision Integrity
-- [ ] Decision is deterministic (follows rules, not arbitrary)
-- [ ] P0 failures result in FAIL decision (unless waived)
-- [ ] Security issues result in FAIL decision (unless waived - but should never be waived)
-- [ ] Waivers have business justification and approver (if WAIVED)
-- [ ] Residual risks are documented (if CONCERNS or WAIVED)
-### Evidence-Based
-- [ ] Decision is based on actual test results (not guesses)
-- [ ] All claims are supported by evidence
-- [ ] No assumptions without documentation
-- [ ] Evidence sources are cited (CI run IDs, report URLs)
-### Transparency
-- [ ] Decision rationale is transparent and auditable
-- [ ] Criteria evaluation is documented step-by-step
-- [ ] Any deviations from standard process are explained
-- [ ] Waiver justifications are clear (if applicable)
-### Consistency
-- [ ] Decision aligns with risk-governance knowledge fragment
-- [ ] Priority framework (P0/P1/P2/P3) applied consistently
-- [ ] Terminology consistent with test-quality knowledge fragment
-- [ ] Decision matrix followed correctly
----
-## Phase 2 Integration Points
-### CI/CD Pipeline
-- [ ] Gate YAML is CI/CD-compatible
-- [ ] YAML can be parsed by pipeline automation
-- [ ] Decision can be used to block/allow deployments
-- [ ] Evidence references are accessible to pipeline
-### Stakeholders
-- [ ] Notification message is clear and actionable
-- [ ] Decision is explained in non-technical terms
-- [ ] Next steps are specific and time-bound
-- [ ] Recipients are appropriate for decision type
----
-## Phase 2 Compliance and Audit
-### Audit Trail
-- [ ] Decision date and time recorded
-- [ ] Evaluator identified (user or agent)
-- [ ] All evidence sources cited
-- [ ] Decision criteria documented
-- [ ] Rationale clearly explained
-### Traceability
-- [ ] Gate decision traceable to story/epic/release
-- [ ] Evidence traceable to specific test runs
-- [ ] Assessments traceable to workflows that created them
-- [ ] Waiver traceable to approver (if applicable)
-### Compliance
-- [ ] Security requirements validated (no unresolved vulnerabilities)
-- [ ] Quality standards met or waived with justification
-- [ ] Regulatory requirements addressed (if applicable)
-- [ ] Documentation sufficient for external audit
----
-## Phase 2 Edge Cases and Exceptions
-### Missing Evidence
-- [ ] If test-design.md missing, decision still possible with test results + trace
-- [ ] If traceability-matrix.md missing, decision still possible with test results (but Phase 1 should provide it)
-- [ ] If nfr-assessment.md missing, NFR validation marked as NOT ASSESSED
-- [ ] If code coverage missing, coverage criterion marked as NOT ASSESSED
-- [ ] User acknowledged gaps in evidence or provided alternative proof
-### Stale Evidence
-- [ ] Evidence freshness checked (if validate_evidence_freshness: true)
-- [ ] Warnings issued for assessments >7 days old
-- [ ] User acknowledged stale evidence or re-ran workflows
-- [ ] Decision document notes any stale evidence used
-### Conflicting Evidence
-- [ ] Conflicts between test results and assessments resolved
-- [ ] Most recent/authoritative source identified
-- [ ] Conflict resolution documented in decision rationale
-- [ ] User consulted if conflict cannot be resolved
-### Waiver Scenarios
-- [ ] Waiver only used for FAIL decision (not PASS or CONCERNS)
-- [ ] Waiver has business justification (not technical convenience)
-- [ ] Waiver has named approver with authority (VP/CTO/PO)
-- [ ] Waiver has expiry date (does NOT apply to future releases)
-- [ ] Waiver has remediation plan with concrete due date
-- [ ] Security vulnerabilities are NOT waived (enforced)
----
-# FINAL VALIDATION (Both Phases)
-## Non-Prescriptive Validation
-- [ ] Traceability format adapted to team needs (not rigid template)
-- [ ] Examples are minimal and focused on patterns
-- [ ] Teams can extend with custom classifications
-- [ ] Integration with external systems supported (JIRA, Azure DevOps)
-- [ ] Compliance requirements considered (if applicable)
----
-## Documentation and Communication
-- [ ] All documents are readable and well-formatted
-- [ ] Tables render correctly in markdown
-- [ ] Code blocks have proper syntax highlighting
-- [ ] Links are valid and accessible
-- [ ] Recommendations are clear and prioritized
-- [ ] Gate decision is prominent and unambiguous (Phase 2)
----
-## Final Validation
-**Phase 1 (Traceability):**
-- [ ] All prerequisites met
-- [ ] All acceptance criteria mapped or gaps documented
-- [ ] P0 coverage is 100% OR documented as BLOCKER
-- [ ] Gap analysis is complete and prioritized
-- [ ] Test quality issues identified and flagged
-- [ ] Deliverables generated and saved
-**Phase 2 (Gate Decision):**
-- [ ] All quality evidence gathered
-- [ ] Decision criteria applied correctly
-- [ ] Decision rationale documented
-- [ ] Gate YAML ready for CI/CD integration
-- [ ] Status file updated (if enabled)
-- [ ] Stakeholders notified (if enabled)
-**Workflow Complete:**
-- [ ] Phase 1 completed successfully
-- [ ] Phase 2 completed successfully (if enabled)
-- [ ] All outputs validated and saved
-- [ ] Ready to proceed based on gate decision
----
-## Sign-Off
-**Phase 1 - Traceability Status:**
-- [ ] ✅ PASS - All quality gates met, no critical gaps
-- [ ] ⚠️ WARN - P1 gaps exist, address before PR merge
-- [ ] ❌ FAIL - P0 gaps exist, BLOCKER for release
-**Phase 2 - Gate Decision Status (if enabled):**
-- [ ] ✅ PASS - Deploy to production
-- [ ] ⚠️ CONCERNS - Deploy with monitoring
-- [ ] ❌ FAIL - Block deployment, fix issues
-- [ ] 🔓 WAIVED - Deploy with business approval and remediation plan
-**Next Actions:**
-- If PASS (both phases): Proceed to deployment
-- If WARN/CONCERNS: Address gaps/issues, proceed with monitoring
-- If FAIL (either phase): Run `*atdd` for missing tests, fix issues, re-run `*trace`
-- If WAIVED: Deploy with approved waiver, schedule remediation
----
-## Notes
-Record any issues, deviations, or important observations during workflow execution:
-- **Phase 1 Issues**: [Note any traceability mapping challenges, missing tests, quality concerns]
-- **Phase 2 Issues**: [Note any missing, stale, or conflicting evidence]
-- **Decision Rationale**: [Document any nuanced reasoning or edge cases]
-- **Waiver Details**: [Document waiver negotiations or approvals]
-- **Follow-up Actions**: [List any actions required after gate decision]
----
-<!-- Powered by BMAD-CORE™ -->