universal-dev-standards 5.4.0 → 5.6.0

package/bundled/ai/standards/data-migration-testing.ai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# Data Migration Testing Standards - AI Optimized
+# Source: core/data-migration-testing.md
+
+id: data-migration-testing
+meta:
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  updated: "2026-05-05"
+  source: core/data-migration-testing.md
+  description: Database migration up/down/idempotency testing standards for schema changes
+
+requirements:
+  REQ-1:
+    id: REQ-DMT-001
+    title: Up Migration Test
+    rule: >
+      Every schema migration MUST have an automated test that applies it to a clean
+      baseline schema and verifies the expected post-state (table names, columns,
+      indexes, constraints).
+    rationale: >
+      Unverified migrations silently corrupt production schema; up tests catch
+      incompatible changes before deployment.
+
+  REQ-2:
+    id: REQ-DMT-002
+    title: Down Migration (Rollback) Test
+    rule: >
+      Every migration that has a down/rollback function MUST have a test that
+      applies up, then down, and verifies the schema returns to its exact pre-state.
+      Zero data loss is the acceptance criterion.
+    rationale: >
+      Rollback is only reliable if it is tested; untested rollbacks fail at the worst
+      possible moment — during a production incident.
+
+  REQ-3:
+    id: REQ-DMT-003
+    title: Idempotency Test
+    rule: >
+      Migration runners MUST be tested to ensure applying the same migration twice
+      does not fail or cause side effects (e.g., duplicate columns, duplicate indexes).
+    rationale: >
+      CI retries and operator mistakes can trigger double-apply; idempotent migrations
+      prevent partial state corruption.
+
+  REQ-4:
+    id: REQ-DMT-004
+    title: Data Preservation Test
+    rule: >
+      Migrations that ALTER or DROP columns MUST include a test that seeds representative
+      data before the migration and verifies data integrity or expected transformation
+      after the migration.
+    rationale: >
+      Schema correctness does not imply data correctness; a column rename can silently
+      null-out existing data if the migration omits a data transform step.
+
+  REQ-5:
+    id: REQ-DMT-005
+    title: Migration History Integrity
+    rule: >
+      The migration runner's applied-migrations table/ledger MUST be validated:
+      each test run uses an isolated in-memory or temporary database so migrations
+      do not interfere with each other or with production state.
+    rationale: >
+      Shared migration state between tests causes non-deterministic failures that are
+      extremely difficult to diagnose.
+
+test_structure:
+  isolation: "Each migration test MUST run against an isolated in-memory or temp DB"
+  baseline: "Start from the schema state immediately before the migration under test"
+  assertions:
+    up: "Assert table/column/index existence and types"
+    down: "Assert schema returns to pre-migration state"
+    idempotency: "Apply migration twice; second apply must succeed without error"
+    data: "Seed rows before migration; assert row count and values after"
+
+tooling_guidance:
+  sqlite: "Use ':memory:' DSN; apply migrations via ORM migrate() or raw SQL"
+  postgres: "Use pgmock or test containers; run migrate up/down in a transaction"
+  drizzle_orm: >
+    Call db.run(sql`...`) with raw DDL, or use drizzle-kit's migrate() function
+    against a fresh :memory: SQLite database for each test file.
+
+anti_patterns:
+  - description: >
+      Testing migrations against a shared development database — causes cross-test
+      pollution and non-repeatable results.
+  - description: >
+      Skipping down migration tests because "we never rollback" — rollbacks happen
+      during incidents; the worst time to discover they are broken.
+  - description: >
+      Writing migration tests after the fact without seeding data — misses the
+      data preservation class of bugs entirely.
+
+related_standards:
+  - testing
+  - database-standards
+  - verification-evidence

package/bundled/ai/standards/data-pipeline.ai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# Data Pipeline Standards - AI Optimized
+# Source: XSPEC-068 Wave 3 Data Engineering Pack
+
+id: data-pipeline
+title: Data Pipeline Standards
+version: "1.0.0"
+status: Active
+tags: [data-engineering, pipeline, etl, data-quality, orchestration, idempotency]
+summary: |
+  Defines engineering standards for building reliable, observable, and
+  maintainable data pipelines. Covers idempotency and exactly-once semantics,
+  error handling and dead-letter queues, checkpoint and recovery patterns,
+  data lineage tracking, pipeline observability (metrics, alerting), testing
+  requirements, and deployment practices. Applicable to batch ETL, streaming
+  pipelines, and ML feature pipelines.
+
+requirements:
+  - id: REQ-001
+    title: Idempotency and Exactly-Once Processing
+    description: |
+      Every data pipeline MUST be designed for idempotent execution:
+      re-running the same pipeline for the same time window or batch MUST
+      produce identical output without duplication or data loss. Pipelines
+      MUST use deterministic keys for deduplication. Batch pipelines MUST
+      support re-processing historical partitions cleanly. Streaming pipelines
+      MUST implement exactly-once or at-least-once with deduplication using
+      unique event IDs. Overwrites of output partitions are preferred over
+      appends for batch jobs.
+    level: MUST
+    examples:
+      - "Batch: pipeline writes to date-partitioned output and overwrites the partition on re-run"
+      - "Streaming: dedup using Kafka message key + consumer group offset tracking"
+      - "Test: running pipeline twice for 2026-04-01 produces same row count both times"
+
+  - id: REQ-002
+    title: Error Handling and Dead-Letter Queues
+    description: |
+      Data pipelines MUST implement structured error handling with
+      categorized failure modes. Transient errors (network timeout, API
+      rate limit) MUST use exponential backoff retry (max 3 attempts).
+      Permanent errors (schema violation, invalid data) MUST route records
+      to a Dead-Letter Queue (DLQ) with the original record, error type,
+      error message, and processing timestamp. DLQ records MUST be
+      monitored and addressed within the pipeline's SLA.
+    level: MUST
+    examples:
+      - "Transient retry: retry_policy: {max_attempts: 3, backoff_base: 2s, max_backoff: 30s}"
+      - "DLQ record: {original_record: {...}, error_type: 'SCHEMA_VIOLATION', error_msg: 'field amount is null', ts: '...'}"
+      - "DLQ alert: >100 DLQ messages in 1 hour → PagerDuty alert to data-oncall"
+
+  - id: REQ-003
+    title: Checkpoint and Recovery
+    description: |
+      Long-running batch pipelines and stateful streaming pipelines MUST
+      implement checkpointing to enable recovery from mid-run failures
+      without full reprocessing. Checkpoints MUST record: last successfully
+      processed partition/offset/watermark, job run ID, and timestamp.
+      Recovery MUST resume from the last checkpoint, not from the beginning.
+      Checkpoint state MUST be stored in durable external storage (not
+      local disk).
+    level: MUST
+    examples:
+      - "Batch: checkpoint stores {last_processed_date: '2026-04-28', last_id: 12345678} in S3"
+      - "Streaming: Flink checkpoint interval 5 minutes, stored in S3 with 3 checkpoints retained"
+      - "Recovery test: kill job mid-run, restart, verify output matches full run with no duplicates"
+
+  - id: REQ-004
+    title: Data Lineage Tracking
+    description: |
+      Every data pipeline MUST emit lineage metadata describing its data
+      flow: source datasets (with versions/timestamps), transformation logic
+      applied, and output datasets produced. Lineage MUST be machine-readable
+      and ingested into a central lineage store or data catalog. Lineage
+      enables root-cause analysis of data quality issues and impact assessment
+      of upstream changes.
+    level: MUST
+    examples:
+      - "Lineage emit: {job: 'orders-aggregator', inputs: ['raw_orders@2026-04-30'], outputs: ['daily_order_summary@2026-04-30'], transform_version: 'v1.3.2'}"
+      - "OpenLineage event emitted to Marquez or DataHub on job start and completion"
+      - "Lineage query: 'Which pipelines read from raw_orders?' returns 5 downstream jobs"
+
+  - id: REQ-005
+    title: Pipeline Observability and SLOs
+    description: |
+      Every production data pipeline MUST expose the following metrics:
+      records processed (counter), processing latency (histogram), error
+      rate (gauge), DLQ depth (gauge), and last successful run timestamp.
+      Pipelines MUST define SLOs for: freshness (data available within N
+      hours of source), completeness (≥ X% records successfully processed),
+      and latency (p95 processing time within threshold). SLO violations
+      MUST trigger alerts.
+    level: MUST
+    examples:
+      - "Metric: pipeline_records_processed_total{pipeline='orders-agg',status='success'}"
+      - "Freshness SLO: daily_order_summary available by 03:00 UTC — alert if missing by 04:00 UTC"
+      - "Completeness alert: processed_records / expected_records < 0.99 → P2 alert"
+
+  - id: REQ-006
+    title: Pipeline Testing Requirements
+    description: |
+      Data pipelines MUST have automated tests covering: unit tests for
+      transformation logic (test with sample input/output DataFrames),
+      integration tests validating end-to-end flow with synthetic data,
+      and schema conformance tests validating output matches declared
+      data contract. Pipelines SHOULD have regression tests for historically
+      problematic edge cases (nulls in key fields, negative amounts,
+      duplicate records). Test coverage MUST be ≥ 80% for transformation
+      logic.
+    level: MUST
+    examples:
+      - "Unit test: test_calculate_order_total() — asserts discount applied correctly on sample rows"
+      - "Integration test: runs full pipeline on 1000 synthetic orders, validates output row count and schema"
+      - "Edge case test: pipeline handles duplicate order_id gracefully, deduplication logic verified"

package/bundled/ai/standards/disaster-recovery-drill.ai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+name: Disaster Recovery Drill Standards
+nameZh: 災難恢復演練標準
+id: disaster-recovery-drill
+version: "1.0.0"
+category: operations
+scope: reliability
+summary: >
+  Structured DR drill standards: quarterly runbook execution, RTO/RPO
+  measurement, backup restore verification, and Game Day protocols.
+  Untested recovery plans fail at the worst moment.
+
+requirements:
+  - id: REQ-01
+    title: RTO/RPO Targets Defined
+    titleZh: RTO/RPO 目標定義
+    level: MUST
+    description: >
+      Each system MUST have documented RTO (Recovery Time Objective) and RPO
+      (Recovery Point Objective) targets. These must be agreed with stakeholders
+      before any DR drill can be considered meaningful.
+    examples:
+      - "VibeOps commercial: RTO < 1 hour, RPO < 24 hours (daily backup)"
+
+  - id: REQ-02
+    title: Backup Restore Test
+    titleZh: 備份還原測試
+    level: MUST
+    description: >
+      At minimum quarterly, a full backup restore MUST be executed in an
+      isolated environment and verified for data integrity. The restore time
+      MUST be measured and compared to the RTO target.
+
+  - id: REQ-03
+    title: Runbook Completeness
+    titleZh: 運行手冊完整性
+    level: MUST
+    description: >
+      A DR runbook MUST exist covering: (1) detection (how do we know disaster
+      occurred?), (2) decision (who declares DR?), (3) recovery steps
+      (step-by-step, executable commands), (4) verification (how do we confirm
+      recovery?), (5) communication plan.
+
+  - id: REQ-04
+    title: Game Day Exercise
+    titleZh: Game Day 演練
+    level: SHOULD
+    description: >
+      At minimum annually, a Game Day exercise SHOULD be conducted where the
+      team simulates a realistic failure scenario and executes the runbook from
+      scratch. Results SHOULD be documented and used to improve the runbook.
+
+  - id: REQ-05
+    title: Drill Record
+    titleZh: 演練記錄
+    level: MUST
+    description: >
+      Every DR drill MUST produce a written record including: date, participants,
+      scenario tested, RTO achieved, RPO achieved, issues found, remediation
+      actions. Records MUST be retained for 12 months.
+
+examples:
+  - name: "DR drill record template"
+    code: |
+      date: 2026-05-05
+      participants: [alice, bob]
+      scenario: "Database total loss — restore from daily backup"
+      rto_target: "1 hour"
+      rto_achieved: "42 minutes"
+      rpo_target: "24 hours"
+      rpo_achieved: "23 hours 15 minutes"
+      issues_found:
+        - "backup script path was stale — fixed in XSPEC-170"
+      remediation:
+        - "Update backup path in backup-restore.sh"
+      status: PASS
+
+anti_patterns:
+  - description: >
+      Only verifying that a backup file exists — always restore it and
+      verify data integrity. An untested backup is not a backup.
+  - description: >
+      Running DR drills in production — always use an isolated environment
+      to avoid turning a drill into an actual disaster.
+
+related_standards:
+  - deployment-standards
+  - chaos-engineering-standards
+  - verification-evidence

package/bundled/ai/standards/flaky-test-management.ai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+name: Flaky Test Management Standards
+nameZh: 不穩定測試管理標準
+id: flaky-test-management
+version: "1.0.0"
+category: testing
+scope: test-reliability
+summary: >
+  Policies and tooling for detecting, quarantining, and eliminating flaky
+  tests. Flaky tests erode CI confidence, cause false failures, and mask
+  real bugs.
+
+requirements:
+  - id: REQ-01
+    title: Flaky Test Definition
+    titleZh: 不穩定測試定義
+    level: MUST
+    description: >
+      A test is considered flaky if it produces different results (pass/fail)
+      on consecutive runs with the same code. Teams MUST define a flakiness
+      threshold: a test that fails ≥ 2% of runs on main branch without code
+      changes is flaky.
+
+  - id: REQ-02
+    title: Quarantine Protocol
+    titleZh: 隔離協議
+    level: MUST
+    description: >
+      Flaky tests MUST be quarantined within 48 hours of detection by:
+      (1) adding a `.skip` or `.todo` annotation, (2) opening a tracking
+      issue, (3) adding a comment with the issue link and known failure mode.
+      Quarantined tests MUST NOT block CI merges.
+
+  - id: REQ-03
+    title: Retry Policy
+    titleZh: 重試策略
+    level: SHOULD
+    description: >
+      CI SHOULD allow a maximum of 2 retries for tests in the quarantine list.
+      Retries SHOULD be applied only to known-flaky tests, not the entire suite.
+      A test that passes after retry is still considered flaky and MUST be fixed.
+
+  - id: REQ-04
+    title: Flaky Test Elimination SLA
+    titleZh: 修復 SLA
+    level: MUST
+    description: >
+      Quarantined tests MUST be either fixed or permanently removed within
+      30 days of quarantine. Tests left quarantined for > 30 days with no
+      activity SHOULD be automatically deleted.
+
+  - id: REQ-05
+    title: Root Cause Categories
+    titleZh: 根因分類
+    level: SHOULD
+    description: >
+      When eliminating a flaky test, the root cause SHOULD be documented in
+      the fixing PR. Common root causes: timing/race conditions, test isolation
+      failures (shared state), external service dependencies, random seed
+      dependence, file system ordering.
+
+examples:
+  - name: "Quarantine annotation (Vitest)"
+    code: |
+      // TODO: flaky test quarantined 2026-05-05 — see issue #42
+      // Root cause: race condition in WebSocket reconnection
+      it.skip("reconnects after disconnect", async () => { ... })
+
+  - name: "Vitest retry config for known flaky tests"
+    code: |
+      // vitest.config.ts
+      export default defineConfig({
+        test: {
+          retry: 2,  // global retry for all tests
+        }
+      })
+
+anti_patterns:
+  - description: >
+      Allowing flaky tests to block CI without quarantine — developers learn
+      to ignore CI failures, which hides real bugs.
+  - description: >
+      Using arbitrary sleeps (setTimeout/sleep) to fix race conditions —
+      this makes tests slower and more fragile. Use proper async coordination.
+
+related_standards:
+  - testing
+  - test-governance
+  - ci-cd-standards

package/bundled/ai/standards/flow-based-testing.ai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+# Flow-Based Testing Standards - AI Optimized
+# Source: core/flow-based-testing.md
+
+id: flow-based-testing
+meta:
+  version: "1.0.0"
+  updated: "2026-05-04"
+  source: core/flow-based-testing.md
+  description: Flow decomposition methodology for testing multi-step processes with branch coverage
+
+core_concepts:
+  problem: >
+    AC-centric tests verify individual behaviors in isolation but miss integration gaps
+    between steps and leave decision-point branches untested.
+    A flow where AC-1 passes and AC-2 passes independently does NOT guarantee
+    the AC-1 → AC-2 → AC-3 sequential flow works correctly.
+  solution: >
+    Decompose each workflow into flows, identify all decision points,
+    expand into a scenario matrix, then write journey tests with shared state threading.
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Step 1: Flow Identification
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+flow_identification:
+  description: Extract testable flows from SPEC/AC before writing any test code
+  activities:
+    - name: Define Preconditions
+      description: Document the system's initial state before the flow begins
+      examples:
+        - User is authenticated (token present)
+        - Database has seed data
+        - External services are available
+    - name: List Ordered Action Sequence
+      description: List all steps in the exact execution order
+      examples:
+        - Step 1: Validate input
+        - Step 2: Check quota
+        - Step 3: Call external service
+        - Step 4: Persist result
+        - Step 5: Return response
+    - name: Extract Decision Points
+      description: Identify every if/else/conditional in the flow
+      examples:
+        - "Is the user authorized? [yes → continue | no → 401]"
+        - "Is quota sufficient? [yes → continue | no → 429]"
+        - "Did external service respond? [200 → success | timeout → retry | error → fail]"
+    - name: Define Terminal States
+      description: List all possible end states (success + each distinct failure)
+      examples:
+        - "SUCCESS: Resource created, 201 returned"
+        - "FAIL_AUTH: 401 with error code AUTH_INVALID"
+        - "FAIL_QUOTA: 429 with error code QUOTA_EXCEEDED"
+        - "FAIL_EXTERNAL: 504 with error code EXTERNAL_TIMEOUT"
+  output: Flow definition (decision point list + terminal state map)
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Step 2: Decision Table Expansion
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+decision_table_expansion:
+  description: Expand decision points into a scenario matrix using a coverage strategy
+  coverage_strategies:
+    - name: Each-Choice
+      description: Each decision value appears in at least one scenario
+      formula: "Minimum scenarios = sum of unique values across all decision points"
+      use_when: Low-risk flows, fast feedback cycles, initial coverage
+      example: "3 values + 2 values + 3 values = 8 minimum scenarios"
+    - name: Pairwise
+      description: All pairs of decision values are covered (OWASP T-way testing)
+      formula: Approximately N × max_values scenarios (N = decision points)
+      use_when: Medium-risk flows, balance between coverage and test count
+      tools: [allpairs, pairwiseJS]
+    - name: All-Combinations
+      description: Full Cartesian product of all decision values
+      formula: "Scenarios = product of value counts per decision point"
+      use_when: Critical flows (auth, payment, license validation, security controls)
+      warning: Can grow exponentially; only use for flows with < 4 decision points or < 3 values each
+
+  decision_table_template: |
+    Flow: [Flow Name]
+
+    Decision Points:
+    | Point          | Values                          |
+    |----------------|---------------------------------|
+    | Authorization  | valid / expired / missing       |
+    | Quota          | sufficient / exceeded           |
+    | ExternalSvc    | available / timeout / error     |
+
+    Each-Choice Scenarios (minimum coverage):
+    | Scenario | Auth     | Quota      | ExternalSvc | Expected          |
+    |----------|----------|------------|-------------|-------------------|
+    | S1       | valid    | sufficient | available   | success           |
+    | S2       | expired  | sufficient | available   | 401_expired       |
+    | S3       | missing  | sufficient | available   | 401_missing       |
+    | S4       | valid    | exceeded   | available   | 429_quota         |
+    | S5       | valid    | sufficient | timeout     | 504_retry         |
+    | S6       | valid    | sufficient | error       | 502_external_fail |
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Step 3: Journey Test Structure
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+journey_test_structure:
+  description: Write flow tests with shared state threading — state accumulates across steps
+  key_principle: >
+    Each test step inherits state from previous steps through a shared context object.
+    Never reset the context between steps in a journey test.
+
+  happy_path_pattern: |
+    describe("Flow: [Flow Name]", () => {
+      // Shared context — state accumulates, NOT reset between steps
+      const ctx: {
+        token?: string;
+        resourceId?: string;
+        result?: ResponseType;
+      } = {}
+
+      it("Step 1: [Precondition setup]", async () => {
+        ctx.token = await setupAuth()
+        expect(ctx.token).toBeTruthy()
+      })
+
+      it("Step 2: [Core action using Step 1 state]", async () => {
+        ctx.resourceId = await createResource(ctx.token!, inputData)
+        expect(ctx.resourceId).toMatch(/^[a-z0-9-]+$/)
+      })
+
+      it("Step 3: [Verification using accumulated state]", async () => {
+        ctx.result = await getResource(ctx.token!, ctx.resourceId!)
+        expect(ctx.result.status).toBe("active")
+        expect(ctx.result.id).toBe(ctx.resourceId)
+      })
+    })
+
+  branch_pattern: |
+    // Each branch outcome gets its own describe block
+    describe("Flow Branch: [Decision Point] → [Outcome]", () => {
+      it("should [expected behavior] when [condition]", async () => {
+        // Setup: put the system into the branch condition
+        const expiredToken = buildExpiredJwt()
+
+        // Act: trigger the flow with branch condition
+        const response = await callApi(expiredToken)
+
+        // Assert: verify BOTH the response AND any side effects
+        expect(response.status).toBe(401)
+        expect(response.body.code).toBe("AUTH_TOKEN_EXPIRED")
+        // Verify NO side effects occurred (resource not created)
+        const count = await getResourceCount()
+        expect(count).toBe(0)
+      })
+    })
+
+  anti_patterns_in_structure:
+    - "Using beforeEach to reset ctx — breaks state threading between steps"
+    - "Putting all steps in a single it() block — hides which step failed"
+    - "Asserting only on the final state — intermediate step bugs go undetected"
+    - "Using arbitrary delays between steps — use proper async/await"
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Feature Type Mapping
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+feature_type_mapping:
+  - type: Workflow / Multi-step Process
+    requires: flow_decomposition
+    minimum_coverage: Each-Choice
+    test_structure: journey-chained-test
+    dimensions: [1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10]
+    with_ai: [1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 8]
+    note: Apply flow-based-testing standard; use shared ctx; Each-Choice minimum branch coverage
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Rules
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+rules:
+  - id: flow-identification-required
+    trigger: feature has 3 or more sequential steps
+    instruction: Apply 3-step flow decomposition (identify → decision table → journey structure) before writing tests
+    priority: required
+
+  - id: decision-table-for-branches
+    trigger: flow has any if/else or conditional logic
+    instruction: Create decision table with all decision values; apply Each-Choice minimum coverage
+    priority: required
+
+  - id: shared-state-in-journey
+    trigger: writing multi-step flow test
+    instruction: Use shared context object (ctx); never reset it between steps within the same flow
+    priority: required
+
+  - id: separate-branch-describes
+    trigger: decision point has 2 or more outcome values
+    instruction: Each distinct outcome gets its own describe block with a clear name
+    priority: required
+
+  - id: all-combinations-for-critical
+    trigger: flow involves authentication, payment, license validation, or security controls
+    instruction: Apply All-Combinations coverage strategy; test every value combination
+    priority: required
+
+  - id: verify-side-effects-in-branches
+    trigger: writing branch test for failure path
+    instruction: Assert BOTH the error response AND that no unintended side effects occurred
+    priority: required
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Anti-Patterns
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+anti_patterns:
+  - Testing only the happy path flow (missing failure terminal states)
+  - Resetting shared state between steps in a journey test (breaks state threading)
+  - Testing each step in isolation without verifying accumulated state
+  - Using a single test case for a flow with multiple decision points (hides which branch failed)
+  - Applying Pairwise or All-Combinations to every flow (creates unmaintainable test counts; reserve for critical flows)
+  - Not verifying side effects (or absence of side effects) in branch tests
+  - Starting flow test from midpoint without establishing preconditions
+
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+# Quick Reference
+# ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+quick_reference:
+  flow_test_checklist: |
+    Flow: ___________________
+
+    □ Step 1 — Flow Identification
+      □ Preconditions documented
+      □ Ordered step sequence listed (Step 1 → Step N)
+      □ All decision points extracted (every if/else/condition)
+      □ All terminal states defined (success + each distinct failure)
+
+    □ Step 2 — Decision Table
+      □ Decision table created with all values per decision point
+      □ Coverage strategy chosen (Each-Choice / Pairwise / All-Combinations)
+      □ Critical flows (auth/payment/security) use All-Combinations
+      □ Minimum scenario count = sum of unique values (Each-Choice)
+
+    □ Step 3 — Journey Test Structure
+      □ Happy path journey test exists (shared ctx, all steps in sequence)
+      □ Each branch outcome has its own describe block
+      □ Step assertions verify accumulated ctx state, not just final result
+      □ Branch tests verify both error response AND absence of side effects
+      □ No beforeEach resetting ctx between steps