BMAD-METHOD/bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-review/test-review-template.md

389 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

docs: massive documentation overhaul + introduce Paige (Documentation Guide agent) ## 📚 Complete Documentation Restructure **BMM Documentation Hub Created:** - New centralized documentation system at `src/modules/bmm/docs/` - 18 comprehensive guides organized by topic (7000+ lines total) - Clear learning paths for greenfield, brownfield, and quick spec flows - Professional technical writing standards throughout **New Documentation:** - `README.md` - Complete documentation hub with navigation - `quick-start.md` - 15-minute getting started guide - `agents-guide.md` - Comprehensive 12-agent reference (45 min read) - `party-mode.md` - Multi-agent collaboration guide (20 min read) - `scale-adaptive-system.md` - Deep dive on Levels 0-4 (42 min read) - `brownfield-guide.md` - Existing codebase development (53 min read) - `quick-spec-flow.md` - Rapid Level 0-1 development (26 min read) - `workflows-analysis.md` - Phase 1 workflows (12 min read) - `workflows-planning.md` - Phase 2 workflows (19 min read) - `workflows-solutioning.md` - Phase 3 workflows (13 min read) - `workflows-implementation.md` - Phase 4 workflows (33 min read) - `workflows-testing.md` - Testing & QA workflows (29 min read) - `workflow-architecture-reference.md` - Architecture workflow deep-dive - `workflow-document-project-reference.md` - Document-project workflow reference - `enterprise-agentic-development.md` - Team collaboration patterns - `faq.md` - Comprehensive Q&A covering all topics - `glossary.md` - Complete terminology reference - `troubleshooting.md` - Common issues and solutions **Documentation Improvements:** - Removed all version/date footers (git handles versioning) - Agent customization docs now include full rebuild process - Cross-referenced links between all guides - Reading time estimates for all major docs - Consistent professional formatting and structure **Consolidated & Streamlined:** - Module README (`src/modules/bmm/README.md`) streamlined to lean signpost - Root README polished with better hierarchy and clear CTAs - Moved docs from root `docs/` to module-specific locations - Better separation of user docs vs. developer reference ## 🤖 New Agent: Paige (Documentation Guide) **Role:** Technical documentation specialist and information architect **Expertise:** - Professional technical writing standards - Documentation structure and organization - Information architecture and navigation - User-focused content design - Style guide enforcement **Status:** Work in progress - Paige will evolve as documentation needs grow **Integration:** - Listed in agents-guide.md, glossary.md, FAQ - Available for all phases (documentation is continuous) - Can be customized like all BMM agents ## 🔧 Additional Changes - Updated agent manifest with Paige - Updated workflow manifest with new documentation workflows - Fixed workflow-to-agent mappings across all guides - Improved root README with clearer Quick Start section - Better module structure explanations - Enhanced community links with Discord channel names **Total Impact:** - 18 new/restructured documentation files - 7000+ lines of professional technical documentation - Complete navigation system with cross-references - Clear learning paths for all user types - Foundation for knowledge base (coming in beta) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2025-11-02 21:18:33 -06:00
# Test Quality Review: {test_filename}
**Quality Score**: {score}/100 ({grade} - {assessment})
**Review Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Review Scope**: {single | directory | suite}
**Reviewer**: {user_name or TEA Agent}
---
## Executive Summary
**Overall Assessment**: {Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Critical Issues}
**Recommendation**: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}
### Key Strengths
✅ {strength_1}
✅ {strength_2}
✅ {strength_3}
### Key Weaknesses
❌ {weakness_1}
❌ {weakness_2}
❌ {weakness_3}
### Summary
{1-2 paragraph summary of overall test quality, highlighting major findings and recommendation rationale}
---
## Quality Criteria Assessment
| Criterion | Status | Violations | Notes |
| ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------ |
| BDD Format (Given-When-Then) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Test IDs | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Priority Markers (P0/P1/P2/P3) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Hard Waits (sleep, waitForTimeout) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Determinism (no conditionals) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Isolation (cleanup, no shared state) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Fixture Patterns | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Data Factories | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Network-First Pattern | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Explicit Assertions | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
| Test Length (≤300 lines) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {lines} | {brief_note} |
| Test Duration (≤1.5 min) | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {duration} | {brief_note} |
| Flakiness Patterns | {✅ PASS \| ⚠️ WARN \| ❌ FAIL} | {count} | {brief_note} |
**Total Violations**: {critical_count} Critical, {high_count} High, {medium_count} Medium, {low_count} Low
---
## Quality Score Breakdown
```
Starting Score: 100
Critical Violations: -{critical_count} × 10 = -{critical_deduction}
High Violations: -{high_count} × 5 = -{high_deduction}
Medium Violations: -{medium_count} × 2 = -{medium_deduction}
Low Violations: -{low_count} × 1 = -{low_deduction}
Bonus Points:
Excellent BDD: +{0|5}
Comprehensive Fixtures: +{0|5}
Data Factories: +{0|5}
Network-First: +{0|5}
Perfect Isolation: +{0|5}
All Test IDs: +{0|5}
--------
Total Bonus: +{bonus_total}
Final Score: {final_score}/100
Grade: {grade}
```
---
## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
{If no critical issues: "No critical issues detected. ✅"}
{For each critical issue:}
### {issue_number}. {Issue Title}
**Severity**: P0 (Critical)
**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
**Criterion**: {criterion_name}
**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
**Issue Description**:
{Detailed explanation of what the problem is and why it's critical}
**Current Code**:
```typescript
// ❌ Bad (current implementation)
{
code_snippet_showing_problem;
}
```
**Recommended Fix**:
```typescript
// ✅ Good (recommended approach)
{
code_snippet_showing_solution;
}
```
**Why This Matters**:
{Explanation of impact - flakiness risk, maintainability, reliability}
**Related Violations**:
{If similar issue appears elsewhere, note line numbers}
---
## Recommendations (Should Fix)
{If no recommendations: "No additional recommendations. Test quality is excellent. ✅"}
{For each recommendation:}
### {rec_number}. {Recommendation Title}
**Severity**: {P1 (High) | P2 (Medium) | P3 (Low)}
**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
**Criterion**: {criterion_name}
**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
**Issue Description**:
{Detailed explanation of what could be improved and why}
**Current Code**:
```typescript
// ⚠️ Could be improved (current implementation)
{
code_snippet_showing_current_approach;
}
```
**Recommended Improvement**:
```typescript
// ✅ Better approach (recommended)
{
code_snippet_showing_improvement;
}
```
**Benefits**:
{Explanation of benefits - maintainability, readability, reusability}
**Priority**:
{Why this is P1/P2/P3 - urgency and impact}
---
## Best Practices Found
{If good patterns found, highlight them}
{For each best practice:}
### {practice_number}. {Best Practice Title}
**Location**: `{filename}:{line_number}`
**Pattern**: {pattern_name}
**Knowledge Base**: [{fragment_name}]({fragment_path})
**Why This Is Good**:
{Explanation of why this pattern is excellent}
**Code Example**:
```typescript
// ✅ Excellent pattern demonstrated in this test
{
code_snippet_showing_best_practice;
}
```
**Use as Reference**:
{Encourage using this pattern in other tests}
---
## Test File Analysis
### File Metadata
- **File Path**: `{relative_path_from_project_root}`
- **File Size**: {line_count} lines, {kb_size} KB
- **Test Framework**: {Playwright | Jest | Cypress | Vitest | Other}
- **Language**: {TypeScript | JavaScript}
### Test Structure
- **Describe Blocks**: {describe_count}
- **Test Cases (it/test)**: {test_count}
- **Average Test Length**: {avg_lines_per_test} lines per test
- **Fixtures Used**: {fixture_count} ({fixture_names})
- **Data Factories Used**: {factory_count} ({factory_names})
### Test Coverage Scope
- **Test IDs**: {test_id_list}
- **Priority Distribution**:
- P0 (Critical): {p0_count} tests
- P1 (High): {p1_count} tests
- P2 (Medium): {p2_count} tests
- P3 (Low): {p3_count} tests
- Unknown: {unknown_count} tests
### Assertions Analysis
- **Total Assertions**: {assertion_count}
- **Assertions per Test**: {avg_assertions_per_test} (avg)
- **Assertion Types**: {assertion_types_used}
---
## Context and Integration
### Related Artifacts
{If story file found:}
- **Story File**: [{story_filename}]({story_path})
- **Acceptance Criteria Mapped**: {ac_mapped}/{ac_total} ({ac_coverage}%)
{If test-design found:}
- **Test Design**: [{test_design_filename}]({test_design_path})
- **Risk Assessment**: {risk_level}
- **Priority Framework**: P0-P3 applied
### Acceptance Criteria Validation
{If story file available, map tests to ACs:}
| Acceptance Criterion | Test ID | Status | Notes |
| -------------------- | --------- | -------------------------- | ------- |
| {AC_1} | {test_id} | {✅ Covered \| ❌ Missing} | {notes} |
| {AC_2} | {test_id} | {✅ Covered \| ❌ Missing} | {notes} |
| {AC_3} | {test_id} | {✅ Covered \| ❌ Missing} | {notes} |
**Coverage**: {covered_count}/{total_count} criteria covered ({coverage_percentage}%)
---
## Knowledge Base References
This review consulted the following knowledge base fragments:
- **[test-quality.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-quality.md)** - Definition of Done for tests (no hard waits, <300 lines, <1.5 min, self-cleaning)
- **[fixture-architecture.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/fixture-architecture.md)** - Pure function → Fixture → mergeTests pattern
- **[network-first.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/network-first.md)** - Route intercept before navigate (race condition prevention)
- **[data-factories.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/data-factories.md)** - Factory functions with overrides, API-first setup
- **[test-levels-framework.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-levels-framework.md)** - E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit appropriateness
- **[tdd-cycles.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/tdd-cycles.md)** - Red-Green-Refactor patterns
- **[selective-testing.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/selective-testing.md)** - Duplicate coverage detection
- **[ci-burn-in.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/ci-burn-in.md)** - Flakiness detection patterns (10-iteration loop)
- **[test-priorities.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/test-priorities.md)** - P0/P1/P2/P3 classification framework
- **[traceability.md](../../../testarch/knowledge/traceability.md)** - Requirements-to-tests mapping
See [tea-index.csv](../../../testarch/tea-index.csv) for complete knowledge base.
---
## Next Steps
### Immediate Actions (Before Merge)
1. **{action_1}** - {description}
- Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
- Owner: {team_or_person}
- Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}
2. **{action_2}** - {description}
- Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
- Owner: {team_or_person}
- Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}
### Follow-up Actions (Future PRs)
1. **{action_1}** - {description}
- Priority: {P2 | P3}
- Target: {next_sprint | backlog}
2. **{action_2}** - {description}
- Priority: {P2 | P3}
- Target: {next_sprint | backlog}
### Re-Review Needed?
{✅ No re-review needed - approve as-is}
{⚠️ Re-review after critical fixes - request changes, then re-review}
{❌ Major refactor required - block merge, pair programming recommended}
---
## Decision
**Recommendation**: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}
**Rationale**:
{1-2 paragraph explanation of recommendation based on findings}
**For Approve**:
> Test quality is excellent/good with {score}/100 score. {Minor issues noted can be addressed in follow-up PRs.} Tests are production-ready and follow best practices.
**For Approve with Comments**:
> Test quality is acceptable with {score}/100 score. {High-priority recommendations should be addressed but don't block merge.} Critical issues resolved, but improvements would enhance maintainability.
**For Request Changes**:
> Test quality needs improvement with {score}/100 score. {Critical issues must be fixed before merge.} {X} critical violations detected that pose flakiness/maintainability risks.
**For Block**:
> Test quality is insufficient with {score}/100 score. {Multiple critical issues make tests unsuitable for production.} Recommend pairing session with QA engineer to apply patterns from knowledge base.
---
## Appendix
### Violation Summary by Location
{Table of all violations sorted by line number:}
| Line | Severity | Criterion | Issue | Fix |
| ------ | ------------- | ----------- | ------------- | ----------- |
| {line} | {P0/P1/P2/P3} | {criterion} | {brief_issue} | {brief_fix} |
| {line} | {P0/P1/P2/P3} | {criterion} | {brief_issue} | {brief_fix} |
### Quality Trends
{If reviewing same file multiple times, show trend:}
| Review Date | Score | Grade | Critical Issues | Trend |
| ------------ | ------------- | --------- | --------------- | ----------- |
| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_1}/100 | {grade_1} | {count_1} | ⬆️ Improved |
| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_2}/100 | {grade_2} | {count_2} | ⬇️ Declined |
| {YYYY-MM-DD} | {score_3}/100 | {grade_3} | {count_3} | ➡️ Stable |
### Related Reviews
{If reviewing multiple files in directory/suite:}
| File | Score | Grade | Critical | Status |
| -------- | ----------- | ------- | -------- | ------------------ |
| {file_1} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count} | {Approved/Blocked} |
| {file_2} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count} | {Approved/Blocked} |
| {file_3} | {score}/100 | {grade} | {count} | {Approved/Blocked} |
**Suite Average**: {avg_score}/100 ({avg_grade})
---
## Review Metadata
**Generated By**: BMad TEA Agent (Test Architect)
**Workflow**: testarch-test-review v4.0
**Review ID**: test-review-{filename}-{YYYYMMDD}
**Timestamp**: {YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS}
**Version**: 1.0
---
## Feedback on This Review
If you have questions or feedback on this review:
1. Review patterns in knowledge base: `testarch/knowledge/`
2. Consult tea-index.csv for detailed guidance
3. Request clarification on specific violations
4. Pair with QA engineer to apply patterns
This review is guidance, not rigid rules. Context matters - if a pattern is justified, document it with a comment.