feat: transform QA agent into Test Architect with advanced quality ca… (#433)
* feat: transform QA agent into Test Architect with advanced quality capabilities - Add 6 specialized quality assessment commands - Implement risk-based testing with scoring - Create quality gate system with deterministic decisions - Add comprehensive test design and NFR validation - Update documentation with stage-based workflow integration * feat: transform QA agent into Test Architect with advanced quality capabilities - Add 6 specialized quality assessment commands - Implement risk-based testing with scoring - Create quality gate system with deterministic decisions - Add comprehensive test design and NFR validation - Update documentation with stage-based workflow integration * docs: refined the docs for test architect * fix: addressed review comments from manjaroblack, round 1 * fix: addressed review comments from manjaroblack, round 1 --------- Co-authored-by: Murat Ozcan <murat@mac.lan> Co-authored-by: Brian <bmadcode@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
100
dist/teams/team-fullstack.txt
vendored
100
dist/teams/team-fullstack.txt
vendored
@@ -728,7 +728,7 @@ Provide a user-friendly interface to the BMad knowledge base without overwhelmin
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
When entering KB mode (*kb-mode), follow these steps:
|
||||
When entering KB mode (\*kb-mode), follow these steps:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Welcome and Guide
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -770,12 +770,12 @@ Or ask me about anything else related to BMad-Method!
|
||||
When user is done or wants to exit KB mode:
|
||||
|
||||
- Summarize key points discussed if helpful
|
||||
- Remind them they can return to KB mode anytime with *kb-mode
|
||||
- Remind them they can return to KB mode anytime with \*kb-mode
|
||||
- Suggest next steps based on what was discussed
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Interaction
|
||||
|
||||
**User**: *kb-mode
|
||||
**User**: \*kb-mode
|
||||
|
||||
**Assistant**: I've entered KB mode and have access to the full BMad knowledge base. I can help you with detailed information about any aspect of BMad-Method.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1342,7 +1342,7 @@ Each status change requires user verification and approval before proceeding.
|
||||
#### Greenfield Development
|
||||
|
||||
- Business analysis and market research
|
||||
- Product requirements and feature definition
|
||||
- Product requirements and feature definition
|
||||
- System architecture and design
|
||||
- Development execution
|
||||
- Testing and deployment
|
||||
@@ -1451,8 +1451,11 @@ Templates with Level 2 headings (`##`) can be automatically sharded:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Goals and Background Context
|
||||
## Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
## Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
## User Interface Design Goals
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Metrics
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1609,16 +1612,19 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Core Reflective Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Expand or Contract for Audience**
|
||||
|
||||
- Ask whether to 'expand' (add detail, elaborate) or 'contract' (simplify, clarify)
|
||||
- Identify specific target audience if relevant
|
||||
- Tailor content complexity and depth accordingly
|
||||
|
||||
**Explain Reasoning (CoT Step-by-Step)**
|
||||
|
||||
- Walk through the step-by-step thinking process
|
||||
- Reveal underlying assumptions and decision points
|
||||
- Show how conclusions were reached from current role's perspective
|
||||
|
||||
**Critique and Refine**
|
||||
|
||||
- Review output for flaws, inconsistencies, or improvement areas
|
||||
- Identify specific weaknesses from role's expertise
|
||||
- Suggest refined version reflecting domain knowledge
|
||||
@@ -1626,12 +1632,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Structural Analysis Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Analyze Logical Flow and Dependencies**
|
||||
|
||||
- Examine content structure for logical progression
|
||||
- Check internal consistency and coherence
|
||||
- Identify and validate dependencies between elements
|
||||
- Confirm effective ordering and sequencing
|
||||
|
||||
**Assess Alignment with Overall Goals**
|
||||
|
||||
- Evaluate content contribution to stated objectives
|
||||
- Identify any misalignments or gaps
|
||||
- Interpret alignment from specific role's perspective
|
||||
@@ -1640,12 +1648,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Risk and Challenge Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Identify Potential Risks and Unforeseen Issues**
|
||||
|
||||
- Brainstorm potential risks from role's expertise
|
||||
- Identify overlooked edge cases or scenarios
|
||||
- Anticipate unintended consequences
|
||||
- Highlight implementation challenges
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge from Critical Perspective**
|
||||
|
||||
- Adopt critical stance on current content
|
||||
- Play devil's advocate from specified viewpoint
|
||||
- Argue against proposal highlighting weaknesses
|
||||
@@ -1654,12 +1664,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Creative Exploration Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Tree of Thoughts Deep Dive**
|
||||
|
||||
- Break problem into discrete "thoughts" or intermediate steps
|
||||
- Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously
|
||||
- Use self-evaluation to classify each path as "sure", "likely", or "impossible"
|
||||
- Apply search algorithms (BFS/DFS) to find optimal solution paths
|
||||
|
||||
**Hindsight is 20/20: The 'If Only...' Reflection**
|
||||
|
||||
- Imagine retrospective scenario based on current content
|
||||
- Identify the one "if only we had known/done X..." insight
|
||||
- Describe imagined consequences humorously or dramatically
|
||||
@@ -1668,6 +1680,7 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Multi-Persona Collaboration Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Agile Team Perspective Shift**
|
||||
|
||||
- Rotate through different Scrum team member viewpoints
|
||||
- Product Owner: Focus on user value and business impact
|
||||
- Scrum Master: Examine process flow and team dynamics
|
||||
@@ -1675,12 +1688,14 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
- QA: Identify testing scenarios and quality concerns
|
||||
|
||||
**Stakeholder Round Table**
|
||||
|
||||
- Convene virtual meeting with multiple personas
|
||||
- Each persona contributes unique perspective on content
|
||||
- Identify conflicts and synergies between viewpoints
|
||||
- Synthesize insights into actionable recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
**Meta-Prompting Analysis**
|
||||
|
||||
- Step back to analyze the structure and logic of current approach
|
||||
- Question the format and methodology being used
|
||||
- Suggest alternative frameworks or mental models
|
||||
@@ -1689,24 +1704,28 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Advanced 2025 Techniques
|
||||
|
||||
**Self-Consistency Validation**
|
||||
|
||||
- Generate multiple reasoning paths for same problem
|
||||
- Compare consistency across different approaches
|
||||
- Identify most reliable and robust solution
|
||||
- Highlight areas where approaches diverge and why
|
||||
|
||||
**ReWOO (Reasoning Without Observation)**
|
||||
|
||||
- Separate parametric reasoning from tool-based actions
|
||||
- Create reasoning plan without external dependencies
|
||||
- Identify what can be solved through pure reasoning
|
||||
- Optimize for efficiency and reduced token usage
|
||||
|
||||
**Persona-Pattern Hybrid**
|
||||
|
||||
- Combine specific role expertise with elicitation pattern
|
||||
- Architect + Risk Analysis: Deep technical risk assessment
|
||||
- UX Expert + User Journey: End-to-end experience critique
|
||||
- PM + Stakeholder Analysis: Multi-perspective impact review
|
||||
|
||||
**Emergent Collaboration Discovery**
|
||||
|
||||
- Allow multiple perspectives to naturally emerge
|
||||
- Identify unexpected insights from persona interactions
|
||||
- Explore novel combinations of viewpoints
|
||||
@@ -1715,18 +1734,21 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Game-Based Elicitation Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Red Team vs Blue Team**
|
||||
|
||||
- Red Team: Attack the proposal, find vulnerabilities
|
||||
- Blue Team: Defend and strengthen the approach
|
||||
- Competitive analysis reveals blind spots
|
||||
- Results in more robust, battle-tested solutions
|
||||
|
||||
**Innovation Tournament**
|
||||
|
||||
- Pit multiple alternative approaches against each other
|
||||
- Score each approach across different criteria
|
||||
- Crowd-source evaluation from different personas
|
||||
- Identify winning combination of features
|
||||
|
||||
**Escape Room Challenge**
|
||||
|
||||
- Present content as constraints to work within
|
||||
- Find creative solutions within tight limitations
|
||||
- Identify minimum viable approach
|
||||
@@ -1735,6 +1757,7 @@ Use the **expansion-creator** pack to build your own:
|
||||
## Process Control
|
||||
|
||||
**Proceed / No Further Actions**
|
||||
|
||||
- Acknowledge choice to finalize current work
|
||||
- Accept output as-is or move to next step
|
||||
- Prepare to continue without additional elicitation
|
||||
@@ -1858,7 +1881,7 @@ If user selects Option 1, present numbered list of techniques from the brainstor
|
||||
1. Apply selected technique according to data file description
|
||||
2. Keep engaging with technique until user indicates they want to:
|
||||
- Choose a different technique
|
||||
- Apply current ideas to a new technique
|
||||
- Apply current ideas to a new technique
|
||||
- Move to convergent phase
|
||||
- End session
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1975,63 +1998,54 @@ CRITICAL: First, help the user select the most appropriate research focus based
|
||||
Present these numbered options to the user:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Product Validation Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Validate product hypotheses and market fit
|
||||
- Test assumptions about user needs and solutions
|
||||
- Assess technical and business feasibility
|
||||
- Identify risks and mitigation strategies
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Market Opportunity Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Analyze market size and growth potential
|
||||
- Identify market segments and dynamics
|
||||
- Assess market entry strategies
|
||||
- Evaluate timing and market readiness
|
||||
|
||||
3. **User & Customer Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Deep dive into user personas and behaviors
|
||||
- Understand jobs-to-be-done and pain points
|
||||
- Map customer journeys and touchpoints
|
||||
- Analyze willingness to pay and value perception
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Competitive Intelligence Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Detailed competitor analysis and positioning
|
||||
- Feature and capability comparisons
|
||||
- Business model and strategy analysis
|
||||
- Identify competitive advantages and gaps
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Technology & Innovation Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Assess technology trends and possibilities
|
||||
- Evaluate technical approaches and architectures
|
||||
- Identify emerging technologies and disruptions
|
||||
- Analyze build vs. buy vs. partner options
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Industry & Ecosystem Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Map industry value chains and dynamics
|
||||
- Identify key players and relationships
|
||||
- Analyze regulatory and compliance factors
|
||||
- Understand partnership opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Strategic Options Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Evaluate different strategic directions
|
||||
- Assess business model alternatives
|
||||
- Analyze go-to-market strategies
|
||||
- Consider expansion and scaling paths
|
||||
|
||||
8. **Risk & Feasibility Research**
|
||||
|
||||
- Identify and assess various risk factors
|
||||
- Evaluate implementation challenges
|
||||
- Analyze resource requirements
|
||||
- Consider regulatory and legal implications
|
||||
|
||||
9. **Custom Research Focus**
|
||||
|
||||
- User-defined research objectives
|
||||
- Specialized domain investigation
|
||||
- Cross-functional research needs
|
||||
@@ -2200,13 +2214,11 @@ CRITICAL: collaborate with the user to develop specific, actionable research que
|
||||
### 5. Review and Refinement
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Present Complete Prompt**
|
||||
|
||||
- Show the full research prompt
|
||||
- Explain key elements and rationale
|
||||
- Highlight any assumptions made
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Gather Feedback**
|
||||
|
||||
- Are the objectives clear and correct?
|
||||
- Do the questions address all concerns?
|
||||
- Is the scope appropriate?
|
||||
@@ -2357,9 +2369,9 @@ This document captures the CURRENT STATE of the [Project Name] codebase, includi
|
||||
|
||||
### Change Log
|
||||
|
||||
| Date | Version | Description | Author |
|
||||
|------|---------|-------------|--------|
|
||||
| [Date] | 1.0 | Initial brownfield analysis | [Analyst] |
|
||||
| Date | Version | Description | Author |
|
||||
| ------ | ------- | --------------------------- | --------- |
|
||||
| [Date] | 1.0 | Initial brownfield analysis | [Analyst] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference - Key Files and Entry Points
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2382,11 +2394,11 @@ This document captures the CURRENT STATE of the [Project Name] codebase, includi
|
||||
|
||||
### Actual Tech Stack (from package.json/requirements.txt)
|
||||
|
||||
| Category | Technology | Version | Notes |
|
||||
|----------|------------|---------|--------|
|
||||
| Runtime | Node.js | 16.x | [Any constraints] |
|
||||
| Framework | Express | 4.18.2 | [Custom middleware?] |
|
||||
| Database | PostgreSQL | 13 | [Connection pooling setup] |
|
||||
| Category | Technology | Version | Notes |
|
||||
| --------- | ---------- | ------- | -------------------------- |
|
||||
| Runtime | Node.js | 16.x | [Any constraints] |
|
||||
| Framework | Express | 4.18.2 | [Custom middleware?] |
|
||||
| Database | PostgreSQL | 13 | [Connection pooling setup] |
|
||||
|
||||
etc...
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2425,6 +2437,7 @@ project-root/
|
||||
### Data Models
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of duplicating, reference actual model files:
|
||||
|
||||
- **User Model**: See `src/models/User.js`
|
||||
- **Order Model**: See `src/models/Order.js`
|
||||
- **Related Types**: TypeScript definitions in `src/types/`
|
||||
@@ -2454,10 +2467,10 @@ Instead of duplicating, reference actual model files:
|
||||
|
||||
### External Services
|
||||
|
||||
| Service | Purpose | Integration Type | Key Files |
|
||||
|---------|---------|------------------|-----------|
|
||||
| Stripe | Payments | REST API | `src/integrations/stripe/` |
|
||||
| SendGrid | Emails | SDK | `src/services/emailService.js` |
|
||||
| Service | Purpose | Integration Type | Key Files |
|
||||
| -------- | -------- | ---------------- | ------------------------------ |
|
||||
| Stripe | Payments | REST API | `src/integrations/stripe/` |
|
||||
| SendGrid | Emails | SDK | `src/services/emailService.js` |
|
||||
|
||||
etc...
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2502,6 +2515,7 @@ npm run test:integration # Runs integration tests (requires local DB)
|
||||
### Files That Will Need Modification
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the enhancement requirements, these files will be affected:
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/services/userService.js` - Add new user fields
|
||||
- `src/models/User.js` - Update schema
|
||||
- `src/routes/userRoutes.js` - New endpoints
|
||||
@@ -3958,7 +3972,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Initial Assessment**
|
||||
|
||||
- If user or the task being run provides a checklist name:
|
||||
- Try fuzzy matching (e.g. "architecture checklist" -> "architect-checklist")
|
||||
- If multiple matches found, ask user to clarify
|
||||
@@ -3971,14 +3984,12 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
|
||||
- All at once (YOLO mode - recommended for checklists, there will be a summary of sections at the end to discuss)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Document and Artifact Gathering**
|
||||
|
||||
- Each checklist will specify its required documents/artifacts at the beginning
|
||||
- Follow the checklist's specific instructions for what to gather, generally a file can be resolved in the docs folder, if not or unsure, halt and ask or confirm with the user.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Checklist Processing**
|
||||
|
||||
If in interactive mode:
|
||||
|
||||
- Work through each section of the checklist one at a time
|
||||
- For each section:
|
||||
- Review all items in the section following instructions for that section embedded in the checklist
|
||||
@@ -3987,7 +3998,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
|
||||
- Get user confirmation before proceeding to next section or if any thing major do we need to halt and take corrective action
|
||||
|
||||
If in YOLO mode:
|
||||
|
||||
- Process all sections at once
|
||||
- Create a comprehensive report of all findings
|
||||
- Present the complete analysis to the user
|
||||
@@ -3995,7 +4005,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
|
||||
4. **Validation Approach**
|
||||
|
||||
For each checklist item:
|
||||
|
||||
- Read and understand the requirement
|
||||
- Look for evidence in the documentation that satisfies the requirement
|
||||
- Consider both explicit mentions and implicit coverage
|
||||
@@ -4009,7 +4018,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
|
||||
5. **Section Analysis**
|
||||
|
||||
For each section:
|
||||
|
||||
- think step by step to calculate pass rate
|
||||
- Identify common themes in failed items
|
||||
- Provide specific recommendations for improvement
|
||||
@@ -4019,7 +4027,6 @@ If the user asks or does not specify a specific checklist, list the checklists a
|
||||
6. **Final Report**
|
||||
|
||||
Prepare a summary that includes:
|
||||
|
||||
- Overall checklist completion status
|
||||
- Pass rates by section
|
||||
- List of failed items with context
|
||||
@@ -4136,13 +4143,11 @@ CRITICAL: Use proper parsing that understands markdown context. A ## inside a co
|
||||
For each extracted section:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Generate filename**: Convert the section heading to lowercase-dash-case
|
||||
|
||||
- Remove special characters
|
||||
- Replace spaces with dashes
|
||||
- Example: "## Tech Stack" → `tech-stack.md`
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Adjust heading levels**:
|
||||
|
||||
- The level 2 heading becomes level 1 (# instead of ##) in the sharded new document
|
||||
- All subsection levels decrease by 1:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -5027,7 +5032,6 @@ Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:
|
||||
Create a comprehensive validation report that includes:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Overall PRD completeness (percentage)
|
||||
- MVP scope appropriateness (Too Large/Just Right/Too Small)
|
||||
- Readiness for architecture phase (Ready/Nearly Ready/Not Ready)
|
||||
@@ -5035,26 +5039,22 @@ Create a comprehensive validation report that includes:
|
||||
|
||||
2. Category Analysis Table
|
||||
Fill in the actual table with:
|
||||
|
||||
- Status: PASS (90%+ complete), PARTIAL (60-89%), FAIL (<60%)
|
||||
- Critical Issues: Specific problems that block progress
|
||||
|
||||
3. Top Issues by Priority
|
||||
|
||||
- BLOCKERS: Must fix before architect can proceed
|
||||
- HIGH: Should fix for quality
|
||||
- MEDIUM: Would improve clarity
|
||||
- LOW: Nice to have
|
||||
|
||||
4. MVP Scope Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- Features that might be cut for true MVP
|
||||
- Missing features that are essential
|
||||
- Complexity concerns
|
||||
- Timeline realism
|
||||
|
||||
5. Technical Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- Clarity of technical constraints
|
||||
- Identified technical risks
|
||||
- Areas needing architect investigation
|
||||
@@ -8250,33 +8250,28 @@ Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:
|
||||
Now that you've completed the checklist, generate a comprehensive validation report that includes:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Overall architecture readiness (High/Medium/Low)
|
||||
- Critical risks identified
|
||||
- Key strengths of the architecture
|
||||
- Project type (Full-stack/Frontend/Backend) and sections evaluated
|
||||
|
||||
2. Section Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- Pass rate for each major section (percentage of items passed)
|
||||
- Most concerning failures or gaps
|
||||
- Sections requiring immediate attention
|
||||
- Note any sections skipped due to project type
|
||||
|
||||
3. Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- Top 5 risks by severity
|
||||
- Mitigation recommendations for each
|
||||
- Timeline impact of addressing issues
|
||||
|
||||
4. Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
- Must-fix items before development
|
||||
- Should-fix items for better quality
|
||||
- Nice-to-have improvements
|
||||
|
||||
5. AI Implementation Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- Specific concerns for AI agent implementation
|
||||
- Areas needing additional clarification
|
||||
- Complexity hotspots to address
|
||||
@@ -8578,12 +8573,10 @@ PROJECT TYPE DETECTION:
|
||||
First, determine the project type by checking:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Is this a GREENFIELD project (new from scratch)?
|
||||
|
||||
- Look for: New project initialization, no existing codebase references
|
||||
- Check for: prd.md, architecture.md, new project setup stories
|
||||
|
||||
2. Is this a BROWNFIELD project (enhancing existing system)?
|
||||
|
||||
- Look for: References to existing codebase, enhancement/modification language
|
||||
- Check for: brownfield-prd.md, brownfield-architecture.md, existing system analysis
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8917,7 +8910,6 @@ Ask the user if they want to work through the checklist:
|
||||
Generate a comprehensive validation report that adapts to project type:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- Project type: [Greenfield/Brownfield] with [UI/No UI]
|
||||
- Overall readiness (percentage)
|
||||
- Go/No-Go recommendation
|
||||
@@ -8927,42 +8919,36 @@ Generate a comprehensive validation report that adapts to project type:
|
||||
2. Project-Specific Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
FOR GREENFIELD:
|
||||
|
||||
- Setup completeness
|
||||
- Dependency sequencing
|
||||
- MVP scope appropriateness
|
||||
- Development timeline feasibility
|
||||
|
||||
FOR BROWNFIELD:
|
||||
|
||||
- Integration risk level (High/Medium/Low)
|
||||
- Existing system impact assessment
|
||||
- Rollback readiness
|
||||
- User disruption potential
|
||||
|
||||
3. Risk Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- Top 5 risks by severity
|
||||
- Mitigation recommendations
|
||||
- Timeline impact of addressing issues
|
||||
- [BROWNFIELD] Specific integration risks
|
||||
|
||||
4. MVP Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
- Core features coverage
|
||||
- Missing essential functionality
|
||||
- Scope creep identified
|
||||
- True MVP vs over-engineering
|
||||
|
||||
5. Implementation Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
- Developer clarity score (1-10)
|
||||
- Ambiguous requirements count
|
||||
- Missing technical details
|
||||
- [BROWNFIELD] Integration point clarity
|
||||
|
||||
6. Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
- Must-fix before development
|
||||
- Should-fix for quality
|
||||
- Consider for improvement
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user