siesa-agents 2.1.40 → 2.1.41

package/bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-review/instructions.md

@@ -1,628 +1,628 @@
-# Test Quality Review - Instructions v4.0
-
-**Workflow:** `testarch-test-review`
-**Purpose:** Review test quality using TEA's comprehensive knowledge base and validate against best practices for maintainability, determinism, isolation, and flakiness prevention
-**Agent:** Test Architect (TEA)
-**Format:** Pure Markdown v4.0 (no XML blocks)
-
----
-
-## Overview
-
-This workflow performs comprehensive test quality reviews using TEA's knowledge base of best practices. It validates tests against proven patterns for fixture architecture, network-first safeguards, data factories, determinism, isolation, and flakiness prevention. The review generates actionable feedback with quality scoring.
-
-**Key Capabilities:**
-
-- **Knowledge-Based Review**: Applies patterns from tea-index.csv fragments
-- **Quality Scoring**: 0-100 score based on violations and best practices
-- **Multi-Scope**: Review single file, directory, or entire test suite
-- **Pattern Detection**: Identifies flaky patterns, hard waits, race conditions
-- **Best Practice Validation**: BDD format, test IDs, priorities, assertions
-- **Actionable Feedback**: Critical issues (must fix) vs recommendations (should fix)
-- **Integration**: Works with story files, test-design, acceptance criteria
-
----
-
-## Prerequisites
-
-**Required:**
-
-- Test file(s) to review (auto-discovered or explicitly provided)
-- Test framework configuration (playwright.config.ts, jest.config.js, etc.)
-
-**Recommended:**
-
-- Story file with acceptance criteria (for context)
-- Test design document (for priority context)
-- Knowledge base fragments available in tea-index.csv
-
-**Halt Conditions:**
-
-- If test file path is invalid or file doesn't exist, halt and request correction
-- If test_dir is empty (no tests found), halt and notify user
-
----
-
-## Workflow Steps
-
-### Step 1: Load Context and Knowledge Base
-
-**Actions:**
-
-1. Check playwright-utils flag:
-   - Read `{config_source}` and check `config.tea_use_playwright_utils`
-
-2. Load relevant knowledge fragments from `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/testarch/tea-index.csv`:
-
-   **Core Patterns (Always load):**
-   - `test-quality.md` - Definition of Done (deterministic tests, isolated with cleanup, explicit assertions, <300 lines, <1.5 min, 658 lines, 5 examples)
-   - `data-factories.md` - Factory functions with faker: overrides, nested factories, API-first setup (498 lines, 5 examples)
-   - `test-levels-framework.md` - E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit appropriateness with decision matrix (467 lines, 4 examples)
-   - `selective-testing.md` - Duplicate coverage detection with tag-based, spec filter, diff-based selection (727 lines, 4 examples)
-   - `test-healing-patterns.md` - Common failure patterns: stale selectors, race conditions, dynamic data, network errors, hard waits (648 lines, 5 examples)
-   - `selector-resilience.md` - Selector best practices (data-testid > ARIA > text > CSS hierarchy, anti-patterns, 541 lines, 4 examples)
-   - `timing-debugging.md` - Race condition prevention and async debugging techniques (370 lines, 3 examples)
-
-   **If `config.tea_use_playwright_utils: true` (All Utilities):**
-   - `overview.md` - Playwright utils best practices
-   - `api-request.md` - Validate apiRequest usage patterns
-   - `network-recorder.md` - Review HAR record/playback implementation
-   - `auth-session.md` - Check auth token management
-   - `intercept-network-call.md` - Validate network interception
-   - `recurse.md` - Review polling patterns
-   - `log.md` - Check logging best practices
-   - `file-utils.md` - Validate file operation patterns
-   - `burn-in.md` - Review burn-in configuration
-   - `network-error-monitor.md` - Check error monitoring setup
-   - `fixtures-composition.md` - Validate mergeTests usage
-
-   **If `config.tea_use_playwright_utils: false`:**
-   - `fixture-architecture.md` - Pure function → Fixture → mergeTests composition with auto-cleanup (406 lines, 5 examples)
-   - `network-first.md` - Route intercept before navigate to prevent race conditions (489 lines, 5 examples)
-   - `playwright-config.md` - Environment-based configuration with fail-fast validation (722 lines, 5 examples)
-   - `component-tdd.md` - Red-Green-Refactor patterns with provider isolation (480 lines, 4 examples)
-   - `ci-burn-in.md` - Flaky test detection with 10-iteration burn-in loop (678 lines, 4 examples)
-
-3. Determine review scope:
-   - **single**: Review one test file (`test_file_path` provided)
-   - **directory**: Review all tests in directory (`test_dir` provided)
-   - **suite**: Review entire test suite (discover all test files)
-
-4. Auto-discover related artifacts (if `auto_discover_story: true`):
-   - Extract test ID from filename (e.g., `1.3-E2E-001.spec.ts` → story 1.3)
-   - Search for story file (`story-1.3.md`)
-   - Search for test design (`test-design-story-1.3.md` or `test-design-epic-1.md`)
-
-5. Read story file for context (if available):
-   - Extract acceptance criteria
-   - Extract priority classification
-   - Extract expected test IDs
-
-**Output:** Complete knowledge base loaded, review scope determined, context gathered
-
----
-
-### Step 2: Discover and Parse Test Files
-
-**Actions:**
-
-1. **Discover test files** based on scope:
-   - **single**: Use `test_file_path` variable
-   - **directory**: Use `glob` to find all test files in `test_dir` (e.g., `*.spec.ts`, `*.test.js`)
-   - **suite**: Use `glob` to find all test files recursively from project root
-
-2. **Parse test file metadata**:
-   - File path and name
-   - File size (warn if >15 KB or >300 lines)
-   - Test framework detected (Playwright, Jest, Cypress, Vitest, etc.)
-   - Imports and dependencies
-   - Test structure (describe/context/it blocks)
-
-3. **Extract test structure**:
-   - Count of describe blocks (test suites)
-   - Count of it/test blocks (individual tests)
-   - Test IDs (if present, e.g., `test.describe('1.3-E2E-001')`)
-   - Priority markers (if present, e.g., `test.describe.only` for P0)
-   - BDD structure (Given-When-Then comments or steps)
-
-4. **Identify test patterns**:
-   - Fixtures used
-   - Data factories used
-   - Network interception patterns
-   - Assertions used (expect, assert, toHaveText, etc.)
-   - Waits and timeouts (page.waitFor, sleep, hardcoded delays)
-   - Conditionals (if/else, switch, ternary)
-   - Try/catch blocks
-   - Shared state or globals
-
-**Output:** Complete test file inventory with structure and pattern analysis
-
----
-
-### Step 3: Validate Against Quality Criteria
-
-**Actions:**
-
-For each test file, validate against quality criteria (configurable via workflow variables):
-
-#### 1. BDD Format Validation (if `check_given_when_then: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Tests use Given-When-Then structure (comments or step organization)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Tests have some structure but not explicit GWT
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests lack clear structure, hard to understand intent
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, tdd-cycles.md
-
----
-
-#### 2. Test ID Conventions (if `check_test_ids: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Test IDs present and follow convention (e.g., `1.3-E2E-001`, `2.1-API-005`)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some test IDs missing or inconsistent
-- ❌ **FAIL**: No test IDs, can't trace tests to requirements
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: traceability.md, test-quality.md
-
----
-
-#### 3. Priority Markers (if `check_priority_markers: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Tests classified as P0/P1/P2/P3 (via markers or test-design reference)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some priority classifications missing
-- ❌ **FAIL**: No priority classification, can't determine criticality
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-priorities.md, risk-governance.md
-
----
-
-#### 4. Hard Waits Detection (if `check_hard_waits: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: No hard waits detected (no `sleep()`, `wait(5000)`, hardcoded delays)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some hard waits used but with justification comments
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Hard waits detected without justification (flakiness risk)
-
-**Patterns to detect:**
-
-- `sleep(1000)`, `setTimeout()`, `delay()`
-- `page.waitForTimeout(5000)` without explicit reason
-- `await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 3000))`
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, network-first.md
-
----
-
-#### 5. Determinism Check (if `check_determinism: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Tests are deterministic (no conditionals, no try/catch abuse, no random values)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some conditionals but with clear justification
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests use if/else, switch, or try/catch to control flow (flakiness risk)
-
-**Patterns to detect:**
-
-- `if (condition) { test logic }` - tests should work deterministically
-- `try { test } catch { fallback }` - tests shouldn't swallow errors
-- `Math.random()`, `Date.now()` without factory abstraction
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, data-factories.md
-
----
-
-#### 6. Isolation Validation (if `check_isolation: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Tests clean up resources, no shared state, can run in any order
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some cleanup missing but isolated enough
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests share state, depend on execution order, leave resources
-
-**Patterns to check:**
-
-- afterEach/afterAll cleanup hooks present
-- No global variables mutated
-- Database/API state cleaned up after tests
-- Test data deleted or marked inactive
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, data-factories.md
-
----
-
-#### 7. Fixture Patterns (if `check_fixture_patterns: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Uses pure function → Fixture → mergeTests pattern
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some fixtures used but not consistently
-- ❌ **FAIL**: No fixtures, tests repeat setup code (maintainability risk)
-
-**Patterns to check:**
-
-- Fixtures defined (e.g., `test.extend({ customFixture: async ({}, use) => { ... }})`)
-- Pure functions used for fixture logic
-- mergeTests used to combine fixtures
-- No beforeEach with complex setup (should be in fixtures)
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: fixture-architecture.md
-
----
-
-#### 8. Data Factories (if `check_data_factories: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Uses factory functions with overrides, API-first setup
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some factories used but also hardcoded data
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Hardcoded test data, magic strings/numbers (maintainability risk)
-
-**Patterns to check:**
-
-- Factory functions defined (e.g., `createUser()`, `generateInvoice()`)
-- Factories use faker.js or similar for realistic data
-- Factories accept overrides (e.g., `createUser({ email: 'custom@example.com' })`)
-- API-first setup (create via API, test via UI)
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: data-factories.md
-
----
-
-#### 9. Network-First Pattern (if `check_network_first: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Route interception set up BEFORE navigation (race condition prevention)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some routes intercepted correctly, others after navigation
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Route interception after navigation (race condition risk)
-
-**Patterns to check:**
-
-- `page.route()` called before `page.goto()`
-- `page.waitForResponse()` used with explicit URL pattern
-- No navigation followed immediately by route setup
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: network-first.md
-
----
-
-#### 10. Assertions (if `check_assertions: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Explicit assertions present (expect, assert, toHaveText)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some tests rely on implicit waits instead of assertions
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Missing assertions, tests don't verify behavior
-
-**Patterns to check:**
-
-- Each test has at least one assertion
-- Assertions are specific (not just truthy checks)
-- Assertions use framework-provided matchers (toHaveText, toBeVisible)
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md
-
----
-
-#### 11. Test Length (if `check_test_length: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Test file ≤200 lines (ideal), ≤300 lines (acceptable)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Test file 301-500 lines (consider splitting)
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Test file >500 lines (too large, maintainability risk)
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md
-
----
-
-#### 12. Test Duration (if `check_test_duration: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: Individual tests ≤1.5 minutes (target: <30 seconds)
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some tests 1.5-3 minutes (consider optimization)
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests >3 minutes (too slow, impacts CI/CD)
-
-**Note:** Duration estimation based on complexity analysis if execution data unavailable
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, selective-testing.md
-
----
-
-#### 13. Flakiness Patterns (if `check_flakiness_patterns: true`)
-
-- ✅ **PASS**: No known flaky patterns detected
-- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some potential flaky patterns (e.g., tight timeouts, race conditions)
-- ❌ **FAIL**: Multiple flaky patterns detected (high flakiness risk)
-
-**Patterns to detect:**
-
-- Tight timeouts (e.g., `{ timeout: 1000 }`)
-- Race conditions (navigation before route interception)
-- Timing-dependent assertions (e.g., checking timestamps)
-- Retry logic in tests (hides flakiness)
-- Environment-dependent assumptions (hardcoded URLs, ports)
-
-**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, network-first.md, ci-burn-in.md
-
----
-
-### Step 4: Calculate Quality Score
-
-**Actions:**
-
-1. **Count violations** by severity:
-   - **Critical (P0)**: Hard waits without justification, no assertions, race conditions, shared state
-   - **High (P1)**: Missing test IDs, no BDD structure, hardcoded data, missing fixtures
-   - **Medium (P2)**: Long test files (>300 lines), missing priorities, some conditionals
-   - **Low (P3)**: Minor style issues, incomplete cleanup, verbose tests
-
-2. **Calculate quality score** (if `quality_score_enabled: true`):
-
-```
-Starting Score: 100
-
-Critical Violations: -10 points each
-High Violations: -5 points each
-Medium Violations: -2 points each
-Low Violations: -1 point each
-
-Bonus Points:
-+ Excellent BDD structure: +5
-+ Comprehensive fixtures: +5
-+ Comprehensive data factories: +5
-+ Network-first pattern: +5
-+ Perfect isolation: +5
-+ All test IDs present: +5
-
-Quality Score: max(0, min(100, Starting Score - Violations + Bonus))
-```
-
-3. **Quality Grade**:
-   - **90-100**: Excellent (A+)
-   - **80-89**: Good (A)
-   - **70-79**: Acceptable (B)
-   - **60-69**: Needs Improvement (C)
-   - **<60**: Critical Issues (F)
-
-**Output:** Quality score calculated with violation breakdown
-
----
-
-### Step 5: Generate Review Report
-
-**Actions:**
-
-1. **Create review report** using `test-review-template.md`:
-
-   **Header Section:**
-   - Test file(s) reviewed
-   - Review date
-   - Review scope (single/directory/suite)
-   - Quality score and grade
-
-   **Executive Summary:**
-   - Overall assessment (Excellent/Good/Needs Improvement/Critical)
-   - Key strengths
-   - Key weaknesses
-   - Recommendation (Approve/Approve with comments/Request changes)
-
-   **Quality Criteria Assessment:**
-   - Table with all criteria evaluated
-   - Status for each (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
-   - Violation count per criterion
-
-   **Critical Issues (Must Fix):**
-   - Priority P0/P1 violations
-   - Code location (file:line)
-   - Explanation of issue
-   - Recommended fix
-   - Knowledge base reference
-
-   **Recommendations (Should Fix):**
-   - Priority P2/P3 violations
-   - Code location (file:line)
-   - Explanation of issue
-   - Recommended improvement
-   - Knowledge base reference
-
-   **Best Practices Examples:**
-   - Highlight good patterns found in tests
-   - Reference knowledge base fragments
-   - Provide examples for others to follow
-
-   **Knowledge Base References:**
-   - List all fragments consulted
-   - Provide links to detailed guidance
-
-2. **Generate inline comments** (if `generate_inline_comments: true`):
-   - Add TODO comments in test files at violation locations
-   - Format: `// TODO (TEA Review): [Issue description] - See test-review-{filename}.md`
-   - Never modify test logic, only add comments
-
-3. **Generate quality badge** (if `generate_quality_badge: true`):
-   - Create badge with quality score (e.g., "Test Quality: 87/100 (A)")
-   - Format for inclusion in README or documentation
-
-4. **Append to story file** (if `append_to_story: true` and story file exists):
-   - Add "Test Quality Review" section to story
-   - Include quality score and critical issues
-   - Link to full review report
-
-**Output:** Comprehensive review report with actionable feedback
-
----
-
-### Step 6: Save Outputs and Notify
-
-**Actions:**
-
-1. **Save review report** to `{output_file}`
-2. **Save inline comments** to test files (if enabled)
-3. **Save quality badge** to output folder (if enabled)
-4. **Update story file** (if enabled)
-5. **Generate summary message** for user:
-   - Quality score and grade
-   - Critical issue count
-   - Recommendation
-
-**Output:** All review artifacts saved and user notified
-
----
-
-## Quality Criteria Decision Matrix
-
-| Criterion          | PASS                      | WARN           | FAIL                | Knowledge Fragment      |
-| ------------------ | ------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------- |
-| BDD Format         | Given-When-Then present   | Some structure | No structure        | test-quality.md         |
-| Test IDs           | All tests have IDs        | Some missing   | No IDs              | traceability.md         |
-| Priority Markers   | All classified            | Some missing   | No classification   | test-priorities.md      |
-| Hard Waits         | No hard waits             | Some justified | Hard waits present  | test-quality.md         |
-| Determinism        | No conditionals/random    | Some justified | Conditionals/random | test-quality.md         |
-| Isolation          | Clean up, no shared state | Some gaps      | Shared state        | test-quality.md         |
-| Fixture Patterns   | Pure fn → Fixture         | Some fixtures  | No fixtures         | fixture-architecture.md |
-| Data Factories     | Factory functions         | Some factories | Hardcoded data      | data-factories.md       |
-| Network-First      | Intercept before navigate | Some correct   | Race conditions     | network-first.md        |
-| Assertions         | Explicit assertions       | Some implicit  | Missing assertions  | test-quality.md         |
-| Test Length        | ≤300 lines                | 301-500 lines  | >500 lines          | test-quality.md         |
-| Test Duration      | ≤1.5 min                  | 1.5-3 min      | >3 min              | test-quality.md         |
-| Flakiness Patterns | No flaky patterns         | Some potential | Multiple patterns   | ci-burn-in.md           |
-
----
-
-## Example Review Summary
-
-````markdown
-# Test Quality Review: auth-login.spec.ts
-
-**Quality Score**: 78/100 (B - Acceptable)
-**Review Date**: 2025-10-14
-**Recommendation**: Approve with Comments
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-Overall, the test demonstrates good structure and coverage of the login flow. However, there are several areas for improvement to enhance maintainability and prevent flakiness.
-
-**Strengths:**
-
-- Excellent BDD structure with clear Given-When-Then comments
-- Good use of test IDs (1.3-E2E-001, 1.3-E2E-002)
-- Comprehensive assertions on authentication state
-
-**Weaknesses:**
-
-- Hard wait detected (page.waitForTimeout(2000)) - flakiness risk
-- Hardcoded test data (email: 'test@example.com') - use factories instead
-- Missing fixture for common login setup - DRY violation
-
-**Recommendation**: Address critical issue (hard wait) before merging. Other improvements can be addressed in follow-up PR.
-
-## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
-
-### 1. Hard Wait Detected (Line 45)
-
-**Severity**: P0 (Critical)
-**Issue**: `await page.waitForTimeout(2000)` introduces flakiness
-**Fix**: Use explicit wait for element or network request instead
-**Knowledge**: See test-quality.md, network-first.md
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ Bad (current)
-await page.waitForTimeout(2000);
-await expect(page.locator('[data-testid="user-menu"]')).toBeVisible();
-
-// ✅ Good (recommended)
-await expect(page.locator('[data-testid="user-menu"]')).toBeVisible({ timeout: 10000 });
-```
-````
-
-## Recommendations (Should Fix)
-
-### 1. Use Data Factory for Test User (Lines 23, 32, 41)
-
-**Severity**: P1 (High)
-**Issue**: Hardcoded email `test@example.com` - maintainability risk
-**Fix**: Create factory function for test users
-**Knowledge**: See data-factories.md
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ Good (recommended)
-import { createTestUser } from './factories/user-factory';
-
-const testUser = createTestUser({ role: 'admin' });
-await loginPage.login(testUser.email, testUser.password);
-```
-
-### 2. Extract Login Setup to Fixture (Lines 18-28)
-
-**Severity**: P1 (High)
-**Issue**: Login setup repeated across tests - DRY violation
-**Fix**: Create fixture for authenticated state
-**Knowledge**: See fixture-architecture.md
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ Good (recommended)
-const test = base.extend({
-  authenticatedPage: async ({ page }, use) => {
-    const user = createTestUser();
-    await loginPage.login(user.email, user.password);
-    await use(page);
-  },
-});
-
-test('user can access dashboard', async ({ authenticatedPage }) => {
-  // Test starts already logged in
-});
-```
-
-## Quality Score Breakdown
-
-- Starting Score: 100
-- Critical Violations (1 × -10): -10
-- High Violations (2 × -5): -10
-- Medium Violations (0 × -2): 0
-- Low Violations (1 × -1): -1
-- Bonus (BDD +5, Test IDs +5): +10
-- **Final Score**: 78/100 (B)
-
-```
-
----
-
-## Integration with Other Workflows
-
-### Before Test Review
-
-- **atdd**: Generate acceptance tests (TEA reviews them for quality)
-- **automate**: Expand regression suite (TEA reviews new tests)
-- **dev story**: Developer writes implementation tests (TEA reviews them)
-
-### After Test Review
-
-- **Developer**: Addresses critical issues, improves based on recommendations
-- **gate**: Test quality review feeds into gate decision (high-quality tests increase confidence)
-
-### Coordinates With
-
-- **Story File**: Review links to acceptance criteria context
-- **Test Design**: Review validates tests align with prioritization
-- **Knowledge Base**: Review references fragments for detailed guidance
-
----
-
-## Important Notes
-
-1. **Non-Prescriptive**: Review provides guidance, not rigid rules
-2. **Context Matters**: Some violations may be justified for specific scenarios
-3. **Knowledge-Based**: All feedback grounded in proven patterns from tea-index.csv
-4. **Actionable**: Every issue includes recommended fix with code examples
-5. **Quality Score**: Use as indicator, not absolute measure
-6. **Continuous Improvement**: Review same tests periodically as patterns evolve
-
----
-
-## Troubleshooting
-
-**Problem: No test files found**
-- Verify test_dir path is correct
-- Check test file extensions match glob pattern
-- Ensure test files exist in expected location
-
-**Problem: Quality score seems too low/high**
-- Review violation counts - may need to adjust thresholds
-- Consider context - some projects have different standards
-- Focus on critical issues first, not just score
-
-**Problem: Inline comments not generated**
-- Check generate_inline_comments: true in variables
-- Verify write permissions on test files
-- Review append_to_file: false (separate report mode)
-
-**Problem: Knowledge fragments not loading**
-- Verify tea-index.csv exists in testarch/ directory
-- Check fragment file paths are correct
-- Ensure auto_load_knowledge: true in variables
-```
+# Test Quality Review - Instructions v4.0
+
+**Workflow:** `testarch-test-review`
+**Purpose:** Review test quality using TEA's comprehensive knowledge base and validate against best practices for maintainability, determinism, isolation, and flakiness prevention
+**Agent:** Test Architect (TEA)
+**Format:** Pure Markdown v4.0 (no XML blocks)
+
+---
+
+## Overview
+
+This workflow performs comprehensive test quality reviews using TEA's knowledge base of best practices. It validates tests against proven patterns for fixture architecture, network-first safeguards, data factories, determinism, isolation, and flakiness prevention. The review generates actionable feedback with quality scoring.
+
+**Key Capabilities:**
+
+- **Knowledge-Based Review**: Applies patterns from tea-index.csv fragments
+- **Quality Scoring**: 0-100 score based on violations and best practices
+- **Multi-Scope**: Review single file, directory, or entire test suite
+- **Pattern Detection**: Identifies flaky patterns, hard waits, race conditions
+- **Best Practice Validation**: BDD format, test IDs, priorities, assertions
+- **Actionable Feedback**: Critical issues (must fix) vs recommendations (should fix)
+- **Integration**: Works with story files, test-design, acceptance criteria
+
+---
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+**Required:**
+
+- Test file(s) to review (auto-discovered or explicitly provided)
+- Test framework configuration (playwright.config.ts, jest.config.js, etc.)
+
+**Recommended:**
+
+- Story file with acceptance criteria (for context)
+- Test design document (for priority context)
+- Knowledge base fragments available in tea-index.csv
+
+**Halt Conditions:**
+
+- If test file path is invalid or file doesn't exist, halt and request correction
+- If test_dir is empty (no tests found), halt and notify user
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Steps
+
+### Step 1: Load Context and Knowledge Base
+
+**Actions:**
+
+1. Check playwright-utils flag:
+   - Read `{config_source}` and check `config.tea_use_playwright_utils`
+
+2. Load relevant knowledge fragments from `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/testarch/tea-index.csv`:
+
+   **Core Patterns (Always load):**
+   - `test-quality.md` - Definition of Done (deterministic tests, isolated with cleanup, explicit assertions, <300 lines, <1.5 min, 658 lines, 5 examples)
+   - `data-factories.md` - Factory functions with faker: overrides, nested factories, API-first setup (498 lines, 5 examples)
+   - `test-levels-framework.md` - E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit appropriateness with decision matrix (467 lines, 4 examples)
+   - `selective-testing.md` - Duplicate coverage detection with tag-based, spec filter, diff-based selection (727 lines, 4 examples)
+   - `test-healing-patterns.md` - Common failure patterns: stale selectors, race conditions, dynamic data, network errors, hard waits (648 lines, 5 examples)
+   - `selector-resilience.md` - Selector best practices (data-testid > ARIA > text > CSS hierarchy, anti-patterns, 541 lines, 4 examples)
+   - `timing-debugging.md` - Race condition prevention and async debugging techniques (370 lines, 3 examples)
+
+   **If `config.tea_use_playwright_utils: true` (All Utilities):**
+   - `overview.md` - Playwright utils best practices
+   - `api-request.md` - Validate apiRequest usage patterns
+   - `network-recorder.md` - Review HAR record/playback implementation
+   - `auth-session.md` - Check auth token management
+   - `intercept-network-call.md` - Validate network interception
+   - `recurse.md` - Review polling patterns
+   - `log.md` - Check logging best practices
+   - `file-utils.md` - Validate file operation patterns
+   - `burn-in.md` - Review burn-in configuration
+   - `network-error-monitor.md` - Check error monitoring setup
+   - `fixtures-composition.md` - Validate mergeTests usage
+
+   **If `config.tea_use_playwright_utils: false`:**
+   - `fixture-architecture.md` - Pure function → Fixture → mergeTests composition with auto-cleanup (406 lines, 5 examples)
+   - `network-first.md` - Route intercept before navigate to prevent race conditions (489 lines, 5 examples)
+   - `playwright-config.md` - Environment-based configuration with fail-fast validation (722 lines, 5 examples)
+   - `component-tdd.md` - Red-Green-Refactor patterns with provider isolation (480 lines, 4 examples)
+   - `ci-burn-in.md` - Flaky test detection with 10-iteration burn-in loop (678 lines, 4 examples)
+
+3. Determine review scope:
+   - **single**: Review one test file (`test_file_path` provided)
+   - **directory**: Review all tests in directory (`test_dir` provided)
+   - **suite**: Review entire test suite (discover all test files)
+
+4. Auto-discover related artifacts (if `auto_discover_story: true`):
+   - Extract test ID from filename (e.g., `1.3-E2E-001.spec.ts` → story 1.3)
+   - Search for story file (`story-1.3.md`)
+   - Search for test design (`test-design-story-1.3.md` or `test-design-epic-1.md`)
+
+5. Read story file for context (if available):
+   - Extract acceptance criteria
+   - Extract priority classification
+   - Extract expected test IDs
+
+**Output:** Complete knowledge base loaded, review scope determined, context gathered
+
+---
+
+### Step 2: Discover and Parse Test Files
+
+**Actions:**
+
+1. **Discover test files** based on scope:
+   - **single**: Use `test_file_path` variable
+   - **directory**: Use `glob` to find all test files in `test_dir` (e.g., `*.spec.ts`, `*.test.js`)
+   - **suite**: Use `glob` to find all test files recursively from project root
+
+2. **Parse test file metadata**:
+   - File path and name
+   - File size (warn if >15 KB or >300 lines)
+   - Test framework detected (Playwright, Jest, Cypress, Vitest, etc.)
+   - Imports and dependencies
+   - Test structure (describe/context/it blocks)
+
+3. **Extract test structure**:
+   - Count of describe blocks (test suites)
+   - Count of it/test blocks (individual tests)
+   - Test IDs (if present, e.g., `test.describe('1.3-E2E-001')`)
+   - Priority markers (if present, e.g., `test.describe.only` for P0)
+   - BDD structure (Given-When-Then comments or steps)
+
+4. **Identify test patterns**:
+   - Fixtures used
+   - Data factories used
+   - Network interception patterns
+   - Assertions used (expect, assert, toHaveText, etc.)
+   - Waits and timeouts (page.waitFor, sleep, hardcoded delays)
+   - Conditionals (if/else, switch, ternary)
+   - Try/catch blocks
+   - Shared state or globals
+
+**Output:** Complete test file inventory with structure and pattern analysis
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Validate Against Quality Criteria
+
+**Actions:**
+
+For each test file, validate against quality criteria (configurable via workflow variables):
+
+#### 1. BDD Format Validation (if `check_given_when_then: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Tests use Given-When-Then structure (comments or step organization)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Tests have some structure but not explicit GWT
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests lack clear structure, hard to understand intent
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, tdd-cycles.md
+
+---
+
+#### 2. Test ID Conventions (if `check_test_ids: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Test IDs present and follow convention (e.g., `1.3-E2E-001`, `2.1-API-005`)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some test IDs missing or inconsistent
+- ❌ **FAIL**: No test IDs, can't trace tests to requirements
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: traceability.md, test-quality.md
+
+---
+
+#### 3. Priority Markers (if `check_priority_markers: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Tests classified as P0/P1/P2/P3 (via markers or test-design reference)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some priority classifications missing
+- ❌ **FAIL**: No priority classification, can't determine criticality
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-priorities.md, risk-governance.md
+
+---
+
+#### 4. Hard Waits Detection (if `check_hard_waits: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: No hard waits detected (no `sleep()`, `wait(5000)`, hardcoded delays)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some hard waits used but with justification comments
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Hard waits detected without justification (flakiness risk)
+
+**Patterns to detect:**
+
+- `sleep(1000)`, `setTimeout()`, `delay()`
+- `page.waitForTimeout(5000)` without explicit reason
+- `await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 3000))`
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, network-first.md
+
+---
+
+#### 5. Determinism Check (if `check_determinism: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Tests are deterministic (no conditionals, no try/catch abuse, no random values)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some conditionals but with clear justification
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests use if/else, switch, or try/catch to control flow (flakiness risk)
+
+**Patterns to detect:**
+
+- `if (condition) { test logic }` - tests should work deterministically
+- `try { test } catch { fallback }` - tests shouldn't swallow errors
+- `Math.random()`, `Date.now()` without factory abstraction
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, data-factories.md
+
+---
+
+#### 6. Isolation Validation (if `check_isolation: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Tests clean up resources, no shared state, can run in any order
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some cleanup missing but isolated enough
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests share state, depend on execution order, leave resources
+
+**Patterns to check:**
+
+- afterEach/afterAll cleanup hooks present
+- No global variables mutated
+- Database/API state cleaned up after tests
+- Test data deleted or marked inactive
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, data-factories.md
+
+---
+
+#### 7. Fixture Patterns (if `check_fixture_patterns: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Uses pure function → Fixture → mergeTests pattern
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some fixtures used but not consistently
+- ❌ **FAIL**: No fixtures, tests repeat setup code (maintainability risk)
+
+**Patterns to check:**
+
+- Fixtures defined (e.g., `test.extend({ customFixture: async ({}, use) => { ... }})`)
+- Pure functions used for fixture logic
+- mergeTests used to combine fixtures
+- No beforeEach with complex setup (should be in fixtures)
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: fixture-architecture.md
+
+---
+
+#### 8. Data Factories (if `check_data_factories: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Uses factory functions with overrides, API-first setup
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some factories used but also hardcoded data
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Hardcoded test data, magic strings/numbers (maintainability risk)
+
+**Patterns to check:**
+
+- Factory functions defined (e.g., `createUser()`, `generateInvoice()`)
+- Factories use faker.js or similar for realistic data
+- Factories accept overrides (e.g., `createUser({ email: 'custom@example.com' })`)
+- API-first setup (create via API, test via UI)
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: data-factories.md
+
+---
+
+#### 9. Network-First Pattern (if `check_network_first: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Route interception set up BEFORE navigation (race condition prevention)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some routes intercepted correctly, others after navigation
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Route interception after navigation (race condition risk)
+
+**Patterns to check:**
+
+- `page.route()` called before `page.goto()`
+- `page.waitForResponse()` used with explicit URL pattern
+- No navigation followed immediately by route setup
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: network-first.md
+
+---
+
+#### 10. Assertions (if `check_assertions: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Explicit assertions present (expect, assert, toHaveText)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some tests rely on implicit waits instead of assertions
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Missing assertions, tests don't verify behavior
+
+**Patterns to check:**
+
+- Each test has at least one assertion
+- Assertions are specific (not just truthy checks)
+- Assertions use framework-provided matchers (toHaveText, toBeVisible)
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md
+
+---
+
+#### 11. Test Length (if `check_test_length: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Test file ≤200 lines (ideal), ≤300 lines (acceptable)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Test file 301-500 lines (consider splitting)
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Test file >500 lines (too large, maintainability risk)
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md
+
+---
+
+#### 12. Test Duration (if `check_test_duration: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: Individual tests ≤1.5 minutes (target: <30 seconds)
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some tests 1.5-3 minutes (consider optimization)
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Tests >3 minutes (too slow, impacts CI/CD)
+
+**Note:** Duration estimation based on complexity analysis if execution data unavailable
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, selective-testing.md
+
+---
+
+#### 13. Flakiness Patterns (if `check_flakiness_patterns: true`)
+
+- ✅ **PASS**: No known flaky patterns detected
+- ⚠️ **WARN**: Some potential flaky patterns (e.g., tight timeouts, race conditions)
+- ❌ **FAIL**: Multiple flaky patterns detected (high flakiness risk)
+
+**Patterns to detect:**
+
+- Tight timeouts (e.g., `{ timeout: 1000 }`)
+- Race conditions (navigation before route interception)
+- Timing-dependent assertions (e.g., checking timestamps)
+- Retry logic in tests (hides flakiness)
+- Environment-dependent assumptions (hardcoded URLs, ports)
+
+**Knowledge Fragment**: test-quality.md, network-first.md, ci-burn-in.md
+
+---
+
+### Step 4: Calculate Quality Score
+
+**Actions:**
+
+1. **Count violations** by severity:
+   - **Critical (P0)**: Hard waits without justification, no assertions, race conditions, shared state
+   - **High (P1)**: Missing test IDs, no BDD structure, hardcoded data, missing fixtures
+   - **Medium (P2)**: Long test files (>300 lines), missing priorities, some conditionals
+   - **Low (P3)**: Minor style issues, incomplete cleanup, verbose tests
+
+2. **Calculate quality score** (if `quality_score_enabled: true`):
+
+```
+Starting Score: 100
+
+Critical Violations: -10 points each
+High Violations: -5 points each
+Medium Violations: -2 points each
+Low Violations: -1 point each
+
+Bonus Points:
++ Excellent BDD structure: +5
++ Comprehensive fixtures: +5
++ Comprehensive data factories: +5
++ Network-first pattern: +5
++ Perfect isolation: +5
++ All test IDs present: +5
+
+Quality Score: max(0, min(100, Starting Score - Violations + Bonus))
+```
+
+3. **Quality Grade**:
+   - **90-100**: Excellent (A+)
+   - **80-89**: Good (A)
+   - **70-79**: Acceptable (B)
+   - **60-69**: Needs Improvement (C)
+   - **<60**: Critical Issues (F)
+
+**Output:** Quality score calculated with violation breakdown
+
+---
+
+### Step 5: Generate Review Report
+
+**Actions:**
+
+1. **Create review report** using `test-review-template.md`:
+
+   **Header Section:**
+   - Test file(s) reviewed
+   - Review date
+   - Review scope (single/directory/suite)
+   - Quality score and grade
+
+   **Executive Summary:**
+   - Overall assessment (Excellent/Good/Needs Improvement/Critical)
+   - Key strengths
+   - Key weaknesses
+   - Recommendation (Approve/Approve with comments/Request changes)
+
+   **Quality Criteria Assessment:**
+   - Table with all criteria evaluated
+   - Status for each (PASS/WARN/FAIL)
+   - Violation count per criterion
+
+   **Critical Issues (Must Fix):**
+   - Priority P0/P1 violations
+   - Code location (file:line)
+   - Explanation of issue
+   - Recommended fix
+   - Knowledge base reference
+
+   **Recommendations (Should Fix):**
+   - Priority P2/P3 violations
+   - Code location (file:line)
+   - Explanation of issue
+   - Recommended improvement
+   - Knowledge base reference
+
+   **Best Practices Examples:**
+   - Highlight good patterns found in tests
+   - Reference knowledge base fragments
+   - Provide examples for others to follow
+
+   **Knowledge Base References:**
+   - List all fragments consulted
+   - Provide links to detailed guidance
+
+2. **Generate inline comments** (if `generate_inline_comments: true`):
+   - Add TODO comments in test files at violation locations
+   - Format: `// TODO (TEA Review): [Issue description] - See test-review-{filename}.md`
+   - Never modify test logic, only add comments
+
+3. **Generate quality badge** (if `generate_quality_badge: true`):
+   - Create badge with quality score (e.g., "Test Quality: 87/100 (A)")
+   - Format for inclusion in README or documentation
+
+4. **Append to story file** (if `append_to_story: true` and story file exists):
+   - Add "Test Quality Review" section to story
+   - Include quality score and critical issues
+   - Link to full review report
+
+**Output:** Comprehensive review report with actionable feedback
+
+---
+
+### Step 6: Save Outputs and Notify
+
+**Actions:**
+
+1. **Save review report** to `{output_file}`
+2. **Save inline comments** to test files (if enabled)
+3. **Save quality badge** to output folder (if enabled)
+4. **Update story file** (if enabled)
+5. **Generate summary message** for user:
+   - Quality score and grade
+   - Critical issue count
+   - Recommendation
+
+**Output:** All review artifacts saved and user notified
+
+---
+
+## Quality Criteria Decision Matrix
+
+| Criterion          | PASS                      | WARN           | FAIL                | Knowledge Fragment      |
+| ------------------ | ------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------- |
+| BDD Format         | Given-When-Then present   | Some structure | No structure        | test-quality.md         |
+| Test IDs           | All tests have IDs        | Some missing   | No IDs              | traceability.md         |
+| Priority Markers   | All classified            | Some missing   | No classification   | test-priorities.md      |
+| Hard Waits         | No hard waits             | Some justified | Hard waits present  | test-quality.md         |
+| Determinism        | No conditionals/random    | Some justified | Conditionals/random | test-quality.md         |
+| Isolation          | Clean up, no shared state | Some gaps      | Shared state        | test-quality.md         |
+| Fixture Patterns   | Pure fn → Fixture         | Some fixtures  | No fixtures         | fixture-architecture.md |
+| Data Factories     | Factory functions         | Some factories | Hardcoded data      | data-factories.md       |
+| Network-First      | Intercept before navigate | Some correct   | Race conditions     | network-first.md        |
+| Assertions         | Explicit assertions       | Some implicit  | Missing assertions  | test-quality.md         |
+| Test Length        | ≤300 lines                | 301-500 lines  | >500 lines          | test-quality.md         |
+| Test Duration      | ≤1.5 min                  | 1.5-3 min      | >3 min              | test-quality.md         |
+| Flakiness Patterns | No flaky patterns         | Some potential | Multiple patterns   | ci-burn-in.md           |
+
+---
+
+## Example Review Summary
+
+````markdown
+# Test Quality Review: auth-login.spec.ts
+
+**Quality Score**: 78/100 (B - Acceptable)
+**Review Date**: 2025-10-14
+**Recommendation**: Approve with Comments
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+Overall, the test demonstrates good structure and coverage of the login flow. However, there are several areas for improvement to enhance maintainability and prevent flakiness.
+
+**Strengths:**
+
+- Excellent BDD structure with clear Given-When-Then comments
+- Good use of test IDs (1.3-E2E-001, 1.3-E2E-002)
+- Comprehensive assertions on authentication state
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+
+- Hard wait detected (page.waitForTimeout(2000)) - flakiness risk
+- Hardcoded test data (email: 'test@example.com') - use factories instead
+- Missing fixture for common login setup - DRY violation
+
+**Recommendation**: Address critical issue (hard wait) before merging. Other improvements can be addressed in follow-up PR.
+
+## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
+
+### 1. Hard Wait Detected (Line 45)
+
+**Severity**: P0 (Critical)
+**Issue**: `await page.waitForTimeout(2000)` introduces flakiness
+**Fix**: Use explicit wait for element or network request instead
+**Knowledge**: See test-quality.md, network-first.md
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Bad (current)
+await page.waitForTimeout(2000);
+await expect(page.locator('[data-testid="user-menu"]')).toBeVisible();
+
+// ✅ Good (recommended)
+await expect(page.locator('[data-testid="user-menu"]')).toBeVisible({ timeout: 10000 });
+```
+````
+
+## Recommendations (Should Fix)
+
+### 1. Use Data Factory for Test User (Lines 23, 32, 41)
+
+**Severity**: P1 (High)
+**Issue**: Hardcoded email `test@example.com` - maintainability risk
+**Fix**: Create factory function for test users
+**Knowledge**: See data-factories.md
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Good (recommended)
+import { createTestUser } from './factories/user-factory';
+
+const testUser = createTestUser({ role: 'admin' });
+await loginPage.login(testUser.email, testUser.password);
+```
+
+### 2. Extract Login Setup to Fixture (Lines 18-28)
+
+**Severity**: P1 (High)
+**Issue**: Login setup repeated across tests - DRY violation
+**Fix**: Create fixture for authenticated state
+**Knowledge**: See fixture-architecture.md
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Good (recommended)
+const test = base.extend({
+  authenticatedPage: async ({ page }, use) => {
+    const user = createTestUser();
+    await loginPage.login(user.email, user.password);
+    await use(page);
+  },
+});
+
+test('user can access dashboard', async ({ authenticatedPage }) => {
+  // Test starts already logged in
+});
+```
+
+## Quality Score Breakdown
+
+- Starting Score: 100
+- Critical Violations (1 × -10): -10
+- High Violations (2 × -5): -10
+- Medium Violations (0 × -2): 0
+- Low Violations (1 × -1): -1
+- Bonus (BDD +5, Test IDs +5): +10
+- **Final Score**: 78/100 (B)
+
+```
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Other Workflows
+
+### Before Test Review
+
+- **atdd**: Generate acceptance tests (TEA reviews them for quality)
+- **automate**: Expand regression suite (TEA reviews new tests)
+- **dev story**: Developer writes implementation tests (TEA reviews them)
+
+### After Test Review
+
+- **Developer**: Addresses critical issues, improves based on recommendations
+- **gate**: Test quality review feeds into gate decision (high-quality tests increase confidence)
+
+### Coordinates With
+
+- **Story File**: Review links to acceptance criteria context
+- **Test Design**: Review validates tests align with prioritization
+- **Knowledge Base**: Review references fragments for detailed guidance
+
+---
+
+## Important Notes
+
+1. **Non-Prescriptive**: Review provides guidance, not rigid rules
+2. **Context Matters**: Some violations may be justified for specific scenarios
+3. **Knowledge-Based**: All feedback grounded in proven patterns from tea-index.csv
+4. **Actionable**: Every issue includes recommended fix with code examples
+5. **Quality Score**: Use as indicator, not absolute measure
+6. **Continuous Improvement**: Review same tests periodically as patterns evolve
+
+---
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+**Problem: No test files found**
+- Verify test_dir path is correct
+- Check test file extensions match glob pattern
+- Ensure test files exist in expected location
+
+**Problem: Quality score seems too low/high**
+- Review violation counts - may need to adjust thresholds
+- Consider context - some projects have different standards
+- Focus on critical issues first, not just score
+
+**Problem: Inline comments not generated**
+- Check generate_inline_comments: true in variables
+- Verify write permissions on test files
+- Review append_to_file: false (separate report mode)
+
+**Problem: Knowledge fragments not loading**
+- Verify tea-index.csv exists in testarch/ directory
+- Check fragment file paths are correct
+- Ensure auto_load_knowledge: true in variables
+```