siesa-agents 2.1.36 → 2.1.38

package/_bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/instructions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,788 @@
+<!-- Powered by BMAD-CORE™ -->
+
+# Test Design and Risk Assessment
+
+**Workflow ID**: `_bmad/bmm/testarch/test-design`
+**Version**: 4.0 (BMad v6)
+
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+Plans comprehensive test coverage strategy with risk assessment, priority classification, and execution ordering. This workflow operates in **two modes**:
+
+- **System-Level Mode (Phase 3)**: Testability review of architecture before solutioning gate check
+- **Epic-Level Mode (Phase 4)**: Per-epic test planning with risk assessment (current behavior)
+
+The workflow auto-detects which mode to use based on project phase.
+
+---
+
+## Preflight: Detect Mode and Load Context
+
+**Critical:** Determine mode before proceeding.
+
+### Mode Detection
+
+1. **Check for sprint-status.yaml**
+   - If `{output_folder}/bmm-sprint-status.yaml` exists → **Epic-Level Mode** (Phase 4)
+   - If NOT exists → Check workflow status
+
+2. **Check workflow-status.yaml**
+   - Read `{output_folder}/bmm-workflow-status.yaml`
+   - If `implementation-readiness: required` or `implementation-readiness: recommended` → **System-Level Mode** (Phase 3)
+   - Otherwise → **Epic-Level Mode** (Phase 4 without sprint status yet)
+
+3. **Mode-Specific Requirements**
+
+   **System-Level Mode (Phase 3 - Testability Review):**
+   - ✅ Architecture document exists (architecture.md or tech-spec)
+   - ✅ PRD exists with functional and non-functional requirements
+   - ✅ Epics documented (epics.md)
+   - ⚠️ Output: `{output_folder}/test-design-system.md`
+
+   **Epic-Level Mode (Phase 4 - Per-Epic Planning):**
+   - ✅ Story markdown with acceptance criteria available
+   - ✅ PRD or epic documentation exists for context
+   - ✅ Architecture documents available (optional but recommended)
+   - ✅ Requirements are clear and testable
+   - ⚠️ Output: `{output_folder}/test-design-epic-{epic_num}.md`
+
+**Halt Condition:** If mode cannot be determined or required files missing, HALT and notify user with missing prerequisites.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Load Context (Mode-Aware)
+
+**Mode-Specific Loading:**
+
+### System-Level Mode (Phase 3)
+
+1. **Read Architecture Documentation**
+   - Load architecture.md or tech-spec (REQUIRED)
+   - Load PRD.md for functional and non-functional requirements
+   - Load epics.md for feature scope
+   - Identify technology stack decisions (frameworks, databases, deployment targets)
+   - Note integration points and external system dependencies
+   - Extract NFR requirements (performance SLOs, security requirements, etc.)
+
+2. **Check Playwright Utils Flag**
+
+   Read `{config_source}` and check `config.tea_use_playwright_utils`.
+
+   If true, note that `@seontechnologies/playwright-utils` provides utilities for test implementation. Reference in test design where relevant.
+
+3. **Load Knowledge Base Fragments (System-Level)**
+
+   **Critical:** Consult `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/testarch/tea-index.csv` to load:
+   - `nfr-criteria.md` - NFR validation approach (security, performance, reliability, maintainability)
+   - `test-levels-framework.md` - Test levels strategy guidance
+   - `risk-governance.md` - Testability risk identification
+   - `test-quality.md` - Quality standards and Definition of Done
+
+4. **Analyze Existing Test Setup (if brownfield)**
+   - Search for existing test directories
+   - Identify current test framework (if any)
+   - Note testability concerns in existing codebase
+
+### Epic-Level Mode (Phase 4)
+
+1. **Read Requirements Documentation**
+   - Load PRD.md for high-level product requirements
+   - Read epics.md or specific epic for feature scope
+   - Read story markdown for detailed acceptance criteria
+   - Identify all testable requirements
+
+2. **Load Architecture Context**
+   - Read architecture.md for system design
+   - Read tech-spec for implementation details
+   - Read test-design-system.md (if exists from Phase 3)
+   - Identify technical constraints and dependencies
+   - Note integration points and external systems
+
+3. **Analyze Existing Test Coverage**
+   - Search for existing test files in `{test_dir}`
+   - Identify coverage gaps
+   - Note areas with insufficient testing
+   - Check for flaky or outdated tests
+
+4. **Load Knowledge Base Fragments (Epic-Level)**
+
+   **Critical:** Consult `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/testarch/tea-index.csv` to load:
+   - `risk-governance.md` - Risk classification framework (6 categories: TECH, SEC, PERF, DATA, BUS, OPS), automated scoring, gate decision engine, owner tracking (625 lines, 4 examples)
+   - `probability-impact.md` - Risk scoring methodology (probability × impact matrix, automated classification, dynamic re-assessment, gate integration, 604 lines, 4 examples)
+   - `test-levels-framework.md` - Test level selection guidance (E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit with decision matrix, characteristics, when to use each, 467 lines, 4 examples)
+   - `test-priorities-matrix.md` - P0-P3 prioritization criteria (automated priority calculation, risk-based mapping, tagging strategy, time budgets, 389 lines, 2 examples)
+
+**Halt Condition (Epic-Level only):** If story data or acceptance criteria are missing, check if brownfield exploration is needed. If neither requirements NOR exploration possible, HALT with message: "Epic-level test design requires clear requirements, acceptance criteria, or brownfield app URL for exploration"
+
+---
+
+## Step 1.5: System-Level Testability Review (Phase 3 Only)
+
+**Skip this step if Epic-Level Mode.** This step only executes in System-Level Mode.
+
+### Actions
+
+1. **Review Architecture for Testability**
+
+   Evaluate architecture against these criteria:
+
+   **Controllability:**
+   - Can we control system state for testing? (API seeding, factories, database reset)
+   - Are external dependencies mockable? (interfaces, dependency injection)
+   - Can we trigger error conditions? (chaos engineering, fault injection)
+
+   **Observability:**
+   - Can we inspect system state? (logging, metrics, traces)
+   - Are test results deterministic? (no race conditions, clear success/failure)
+   - Can we validate NFRs? (performance metrics, security audit logs)
+
+   **Reliability:**
+   - Are tests isolated? (parallel-safe, stateless, cleanup discipline)
+   - Can we reproduce failures? (deterministic waits, HAR capture, seed data)
+   - Are components loosely coupled? (mockable, testable boundaries)
+
+2. **Identify Architecturally Significant Requirements (ASRs)**
+
+   From PRD NFRs and architecture decisions, identify quality requirements that:
+   - Drive architecture decisions (e.g., "Must handle 10K concurrent users" → caching architecture)
+   - Pose testability challenges (e.g., "Sub-second response time" → performance test infrastructure)
+   - Require special test environments (e.g., "Multi-region deployment" → regional test instances)
+
+   Score each ASR using risk matrix (probability × impact).
+
+3. **Define Test Levels Strategy**
+
+   Based on architecture (mobile, web, API, microservices, monolith):
+   - Recommend unit/integration/E2E split (e.g., 70/20/10 for API-heavy, 40/30/30 for UI-heavy)
+   - Identify test environment needs (local, staging, ephemeral, production-like)
+   - Define testing approach per technology (Playwright for web, Maestro for mobile, k6 for performance)
+
+4. **Assess NFR Testing Approach**
+
+   For each NFR category:
+   - **Security**: Auth/authz tests, OWASP validation, secret handling (Playwright E2E + security tools)
+   - **Performance**: Load/stress/spike testing with k6, SLO/SLA thresholds
+   - **Reliability**: Error handling, retries, circuit breakers, health checks (Playwright + API tests)
+   - **Maintainability**: Coverage targets, code quality gates, observability validation
+
+5. **Flag Testability Concerns**
+
+   Identify architecture decisions that harm testability:
+   - ❌ Tight coupling (no interfaces, hard dependencies)
+   - ❌ No dependency injection (can't mock external services)
+   - ❌ Hardcoded configurations (can't test different envs)
+   - ❌ Missing observability (can't validate NFRs)
+   - ❌ Stateful designs (can't parallelize tests)
+
+   **Critical:** If testability concerns are blockers (e.g., "Architecture makes performance testing impossible"), document as CONCERNS or FAIL recommendation for gate check.
+
+6. **Output System-Level Test Design**
+
+   Write to `{output_folder}/test-design-system.md` containing:
+
+   ```markdown
+   # System-Level Test Design
+
+   ## Testability Assessment
+
+   - Controllability: [PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL with details]
+   - Observability: [PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL with details]
+   - Reliability: [PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL with details]
+
+   ## Architecturally Significant Requirements (ASRs)
+
+   [Risk-scored quality requirements]
+
+   ## Test Levels Strategy
+
+   - Unit: [X%] - [Rationale]
+   - Integration: [Y%] - [Rationale]
+   - E2E: [Z%] - [Rationale]
+
+   ## NFR Testing Approach
+
+   - Security: [Approach with tools]
+   - Performance: [Approach with tools]
+   - Reliability: [Approach with tools]
+   - Maintainability: [Approach with tools]
+
+   ## Test Environment Requirements
+
+   [Infrastructure needs based on deployment architecture]
+
+   ## Testability Concerns (if any)
+
+   [Blockers or concerns that should inform solutioning gate check]
+
+   ## Recommendations for Sprint 0
+
+   [Specific actions for *framework and *ci workflows]
+   ```
+
+**After System-Level Mode:** Skip to Step 4 (Generate Deliverables) - Steps 2-3 are epic-level only.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1.6: Exploratory Mode Selection (Epic-Level Only)
+
+### Actions
+
+1. **Detect Planning Mode**
+
+   Determine mode based on context:
+
+   **Requirements-Based Mode (DEFAULT)**:
+   - Have clear story/PRD with acceptance criteria
+   - Uses: Existing workflow (Steps 2-4)
+   - Appropriate for: Documented features, greenfield projects
+
+   **Exploratory Mode (OPTIONAL - Brownfield)**:
+   - Missing/incomplete requirements AND brownfield application exists
+   - Uses: UI exploration to discover functionality
+   - Appropriate for: Undocumented brownfield apps, legacy systems
+
+2. **Requirements-Based Mode (DEFAULT - Skip to Step 2)**
+
+   If requirements are clear:
+   - Continue with existing workflow (Step 2: Assess and Classify Risks)
+   - Use loaded requirements from Step 1
+   - Proceed with risk assessment based on documented requirements
+
+3. **Exploratory Mode (OPTIONAL - Brownfield Apps)**
+
+   If exploring brownfield application:
+
+   **A. Check MCP Availability**
+
+   If config.tea_use_mcp_enhancements is true AND Playwright MCP tools available:
+   - Use MCP-assisted exploration (Step 3.B)
+
+   If MCP unavailable OR config.tea_use_mcp_enhancements is false:
+   - Use manual exploration fallback (Step 3.C)
+
+   **B. MCP-Assisted Exploration (If MCP Tools Available)**
+
+   Use Playwright MCP browser tools to explore UI:
+
+   **Setup:**
+
+   ```
+   1. Use planner_setup_page to initialize browser
+   2. Navigate to {exploration_url}
+   3. Capture initial state with browser_snapshot
+   ```
+
+   **Exploration Process:**
+
+   ```
+   4. Use browser_navigate to explore different pages
+   5. Use browser_click to interact with buttons, links, forms
+   6. Use browser_hover to reveal hidden menus/tooltips
+   7. Capture browser_snapshot at each significant state
+   8. Take browser_screenshot for documentation
+   9. Monitor browser_console_messages for JavaScript errors
+   10. Track browser_network_requests to identify API calls
+   11. Map user flows and interactive elements
+   12. Document discovered functionality
+   ```
+
+   **Discovery Documentation:**
+   - Create list of discovered features (pages, workflows, forms)
+   - Identify user journeys (navigation paths)
+   - Map API endpoints (from network requests)
+   - Note error states (from console messages)
+   - Capture screenshots for visual reference
+
+   **Convert to Test Scenarios:**
+   - Transform discoveries into testable requirements
+   - Prioritize based on user flow criticality
+   - Identify risks from discovered functionality
+   - Continue with Step 2 (Assess and Classify Risks) using discovered requirements
+
+   **C. Manual Exploration Fallback (If MCP Unavailable)**
+
+   If Playwright MCP is not available:
+
+   **Notify User:**
+
+   ```markdown
+   Exploratory mode enabled but Playwright MCP unavailable.
+
+   **Manual exploration required:**
+
+   1. Open application at: {exploration_url}
+   2. Explore all pages, workflows, and features
+   3. Document findings in markdown:
+      - List of pages/features discovered
+      - User journeys identified
+      - API endpoints observed (DevTools Network tab)
+      - JavaScript errors noted (DevTools Console)
+      - Critical workflows mapped
+
+   4. Provide exploration findings to continue workflow
+
+   **Alternative:** Disable exploratory_mode and provide requirements documentation
+   ```
+
+   Wait for user to provide exploration findings, then:
+   - Parse user-provided discovery documentation
+   - Convert to testable requirements
+   - Continue with Step 2 (risk assessment)
+
+4. **Proceed to Risk Assessment**
+
+   After mode selection (Requirements-Based OR Exploratory):
+   - Continue to Step 2: Assess and Classify Risks
+   - Use requirements from documentation (Requirements-Based) OR discoveries (Exploratory)
+
+---
+
+## Step 2: Assess and Classify Risks
+
+### Actions
+
+1. **Identify Genuine Risks**
+
+   Filter requirements to isolate actual risks (not just features):
+   - Unresolved technical gaps
+   - Security vulnerabilities
+   - Performance bottlenecks
+   - Data loss or corruption potential
+   - Business impact failures
+   - Operational deployment issues
+
+2. **Classify Risks by Category**
+
+   Use these standard risk categories:
+
+   **TECH** (Technical/Architecture):
+   - Architecture flaws
+   - Integration failures
+   - Scalability issues
+   - Technical debt
+
+   **SEC** (Security):
+   - Missing access controls
+   - Authentication bypass
+   - Data exposure
+   - Injection vulnerabilities
+
+   **PERF** (Performance):
+   - SLA violations
+   - Response time degradation
+   - Resource exhaustion
+   - Scalability limits
+
+   **DATA** (Data Integrity):
+   - Data loss
+   - Data corruption
+   - Inconsistent state
+   - Migration failures
+
+   **BUS** (Business Impact):
+   - User experience degradation
+   - Business logic errors
+   - Revenue impact
+   - Compliance violations
+
+   **OPS** (Operations):
+   - Deployment failures
+   - Configuration errors
+   - Monitoring gaps
+   - Rollback issues
+
+3. **Score Risk Probability**
+
+   Rate likelihood (1-3):
+   - **1 (Unlikely)**: <10% chance, edge case
+   - **2 (Possible)**: 10-50% chance, known scenario
+   - **3 (Likely)**: >50% chance, common occurrence
+
+4. **Score Risk Impact**
+
+   Rate severity (1-3):
+   - **1 (Minor)**: Cosmetic, workaround exists, limited users
+   - **2 (Degraded)**: Feature impaired, workaround difficult, affects many users
+   - **3 (Critical)**: System failure, data loss, no workaround, blocks usage
+
+5. **Calculate Risk Score**
+
+   ```
+   Risk Score = Probability × Impact
+
+   Scores:
+   1-2: Low risk (monitor)
+   3-4: Medium risk (plan mitigation)
+   6-9: High risk (immediate mitigation required)
+   ```
+
+6. **Highlight High-Priority Risks**
+
+   Flag all risks with score ≥6 for immediate attention.
+
+7. **Request Clarification**
+
+   If evidence is missing or assumptions required:
+   - Document assumptions clearly
+   - Request user clarification
+   - Do NOT speculate on business impact
+
+8. **Plan Mitigations**
+
+   For each high-priority risk:
+   - Define mitigation strategy
+   - Assign owner (dev, QA, ops)
+   - Set timeline
+   - Update residual risk expectation
+
+---
+
+## Step 3: Design Test Coverage
+
+### Actions
+
+1. **Break Down Acceptance Criteria**
+
+   Convert each acceptance criterion into atomic test scenarios:
+   - One scenario per testable behavior
+   - Scenarios are independent
+   - Scenarios are repeatable
+   - Scenarios tie back to risk mitigations
+
+2. **Select Appropriate Test Levels**
+
+   **Knowledge Base Reference**: `test-levels-framework.md`
+
+   Map requirements to optimal test levels (avoid duplication):
+
+   **E2E (End-to-End)**:
+   - Critical user journeys
+   - Multi-system integration
+   - Production-like environment
+   - Highest confidence, slowest execution
+
+   **API (Integration)**:
+   - Service contracts
+   - Business logic validation
+   - Fast feedback
+   - Good for complex scenarios
+
+   **Component**:
+   - UI component behavior
+   - Interaction testing
+   - Visual regression
+   - Fast, isolated
+
+   **Unit**:
+   - Business logic
+   - Edge cases
+   - Error handling
+   - Fastest, most granular
+
+   **Avoid duplicate coverage**: Don't test same behavior at multiple levels unless necessary.
+
+3. **Assign Priority Levels**
+
+   **Knowledge Base Reference**: `test-priorities-matrix.md`
+
+   **P0 (Critical)**:
+   - Blocks core user journey
+   - High-risk areas (score ≥6)
+   - Revenue-impacting
+   - Security-critical
+   - **Run on every commit**
+
+   **P1 (High)**:
+   - Important user features
+   - Medium-risk areas (score 3-4)
+   - Common workflows
+   - **Run on PR to main**
+
+   **P2 (Medium)**:
+   - Secondary features
+   - Low-risk areas (score 1-2)
+   - Edge cases
+   - **Run nightly or weekly**
+
+   **P3 (Low)**:
+   - Nice-to-have
+   - Exploratory
+   - Performance benchmarks
+   - **Run on-demand**
+
+4. **Outline Data and Tooling Prerequisites**
+
+   For each test scenario, identify:
+   - Test data requirements (factories, fixtures)
+   - External services (mocks, stubs)
+   - Environment setup
+   - Tools and dependencies
+
+5. **Define Execution Order**
+
+   Recommend test execution sequence:
+   1. **Smoke tests** (P0 subset, <5 min)
+   2. **P0 tests** (critical paths, <10 min)
+   3. **P1 tests** (important features, <30 min)
+   4. **P2/P3 tests** (full regression, <60 min)
+
+---
+
+## Step 4: Generate Deliverables
+
+### Actions
+
+1. **Create Risk Assessment Matrix**
+
+   Use template structure:
+
+   ```markdown
+   | Risk ID | Category | Description | Probability | Impact | Score | Mitigation      |
+   | ------- | -------- | ----------- | ----------- | ------ | ----- | --------------- |
+   | R-001   | SEC      | Auth bypass | 2           | 3      | 6     | Add authz check |
+   ```
+
+2. **Create Coverage Matrix**
+
+   ```markdown
+   | Requirement | Test Level | Priority | Risk Link | Test Count | Owner |
+   | ----------- | ---------- | -------- | --------- | ---------- | ----- |
+   | Login flow  | E2E        | P0       | R-001     | 3          | QA    |
+   ```
+
+3. **Document Execution Order**
+
+   ```markdown
+   ### Smoke Tests (<5 min)
+
+   - Login successful
+   - Dashboard loads
+
+   ### P0 Tests (<10 min)
+
+   - [Full P0 list]
+
+   ### P1 Tests (<30 min)
+
+   - [Full P1 list]
+   ```
+
+4. **Include Resource Estimates**
+
+   ```markdown
+   ### Test Effort Estimates
+
+   - P0 scenarios: 15 tests × 2 hours = 30 hours
+   - P1 scenarios: 25 tests × 1 hour = 25 hours
+   - P2 scenarios: 40 tests × 0.5 hour = 20 hours
+   - **Total:** 75 hours (~10 days)
+   ```
+
+5. **Add Gate Criteria**
+
+   ```markdown
+   ### Quality Gate Criteria
+
+   - All P0 tests pass (100%)
+   - P1 tests pass rate ≥95%
+   - No high-risk (score ≥6) items unmitigated
+   - Test coverage ≥80% for critical paths
+   ```
+
+6. **Write to Output File**
+
+   Save to `{output_folder}/test-design-epic-{epic_num}.md` using template structure.
+
+---
+
+## Important Notes
+
+### Risk Category Definitions
+
+**TECH** (Technical/Architecture):
+
+- Architecture flaws or technical debt
+- Integration complexity
+- Scalability concerns
+
+**SEC** (Security):
+
+- Missing security controls
+- Authentication/authorization gaps
+- Data exposure risks
+
+**PERF** (Performance):
+
+- SLA risk or performance degradation
+- Resource constraints
+- Scalability bottlenecks
+
+**DATA** (Data Integrity):
+
+- Data loss or corruption potential
+- State consistency issues
+- Migration risks
+
+**BUS** (Business Impact):
+
+- User experience harm
+- Business logic errors
+- Revenue or compliance impact
+
+**OPS** (Operations):
+
+- Deployment or runtime failures
+- Configuration issues
+- Monitoring/observability gaps
+
+### Risk Scoring Methodology
+
+**Probability × Impact = Risk Score**
+
+Examples:
+
+- High likelihood (3) × Critical impact (3) = **Score 9** (highest priority)
+- Possible (2) × Critical (3) = **Score 6** (high priority threshold)
+- Unlikely (1) × Minor (1) = **Score 1** (low priority)
+
+**Threshold**: Scores ≥6 require immediate mitigation.
+
+### Test Level Selection Strategy
+
+**Avoid duplication:**
+
+- Don't test same behavior at E2E and API level
+- Use E2E for critical paths only
+- Use API tests for complex business logic
+- Use unit tests for edge cases
+
+**Tradeoffs:**
+
+- E2E: High confidence, slow execution, brittle
+- API: Good balance, fast, stable
+- Unit: Fastest feedback, narrow scope
+
+### Priority Assignment Guidelines
+
+**P0 criteria** (all must be true):
+
+- Blocks core functionality
+- High-risk (score ≥6)
+- No workaround exists
+- Affects majority of users
+
+**P1 criteria**:
+
+- Important feature
+- Medium risk (score 3-5)
+- Workaround exists but difficult
+
+**P2/P3**: Everything else, prioritized by value
+
+### Knowledge Base Integration
+
+**Core Fragments (Auto-loaded in Step 1):**
+
+- `risk-governance.md` - Risk classification (6 categories), automated scoring, gate decision engine, coverage traceability, owner tracking (625 lines, 4 examples)
+- `probability-impact.md` - Probability × impact matrix, automated classification thresholds, dynamic re-assessment, gate integration (604 lines, 4 examples)
+- `test-levels-framework.md` - E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit decision framework with characteristics matrix (467 lines, 4 examples)
+- `test-priorities-matrix.md` - P0-P3 automated priority calculation, risk-based mapping, tagging strategy, time budgets (389 lines, 2 examples)
+
+**Reference for Test Planning:**
+
+- `selective-testing.md` - Execution strategy: tag-based, spec filters, diff-based selection, promotion rules (727 lines, 4 examples)
+- `fixture-architecture.md` - Data setup patterns: pure function → fixture → mergeTests, auto-cleanup (406 lines, 5 examples)
+
+**Manual Reference (Optional):**
+
+- Use `tea-index.csv` to find additional specialized fragments as needed
+
+### Evidence-Based Assessment
+
+**Critical principle:** Base risk assessment on evidence, not speculation.
+
+**Evidence sources:**
+
+- PRD and user research
+- Architecture documentation
+- Historical bug data
+- User feedback
+- Security audit results
+
+**Avoid:**
+
+- Guessing business impact
+- Assuming user behavior
+- Inventing requirements
+
+**When uncertain:** Document assumptions and request clarification from user.
+
+---
+
+## Output Summary
+
+After completing this workflow, provide a summary:
+
+```markdown
+## Test Design Complete
+
+**Epic**: {epic_num}
+**Scope**: {design_level}
+
+**Risk Assessment**:
+
+- Total risks identified: {count}
+- High-priority risks (≥6): {high_count}
+- Categories: {categories}
+
+**Coverage Plan**:
+
+- P0 scenarios: {p0_count} ({p0_hours} hours)
+- P1 scenarios: {p1_count} ({p1_hours} hours)
+- P2/P3 scenarios: {p2p3_count} ({p2p3_hours} hours)
+- **Total effort**: {total_hours} hours (~{total_days} days)
+
+**Test Levels**:
+
+- E2E: {e2e_count}
+- API: {api_count}
+- Component: {component_count}
+- Unit: {unit_count}
+
+**Quality Gate Criteria**:
+
+- P0 pass rate: 100%
+- P1 pass rate: ≥95%
+- High-risk mitigations: 100%
+- Coverage: ≥80%
+
+**Output File**: {output_file}
+
+**Next Steps**:
+
+1. Review risk assessment with team
+2. Prioritize mitigation for high-risk items (score ≥6)
+3. Run `*atdd` to generate failing tests for P0 scenarios (separate workflow; not auto-run by `*test-design`)
+4. Allocate resources per effort estimates
+5. Set up test data factories and fixtures
+```
+
+---
+
+## Validation
+
+After completing all steps, verify:
+
+- [ ] Risk assessment complete with all categories
+- [ ] All risks scored (probability × impact)
+- [ ] High-priority risks (≥6) flagged
+- [ ] Coverage matrix maps requirements to test levels
+- [ ] Priority levels assigned (P0-P3)
+- [ ] Execution order defined
+- [ ] Resource estimates provided
+- [ ] Quality gate criteria defined
+- [ ] Output file created and formatted correctly
+
+Refer to `checklist.md` for comprehensive validation criteria.