Documentation Update
This commit is contained in:
DevForgeAI
parent
3fb3fbedd8
commit
4d9cfff782
|
|
@ -69,32 +69,32 @@ const ProductCard: React.FC<ProductCardProps> = ({ product, onEdit, onDelete })
|
|||
|
||||
### v0 Component Quality Checklist Applied
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Design Consistency**
|
||||
**Design Consistency**
|
||||
- Follows established design system patterns
|
||||
- Color palette matches brand guidelines (#2563eb, #64748b)
|
||||
- Typography scales appropriately
|
||||
- Spacing follows 8px grid system
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Code Quality**
|
||||
**Code Quality**
|
||||
- Components are properly typed (TypeScript)
|
||||
- Props are well-documented with interfaces
|
||||
- Components handle edge cases (loading, error states)
|
||||
- Performance optimized with React.memo where appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Accessibility**
|
||||
**Accessibility**
|
||||
- Semantic HTML structure (header, main, section)
|
||||
- Proper ARIA labels and roles
|
||||
- Keyboard navigation support (tab order, enter/space activation)
|
||||
- Screen reader compatibility tested
|
||||
- Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards (4.5:1 ratio)
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Responsive Design**
|
||||
**Responsive Design**
|
||||
- Mobile-first approach implemented
|
||||
- Breakpoints: 640px (sm), 768px (md), 1024px (lg)
|
||||
- Touch-friendly interaction areas (44px minimum)
|
||||
- Content reflows appropriately on all screen sizes
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Integration**
|
||||
**Integration**
|
||||
- Imports/exports properly configured
|
||||
- Dependencies clearly documented (React, TypeScript, Tailwind)
|
||||
- Integration examples provided
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
|||
# Checklist Validation Task
|
||||
# Checklist Validation Task
|
||||
|
||||
This task provides instructions for validating documentation against checklists. The agent should follow these instructions to ensure thorough and systematic validation of documents.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ The BMAD Method uses various checklists to ensure quality and completeness of di
|
|||
- Look for evidence in the documentation that satisfies the requirement
|
||||
- Consider both explicit mentions and implicit coverage
|
||||
- Mark items as:
|
||||
- ✅ PASS: Requirement clearly met
|
||||
- ❌ FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage
|
||||
- ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement
|
||||
- PASS: Requirement clearly met
|
||||
- ⌠FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage
|
||||
- âš ï¸ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement
|
||||
- N/A: Not applicable to this case
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section Analysis**
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Alternative approaches are considered and selection rationale is provided
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Methodology is innovative, rigorous, and perfectly suited to objectives
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Methodology is sound, well-executed, and appropriate
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Methodology is innovative, rigorous, and perfectly suited to objectives
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Methodology is sound, well-executed, and appropriate
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Methodology is adequate but may have minor limitations
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Methodology has significant limitations affecting reliability
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Methodology is inappropriate or fundamentally flawed
|
||||
|
|
@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Limitations and constraints are acknowledged and addressed
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Analysis demonstrates exceptional depth with novel insights
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Analysis is thorough and reveals important insights
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Analysis demonstrates exceptional depth with novel insights
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Analysis is thorough and reveals important insights
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Analysis covers key areas but may lack some depth
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Analysis is superficial or misses important aspects
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Analysis lacks depth and fails to address core issues
|
||||
|
|
@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Peer review is conducted for all major analytical conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive validation using multiple rigorous methods
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Adequate validation with minor gaps
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive validation using multiple rigorous methods
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Adequate validation with minor gaps
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Basic validation but some findings lack support
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Insufficient validation for key findings
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Little to no validation of analytical conclusions
|
||||
|
|
@ -102,8 +102,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Source limitations and potential biases are documented
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: All sources are highly credible and perfectly relevant
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Sources are credible with minor relevance gaps
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: All sources are highly credible and perfectly relevant
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Sources are credible with minor relevance gaps
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Most sources are adequate but some quality concerns
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Several sources lack credibility or relevance
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Sources are generally unreliable or inappropriate
|
||||
|
|
@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Gaps in data are identified and their impact assessed
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Evidence is comprehensive and exceeds sufficiency requirements
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Evidence is sufficient with minor gaps
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Evidence is comprehensive and exceeds sufficiency requirements
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Evidence is sufficient with minor gaps
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Evidence meets minimum requirements
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Evidence is insufficient for some conclusions
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Evidence is generally insufficient for reliable conclusions
|
||||
|
|
@ -138,8 +138,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Integration methodology is transparent and replicable
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Masterful synthesis revealing profound insights
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Effective synthesis with clear insights
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Masterful synthesis revealing profound insights
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Effective synthesis with clear insights
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Adequate synthesis but limited insight generation
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Poor synthesis with conflicting or unclear conclusions
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: No effective synthesis; evidence presented without integration
|
||||
|
|
@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Supporting details are appropriately placed in appendices
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Perfect organization with compelling narrative flow
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Well-organized with clear logical progression
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Perfect organization with compelling narrative flow
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Well-organized with clear logical progression
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Adequate organization but some unclear transitions
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Poor organization impedes understanding
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Disorganized with no clear structure
|
||||
|
|
@ -178,8 +178,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Document length is appropriate for content complexity
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Crystal clear communication perfectly tailored to audience
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Clear communication with minor accessibility issues
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Crystal clear communication perfectly tailored to audience
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Clear communication with minor accessibility issues
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Generally clear but some confusing elements
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Unclear communication impedes comprehension
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Very unclear; major communication barriers
|
||||
|
|
@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Source data and methodology are clearly cited
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Outstanding visualizations that reveal insights
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Effective visualizations that support understanding
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Outstanding visualizations that reveal insights
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Effective visualizations that support understanding
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Adequate visualizations with minor issues
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Poor visualizations that confuse or mislead
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Misleading or inappropriate visualizations
|
||||
|
|
@ -220,8 +220,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Scope boundaries are respected and maintained
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Exceeds objectives with additional valuable insights
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Fully meets objectives with quality execution
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Exceeds objectives with additional valuable insights
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Fully meets objectives with quality execution
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Meets most objectives but some gaps
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Partially meets objectives with significant gaps
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Fails to meet primary objectives
|
||||
|
|
@ -237,8 +237,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Value proposition is clear and compelling
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Stakeholders are delighted with value provided
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Stakeholders are satisfied with deliverable quality
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Stakeholders are delighted with value provided
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Stakeholders are satisfied with deliverable quality
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Stakeholders find deliverable adequate
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Stakeholders have significant concerns
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Stakeholders are dissatisfied with deliverable
|
||||
|
|
@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Success metrics are defined for each recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Recommendations are highly specific and immediately actionable
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Recommendations are clear and actionable with minor gaps
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Recommendations are highly specific and immediately actionable
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Recommendations are clear and actionable with minor gaps
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Recommendations are generally actionable but lack some detail
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Recommendations are vague or difficult to implement
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Recommendations are unclear or not actionable
|
||||
|
|
@ -277,8 +277,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Alternative approaches are considered when primary recommendations face barriers
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive feasibility analysis with creative solutions
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Thorough feasibility assessment with practical recommendations
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Comprehensive feasibility analysis with creative solutions
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Thorough feasibility assessment with practical recommendations
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Basic feasibility consideration but some gaps
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Limited feasibility analysis
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: No meaningful feasibility assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ The delivery of quality work within agreed timeframes.
|
|||
- Contingency plans are developed for critical path activities
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Indicators**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Excellent (9-10)**: Consistently delivers early with exceptional quality
|
||||
- ✅ **Good (7-8)**: Meets deadlines with high quality
|
||||
- **Excellent (9-10)**: Consistently delivers early with exceptional quality
|
||||
- **Good (7-8)**: Meets deadlines with high quality
|
||||
- âš ï¸ **Satisfactory (5-6)**: Generally meets deadlines but occasional delays
|
||||
- ⌠**Needs Improvement (3-4)**: Frequent delays or quality compromises
|
||||
- ⌠**Poor (1-2)**: Consistently late or poor quality due to time pressure
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -57,10 +57,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Documentation is updated to reflect implementation changes
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ All template sections are addressed
|
||||
- ✅ No critical information gaps exist
|
||||
- ✅ Documentation reflects current system state
|
||||
- ✅ Stakeholder information needs are met
|
||||
- All template sections are addressed
|
||||
- No critical information gaps exist
|
||||
- Documentation reflects current system state
|
||||
- Stakeholder information needs are met
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Documentation completeness checklist
|
||||
|
|
@ -79,10 +79,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Organize information logically and consistently
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Technical concepts are explained clearly
|
||||
- ✅ Visual diagrams support textual descriptions
|
||||
- ✅ Examples illustrate key concepts effectively
|
||||
- ✅ Information is organized logically
|
||||
- Technical concepts are explained clearly
|
||||
- Visual diagrams support textual descriptions
|
||||
- Examples illustrate key concepts effectively
|
||||
- Information is organized logically
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Readability assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -101,10 +101,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Maintain consistency with related documentation
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Templates are used correctly and completely
|
||||
- ✅ Terminology is consistent throughout
|
||||
- ✅ Notation and diagramming standards are followed
|
||||
- ✅ Cross-references are accurate and current
|
||||
- Templates are used correctly and completely
|
||||
- Terminology is consistent throughout
|
||||
- Notation and diagramming standards are followed
|
||||
- Cross-references are accurate and current
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Template compliance checking
|
||||
|
|
@ -123,10 +123,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Maintain version history and change tracking
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Requirements traceability is maintained
|
||||
- ✅ Decision rationales are documented
|
||||
- ✅ Implementation links are current
|
||||
- ✅ Change history is tracked
|
||||
- Requirements traceability is maintained
|
||||
- Decision rationales are documented
|
||||
- Implementation links are current
|
||||
- Change history is tracked
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Traceability matrix validation
|
||||
|
|
@ -147,10 +147,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Maintain loose coupling and high cohesion
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Components have single, well-defined responsibilities
|
||||
- ✅ Dependencies are minimized and well-managed
|
||||
- ✅ Interfaces are clean and stable
|
||||
- ✅ Patterns are applied appropriately
|
||||
- Components have single, well-defined responsibilities
|
||||
- Dependencies are minimized and well-managed
|
||||
- Interfaces are clean and stable
|
||||
- Patterns are applied appropriately
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Architectural principle compliance review
|
||||
|
|
@ -169,10 +169,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Document quality attribute trade-offs
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ All quality attributes are explicitly addressed
|
||||
- ✅ Quality mechanisms are appropriate and effective
|
||||
- ✅ Trade-offs are documented and justified
|
||||
- ✅ Quality targets are measurable and testable
|
||||
- All quality attributes are explicitly addressed
|
||||
- Quality mechanisms are appropriate and effective
|
||||
- Trade-offs are documented and justified
|
||||
- Quality targets are measurable and testable
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Quality attribute scenario analysis
|
||||
|
|
@ -191,10 +191,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Plan for horizontal and vertical scaling
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Scalability approach is clearly defined
|
||||
- ✅ Performance targets are specified and achievable
|
||||
- ✅ Bottlenecks are identified and addressed
|
||||
- ✅ Scaling mechanisms are implemented
|
||||
- Scalability approach is clearly defined
|
||||
- Performance targets are specified and achievable
|
||||
- Bottlenecks are identified and addressed
|
||||
- Scaling mechanisms are implemented
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Performance modeling and simulation
|
||||
|
|
@ -213,10 +213,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Plan for security monitoring and incident response
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Security controls are layered and comprehensive
|
||||
- ✅ Access controls are appropriate and enforced
|
||||
- ✅ Data protection mechanisms are implemented
|
||||
- ✅ Security monitoring is designed in
|
||||
- Security controls are layered and comprehensive
|
||||
- Access controls are appropriate and enforced
|
||||
- Data protection mechanisms are implemented
|
||||
- Security monitoring is designed in
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Security architecture review
|
||||
|
|
@ -237,10 +237,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Document selection rationale and alternatives
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Technology evaluation is comprehensive
|
||||
- ✅ Selection criteria are appropriate and applied
|
||||
- ✅ Organizational fit is assessed
|
||||
- ✅ Rationale is documented and justified
|
||||
- Technology evaluation is comprehensive
|
||||
- Selection criteria are appropriate and applied
|
||||
- Organizational fit is assessed
|
||||
- Rationale is documented and justified
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Technology evaluation review
|
||||
|
|
@ -259,10 +259,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Follow API design standards
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Integration patterns are appropriate for use cases
|
||||
- ✅ Error handling is comprehensive and tested
|
||||
- ✅ Monitoring and logging are implemented
|
||||
- ✅ API standards are followed
|
||||
- Integration patterns are appropriate for use cases
|
||||
- Error handling is comprehensive and tested
|
||||
- Monitoring and logging are implemented
|
||||
- API standards are followed
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Integration pattern review
|
||||
|
|
@ -281,10 +281,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Provide clear implementation guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Coding standards are comprehensive and clear
|
||||
- ✅ Quality checks are automated where possible
|
||||
- ✅ Implementation guidelines are actionable
|
||||
- ✅ Code quality metrics are tracked
|
||||
- Coding standards are comprehensive and clear
|
||||
- Quality checks are automated where possible
|
||||
- Implementation guidelines are actionable
|
||||
- Code quality metrics are tracked
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Code quality metrics analysis
|
||||
|
|
@ -305,10 +305,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Validate requirements understanding
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Stakeholder needs are understood and documented
|
||||
- ✅ Requirements analysis is comprehensive
|
||||
- ✅ Constraints and assumptions are identified
|
||||
- ✅ Requirements understanding is validated
|
||||
- Stakeholder needs are understood and documented
|
||||
- Requirements analysis is comprehensive
|
||||
- Constraints and assumptions are identified
|
||||
- Requirements understanding is validated
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Stakeholder interview assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -327,10 +327,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Iterate based on feedback and learning
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Design process is systematic and repeatable
|
||||
- ✅ Design decisions are documented
|
||||
- ✅ Validation is performed against requirements
|
||||
- ✅ Feedback is incorporated effectively
|
||||
- Design process is systematic and repeatable
|
||||
- Design decisions are documented
|
||||
- Validation is performed against requirements
|
||||
- Feedback is incorporated effectively
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Design process assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -349,10 +349,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Document review findings and actions
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Reviews are conducted by qualified reviewers
|
||||
- ✅ Stakeholder validation is comprehensive
|
||||
- ✅ Technical feasibility is assessed
|
||||
- ✅ Review findings are addressed
|
||||
- Reviews are conducted by qualified reviewers
|
||||
- Stakeholder validation is comprehensive
|
||||
- Technical feasibility is assessed
|
||||
- Review findings are addressed
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Review process effectiveness assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -373,10 +373,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Maintain ongoing stakeholder relationships
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ All relevant stakeholders are identified and engaged
|
||||
- ✅ Communication is effective and appropriate
|
||||
- ✅ Feedback is actively sought and incorporated
|
||||
- ✅ Stakeholder relationships are maintained
|
||||
- All relevant stakeholders are identified and engaged
|
||||
- Communication is effective and appropriate
|
||||
- Feedback is actively sought and incorporated
|
||||
- Stakeholder relationships are maintained
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Stakeholder satisfaction surveys
|
||||
|
|
@ -395,10 +395,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Resolve conflicts constructively
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Persona roles and responsibilities are understood
|
||||
- ✅ Communication channels are effective
|
||||
- ✅ Work coordination is smooth
|
||||
- ✅ Conflicts are resolved constructively
|
||||
- Persona roles and responsibilities are understood
|
||||
- Communication channels are effective
|
||||
- Work coordination is smooth
|
||||
- Conflicts are resolved constructively
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Collaboration effectiveness assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -417,10 +417,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Contribute to organizational knowledge base
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Knowledge is documented and accessible
|
||||
- ✅ Knowledge transfer is effective
|
||||
- ✅ Mentoring is provided as needed
|
||||
- ✅ Organizational knowledge is enhanced
|
||||
- Knowledge is documented and accessible
|
||||
- Knowledge transfer is effective
|
||||
- Mentoring is provided as needed
|
||||
- Organizational knowledge is enhanced
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Methods**:
|
||||
- Knowledge documentation assessment
|
||||
|
|
@ -454,10 +454,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Share lessons learned with team
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Self-assessment is performed regularly
|
||||
- ✅ Quality issues are identified and addressed
|
||||
- ✅ Improvement opportunities are pursued
|
||||
- ✅ Lessons learned are documented and shared
|
||||
- Self-assessment is performed regularly
|
||||
- Quality issues are identified and addressed
|
||||
- Improvement opportunities are pursued
|
||||
- Lessons learned are documented and shared
|
||||
|
||||
### Peer Review Procedures
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -483,10 +483,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Document review outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Reviews are conducted by qualified peers
|
||||
- ✅ Review process is systematic and thorough
|
||||
- ✅ Findings are documented and addressed
|
||||
- ✅ Follow-up ensures completion
|
||||
- Reviews are conducted by qualified peers
|
||||
- Review process is systematic and thorough
|
||||
- Findings are documented and addressed
|
||||
- Follow-up ensures completion
|
||||
|
||||
### Stakeholder Validation Procedures
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -512,10 +512,10 @@ The Architect Quality Framework is built on four foundational pillars:
|
|||
- Document validation outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Criteria**:
|
||||
- ✅ Appropriate stakeholders are involved
|
||||
- ✅ Validation process is comprehensive
|
||||
- ✅ Feedback is gathered and addressed
|
||||
- ✅ Changes are validated and documented
|
||||
- Appropriate stakeholders are involved
|
||||
- Validation process is comprehensive
|
||||
- Feedback is gathered and addressed
|
||||
- Changes are validated and documented
|
||||
|
||||
## Continuous Improvement
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -208,31 +208,31 @@ Now let me update the sprint status to reflect completion of the System Architec
|
|||
|
||||
## Story Status
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ DONE
|
||||
### Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: DONE
|
||||
**Completed**: Current Date
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ DONE
|
||||
### Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: DONE
|
||||
**Completed**: Current Date
|
||||
**Deliverables**:
|
||||
- ✅ PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
|
||||
- PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ DONE
|
||||
### Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: DONE
|
||||
**Completed**: Current Date
|
||||
**Deliverables**:
|
||||
- ✅ System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
|
||||
- System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance Criteria Met**:
|
||||
- ✅ Create System Architect Comprehensive Guide
|
||||
- ✅ Create System Architect Integration Guide
|
||||
- ✅ Create System Architect Quick Start Guide
|
||||
- ✅ Validate documentation follows template standards
|
||||
- Create System Architect Comprehensive Guide
|
||||
- Create System Architect Integration Guide
|
||||
- Create System Architect Quick Start Guide
|
||||
- Validate documentation follows template standards
|
||||
|
||||
### â³ Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - NEXT UP
|
||||
**Status**: â³ TODO
|
||||
|
|
@ -273,8 +273,8 @@ Now let me update the sprint status to reflect completion of the System Architec
|
|||
- **Days Remaining**: 8 days
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Actions
|
||||
1. ✅ Complete Product Manager documentation package
|
||||
2. ✅ Complete System Architect documentation package
|
||||
1. Complete Product Manager documentation package
|
||||
2. Complete System Architect documentation package
|
||||
3. 🔄 Create Product Owner (Sarah) documentation package
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -609,11 +609,11 @@ Now let me update the Sprint 4 status to reflect the completion of Story 4.2:
|
|||
**Status**: COMPLETED ✅
|
||||
|
||||
All acceptance criteria met:
|
||||
- ✅ Developer persona documentation completed
|
||||
- ✅ Development workflows documented
|
||||
- ✅ Template library established
|
||||
- ✅ Quality standards defined
|
||||
- ✅ Integration points established
|
||||
- Developer persona documentation completed
|
||||
- Development workflows documented
|
||||
- Template library established
|
||||
- Quality standards defined
|
||||
- Integration points established
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables**:
|
||||
- Enhanced dev-comprehensive-guide.md
|
||||
|
|
@ -628,11 +628,11 @@ All acceptance criteria met:
|
|||
**Status**: COMPLETED ✅
|
||||
|
||||
All acceptance criteria met:
|
||||
- ✅ Design Architect persona documentation completed
|
||||
- ✅ Design workflows documented
|
||||
- ✅ Template library established
|
||||
- ✅ Quality standards defined
|
||||
- ✅ Integration points established
|
||||
- Design Architect persona documentation completed
|
||||
- Design workflows documented
|
||||
- Template library established
|
||||
- Quality standards defined
|
||||
- Integration points established
|
||||
|
||||
**Deliverables**:
|
||||
- Enhanced design-architect-comprehensive-guide.md
|
||||
|
|
@ -659,10 +659,10 @@ All acceptance criteria met:
|
|||
- **Remaining Work**: Stories 4.3, 4.4 (14 points)
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Achievements
|
||||
- ✅ Complete Developer documentation package with 7 new/enhanced documents
|
||||
- ✅ Comprehensive developer workflow mapping with 3 distinct modes
|
||||
- ✅ Detailed quality standards with 6 dimensions and measurement framework
|
||||
- ✅ Success metrics framework with 5 categories and 25 specific metrics
|
||||
- Complete Developer documentation package with 7 new/enhanced documents
|
||||
- Comprehensive developer workflow mapping with 3 distinct modes
|
||||
- Detailed quality standards with 6 dimensions and measurement framework
|
||||
- Success metrics framework with 5 categories and 25 specific metrics
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
- Complete Story 4.3: Scrum Master Documentation Package (7 points)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1325,9 +1325,9 @@ import { ComponentName } from '@/components/ui/component-name'
|
|||
## Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
### Do's
|
||||
- ✅ [Best practice 1]
|
||||
- ✅ [Best practice 2]
|
||||
- ✅ [Best practice 3]
|
||||
- [Best practice 1]
|
||||
- [Best practice 2]
|
||||
- [Best practice 3]
|
||||
|
||||
### Don'ts
|
||||
- ⌠[What to avoid 1]
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -311,22 +311,22 @@ describe('Authentication API', () => {
|
|||
Developer: "Running comprehensive quality checks before marking story complete."
|
||||
|
||||
Quality Assurance Checklist:
|
||||
✅ Code follows established style guidelines (ESLint passed)
|
||||
✅ All tests pass (Unit: 15/15, Integration: 8/8, E2E: 3/3)
|
||||
✅ Test coverage exceeds 80% threshold (Current: 92%)
|
||||
✅ Security scan passed (No high-severity vulnerabilities)
|
||||
✅ Performance benchmarks met (Login response < 200ms)
|
||||
✅ Documentation updated (API docs, component docs)
|
||||
✅ Accessibility requirements met (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance)
|
||||
Code follows established style guidelines (ESLint passed)
|
||||
All tests pass (Unit: 15/15, Integration: 8/8, E2E: 3/3)
|
||||
Test coverage exceeds 80% threshold (Current: 92%)
|
||||
Security scan passed (No high-severity vulnerabilities)
|
||||
Performance benchmarks met (Login response < 200ms)
|
||||
Documentation updated (API docs, component docs)
|
||||
Accessibility requirements met (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance)
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done Validation:
|
||||
✅ All acceptance criteria implemented and tested
|
||||
✅ Code reviewed and approved by senior developer
|
||||
✅ Integration with existing authentication system verified
|
||||
✅ Error handling and edge cases covered
|
||||
✅ Security best practices implemented
|
||||
✅ User experience validated with UX team
|
||||
✅ Ready for deployment to staging environment
|
||||
All acceptance criteria implemented and tested
|
||||
Code reviewed and approved by senior developer
|
||||
Integration with existing authentication system verified
|
||||
Error handling and edge cases covered
|
||||
Security best practices implemented
|
||||
User experience validated with UX team
|
||||
Ready for deployment to staging environment
|
||||
|
||||
Story Status: Ready for Review ✅
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ The BMAD Method is a revolutionary AI-driven development approach that uses spec
|
|||
|
||||
| Traditional Approach | BMAD Method |
|
||||
|---------------------|-------------|
|
||||
| ⌠Manual coordination between roles | ✅ Automated orchestration |
|
||||
| ⌠Context switching between tools | ✅ Unified AI-driven workflow |
|
||||
| ⌠Inconsistent deliverable quality | ✅ Template-driven standardization |
|
||||
| ⌠Knowledge silos | ✅ Shared context across all personas |
|
||||
| ⌠Time-consuming handoffs | ✅ Seamless persona transitions |
|
||||
| ⌠Manual coordination between roles | Automated orchestration |
|
||||
| ⌠Context switching between tools | Unified AI-driven workflow |
|
||||
| ⌠Inconsistent deliverable quality | Template-driven standardization |
|
||||
| ⌠Knowledge silos | Shared context across all personas |
|
||||
| ⌠Time-consuming handoffs | Seamless persona transitions |
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Benefits
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
|
|||
|
||||
## Current Persona Documentation Status
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Well-Documented Personas
|
||||
### Well-Documented Personas
|
||||
|
||||
#### v0 UX/UI Architect
|
||||
- **Status**: ✅ COMPLETE - Recently standardized
|
||||
- **Status**: COMPLETE - Recently standardized
|
||||
- **Files**:
|
||||
- `bmad-agent/personas/v0-ux-ui-architect.md` (Web version)
|
||||
- `bmad-agent/personas/v0-ux-ui-architect.ide.md` (IDE version)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -246,39 +246,39 @@ Start creating sprint-ready user stories today with Sarah's systematic approach
|
|||
|
||||
## Story Status
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ DONE
|
||||
### Story 1.1: Create UX/UI Architect Documentation Package (8 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: DONE
|
||||
**Completed**: Current Date
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ DONE
|
||||
### Story 1.2a: Product Manager Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: DONE
|
||||
**Completed**: Current Date
|
||||
**Deliverables**:
|
||||
- ✅ PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
|
||||
- PM Comprehensive Guide (docs/pm-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- PM Integration Guide (docs/pm-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- PM Quick Start Guide (docs/pm-quickstart.md)
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ DONE
|
||||
### Story 1.2b: System Architect Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: DONE
|
||||
**Completed**: Current Date
|
||||
**Deliverables**:
|
||||
- ✅ System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
|
||||
- System Architect Comprehensive Guide (docs/architect-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- System Architect Integration Guide (docs/architect-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- System Architect Quick Start Guide (docs/architect-quickstart.md)
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ DONE
|
||||
### Story 1.2c: Product Owner Documentation Package (4 points) - COMPLETE
|
||||
**Status**: DONE
|
||||
**Completed**: Current Date
|
||||
**Deliverables**:
|
||||
- ✅ Product Owner Comprehensive Guide (docs/po-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Product Owner Integration Guide (docs/po-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Product Owner Quick Start Guide (docs/po-quickstart.md)
|
||||
- Product Owner Comprehensive Guide (docs/po-comprehensive-guide.md)
|
||||
- Product Owner Integration Guide (docs/po-integration-guide.md)
|
||||
- Product Owner Quick Start Guide (docs/po-quickstart.md)
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance Criteria Met**:
|
||||
- ✅ Create Product Owner Comprehensive Guide
|
||||
- ✅ Create Product Owner Integration Guide
|
||||
- ✅ Create Product Owner Quick Start Guide
|
||||
- ✅ Validate documentation follows template standards
|
||||
- Create Product Owner Comprehensive Guide
|
||||
- Create Product Owner Integration Guide
|
||||
- Create Product Owner Quick Start Guide
|
||||
- Validate documentation follows template standards
|
||||
|
||||
### â³ Story 1.3: Create IDE-Specific Setup Guides (5 points) - TODO
|
||||
**Status**: â³ TODO
|
||||
|
|
@ -311,9 +311,9 @@ Start creating sprint-ready user stories today with Sarah's systematic approach
|
|||
- **Days Remaining**: 8 days
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Actions
|
||||
1. ✅ Complete Product Manager documentation package
|
||||
2. ✅ Complete System Architect documentation package
|
||||
3. ✅ Complete Product Owner documentation package
|
||||
1. Complete Product Manager documentation package
|
||||
2. Complete System Architect documentation package
|
||||
3. Complete Product Owner documentation package
|
||||
4. â³ Begin Story 1.3: Create IDE-Specific Setup Guides (5 points)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -365,8 +365,8 @@ graph TB
|
|||
*This system overview provides the foundation for understanding the BMAD platform architecture and its key components.*
|
||||
|
||||
**Story 2.2 Progress Update:**
|
||||
- ✅ Created `docs/system-architecture/README.md` - Architecture documentation overview
|
||||
- ✅ Created `docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md` - High-level system architecture
|
||||
- Created `docs/system-architecture/README.md` - Architecture documentation overview
|
||||
- Created `docs/system-architecture/system-overview.md` - High-level system architecture
|
||||
- 🔄 **In Progress**: Need to create remaining architecture documents
|
||||
|
||||
**Story 2.2 Status**: 25% complete (2/8 points)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ We use a consistent icon system throughout the documentation:
|
|||
- 🎨 **UX/UI Designer**: User experience
|
||||
- 💻 **Developer**: Implementation
|
||||
- 📊 **Analyst**: Data and requirements
|
||||
- ✅ **Completed**: Finished tasks
|
||||
- **Completed**: Finished tasks
|
||||
- 🔄 **In Progress**: Active work
|
||||
- â³ **Pending**: Waiting to start
|
||||
- â **Decision Point**: Key choices
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -65,26 +65,26 @@ We ran the component through our quality assurance process:
|
|||
|
||||
### Accessibility Testing
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Semantic HTML structure
|
||||
- ✅ ARIA labels for interactive elements
|
||||
- ✅ Proper focus management
|
||||
- ✅ Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards
|
||||
- ✅ Screen reader compatibility
|
||||
- Semantic HTML structure
|
||||
- ARIA labels for interactive elements
|
||||
- Proper focus management
|
||||
- Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards
|
||||
- Screen reader compatibility
|
||||
|
||||
### Responsive Testing
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Mobile layout (320px+)
|
||||
- ✅ Tablet layout (768px+)
|
||||
- ✅ Desktop layout (1024px+)
|
||||
- ✅ Touch-friendly targets
|
||||
- ✅ Proper content reflow
|
||||
- Mobile layout (320px+)
|
||||
- Tablet layout (768px+)
|
||||
- Desktop layout (1024px+)
|
||||
- Touch-friendly targets
|
||||
- Proper content reflow
|
||||
|
||||
### Performance Testing
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ Optimized rendering
|
||||
- ✅ Proper loading states
|
||||
- ✅ Efficient state management
|
||||
- ✅ Minimal bundle size impact
|
||||
- Optimized rendering
|
||||
- Proper loading states
|
||||
- Efficient state management
|
||||
- Minimal bundle size impact
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 6: Final Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -70,32 +70,32 @@ const ProductCard: React.FC<ProductCardProps> = ({ product, onEdit, onDelete })
|
|||
|
||||
### v0 Component Quality Checklist Applied
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Design Consistency**
|
||||
**Design Consistency**
|
||||
- Follows established design system patterns
|
||||
- Color palette matches brand guidelines (#2563eb, #64748b)
|
||||
- Typography scales appropriately
|
||||
- Spacing follows 8px grid system
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Code Quality**
|
||||
**Code Quality**
|
||||
- Components are properly typed (TypeScript)
|
||||
- Props are well-documented with interfaces
|
||||
- Components handle edge cases (loading, error states)
|
||||
- Performance optimized with React.memo where appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Accessibility**
|
||||
**Accessibility**
|
||||
- Semantic HTML structure (header, main, section)
|
||||
- Proper ARIA labels and roles
|
||||
- Keyboard navigation support (tab order, enter/space activation)
|
||||
- Screen reader compatibility tested
|
||||
- Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards (4.5:1 ratio)
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Responsive Design**
|
||||
**Responsive Design**
|
||||
- Mobile-first approach implemented
|
||||
- Breakpoints: 640px (sm), 768px (md), 1024px (lg)
|
||||
- Touch-friendly interaction areas (44px minimum)
|
||||
- Content reflows appropriately on all screen sizes
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Integration**
|
||||
**Integration**
|
||||
- Imports/exports properly configured
|
||||
- Dependencies clearly documented (React, TypeScript, Tailwind)
|
||||
- Integration examples provided
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ The BMAD Method uses various checklists to ensure quality and completeness of di
|
|||
- Look for evidence in the documentation that satisfies the requirement
|
||||
- Consider both explicit mentions and implicit coverage
|
||||
- Mark items as:
|
||||
- ✅ PASS: Requirement clearly met
|
||||
- PASS: Requirement clearly met
|
||||
- ⌠FAIL: Requirement not met or insufficient coverage
|
||||
- âš ï¸ PARTIAL: Some aspects covered but needs improvement
|
||||
- N/A: Not applicable to this case
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue