Enhance epic retrospective task and template for comprehensive analysis
- Updated the epic retrospective task to include rigorous requirements validation alongside process improvement. - Expanded the retrospective template to incorporate detailed sections for requirements compliance, implementation gaps, and deviation analysis. - Introduced advanced elicitation techniques throughout the retrospective process to deepen insights and ensure thorough coverage. - Emphasized the importance of validating delivered solutions against original requirements and architectural decisions. - Improved documentation clarity regarding required inputs and analysis focus for Scrum Masters conducting retrospectives.
This commit is contained in:
Davor Racic
parent
6784b5f98c
commit
87b333834f
|
|
@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Purpose
|
## Purpose
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Facilitate a comprehensive retrospective analysis of completed epics from a team and process improvement standpoint. This task focuses on evaluating the AI agent development process, chat interactions, and commit history to identify successes, challenges, and areas for improvement. As the Scrum Master, you facilitate this retrospective to gather insights from development experience and guide future epics toward better AI agent collaboration and more effective development workflows.
|
Facilitate a comprehensive retrospective analysis of completed epics that combines process improvement with rigorous requirements validation and implementation compliance checking. This task evaluates both the AI agent development process AND validates whether the delivered solution actually meets the original requirements as specified in the PRD, architecture, epic, and stories. As the Scrum Master, you facilitate this retrospective to gather insights from development experience while ensuring delivered work aligns with stated requirements and architectural decisions.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## When to Use This Task
|
## When to Use This Task
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -11,20 +11,29 @@ Facilitate a comprehensive retrospective analysis of completed epics from a team
|
||||||
- An epic has been completed with all stories reaching Definition of Done
|
- An epic has been completed with all stories reaching Definition of Done
|
||||||
- AI agent development sessions have concluded for the epic
|
- AI agent development sessions have concluded for the epic
|
||||||
- There is sufficient chat history and commit data to analyze
|
- There is sufficient chat history and commit data to analyze
|
||||||
- The team is ready to invest time in process improvement analysis
|
- Original requirements documentation is available (PRD, architecture, epic, stories)
|
||||||
|
- The team is ready to invest time in both process improvement AND requirements validation analysis
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Use alternative retrospective approaches when:**
|
**Use alternative retrospective approaches when:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Epic is still in progress (use review-story instead for individual story feedback)
|
- Epic is still in progress (use review-story instead for individual story feedback)
|
||||||
- Immediate bug fixes are needed (focus on incident analysis)
|
- Immediate bug fixes are needed (focus on incident analysis)
|
||||||
- Epic was abandoned or significantly changed mid-development (consider lessons learned session)
|
- Epic was abandoned or significantly changed mid-development (consider lessons learned session)
|
||||||
- Insufficient development history exists for meaningful analysis
|
- Insufficient development history or requirements documentation exists for meaningful analysis
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Instructions
|
## Instructions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 1. Data Collection and Preparation (Required)
|
### 1. Data Collection and Preparation (Required)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
As the Scrum Master, gather comprehensive development artifacts and AI agent interaction data:
|
As the Scrum Master, gather comprehensive development artifacts, requirements documentation, and AI agent interaction data:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Original Requirements Documentation:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Original PRD document with business requirements and goals
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Architecture documentation with technical decisions and patterns
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Epic document with scope and high-level requirements
|
||||||
|
- [ ] All story documents with acceptance criteria and Definition of Done
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Any technical specifications or design documents
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Epic Documentation:**
|
**Epic Documentation:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -49,14 +58,101 @@ As the Scrum Master, gather comprehensive development artifacts and AI agent int
|
||||||
- [ ] Testing implementation and coverage achieved
|
- [ ] Testing implementation and coverage achieved
|
||||||
- [ ] Debug log entries and issue resolution patterns
|
- [ ] Debug log entries and issue resolution patterns
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Technical Artifacts:**
|
**Final Implementation Artifacts:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- [ ] Final codebase state for the epic
|
- [ ] Final codebase state for the epic
|
||||||
- [ ] Test coverage reports and quality metrics
|
- [ ] Test coverage reports and quality metrics
|
||||||
- [ ] Build and validation outcomes
|
- [ ] Build and validation outcomes
|
||||||
- [ ] Architecture adherence and technical debt introduction
|
- [ ] Architecture adherence and technical debt introduction
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Deployed solution demonstrating delivered functionality
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 2. AI Agent Development Process Analysis
|
### 2. Requirements Validation & Implementation Compliance Analysis
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Conduct thorough validation of delivered solution against original requirements:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### PRD and Business Requirements Validation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Business Goals Achievement:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Validate each business goal from PRD was addressed in implementation
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Identify any business requirements that were missed or partially implemented
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess whether delivered functionality solves the stated problem
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Verify target user needs are met by the implementation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Functional Requirements Compliance:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Map each functional requirement to specific implementation
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Identify requirements that deviated from original specification
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document any functionality that was added beyond original scope
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess completeness of requirement implementation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Architecture Compliance Assessment
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Architectural Decision Adherence:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Validate implementation follows architectural patterns specified
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Identify deviations from architectural decisions and document rationale
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess whether technical constraints were respected
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Review if recommended technology choices were implemented
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Design Pattern Implementation:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Verify design patterns were implemented as specified
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document pattern deviations and their impact
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess consistency of pattern usage across the codebase
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Identify missing patterns that were specified in architecture
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Story and Acceptance Criteria Validation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Story Completion Verification:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Validate each story's acceptance criteria against final implementation
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Identify any acceptance criteria that were not met
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document scope creep or feature additions not in original stories
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess Definition of Done achievement for each story
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Requirements Traceability:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Create traceability matrix from PRD → Architecture → Epic → Stories → Implementation
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Identify gaps in traceability chain
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document orphaned implementations (code with no requirement source)
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Highlight requirements that have no corresponding implementation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3. Implementation Deviation Analysis
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Significant Deviations Identification
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Architecture Deviations:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document major architectural decisions that differed from specification
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Analyze impact of architectural deviations on system quality
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess whether deviations were justified and documented
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Evaluate if deviations introduce technical debt or risks
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Requirements Deviations:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Identify functional requirements that were implemented differently than specified
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document business rule changes made during implementation
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess impact of requirement deviations on user experience
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Validate whether requirement changes were approved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Deviation Impact Assessment
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Quality Impact Analysis:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess how deviations affected system performance, security, maintainability
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Evaluate impact on testing strategy and coverage
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Analyze effect on user experience and business goals
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document technical debt introduced by deviations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Process Impact Analysis:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Evaluate how deviations affected development velocity
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Assess impact on team communication and decision-making
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Analyze effect on story estimation accuracy
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Document lessons learned from deviation handling
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4. AI Agent Development Process Analysis
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Conduct a thorough analysis of the AI-assisted development workflow:
|
Conduct a thorough analysis of the AI-assisted development workflow:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -107,50 +203,70 @@ Conduct a thorough analysis of the AI-assisted development workflow:
|
||||||
- [ ] Review blocker identification and resolution
|
- [ ] Review blocker identification and resolution
|
||||||
- [ ] Assess feedback incorporation effectiveness
|
- [ ] Assess feedback incorporation effectiveness
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 3. Retrospective Document Generation
|
### 5. Interactive Retrospective Document Generation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Use the epic-retrospective-tmpl.md template to create the comprehensive retrospective report:
|
Use the epic-retrospective-tmpl.md template to create the comprehensive retrospective report with interactive elicitation:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#### Requirements Validation Section (New)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Document comprehensive validation findings:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Requirements Traceability:** Complete mapping from PRD to implementation
|
||||||
|
- **Compliance Assessment:** Detailed analysis of adherence to specifications
|
||||||
|
- **Deviation Analysis:** Documentation of all significant deviations with impact assessment
|
||||||
|
- **Implementation Gaps:** Identification of missing or incomplete requirements
|
||||||
|
- **Quality Impact:** Assessment of how compliance/deviations affected system quality
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#### What Went Well Section
|
#### What Went Well Section
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Focus on effective AI agent development practices:
|
Focus on effective AI agent development practices and successful requirement implementation:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- **Agent Coordination:** Note effective handoffs and collaboration patterns
|
- **Agent Coordination:** Note effective handoffs and collaboration patterns
|
||||||
- **Story Quality:** Highlight well-prepared stories that led to smooth development
|
- **Requirements Implementation:** Highlight well-executed requirements and architectural decisions
|
||||||
- **Development Flow:** Document efficient development patterns and velocity
|
- **Story Quality:** Document stories that led to smooth development and accurate implementation
|
||||||
- **Code Quality:** Celebrate effective testing, refactoring, and architectural decisions
|
- **Development Flow:** Note efficient development patterns and velocity
|
||||||
|
- **Code Quality:** Celebrate effective testing, refactoring, and architectural adherence
|
||||||
- **Template Usage:** Recognize effective use of BMAD templates and processes
|
- **Template Usage:** Recognize effective use of BMAD templates and processes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#### What Could Be Improved Section
|
#### What Could Be Improved Section
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Identify specific areas needing enhancement in AI agent development:
|
Identify specific areas needing enhancement in both AI agent development and requirements management:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- **Agent Instructions:** Note unclear or ambiguous instructions that caused issues
|
- **Requirements Clarity:** Note unclear or ambiguous requirements that caused implementation issues
|
||||||
- **Story Preparation:** Identify gaps in story technical guidance or context
|
- **Agent Instructions:** Document instruction problems that led to incorrect implementations
|
||||||
- **Development Process:** Document workflow inefficiencies or agent confusion
|
- **Story Preparation:** Identify gaps in story technical guidance or requirement context
|
||||||
- **Template Effectiveness:** Note template limitations or unclear sections
|
- **Development Process:** Document workflow inefficiencies or requirement misunderstandings
|
||||||
- **Communication Patterns:** Identify areas where agent communication could improve
|
- **Template Effectiveness:** Note template limitations that led to requirement gaps
|
||||||
|
- **Communication Patterns:** Identify areas where requirement communication could improve
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#### Actionable Recommendations Section
|
#### Interactive Elicitation Integration
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Propose concrete improvements for future AI agent development:
|
Throughout document creation, apply advanced elicitation techniques:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- **Story Template Updates:** Specific improvements to story preparation templates
|
- **After each major section:** Apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol
|
||||||
- **Agent Instruction Clarity:** Better instruction patterns for agents
|
- **During deviation analysis:** Use critical perspective elicitation to challenge assumptions
|
||||||
- **Workflow Optimization:** Process improvements for agent handoffs
|
- **For requirement gaps:** Apply alternative exploration to identify potential solutions
|
||||||
- **Template Enhancements:** Updates to BMAD templates and checklists
|
- **During validation:** Use step-by-step reasoning elicitation to ensure thoroughness
|
||||||
- **Development Practice:** Better patterns for AI-assisted development
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 4. Validation and Review
|
### 6. Validation and Review
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Before finalizing the retrospective, ensure comprehensive coverage:
|
Before finalizing the retrospective, ensure comprehensive coverage:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Content Validation:**
|
**Content Validation:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- [ ] All major development process issues identified and analyzed
|
- [ ] All major development process issues identified and analyzed
|
||||||
- [ ] Recommendations are specific, actionable, and focused on AI agent workflows
|
- [ ] All requirements deviations documented with evidence and impact assessment
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Recommendations are specific, actionable, and address both process and compliance issues
|
||||||
- [ ] Both successful and challenging aspects are balanced
|
- [ ] Both successful and challenging aspects are balanced
|
||||||
- [ ] Analysis is supported by chat history and commit evidence
|
- [ ] Analysis is supported by chat history, commit evidence, and requirement documentation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Requirements Validation Review:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Requirements traceability matrix is complete and accurate
|
||||||
|
- [ ] All significant deviations are documented with rationale
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Implementation gaps are clearly identified
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Compliance assessment is evidence-based and thorough
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Impact analysis covers quality, business, and technical aspects
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Process Review:**
|
**Process Review:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -161,9 +277,9 @@ Before finalizing the retrospective, ensure comprehensive coverage:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Follow-up Planning:**
|
**Follow-up Planning:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- [ ] Recommendations prioritized by impact on future agent development
|
- [ ] Recommendations prioritized by impact on future agent development and requirement compliance
|
||||||
- [ ] Template and process updates identified
|
- [ ] Template and process updates identified for better requirement management
|
||||||
- [ ] Agent instruction improvements specified
|
- [ ] Agent instruction improvements specified for better requirement adherence
|
||||||
- [ ] Success metrics defined for recommended changes
|
- [ ] Success metrics defined for recommended changes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Output
|
## Output
|
||||||
|
|
@ -172,30 +288,35 @@ A single markdown file named `epic-retrospective-<epic_name>.md` saved in the `d
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**File Structure Requirements:**
|
**File Structure Requirements:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Use the epic-retrospective-tmpl.md template
|
- Use the enhanced epic-retrospective-tmpl.md template
|
||||||
- Include all sections with focus on AI agent development process
|
- Include comprehensive requirements validation section with evidence
|
||||||
- Provide specific examples from chat history and commit patterns
|
- Document all sections with focus on both AI agent development process AND requirement compliance
|
||||||
- Include metrics and evidence from development artifacts
|
- Provide specific examples from chat history, commit patterns, AND requirement documentation
|
||||||
- Ensure recommendations improve future AI agent collaboration
|
- Include metrics and evidence from development artifacts and requirement validation
|
||||||
|
- Ensure recommendations improve both future AI agent collaboration AND requirement management
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Success Criteria
|
## Success Criteria
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The epic retrospective is successful when:
|
The epic retrospective is successful when:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. **Comprehensive Process Analysis:** All aspects of AI agent development workflow are reviewed
|
1. **Comprehensive Process Analysis:** All aspects of AI agent development workflow are reviewed
|
||||||
2. **Evidence-Based Insights:** Conclusions are supported by chat history and commit data
|
2. **Thorough Requirements Validation:** Complete assessment of implementation against original requirements
|
||||||
3. **Actionable Recommendations:** Proposed improvements are specific to AI agent development
|
3. **Evidence-Based Insights:** Conclusions are supported by chat history, commit data, AND requirement documentation
|
||||||
4. **Process Learning:** Document provides clear guidance for future AI-assisted epic development
|
4. **Actionable Recommendations:** Proposed improvements address both AI agent development AND requirement compliance
|
||||||
5. **Template Improvement:** Identifies concrete ways to enhance BMAD templates and processes
|
5. **Process Learning:** Document provides clear guidance for future AI-assisted epic development
|
||||||
6. **Agent Workflow Optimization:** Recommendations improve agent collaboration and effectiveness
|
6. **Requirement Management Improvement:** Identifies concrete ways to enhance requirement clarity and compliance
|
||||||
|
7. **Template Enhancement:** Identifies improvements to BMAD templates for better requirement management
|
||||||
|
8. **Agent Workflow Optimization:** Recommendations improve agent collaboration and requirement adherence
|
||||||
|
9. **Interactive Engagement:** Advanced elicitation techniques are applied throughout for deeper insights
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Important Notes
|
## Important Notes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- **Focus on Development Process:** Analyze AI agent interactions, not real-world deployment outcomes
|
- **Dual Focus:** Analyze both AI agent interactions AND requirement compliance equally
|
||||||
- **Chat History Analysis:** Use actual agent conversations to identify patterns and issues
|
- **Evidence-Based Validation:** Use actual requirement documents to validate implementation compliance
|
||||||
- **Commit Pattern Review:** Analyze development velocity and code quality trends
|
- **Chat History Analysis:** Use actual agent conversations to identify requirement understanding issues
|
||||||
- **Template Effectiveness:** Evaluate how well BMAD templates guided development
|
- **Commit Pattern Review:** Analyze development velocity and requirement implementation trends
|
||||||
- **Agent Instruction Quality:** Focus on clarity and effectiveness of agent instructions
|
- **Template Effectiveness:** Evaluate how well BMAD templates guided requirement implementation
|
||||||
- **Iterative Improvement:** Recommendations should enhance future AI agent development cycles
|
- **Agent Instruction Quality:** Focus on clarity and effectiveness of requirement-related agent instructions
|
||||||
|
- **Interactive Enhancement:** Apply advanced elicitation throughout for deeper analysis and insights
|
||||||
**Agent Responsibility:** The Scrum Master conducting this retrospective should focus on improving the AI-assisted development process, agent collaboration patterns, and template effectiveness for future epics.
|
- **Deviation Documentation:** Thoroughly document and analyze all requirement deviations with impact assessment
|
||||||
|
- **Iterative Improvement:** Recommendations should enhance both future AI agent development cycles AND requirement management processes
|
||||||
|
|
@ -2,11 +2,12 @@
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: The default path and filename unless specified is docs/retrospectives/epic-retrospective-{{epic_name}}.md]]
|
[[LLM: The default path and filename unless specified is docs/retrospectives/epic-retrospective-{{epic_name}}.md]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: This template guides comprehensive team retrospective analysis of completed epics facilitated by the Scrum Master. Before beginning:
|
[[LLM: This template guides comprehensive team retrospective analysis of completed epics facilitated by the Scrum Master. This enhanced version includes both process improvement analysis AND rigorous requirements validation and implementation compliance checking. Before beginning:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. **Verify Epic Completion**: Confirm the epic has been fully completed with all stories reaching Definition of Done
|
1. **Verify Epic Completion**: Confirm the epic has been fully completed with all stories reaching Definition of Done
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
2. **REQUIRED INPUTS**: Ensure access to all necessary development artifacts and AI agent interaction data:
|
2. **REQUIRED INPUTS**: Ensure access to all necessary development artifacts, AI agent interaction data, AND original requirements documentation:
|
||||||
|
- **Original Requirements:** PRD, architecture documents, epic specifications, all story documents with acceptance criteria
|
||||||
- Completed epic document with original goals and scope
|
- Completed epic document with original goals and scope
|
||||||
- All story documents with Definition of Done criteria
|
- All story documents with Definition of Done criteria
|
||||||
- Chat transcripts from AI agent interactions during epic development
|
- Chat transcripts from AI agent interactions during epic development
|
||||||
|
|
@ -14,14 +15,17 @@
|
||||||
- Story completion rates and development velocity metrics
|
- Story completion rates and development velocity metrics
|
||||||
- Agent handoff quality and workflow effectiveness data
|
- Agent handoff quality and workflow effectiveness data
|
||||||
- Template usage and instruction adherence patterns
|
- Template usage and instruction adherence patterns
|
||||||
|
- **Final Implementation:** Deployed solution, test coverage, final codebase state
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
3. **AI DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOCUS**: As Scrum Master, you MUST analyze the AI-assisted development workflow. Every insight must be based on concrete evidence from chat history, commit patterns, and agent interactions, not assumptions.
|
3. **DUAL ANALYSIS FOCUS**: As Scrum Master, you MUST analyze BOTH the AI-assisted development workflow AND validate implementation against original requirements. Every insight must be based on concrete evidence from chat history, commit patterns, agent interactions, AND requirement documentation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
4. **DEVELOPMENT WORKFLOW ANALYSIS**: Focus on AI agent collaboration patterns, story preparation effectiveness, and development process optimization.
|
4. **REQUIREMENTS VALIDATION PRIORITY**: This retrospective emphasizes validating delivered work against stated requirements. Focus on identifying deviations, gaps, and compliance issues with supporting evidence.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
5. **COMPREHENSIVE VALIDATION**: Throughout this process, validate understanding based on development artifacts. For every conclusion, confirm: "Based on chat history and commit evidence, I found [specific evidence] which indicates [conclusion]. This pattern suggests [improvement opportunity]."
|
5. **INTERACTIVE ELICITATION**: Throughout this process, apply advanced elicitation techniques after each major section to deepen analysis and ensure comprehensive coverage.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
If any required development artifacts or agent interaction data are missing, gather them before proceeding.
|
6. **COMPREHENSIVE VALIDATION**: For every conclusion, validate understanding based on both development artifacts AND requirement documentation. Confirm: "Based on [requirement document] and [implementation evidence], I found [specific deviation/compliance] which indicates [conclusion]. This suggests [improvement opportunity]."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If any required development artifacts, agent interaction data, or original requirements documentation are missing, gather them before proceeding.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
After presenting this introduction, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
After presenting this introduction, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -37,10 +41,11 @@ After presenting this introduction, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]
|
||||||
[[LLM: Provide a comprehensive overview after completing all other sections. Include:
|
[[LLM: Provide a comprehensive overview after completing all other sections. Include:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Brief recap of epic goals and scope
|
- Brief recap of epic goals and scope
|
||||||
|
- Requirements compliance summary with key metrics
|
||||||
- Key quality metrics and outcomes
|
- Key quality metrics and outcomes
|
||||||
- Primary successes and challenges identified
|
- Primary successes and challenges identified (both process and compliance)
|
||||||
- Strategic recommendations summary
|
- Strategic recommendations summary
|
||||||
- Overall quality assessment
|
- Overall quality and compliance assessment
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Write this section LAST after all analysis is complete.
|
Write this section LAST after all analysis is complete.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -48,6 +53,8 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Epic Overview:** {{epic_summary}}
|
**Epic Overview:** {{epic_summary}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Requirements Compliance Rating:** {{compliance_rating}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Quality Assessment:** {{overall_quality_rating}}
|
**Quality Assessment:** {{overall_quality_rating}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Key Findings:**
|
**Key Findings:**
|
||||||
|
|
@ -58,15 +65,210 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Strategic Impact:** {{impact_on_future_development}}
|
**Strategic Impact:** {{impact_on_future_development}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 2. What Went Well
|
## 2. Requirements Validation & Implementation Compliance
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Conduct detailed analysis of successful practices and positive outcomes. Focus on evidence-based insights that can be replicated in future epics.
|
[[LLM: This is the NEW primary section for requirements validation. Conduct comprehensive analysis of implementation against original requirements. This section is critical for understanding if what was built matches what was specified.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For each subsection, provide evidence-based analysis with specific citations from requirement documents and implementation artifacts.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### BMAD Method Application
|
### 2.1 Requirements Traceability Matrix
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Analyze how BMAD methodology contributed to success]]
|
[[LLM: Create comprehensive mapping from original requirements to implementation]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**PRD to Implementation Mapping:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| PRD Requirement | Epic/Story Reference | Implementation Status | Deviation Notes |
|
||||||
|
| :-------------- | :------------------ | :-------------------- | :-------------- |
|
||||||
|
| {{prd_req_1}} | {{story_ref}} | {{status}} | {{deviation_notes}} |
|
||||||
|
| {{prd_req_2}} | {{story_ref}} | {{status}} | {{deviation_notes}} |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Architecture to Implementation Mapping:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| Architectural Decision | Implementation Evidence | Compliance Status | Impact Assessment |
|
||||||
|
| :-------------------- | :---------------------- | :---------------- | :----------------- |
|
||||||
|
| {{arch_decision_1}} | {{impl_evidence}} | {{compliance}} | {{impact}} |
|
||||||
|
| {{arch_decision_2}} | {{impl_evidence}} | {{compliance}} | {{impact}} |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Story Acceptance Criteria Validation:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: story_validation>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Story {{story_id}}: {{story_title}}**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Acceptance Criteria Met:** {{criteria_met}}/{{total_criteria}}
|
||||||
|
- **Definition of Done Status:** {{dod_status}}
|
||||||
|
- **Deviations Identified:** {{deviation_summary}}
|
||||||
|
- **Implementation Quality:** {{quality_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@{example: traceability}
|
||||||
|
- PRD Requirement "User can reset password via email" → Story 2.3 → Implementation: Password reset flow with email verification ✓ COMPLIANT
|
||||||
|
- Architecture Decision "Use JWT for authentication" → Implementation: Session-based auth with cookies ✗ DEVIATION - Security team required session-based approach
|
||||||
|
- Story 1.2 Acceptance Criteria: "Response time < 2 seconds" → Implementation: Average 3.2 seconds ✗ NOT MET - Database query optimization needed
|
||||||
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2.2 Implementation Compliance Assessment
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Detailed analysis of compliance with original specifications]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Business Requirements Compliance:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Primary Business Goals Achieved:** {{achieved_goals}}/{{total_goals}}
|
||||||
|
- **User Needs Satisfaction:** {{user_satisfaction_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
- **Problem Resolution Effectiveness:** {{problem_resolution_rating}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Functional Requirements Compliance:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: functional_compliance>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **{{functional_area}}:** {{compliance_percentage}}% compliant
|
||||||
|
- **Fully Implemented:** {{fully_implemented_items}}
|
||||||
|
- **Partially Implemented:** {{partial_items}}
|
||||||
|
- **Missing/Not Implemented:** {{missing_items}}
|
||||||
|
- **Impact of Gaps:** {{gap_impact_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Non-Functional Requirements Compliance:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| NFR Category | Target | Achieved | Status | Impact |
|
||||||
|
| :----------- | :----- | :------- | :----- | :----- |
|
||||||
|
| Performance | {{perf_target}} | {{perf_achieved}} | {{perf_status}} | {{perf_impact}} |
|
||||||
|
| Security | {{sec_target}} | {{sec_achieved}} | {{sec_status}} | {{sec_impact}} |
|
||||||
|
| Scalability | {{scale_target}} | {{scale_achieved}} | {{scale_status}} | {{scale_impact}} |
|
||||||
|
| Usability | {{usability_target}} | {{usability_achieved}} | {{usability_status}} | {{usability_impact}} |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@{example: compliance_assessment}
|
||||||
|
- Authentication requirements: 95% compliant (missing 2FA for admin users)
|
||||||
|
- Data validation: 80% compliant (client-side validation implemented, server-side validation gaps)
|
||||||
|
- Performance targets: 60% achieved (page load times exceed requirements by 40%)
|
||||||
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2.3 Significant Deviations Analysis
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Document and analyze all significant deviations from original requirements with impact assessment]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Architectural Deviations:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: architectural_deviation>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deviation: {{deviation_title}}**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Original Specification:** {{original_spec}}
|
||||||
|
- **Actual Implementation:** {{actual_implementation}}
|
||||||
|
- **Rationale for Change:** {{change_rationale}}
|
||||||
|
- **Decision Authority:** {{who_approved}}
|
||||||
|
- **Impact Assessment:**
|
||||||
|
- **Technical Impact:** {{technical_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Business Impact:** {{business_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Quality Impact:** {{quality_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Risk Introduced:** {{risk_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
- **Mitigation Actions:** {{mitigation_plans}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Requirements Deviations:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: requirements_deviation>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Deviation: {{req_deviation_title}}**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Original Requirement:** {{original_requirement}}
|
||||||
|
- **Modified Implementation:** {{modified_implementation}}
|
||||||
|
- **Trigger for Change:** {{change_trigger}}
|
||||||
|
- **Stakeholder Approval:** {{approval_status}}
|
||||||
|
- **User Experience Impact:** {{ux_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Future Implications:** {{future_implications}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Scope Creep Analysis:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Added Features Not in Original Scope:** {{added_features}}
|
||||||
|
- **Resource Impact:** {{resource_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Timeline Impact:** {{timeline_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Quality Trade-offs:** {{quality_tradeoffs}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@{example: deviation_analysis}
|
||||||
|
**Deviation: Authentication Method Change**
|
||||||
|
- Original: JWT token-based authentication as per architecture
|
||||||
|
- Actual: Session-based authentication with secure cookies
|
||||||
|
- Rationale: Security team mandate due to XSS vulnerability concerns
|
||||||
|
- Impact: Required additional session storage infrastructure, increased server memory usage by 15%
|
||||||
|
- Risk: Scalability concerns for high-traffic scenarios
|
||||||
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2.4 Implementation Gaps & Missing Requirements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Identify requirements that were not implemented or were implemented incompletely]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Critical Gaps:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: critical_gap>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **{{gap_title}}:** {{gap_description}}
|
||||||
|
- **Original Requirement Source:** {{requirement_source}}
|
||||||
|
- **Expected Implementation:** {{expected_implementation}}
|
||||||
|
- **Current Status:** {{current_status}}
|
||||||
|
- **Business Impact:** {{business_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Risk Level:** {{risk_level}}
|
||||||
|
- **Recommended Action:** {{recommendation}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Quality Gaps:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Testing Coverage Gaps:** {{testing_gaps}}
|
||||||
|
- **Documentation Gaps:** {{doc_gaps}}
|
||||||
|
- **Integration Gaps:** {{integration_gaps}}
|
||||||
|
- **Performance Gaps:** {{performance_gaps}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Orphaned Implementation:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Features Built Without Requirements:** {{orphaned_features}}
|
||||||
|
- **Over-Engineering Instances:** {{over_engineering}}
|
||||||
|
- **Unused or Dead Code:** {{dead_code_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 3. What Went Well
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Conduct detailed analysis of successful practices and positive outcomes. Focus on evidence-based insights that can be replicated in future epics. Include both process successes AND successful requirements implementation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3.1 Requirements & Architecture Implementation Success
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Highlight successful requirements implementation and architectural adherence]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Exemplary Requirements Implementation:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: requirements_success>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **{{requirement_area}}:** {{success_description}}
|
||||||
|
- **Original Specification:** {{original_spec}}
|
||||||
|
- **Implementation Quality:** {{implementation_quality}}
|
||||||
|
- **Stakeholder Satisfaction:** {{satisfaction_level}}
|
||||||
|
- **Best Practices Applied:** {{best_practices}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Architectural Excellence:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Pattern Adherence:** {{pattern_adherence_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
- **Design Consistency:** {{design_consistency}}
|
||||||
|
- **Technical Debt Avoidance:** {{tech_debt_avoidance}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@{example: requirements_success}
|
||||||
|
- User authentication flow: 100% specification compliance with enhanced security features
|
||||||
|
- API design patterns: Consistent RESTful implementation following architectural guidelines
|
||||||
|
- Database schema: Perfect alignment with data model specifications, optimized performance
|
||||||
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3.2 BMAD Method Application
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Analyze how BMAD methodology contributed to successful requirements implementation]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Effective Practices:**
|
**Effective Practices:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -75,13 +277,19 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Methodology Adherence:** {{adherence_assessment}}
|
**Methodology Adherence:** {{adherence_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Requirements Management Success:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Story Clarity Impact:** {{story_clarity_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Template Effectiveness:** {{template_effectiveness}}
|
||||||
|
- **Agent Coordination Quality:** {{coordination_quality}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@{example: bmad_success}
|
@{example: bmad_success}
|
||||||
- Agent coordination worked exceptionally well for Story 2.3, with seamless handoff between Dev and QA agents
|
- Agent coordination worked exceptionally well for Story 2.3, with seamless handoff between Dev and QA agents ensuring requirement accuracy
|
||||||
- BMAD checklist caught 3 critical integration issues before they reached production
|
- BMAD checklist caught 3 critical integration issues before they deviated from architecture
|
||||||
- Template-driven development reduced story completion time by 40%
|
- Template-driven development maintained requirement traceability throughout implementation
|
||||||
@{/example}
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Code Quality & Refactoring
|
### 3.3 Code Quality & Refactoring
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Document code quality achievements and successful refactoring efforts]]
|
[[LLM: Document code quality achievements and successful refactoring efforts]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -90,6 +298,7 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- **Test Coverage:** {{coverage_percentage}}% (Target: {{target_coverage}}%)
|
- **Test Coverage:** {{coverage_percentage}}% (Target: {{target_coverage}}%)
|
||||||
- **Code Review Quality:** {{review_metrics}}
|
- **Code Review Quality:** {{review_metrics}}
|
||||||
- **Technical Debt Reduction:** {{debt_metrics}}
|
- **Technical Debt Reduction:** {{debt_metrics}}
|
||||||
|
- **Architecture Compliance Score:** {{compliance_score}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Successful Refactoring Efforts:**
|
**Successful Refactoring Efforts:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -102,12 +311,12 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
@{example: code_quality}
|
@{example: code_quality}
|
||||||
- Achieved 94% test coverage across all new components (exceeded 80% target)
|
- Achieved 94% test coverage across all new components (exceeded 80% target)
|
||||||
- Zero critical code smells identified in SonarQube analysis
|
- Zero critical code smells identified in SonarQube analysis
|
||||||
- Successfully refactored authentication service, reducing complexity by 35%
|
- Successfully refactored authentication service while maintaining API contract compliance
|
||||||
@{/example}
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Adaptive Development
|
### 3.4 Adaptive Development
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Highlight successful adaptations and pivots during development]]
|
[[LLM: Highlight successful adaptations and pivots during development that maintained requirement alignment]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Successful Adaptations:**
|
**Successful Adaptations:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -116,7 +325,9 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Change Management:** {{change_handling_assessment}}
|
**Change Management:** {{change_handling_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Tooling & Libraries
|
**Requirement Evolution Handling:** {{requirement_evolution}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3.5 Tooling & Libraries
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Document effective tool and library choices]]
|
[[LLM: Document effective tool and library choices]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -130,35 +341,49 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Integration Successes:** {{integration_assessment}}
|
**Integration Successes:** {{integration_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 3. What Could Be Improved
|
## 4. What Could Be Improved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Conduct thorough analysis of areas needing improvement. Focus on specific, actionable insights with clear evidence.
|
[[LLM: Conduct thorough analysis of areas needing improvement. Focus on specific, actionable insights with clear evidence. Include both process improvements AND requirements management enhancements.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### API Contracts
|
### 4.1 Requirements Clarity & Management Issues
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Analyze API design and contract issues encountered]]
|
[[LLM: Analyze requirements-related issues that led to implementation problems]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Contract Issues Identified:**
|
**Requirements Definition Issues:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<<REPEAT: api_issue>>
|
<<REPEAT: requirements_issue>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- **{{api_endpoint}}:** {{issue_description}} - {{impact_assessment}}
|
- **{{requirement_area}}:** {{issue_description}}
|
||||||
|
- **Ambiguity Impact:** {{ambiguity_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Implementation Confusion:** {{confusion_details}}
|
||||||
|
- **Resolution Effort:** {{resolution_effort}}
|
||||||
|
- **Quality Impact:** {{quality_impact}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<</REPEAT>>
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Integration Challenges:** {{integration_challenges}}
|
**Requirements Communication Gaps:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@{example: api_issues}
|
- **Stakeholder Alignment Issues:** {{alignment_issues}}
|
||||||
- User profile endpoint returned inconsistent data types (string vs number for user_id)
|
- **Technical Translation Problems:** {{translation_problems}}
|
||||||
- Missing error codes for edge cases caused unclear error handling in frontend
|
- **Change Communication Delays:** {{communication_delays}}
|
||||||
- API versioning strategy unclear, leading to breaking changes in Story 3.2
|
|
||||||
|
**Traceability Gaps:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Missing Requirement Sources:** {{missing_sources}}
|
||||||
|
- **Implementation Without Justification:** {{unjustified_implementation}}
|
||||||
|
- **Orphaned Features:** {{orphaned_features}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@{example: requirements_issues}
|
||||||
|
- User profile requirements lacked specificity on data validation rules, leading to 3 rework cycles
|
||||||
|
- API contract specifications missing error handling requirements caused integration delays
|
||||||
|
- Business rule changes communicated verbally without updating documentation, creating confusion
|
||||||
@{/example}
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Code Architecture & Design
|
### 4.2 Architecture & Design Deviations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Identify architectural and design issues]]
|
[[LLM: Identify architectural and design issues and their impacts]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Architectural Concerns:**
|
**Architectural Concerns:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -169,11 +394,27 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Technical Debt Accumulated:** {{tech_debt_assessment}}
|
**Technical Debt Accumulated:** {{tech_debt_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Code Repetition
|
**Deviation Impact Analysis:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Document instances of code duplication and missed abstraction opportunities]]
|
<<REPEAT: deviation_impact>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Repetition Patterns Identified:**
|
- **{{deviation_area}}:** {{impact_description}}
|
||||||
|
- **Performance Impact:** {{performance_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Maintainability Impact:** {{maintainability_impact}}
|
||||||
|
- **Scalability Concerns:** {{scalability_concerns}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4.3 Implementation Quality Issues
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Document code quality and implementation issues]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Code Architecture & Design:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- {{arch_concern_1}}
|
||||||
|
- {{arch_concern_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Code Repetition:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<<REPEAT: repetition_issue>>
|
<<REPEAT: repetition_issue>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -181,9 +422,21 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<</REPEAT>>
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Missed Abstraction Opportunities:** {{abstraction_opportunities}}
|
**API Contracts:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Testing
|
<<REPEAT: api_issue>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **{{api_endpoint}}:** {{issue_description}} - {{impact_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@{example: api_issues}
|
||||||
|
- User profile endpoint returned inconsistent data types (string vs number for user_id)
|
||||||
|
- Missing error codes for edge cases caused unclear error handling in frontend
|
||||||
|
- API versioning strategy unclear, leading to breaking changes in Story 3.2
|
||||||
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4.4 Testing Gaps
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Analyze testing gaps and issues comprehensively]]
|
[[LLM: Analyze testing gaps and issues comprehensively]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -192,6 +445,7 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- **Unit Tests:** {{unit_test_gaps}}
|
- **Unit Tests:** {{unit_test_gaps}}
|
||||||
- **Integration Tests:** {{integration_test_gaps}}
|
- **Integration Tests:** {{integration_test_gaps}}
|
||||||
- **E2E Tests:** {{e2e_test_gaps}}
|
- **E2E Tests:** {{e2e_test_gaps}}
|
||||||
|
- **Requirements Validation Tests:** {{requirements_test_gaps}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Test Quality Issues:**
|
**Test Quality Issues:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -205,11 +459,11 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@{example: testing_issues}
|
@{example: testing_issues}
|
||||||
- Payment flow integration tests failed to cover error scenarios (API timeout, network issues)
|
- Payment flow integration tests failed to cover error scenarios (API timeout, network issues)
|
||||||
- Unit tests for utility functions had hardcoded values instead of parameterized tests
|
- Requirements validation tests missing for business rule compliance
|
||||||
- E2E tests were flaky due to timing issues, causing false failures in CI pipeline
|
- E2E tests were flaky due to timing issues, causing false failures in CI pipeline
|
||||||
@{/example}
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Process & Story Management
|
### 4.5 Process & Story Management
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Evaluate story management and development process issues]]
|
[[LLM: Evaluate story management and development process issues]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -220,11 +474,11 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Definition of Done Gaps:** {{dod_assessment}}
|
**Definition of Done Gaps:** {{dod_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Communication Breakdowns:** {{communication_issues}}
|
**Requirements Handoff Problems:** {{handoff_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Handoff Problems:** {{handoff_assessment}}
|
**Agent Communication Issues:** {{agent_communication_issues}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Estimations
|
### 4.6 Estimations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Analyze estimation accuracy and planning issues]]
|
[[LLM: Analyze estimation accuracy and planning issues]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -241,12 +495,20 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Scope Creep Instances:** {{scope_creep_assessment}}
|
**Scope Creep Instances:** {{scope_creep_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 4. Key Insights
|
## 5. Key Insights
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Synthesize broader takeaways and learnings from the epic development process. Focus on insights that provide strategic value for future development.
|
[[LLM: Synthesize broader takeaways and learnings from the epic development process. Focus on insights that provide strategic value for future development and requirements management.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Requirements Management Insights:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: requirements_insight>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **{{insight_area}}:** {{insight_description}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Development Process Insights:**
|
**Development Process Insights:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<<REPEAT: process_insight>>
|
<<REPEAT: process_insight>>
|
||||||
|
|
@ -271,18 +533,42 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- {{tech_insight_2}}
|
- {{tech_insight_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@{example: insights}
|
@{example: insights}
|
||||||
- Early involvement of QA in story refinement reduced defect discovery time by 60%
|
- Early requirements validation with stakeholders prevented 4 major rework cycles
|
||||||
- Automated testing infrastructure investment in Epic 1 paid dividends throughout the project
|
- Automated testing infrastructure investment in Epic 1 improved requirement validation confidence
|
||||||
- Cross-functional story reviews identified integration issues before development began
|
- Cross-functional story reviews identified architecture-requirement mismatches before development
|
||||||
@{/example}
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 5. Actionable Recommendations
|
## 6. Actionable Recommendations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Provide specific, prioritized recommendations that can be implemented in future epics. Each recommendation should include implementation guidance and success metrics.
|
[[LLM: Provide specific, prioritized recommendations that can be implemented in future epics. Each recommendation should include implementation guidance and success metrics. Focus on both process improvements AND requirements management enhancements.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Process & Planning
|
### 6.1 Requirements Management Improvements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Recommendations for improving requirements clarity, validation, and compliance]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**High Priority:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: requirements_recommendation>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. **{{recommendation_title}}**
|
||||||
|
- **Issue Addressed:** {{issue_reference}}
|
||||||
|
- **Implementation:** {{specific_steps}}
|
||||||
|
- **Success Metric:** {{measurement_criteria}}
|
||||||
|
- **Timeline:** {{implementation_timeframe}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Medium Priority:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- {{medium_priority_recommendation}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Low Priority:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- {{low_priority_recommendation}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 6.2 Process & Planning
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Recommendations for improving development and planning processes]]
|
[[LLM: Recommendations for improving development and planning processes]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -306,7 +592,7 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- {{low_priority_recommendation}}
|
- {{low_priority_recommendation}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Development & DX
|
### 6.3 Development & DX
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Recommendations for improving developer experience and development practices]]
|
[[LLM: Recommendations for improving developer experience and development practices]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -324,12 +610,12 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- {{tool_improvement_2}}
|
- {{tool_improvement_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@{example: dev_recommendations}
|
@{example: dev_recommendations}
|
||||||
- Implement pre-commit hooks for code formatting and linting (reduce review time by 30%)
|
- Implement requirements validation pre-commit hooks (reduce compliance issues by 50%)
|
||||||
- Create shared component library to reduce code duplication (target: 50% reduction in UI code)
|
- Create shared component library with requirement traceability (target: 50% reduction in implementation gaps)
|
||||||
- Establish API contract testing to catch breaking changes early (prevent integration delays)
|
- Establish architecture compliance testing to catch deviations early (prevent architectural drift)
|
||||||
@{/example}
|
@{/example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Architecture & Patterns
|
### 6.4 Architecture & Patterns
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Recommendations for architectural improvements]]
|
[[LLM: Recommendations for architectural improvements]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -346,7 +632,24 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- {{pattern_standardization_1}}
|
- {{pattern_standardization_1}}
|
||||||
- {{pattern_standardization_2}}
|
- {{pattern_standardization_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Future Tooling
|
### 6.5 Template & Documentation Enhancements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[[LLM: Recommendations for improving BMAD templates and documentation practices]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Template Improvements:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<REPEAT: template_improvement>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **{{template_name}}:** {{improvement_description}} - {{implementation_approach}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Documentation Standards:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- {{doc_standard_1}}
|
||||||
|
- {{doc_standard_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 6.6 Future Tooling
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Recommendations for new tools and technology adoption]]
|
[[LLM: Recommendations for new tools and technology adoption]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -363,11 +666,20 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- {{upgrade_recommendation_1}}
|
- {{upgrade_recommendation_1}}
|
||||||
- {{upgrade_recommendation_2}}
|
- {{upgrade_recommendation_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 6. Metrics and Evidence
|
## 7. Metrics and Evidence
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Provide concrete metrics and evidence supporting the retrospective analysis]]
|
[[LLM: Provide concrete metrics and evidence supporting the retrospective analysis]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Quality Metrics
|
### 7.1 Requirements Compliance Metrics
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| Metric | Target | Achieved | Status |
|
||||||
|
| :----- | :----- | :------- | :----- |
|
||||||
|
| Requirements Compliance | {{target_compliance}}% | {{actual_compliance}}% | {{status}} |
|
||||||
|
| Architecture Adherence | {{target_adherence}}% | {{actual_adherence}}% | {{status}} |
|
||||||
|
| Story Acceptance Criteria Met | {{target_criteria}}% | {{actual_criteria}}% | {{status}} |
|
||||||
|
| Implementation Gaps | {{target_gaps}} | {{actual_gaps}} | {{status}} |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 7.2 Quality Metrics
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| Metric | Target | Achieved | Status |
|
| Metric | Target | Achieved | Status |
|
||||||
| :----- | :----- | :------- | :----- |
|
| :----- | :----- | :------- | :----- |
|
||||||
|
|
@ -376,7 +688,7 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
| Code Review Time | {{target_review_time}} | {{actual_review_time}} | {{status}} |
|
| Code Review Time | {{target_review_time}} | {{actual_review_time}} | {{status}} |
|
||||||
| Story Completion Rate | {{target_completion}}% | {{actual_completion}}% | {{status}} |
|
| Story Completion Rate | {{target_completion}}% | {{actual_completion}}% | {{status}} |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Development Velocity
|
### 7.3 Development Velocity
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Story Completion Metrics:**
|
**Story Completion Metrics:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -385,7 +697,7 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- **Average Story Cycle Time:** {{avg_cycle_time}}
|
- **Average Story Cycle Time:** {{avg_cycle_time}}
|
||||||
- **Velocity Trend:** {{velocity_assessment}}
|
- **Velocity Trend:** {{velocity_assessment}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Issue Tracking
|
### 7.4 Issue Tracking
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Bug Analysis:**
|
**Bug Analysis:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -394,11 +706,17 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
- **Resolution Time:** {{avg_resolution_time}}
|
- **Resolution Time:** {{avg_resolution_time}}
|
||||||
- **Escaped Defects:** {{escaped_defects}}
|
- **Escaped Defects:** {{escaped_defects}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 7. Follow-up Actions
|
**Requirements-Related Issues:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Requirements Clarification Requests:** {{clarification_requests}}
|
||||||
|
- **Scope Change Requests:** {{scope_changes}}
|
||||||
|
- **Implementation Rework Due to Requirement Issues:** {{rework_instances}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 8. Follow-up Actions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Define specific next steps and ownership for implementing recommendations]]
|
[[LLM: Define specific next steps and ownership for implementing recommendations]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Immediate Actions (Next Sprint)
|
### 8.1 Immediate Actions (Next Sprint)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<<REPEAT: immediate_action>>
|
<<REPEAT: immediate_action>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -409,7 +727,7 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<</REPEAT>>
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Short-term Actions (Next Epic)
|
### 8.2 Short-term Actions (Next Epic)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<<REPEAT: short_term_action>>
|
<<REPEAT: short_term_action>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -420,40 +738,53 @@ After presenting this section, apply `tasks#advanced-elicitation` protocol]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<</REPEAT>>
|
<</REPEAT>>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Long-term Improvements
|
### 8.3 Long-term Improvements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- {{long_term_improvement_1}}
|
- {{long_term_improvement_1}}
|
||||||
- {{long_term_improvement_2}}
|
- {{long_term_improvement_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 8. Retrospective Validation
|
## 9. Retrospective Validation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[[LLM: Include validation steps to ensure retrospective accuracy and completeness]]
|
[[LLM: Include validation steps to ensure retrospective accuracy and completeness]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Stakeholder Review Checklist
|
### 9.1 Stakeholder Review Checklist
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- [ ] Development team feedback incorporated
|
- [ ] Development team feedback incorporated
|
||||||
- [ ] Product Owner perspective included
|
- [ ] Product Owner perspective included
|
||||||
- [ ] Scrum Master/Project Manager input gathered
|
- [ ] Scrum Master/Project Manager input gathered
|
||||||
- [ ] Technical Architecture review completed
|
- [ ] Technical Architecture review completed
|
||||||
|
- [ ] **Requirements validation review completed**
|
||||||
|
- [ ] **Compliance assessment verified**
|
||||||
- [ ] All major quality issues documented
|
- [ ] All major quality issues documented
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Evidence Validation
|
### 9.2 Evidence Validation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- [ ] All conclusions supported by concrete data
|
- [ ] All conclusions supported by concrete data
|
||||||
|
- [ ] **Requirements compliance verified against original documentation**
|
||||||
|
- [ ] **Implementation deviations documented with evidence**
|
||||||
- [ ] Metrics verified against actual project artifacts
|
- [ ] Metrics verified against actual project artifacts
|
||||||
- [ ] Recommendations linked to specific identified issues
|
- [ ] Recommendations linked to specific identified issues
|
||||||
- [ ] Success stories documented with measurable outcomes
|
- [ ] Success stories documented with measurable outcomes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Next Retrospective Planning
|
### 9.3 Interactive Elicitation Completion
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Advanced elicitation applied to all major sections
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Critical perspectives explored for key findings
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Alternative solutions considered for major issues
|
||||||
|
- [ ] Step-by-step reasoning validated for recommendations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 9.4 Next Retrospective Planning
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Recommended Timeline:** {{next_retrospective_timeline}}
|
**Recommended Timeline:** {{next_retrospective_timeline}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Focus Areas for Next Review:**
|
**Focus Areas for Next Retrospective:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- {{focus_area_1}}
|
- {{next_focus_1}}
|
||||||
- {{focus_area_2}}
|
- {{next_focus_2}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Monitoring Requirements:** {{monitoring_setup}}
|
**Improvement Tracking:**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- {{improvement_tracking_approach}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
---
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue