ros/BMAD-METHOD
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

chore: standardize ESLint/Prettier formatting across codebase

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
manjaroblack
2025-08-15 22:22:24 -05:00
parent e1176f337e
commit 74c78d2274
113 changed files with 5397 additions and 3494 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

60
bmad-core/tasks/nfr-assess.md
View File

@@ -6,18 +6,19 @@ Quick NFR validation focused on the core four: security, performance, reliabilit
```yaml
required:
- story_id: "{epic}.{story}" # e.g., "1.3"
- story_path: "docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md"
- story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
- story_path: 'docs/stories/{epic}.{story}.*.md'
optional:
- architecture_refs: "docs/architecture/*.md"
- technical_preferences: "docs/technical-preferences.md"
- architecture_refs: 'docs/architecture/*.md'
- technical_preferences: 'docs/technical-preferences.md'
- acceptance_criteria: From story file
```
## Purpose
Assess non-functional requirements for a story and generate:
1. YAML block for the gate file's `nfr_validation` section
2. Brief markdown assessment saved to `docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md`
@@ -26,6 +27,7 @@ Assess non-functional requirements for a story and generate:
### 0. Fail-safe for Missing Inputs
If story_path or story file can't be found:
- Still create assessment file with note: "Source story not found"
- Set all selected NFRs to CONCERNS with notes: "Target unknown / evidence missing"
- Continue with assessment to provide value
@@ -38,7 +40,7 @@ If story_path or story file can't be found:
```text
Which NFRs should I assess? (Enter numbers or press Enter for default)
[1] Security (default)
[2] Performance (default)
[2] Performance (default)
[3] Reliability (default)
[4] Maintainability (default)
[5] Usability
@@ -52,6 +54,7 @@ Which NFRs should I assess? (Enter numbers or press Enter for default)
### 2. Check for Thresholds
Look for NFR requirements in:
- Story acceptance criteria
- `docs/architecture/*.md` files
- `docs/technical-preferences.md`
@@ -72,6 +75,7 @@ No security requirements found. Required auth method?
### 3. Quick Assessment
For each selected NFR, check:
- Is there evidence it's implemented?
- Can we validate it?
- Are there obvious gaps?
@@ -86,24 +90,24 @@ Generate ONLY for NFRs actually assessed (no placeholders):
# Gate YAML (copy/paste):
nfr_validation:
_assessed: [security, performance, reliability, maintainability]
security:
security:
status: CONCERNS
notes: "No rate limiting on auth endpoints"
notes: 'No rate limiting on auth endpoints'
performance:
status: PASS
notes: "Response times < 200ms verified"
notes: 'Response times < 200ms verified'
reliability:
status: PASS
notes: "Error handling and retries implemented"
notes: 'Error handling and retries implemented'
maintainability:
status: CONCERNS
notes: "Test coverage at 65%, target is 80%"
notes: 'Test coverage at 65%, target is 80%'
```
## Deterministic Status Rules
- **FAIL**: Any selected NFR has critical gap or target clearly not met
- **CONCERNS**: No FAILs, but any NFR is unknown/partial/missing evidence
- **CONCERNS**: No FAILs, but any NFR is unknown/partial/missing evidence
- **PASS**: All selected NFRs meet targets with evidence
## Quality Score Calculation
@@ -123,18 +127,21 @@ If `technical-preferences.md` defines custom weights, use those instead.
```markdown
# NFR Assessment: {epic}.{story}
Date: {date}
Reviewer: Quinn
<!-- Note: Source story not found (if applicable) -->
## Summary
- Security: CONCERNS - Missing rate limiting
- Performance: PASS - Meets <200ms requirement
- Reliability: PASS - Proper error handling
- Maintainability: CONCERNS - Test coverage below target
## Critical Issues
1. **No rate limiting** (Security)
- Risk: Brute force attacks possible
- Fix: Add rate limiting middleware to auth endpoints
@@ -144,6 +151,7 @@ Reviewer: Quinn
- Fix: Add tests for uncovered branches
## Quick Wins
- Add rate limiting: ~2 hours
- Increase test coverage: ~4 hours
- Add performance monitoring: ~1 hour
@@ -152,6 +160,7 @@ Reviewer: Quinn
## Output 3: Story Update Line
**End with this line for the review task to quote:**
```
NFR assessment: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
```
@@ -159,6 +168,7 @@ NFR assessment: docs/qa/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md
## Output 4: Gate Integration Line
**Always print at the end:**
```
Gate NFR block ready → paste into docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml under nfr_validation
```
@@ -166,66 +176,82 @@ Gate NFR block ready → paste into docs/qa/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml unde
## Assessment Criteria
### Security
**PASS if:**
- Authentication implemented
- Authorization enforced
- Input validation present
- No hardcoded secrets
**CONCERNS if:**
- Missing rate limiting
- Weak encryption
- Incomplete authorization
**FAIL if:**
- No authentication
- Hardcoded credentials
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
### Performance
**PASS if:**
- Meets response time targets
- No obvious bottlenecks
- Reasonable resource usage
**CONCERNS if:**
- Close to limits
- Missing indexes
- No caching strategy
**FAIL if:**
- Exceeds response time limits
- Memory leaks
- Unoptimized queries
### Reliability
**PASS if:**
- Error handling present
- Graceful degradation
- Retry logic where needed
**CONCERNS if:**
- Some error cases unhandled
- No circuit breakers
- Missing health checks
**FAIL if:**
- No error handling
- Crashes on errors
- No recovery mechanisms
### Maintainability
**PASS if:**
- Test coverage meets target
- Code well-structured
- Documentation present
**CONCERNS if:**
- Test coverage below target
- Some code duplication
- Missing documentation
**FAIL if:**
- No tests
- Highly coupled code
- No documentation
@@ -283,7 +309,7 @@ maintainability:
1. **Functional Suitability**: Completeness, correctness, appropriateness
2. **Performance Efficiency**: Time behavior, resource use, capacity
3. **Compatibility**: Co-existence, interoperability
3. **Compatibility**: Co-existence, interoperability
4. **Usability**: Learnability, operability, accessibility
5. **Reliability**: Maturity, availability, fault tolerance
6. **Security**: Confidentiality, integrity, authenticity
@@ -291,6 +317,7 @@ maintainability:
8. **Portability**: Adaptability, installability
Use these when assessing beyond the core four.
</details>
<details>
@@ -304,12 +331,13 @@ performance_deep_dive:
p99: 350ms
database:
slow_queries: 2
missing_indexes: ["users.email", "orders.user_id"]
missing_indexes: ['users.email', 'orders.user_id']
caching:
hit_rate: 0%
recommendation: "Add Redis for session data"
recommendation: 'Add Redis for session data'
load_test:
max_rps: 150
breaking_point: 200 rps
```
</details>
</details>