mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-14 02:42:04 +08:00
99ee4e7d36
- Create task-schema.json (JSON Schema draft-07) with 10 field blocks fusing Unified JSONL, 6-field Task JSON, and Solution Schema advantages - Migrate unified-execute-with-file from JSONL to .task/*.json directory scanning - Migrate 3 producers (lite-plan, plan-converter, collaborative-plan) to .task/*.json multi-file output - Add review-cycle Phase 7.5 export-to-tasks (FIX-*.json) and issue-resolve --export-tasks option - Add schema compatibility annotations to action-planning-agent, workflow-plan, and tdd-plan - Add spec-generator skill phases and templates - Add memory v2 pipeline (consolidation, extraction, job scheduler, embedder) - Add secret-redactor utility and core-memory enhancements - Add codex-lens accuracy benchmarks and staged env config overrides
208 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
208 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
# Quality Gates
|
|
|
|
Per-phase quality gate criteria and scoring dimensions for spec-generator outputs.
|
|
|
|
## When to Use
|
|
|
|
| Phase | Usage | Section |
|
|
|-------|-------|---------|
|
|
| Phase 2-5 | Post-generation self-check | Per-Phase Gates |
|
|
| Phase 6 | Cross-document validation | Cross-Document Validation |
|
|
| Phase 6 | Final scoring | Scoring Dimensions |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Quality Thresholds
|
|
|
|
| Gate | Score | Action |
|
|
|------|-------|--------|
|
|
| **Pass** | >= 80% | Continue to next phase |
|
|
| **Review** | 60-79% | Log warnings, continue with caveats |
|
|
| **Fail** | < 60% | Must address issues before continuing |
|
|
|
|
In auto mode (`-y`), Review-level issues are logged but do not block progress.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Scoring Dimensions
|
|
|
|
### 1. Completeness (25%)
|
|
|
|
All required sections present with substantive content.
|
|
|
|
| Score | Criteria |
|
|
|-------|----------|
|
|
| 100% | All template sections filled with detailed content |
|
|
| 75% | All sections present, some lack detail |
|
|
| 50% | Major sections present but minor sections missing |
|
|
| 25% | Multiple major sections missing or empty |
|
|
| 0% | Document is a skeleton only |
|
|
|
|
### 2. Consistency (25%)
|
|
|
|
Terminology, formatting, and references are uniform across documents.
|
|
|
|
| Score | Criteria |
|
|
|-------|----------|
|
|
| 100% | All terms consistent, all references valid, formatting uniform |
|
|
| 75% | Minor terminology variations, all references valid |
|
|
| 50% | Some inconsistent terms, 1-2 broken references |
|
|
| 25% | Frequent inconsistencies, multiple broken references |
|
|
| 0% | Documents contradict each other |
|
|
|
|
### 3. Traceability (25%)
|
|
|
|
Requirements, architecture decisions, and stories trace back to goals.
|
|
|
|
| Score | Criteria |
|
|
|-------|----------|
|
|
| 100% | Every story traces to a requirement, every requirement traces to a goal |
|
|
| 75% | Most items traceable, few orphans |
|
|
| 50% | Partial traceability, some disconnected items |
|
|
| 25% | Weak traceability, many orphan items |
|
|
| 0% | No traceability between documents |
|
|
|
|
### 4. Depth (25%)
|
|
|
|
Content provides sufficient detail for execution teams.
|
|
|
|
| Score | Criteria |
|
|
|-------|----------|
|
|
| 100% | Acceptance criteria specific and testable, architecture decisions justified, stories estimable |
|
|
| 75% | Most items detailed enough, few vague areas |
|
|
| 50% | Mix of detailed and vague content |
|
|
| 25% | Mostly high-level, lacking actionable detail |
|
|
| 0% | Too abstract for execution |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Per-Phase Quality Gates
|
|
|
|
### Phase 1: Discovery
|
|
|
|
| Check | Criteria | Severity |
|
|
|-------|----------|----------|
|
|
| Session ID valid | Matches `SPEC-{slug}-{date}` format | Error |
|
|
| Problem statement exists | Non-empty, >= 20 characters | Error |
|
|
| Target users identified | >= 1 user group | Error |
|
|
| Dimensions generated | 3-5 exploration dimensions | Warning |
|
|
| Constraints listed | >= 0 (can be empty with justification) | Info |
|
|
|
|
### Phase 2: Product Brief
|
|
|
|
| Check | Criteria | Severity |
|
|
|-------|----------|----------|
|
|
| Vision statement | Clear, 1-3 sentences | Error |
|
|
| Problem statement | Specific and measurable | Error |
|
|
| Target users | >= 1 persona with needs described | Error |
|
|
| Goals defined | >= 2 measurable goals | Error |
|
|
| Success metrics | >= 2 quantifiable metrics | Warning |
|
|
| Scope boundaries | In-scope and out-of-scope listed | Warning |
|
|
| Multi-perspective | >= 2 CLI perspectives synthesized | Info |
|
|
|
|
### Phase 3: Requirements (PRD)
|
|
|
|
| Check | Criteria | Severity |
|
|
|-------|----------|----------|
|
|
| Functional requirements | >= 3 with REQ-NNN IDs | Error |
|
|
| Acceptance criteria | Every requirement has >= 1 criterion | Error |
|
|
| MoSCoW priority | Every requirement tagged | Error |
|
|
| Non-functional requirements | >= 1 (performance, security, etc.) | Warning |
|
|
| User stories | >= 1 per Must-have requirement | Warning |
|
|
| Traceability | Requirements trace to product brief goals | Warning |
|
|
|
|
### Phase 4: Architecture
|
|
|
|
| Check | Criteria | Severity |
|
|
|-------|----------|----------|
|
|
| Component diagram | Present (Mermaid or ASCII) | Error |
|
|
| Tech stack specified | Languages, frameworks, key libraries | Error |
|
|
| ADR present | >= 1 Architecture Decision Record | Error |
|
|
| ADR has alternatives | Each ADR lists >= 2 options considered | Warning |
|
|
| Integration points | External systems/APIs identified | Warning |
|
|
| Data model | Key entities and relationships described | Warning |
|
|
| Codebase mapping | Mapped to existing code (if has_codebase) | Info |
|
|
|
|
### Phase 5: Epics & Stories
|
|
|
|
| Check | Criteria | Severity |
|
|
|-------|----------|----------|
|
|
| Epics defined | 3-7 epics with EPIC-NNN IDs | Error |
|
|
| MVP subset | >= 1 epic tagged as MVP | Error |
|
|
| Stories per epic | 2-5 stories per epic | Error |
|
|
| Story format | "As a...I want...So that..." pattern | Warning |
|
|
| Dependency map | Cross-epic dependencies documented | Warning |
|
|
| Estimation hints | Relative sizing (S/M/L/XL) per story | Info |
|
|
| Traceability | Stories trace to requirements | Warning |
|
|
|
|
### Phase 6: Readiness Check
|
|
|
|
| Check | Criteria | Severity |
|
|
|-------|----------|----------|
|
|
| All documents exist | product-brief, requirements, architecture, epics | Error |
|
|
| Frontmatter valid | All YAML frontmatter parseable and correct | Error |
|
|
| Cross-references valid | All document links resolve | Error |
|
|
| Overall score >= 60% | Weighted average across 4 dimensions | Error |
|
|
| No unresolved Errors | All Error-severity issues addressed | Error |
|
|
| Summary generated | spec-summary.md created | Warning |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Cross-Document Validation
|
|
|
|
Checks performed during Phase 6 across all documents:
|
|
|
|
### Completeness Matrix
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Product Brief goals -> Requirements (each goal has >= 1 requirement)
|
|
Requirements -> Architecture (each Must requirement has design coverage)
|
|
Requirements -> Epics (each Must requirement appears in >= 1 story)
|
|
Architecture ADRs -> Epics (tech choices reflected in implementation stories)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Consistency Checks
|
|
|
|
| Check | Documents | Rule |
|
|
|-------|-----------|------|
|
|
| Terminology | All | Same term used consistently (no synonyms for same concept) |
|
|
| User personas | Brief + PRD + Epics | Same user names/roles throughout |
|
|
| Scope | Brief + PRD | PRD scope does not exceed brief scope |
|
|
| Tech stack | Architecture + Epics | Stories reference correct technologies |
|
|
|
|
### Traceability Matrix Format
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
| Goal | Requirements | Architecture | Epics |
|
|
|------|-------------|--------------|-------|
|
|
| G-001: ... | REQ-001, REQ-002 | ADR-001 | EPIC-001 |
|
|
| G-002: ... | REQ-003 | ADR-002 | EPIC-002, EPIC-003 |
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Issue Classification
|
|
|
|
### Error (Must Fix)
|
|
|
|
- Missing required document or section
|
|
- Broken cross-references
|
|
- Contradictory information between documents
|
|
- Empty acceptance criteria on Must-have requirements
|
|
- No MVP subset defined in epics
|
|
|
|
### Warning (Should Fix)
|
|
|
|
- Vague acceptance criteria
|
|
- Missing non-functional requirements
|
|
- No success metrics defined
|
|
- Incomplete traceability
|
|
- Missing architecture review notes
|
|
|
|
### Info (Nice to Have)
|
|
|
|
- Could add more detailed personas
|
|
- Consider additional ADR alternatives
|
|
- Story estimation hints missing
|
|
- Mermaid diagrams could be more detailed
|