From 834b417460ca40eb58b3351fb8b529564ca58042 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tolga Karatas Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 01:19:22 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] feat(quality-gate): add phase-transition quality gate mechanism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 --- .../workflows/shared/quality-gate/workflow.md | 253 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 253 insertions(+) create mode 100644 src/bmm/workflows/shared/quality-gate/workflow.md diff --git a/src/bmm/workflows/shared/quality-gate/workflow.md b/src/bmm/workflows/shared/quality-gate/workflow.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..436a3ae37 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/bmm/workflows/shared/quality-gate/workflow.md @@ -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