feat(quality-gate): add phase-transition quality gate mechanism
Create quality gate workflow for Enterprise track with three gates: - QG-1 (Analysis→Planning): Product Brief + StRS completeness - QG-2 (Planning→Solutioning): PRD + StRS consistency + RTM + UX alignment - QG-3 (Solutioning→Implementation): Architecture + SyRS + Epics + RTM + TEA gate integration + baseline readiness Each gate produces: - PASS: proceed to next phase - PASS WITH CONDITIONS: proceed with documented risks - FAIL: must resolve before proceeding (blocking) Includes cross-document consistency checks, TEA module gate integration for Enterprise track, and structured gate report. Addresses GAP-A01, GAP-XW03. Part of ISO 29148 compliance initiative (Wave 2). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Tolga Karatas
parent
d50b7c13dc
commit
834b417460
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
name: quality-gate-check
|
||||
description: Phase-transition quality gate that validates all required artifacts are complete and consistent before allowing progression to the next development phase. Enterprise track workflow.
|
||||
track: enterprise
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Quality Gate Check Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Validate that all required artifacts for the current phase are complete, consistent, and of sufficient quality before allowing progression to the next phase.
|
||||
|
||||
**Your Role:** You are a Quality Gate Inspector. Your job is to systematically verify completeness and consistency of all artifacts produced in the current phase. You are STRICT - incomplete or inconsistent artifacts BLOCK progression.
|
||||
|
||||
**Track:** This workflow is primarily for the **Enterprise** track (mandatory). It is available but optional for **BMad Method** track.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## QUALITY GATE ARCHITECTURE
|
||||
|
||||
This is a **single-pass validation workflow** (not step-file based). It identifies the current phase and runs the appropriate gate checks.
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- 🔐 **NEVER** pass a gate with critical issues unresolved
|
||||
- 📖 **ALWAYS** load and verify ALL required artifacts
|
||||
- 🔗 **ALWAYS** check cross-document consistency
|
||||
- ⚠️ **ALWAYS** report findings honestly - no sugar-coating
|
||||
- 💾 **ALWAYS** produce a gate decision report
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## INITIALIZATION
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Configuration Loading
|
||||
|
||||
Load config from {project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml and resolve project variables.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Phase Detection
|
||||
|
||||
Determine which quality gate to run based on user request or artifact state:
|
||||
|
||||
- **QG-1: Analysis → Planning** (Product Brief + StRS complete?)
|
||||
- **QG-2: Planning → Solutioning** (PRD + StRS + RTM complete and consistent?)
|
||||
- **QG-3: Solutioning → Implementation** (Architecture + SyRS + Epics + RTM + TEA Gate complete?)
|
||||
|
||||
If unclear, ask user which gate to run.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## QUALITY GATE 1: Analysis → Planning
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Artifacts:**
|
||||
- Product Brief (any track)
|
||||
- StRS (Enterprise track only)
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Checks:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Product Brief Completeness
|
||||
- [ ] Product Brief exists and is substantive
|
||||
- [ ] Vision/mission clearly defined
|
||||
- [ ] Target audience identified
|
||||
- [ ] Key features or capabilities listed
|
||||
- [ ] Success metrics defined
|
||||
|
||||
### StRS Completeness (Enterprise Only)
|
||||
- [ ] StRS exists and follows ISO 29148 Clause 7 structure
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 major sections present (Introduction, References, Business Mgmt, Operational, User, System Concept, Constraints)
|
||||
- [ ] Stakeholders identified with profiles
|
||||
- [ ] Business objectives are SMART
|
||||
- [ ] Operational scenarios documented
|
||||
- [ ] Project constraints specified
|
||||
- [ ] StRS status is at least 'review'
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Document Consistency
|
||||
- [ ] StRS business purpose aligns with Product Brief vision
|
||||
- [ ] StRS stakeholders consistent with Product Brief target audience
|
||||
- [ ] No contradictions between documents
|
||||
|
||||
### Gate Decision
|
||||
- **PASS:** All required artifacts complete and consistent → Proceed to Planning
|
||||
- **PASS WITH CONDITIONS:** Minor gaps noted but non-blocking → Proceed with documented risks
|
||||
- **FAIL:** Critical gaps or inconsistencies → Must resolve before proceeding
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## QUALITY GATE 2: Planning → Solutioning
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Artifacts:**
|
||||
- PRD/SRS (all tracks)
|
||||
- StRS (Enterprise track)
|
||||
- RTM initial version (Enterprise track)
|
||||
- UX Design (if UI project)
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Checks:**
|
||||
|
||||
### PRD Completeness
|
||||
- [ ] PRD exists with all required sections
|
||||
- [ ] Functional requirements defined with proper format
|
||||
- [ ] Non-functional requirements defined
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria measurable
|
||||
- [ ] User journeys documented
|
||||
- [ ] Enterprise: Interface requirements, constraints, verification plan present
|
||||
- [ ] Enterprise: All requirements have attributes (ID, priority, source, V&V)
|
||||
|
||||
### StRS-PRD Consistency (Enterprise)
|
||||
- [ ] Every PRD FR traces to a stakeholder need in StRS
|
||||
- [ ] PRD scope doesn't exceed StRS scope
|
||||
- [ ] Terminology consistent between StRS and PRD
|
||||
- [ ] No contradictions between StRS and PRD
|
||||
|
||||
### RTM Status (Enterprise)
|
||||
- [ ] RTM exists with StRS → PRD traceability
|
||||
- [ ] No orphan StRS requirements (all traced forward)
|
||||
- [ ] Forward traceability coverage > 80%
|
||||
|
||||
### UX-PRD Alignment (if UX exists)
|
||||
- [ ] UX design covers all UI-relevant FRs
|
||||
- [ ] No UX features that aren't in PRD (scope creep)
|
||||
- [ ] UX handoff checklist completed
|
||||
|
||||
### Gate Decision
|
||||
- **PASS:** All artifacts complete, consistent, and traced → Proceed to Solutioning
|
||||
- **PASS WITH CONDITIONS:** Minor gaps → Proceed with documented risks
|
||||
- **FAIL:** Critical gaps, broken traceability, or inconsistencies → Must resolve
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## QUALITY GATE 3: Solutioning → Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Artifacts:**
|
||||
- Architecture Document (BMad + Enterprise)
|
||||
- SyRS (Enterprise only)
|
||||
- Epics & Stories (all tracks)
|
||||
- RTM updated (Enterprise)
|
||||
- Implementation Readiness Report (recommended)
|
||||
- TEA Gate Decision (Enterprise with TEA installed)
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation Checks:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Architecture Completeness
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture document exists with technical decisions
|
||||
- [ ] Key ADRs (Architecture Decision Records) documented
|
||||
- [ ] Tech stack defined
|
||||
- [ ] Data model defined
|
||||
- [ ] API contracts defined (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
### SyRS Completeness (Enterprise)
|
||||
- [ ] SyRS exists with ISO 29148 Clause 8 structure
|
||||
- [ ] System functional requirements mapped from PRD
|
||||
- [ ] System interfaces defined
|
||||
- [ ] Verification plan for system requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Traceability to StRS and PRD maintained
|
||||
|
||||
### Epics & Stories Completeness
|
||||
- [ ] Epics cover all PRD functional requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Each story has acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Enterprise: Stories reference source requirement IDs
|
||||
- [ ] FR Coverage Map shows complete coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are implementation-ready (clear, actionable)
|
||||
|
||||
### RTM Completeness (Enterprise)
|
||||
- [ ] RTM updated with StRS → SyRS → PRD → Stories chain
|
||||
- [ ] No orphan requirements at any level
|
||||
- [ ] Forward traceability coverage > 90%
|
||||
- [ ] All requirement statuses updated
|
||||
|
||||
### TEA Gate Integration (Enterprise with TEA)
|
||||
- [ ] TEA TD (Test Design) completed - test strategy exists
|
||||
- [ ] TEA TR (Traceability) completed - test traceability exists
|
||||
- [ ] TEA gate decision obtained: PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL
|
||||
- [ ] If TEA FAIL → This gate also FAILS (blocking)
|
||||
- [ ] If TEA CONCERNS → Document accepted risks
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Document Consistency
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture aligns with PRD requirements
|
||||
- [ ] SyRS consistent with Architecture decisions
|
||||
- [ ] Epics/Stories don't introduce scope beyond PRD
|
||||
- [ ] No terminology conflicts across documents
|
||||
|
||||
### Baseline Check (Enterprise)
|
||||
- [ ] All requirement documents ready for baseline
|
||||
- [ ] Version numbers assigned
|
||||
- [ ] Change history documented
|
||||
|
||||
### Gate Decision
|
||||
- **PASS:** All artifacts complete, consistent, traced, TEA passed → Proceed to Implementation
|
||||
- **PASS WITH CONDITIONS:** Minor gaps, TEA CONCERNS accepted → Proceed with documented risks
|
||||
- **FAIL:** Critical gaps, broken traceability, TEA FAIL, or major inconsistencies → Must resolve
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## GATE DECISION REPORT
|
||||
|
||||
After running the appropriate gate, produce a report:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Quality Gate Report - {{project_name}}
|
||||
|
||||
**Gate:** QG-[1|2|3] - [Phase A] → [Phase B]
|
||||
**Date:** {{date}}
|
||||
**Assessed By:** {{agent_name}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision: [PASS | PASS WITH CONDITIONS | FAIL]
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifacts Assessed
|
||||
|
||||
| Artifact | Status | Issues |
|
||||
|----------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| [Name] | [✅ Complete / ⚠️ Partial / ❌ Missing] | [Details] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Validation Results
|
||||
|
||||
| Check | Result | Notes |
|
||||
|-------|--------|-------|
|
||||
| [Check name] | [PASS/FAIL] | [Details] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Issues Requiring Resolution (if FAIL)
|
||||
|
||||
| Issue | Severity | Resolution Required |
|
||||
|-------|----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| [Issue] | [Critical/High/Medium] | [What needs to happen] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Accepted Risks (if PASS WITH CONDITIONS)
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|
||||
|------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| [Risk] | [Impact] | [How to mitigate] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
[Clear statement of whether to proceed, with any conditions]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Save report to: `{planning_artifacts}/quality-gate-report-qg[N]-{{date}}.md`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## SUCCESS METRICS:
|
||||
|
||||
✅ Correct gate identified and run
|
||||
✅ All required artifacts discovered and assessed
|
||||
✅ Cross-document consistency checked
|
||||
✅ TEA gate decision integrated (if applicable)
|
||||
✅ Clear PASS/FAIL/CONDITIONS decision with justification
|
||||
✅ Report generated with actionable findings
|
||||
✅ Blocking issues clearly identified (if FAIL)
|
||||
|
||||
## FAILURE MODES:
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Passing a gate when critical artifacts are missing
|
||||
❌ Not checking cross-document consistency
|
||||
❌ Not integrating TEA gate decision for Enterprise track
|
||||
❌ Producing vague findings without specific artifacts/issues
|
||||
❌ Not saving the gate report
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue