327 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
327 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
# Developer Quality Standards
|
|
**BMAD Method Documentation**
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
This document defines the quality standards for developers working within the BMAD Method framework. These standards ensure consistent, maintainable, and high-quality code across all projects. The standards are designed to be measurable, actionable, and aligned with industry best practices.
|
|
|
|
## Quality Dimensions
|
|
|
|
Developer quality is measured across six key dimensions, each with a specific weight in the overall quality assessment:
|
|
|
|
| Dimension | Weight | Description |
|
|
|-----------|--------|-------------|
|
|
| Code Quality | 25% | Structural quality of the code itself |
|
|
| Functionality | 20% | Correctness and completeness of implementation |
|
|
| Performance | 15% | Efficiency and responsiveness |
|
|
| Maintainability | 15% | Ease of understanding and modifying code |
|
|
| Testing | 15% | Test coverage and quality |
|
|
| Documentation | 10% | Completeness and clarity of documentation |
|
|
|
|
## Quality Standards by Dimension
|
|
|
|
### 1. Code Quality (25%)
|
|
|
|
#### 1.1 Code Structure
|
|
- **Standard**: Code follows the project's architectural patterns and design principles
|
|
- **Measurement**: Automated static analysis tools and manual review
|
|
- **Threshold**: No critical or high-severity structural issues
|
|
|
|
#### 1.2 Code Complexity
|
|
- **Standard**: Functions and components maintain reasonable complexity
|
|
- **Measurement**: Cyclomatic complexity < 15, cognitive complexity < 10
|
|
- **Threshold**: 90% of code meets complexity targets
|
|
|
|
#### 1.3 Code Duplication
|
|
- **Standard**: Minimal code duplication across the codebase
|
|
- **Measurement**: Automated duplication detection
|
|
- **Threshold**: < 5% duplication
|
|
|
|
#### 1.4 Coding Standards Compliance
|
|
- **Standard**: Code adheres to project style guide and linting rules
|
|
- **Measurement**: Automated linting
|
|
- **Threshold**: Zero linting errors, < 5 warnings
|
|
|
|
#### 1.5 Clean Code Principles
|
|
- **Standard**: Code follows clean code principles (meaningful names, single responsibility, etc.)
|
|
- **Measurement**: Manual review using clean code checklist
|
|
- **Threshold**: 90% compliance with clean code checklist
|
|
|
|
### 2. Functionality (20%)
|
|
|
|
#### 2.1 Requirements Fulfillment
|
|
- **Standard**: Implementation meets all specified requirements
|
|
- **Measurement**: Requirements traceability matrix
|
|
- **Threshold**: 100% of requirements implemented correctly
|
|
|
|
#### 2.2 Error Handling
|
|
- **Standard**: Robust error handling for all operations
|
|
- **Measurement**: Error scenario testing and code review
|
|
- **Threshold**: All identified error scenarios handled appropriately
|
|
|
|
#### 2.3 Edge Case Handling
|
|
- **Standard**: Code handles edge cases and boundary conditions
|
|
- **Measurement**: Edge case test coverage
|
|
- **Threshold**: All identified edge cases handled correctly
|
|
|
|
#### 2.4 Accessibility Compliance
|
|
- **Standard**: Implementation meets accessibility requirements
|
|
- **Measurement**: Automated accessibility testing and manual review
|
|
- **Threshold**: WCAG 2.1 AA compliance
|
|
|
|
#### 2.5 Cross-browser/Cross-device Compatibility
|
|
- **Standard**: Code works consistently across required platforms
|
|
- **Measurement**: Cross-platform testing
|
|
- **Threshold**: Consistent behavior across all specified platforms
|
|
|
|
### 3. Performance (15%)
|
|
|
|
#### 3.1 Rendering Performance
|
|
- **Standard**: UI renders and updates efficiently
|
|
- **Measurement**: Render timing metrics
|
|
- **Threshold**: Initial render < 200ms, updates < 50ms
|
|
|
|
#### 3.2 Memory Usage
|
|
- **Standard**: Efficient memory usage without leaks
|
|
- **Measurement**: Memory profiling
|
|
- **Threshold**: No memory leaks, memory usage within defined limits
|
|
|
|
#### 3.3 Network Efficiency
|
|
- **Standard**: Efficient network resource usage
|
|
- **Measurement**: Network request count, payload size, caching
|
|
- **Threshold**: Meets project-specific network performance budgets
|
|
|
|
#### 3.4 Bundle Size
|
|
- **Standard**: Optimized bundle size
|
|
- **Measurement**: Bundle analysis
|
|
- **Threshold**: Meets project-specific bundle size budgets
|
|
|
|
#### 3.5 Algorithm Efficiency
|
|
- **Standard**: Efficient algorithms and data structures
|
|
- **Measurement**: Performance profiling and complexity analysis
|
|
- **Threshold**: O(n) or better for common operations where possible
|
|
|
|
### 4. Maintainability (15%)
|
|
|
|
#### 4.1 Code Readability
|
|
- **Standard**: Code is easy to read and understand
|
|
- **Measurement**: Manual review using readability checklist
|
|
- **Threshold**: 90% compliance with readability standards
|
|
|
|
#### 4.2 Modularity
|
|
- **Standard**: Code is properly modularized with clear boundaries
|
|
- **Measurement**: Module coupling and cohesion metrics
|
|
- **Threshold**: High cohesion, low coupling across modules
|
|
|
|
#### 4.3 Extensibility
|
|
- **Standard**: Code can be extended without significant modification
|
|
- **Measurement**: Manual review of extension points
|
|
- **Threshold**: Key extension points identified and implemented
|
|
|
|
#### 4.4 Configuration vs. Hardcoding
|
|
- **Standard**: Configurable elements are not hardcoded
|
|
- **Measurement**: Hardcoded value detection
|
|
- **Threshold**: No business rules or configurable values hardcoded
|
|
|
|
#### 4.5 Technical Debt
|
|
- **Standard**: Minimal technical debt in implementation
|
|
- **Measurement**: Technical debt tracking tools
|
|
- **Threshold**: Technical debt ratio < 5%
|
|
|
|
### 5. Testing (15%)
|
|
|
|
#### 5.1 Test Coverage
|
|
- **Standard**: Comprehensive test coverage
|
|
- **Measurement**: Code coverage metrics
|
|
- **Threshold**: > 80% line coverage, 100% coverage of critical paths
|
|
|
|
#### 5.2 Test Quality
|
|
- **Standard**: Tests are reliable, maintainable, and meaningful
|
|
- **Measurement**: Manual review of test quality
|
|
- **Threshold**: 90% compliance with test quality checklist
|
|
|
|
#### 5.3 Test Types
|
|
- **Standard**: Appropriate mix of test types (unit, integration, e2e)
|
|
- **Measurement**: Test type distribution
|
|
- **Threshold**: Balanced test pyramid with appropriate coverage at each level
|
|
|
|
#### 5.4 Test Independence
|
|
- **Standard**: Tests are independent and deterministic
|
|
- **Measurement**: Test flakiness metrics
|
|
- **Threshold**: < 1% flaky tests
|
|
|
|
#### 5.5 Test Maintainability
|
|
- **Standard**: Tests are maintainable and follow testing best practices
|
|
- **Measurement**: Manual review of test maintainability
|
|
- **Threshold**: 90% compliance with test maintainability standards
|
|
|
|
### 6. Documentation (10%)
|
|
|
|
#### 6.1 Code Comments
|
|
- **Standard**: Code is appropriately commented
|
|
- **Measurement**: Comment quality and coverage review
|
|
- **Threshold**: All complex logic and non-obvious code commented
|
|
|
|
#### 6.2 API Documentation
|
|
- **Standard**: Complete and accurate API documentation
|
|
- **Measurement**: API documentation coverage
|
|
- **Threshold**: 100% of public APIs documented
|
|
|
|
#### 6.3 README and Setup Documentation
|
|
- **Standard**: Clear setup and usage documentation
|
|
- **Measurement**: Documentation completeness review
|
|
- **Threshold**: All setup steps and common usage scenarios documented
|
|
|
|
#### 6.4 Architecture Documentation
|
|
- **Standard**: Component architecture and relationships documented
|
|
- **Measurement**: Architecture documentation review
|
|
- **Threshold**: All major components and interactions documented
|
|
|
|
#### 6.5 Knowledge Sharing
|
|
- **Standard**: Complex implementations include knowledge sharing
|
|
- **Measurement**: Knowledge sharing artifacts
|
|
- **Threshold**: Knowledge sharing completed for all complex features
|
|
|
|
## Quality Measurement Framework
|
|
|
|
### Quality Scoring System
|
|
|
|
Each quality dimension is scored on a 5-point scale:
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|-------|-------------|
|
|
| 5 | Exceptional - Exceeds all standards |
|
|
| 4 | Strong - Meets all standards with some exceeding |
|
|
| 3 | Satisfactory - Meets all minimum standards |
|
|
| 2 | Needs Improvement - Falls short on some standards |
|
|
| 1 | Unsatisfactory - Falls short on multiple standards |
|
|
|
|
### Calculation of Overall Quality Score
|
|
|
|
The overall quality score is calculated as a weighted average of the dimension scores:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Overall Score = (Code Quality 0.25) + (Functionality 0.20) + (Performance 0.15) +
|
|
(Maintainability 0.15) + (Testing 0.15) + (Documentation 0.10)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Quality Levels
|
|
|
|
Based on the overall score, work is classified into one of four quality levels:
|
|
|
|
| Level | Score Range | Description |
|
|
|-------|-------------|-------------|
|
|
| Exceptional | 4.5 - 5.0 | Exemplary quality that can serve as a reference |
|
|
| Strong | 3.5 - 4.4 | High-quality work that meets all standards |
|
|
| Satisfactory | 3.0 - 3.4 | Acceptable quality that meets minimum standards |
|
|
| Needs Improvement | < 3.0 | Quality issues that need to be addressed |
|
|
|
|
## Quality Assurance Process
|
|
|
|
### 1. Self-Assessment
|
|
|
|
Developers perform a self-assessment against quality standards:
|
|
|
|
- Complete the quality checklist for each dimension
|
|
- Document any known deviations from standards
|
|
- Prepare justification for any standards that cannot be met
|
|
|
|
### 2. Peer Review
|
|
|
|
Code undergoes peer review before being considered complete:
|
|
|
|
- At least one peer reviewer must approve
|
|
- Reviewer evaluates against all quality dimensions
|
|
- Reviewer provides specific feedback on areas for improvement
|
|
|
|
### 3. Automated Checks
|
|
|
|
Automated tools verify compliance with measurable standards:
|
|
|
|
- Static code analysis
|
|
- Linting and style checking
|
|
- Test coverage analysis
|
|
- Performance benchmarking
|
|
- Accessibility testing
|
|
|
|
### 4. Quality Gates
|
|
|
|
Implementation must pass quality gates at key milestones:
|
|
|
|
- **Development Complete**: Self-assessment and automated checks pass
|
|
- **Review Complete**: Peer review approval and resolution of feedback
|
|
- **Release Ready**: Final quality verification and documentation complete
|
|
|
|
## Continuous Improvement
|
|
|
|
### Quality Metrics Tracking
|
|
|
|
Quality metrics are tracked over time to identify trends:
|
|
|
|
- Team-level quality metrics dashboard
|
|
- Individual developer quality profiles
|
|
- Project-specific quality trends
|
|
|
|
### Learning and Development
|
|
|
|
Continuous improvement is supported through:
|
|
|
|
- Regular code quality workshops
|
|
- Sharing of best practices and lessons learned
|
|
- Recognition of exceptional quality work
|
|
- Targeted training for areas needing improvement
|
|
|
|
### Standards Evolution
|
|
|
|
Quality standards evolve based on:
|
|
|
|
- Retrospective feedback
|
|
- Industry best practice changes
|
|
- Technology stack evolution
|
|
- Project-specific requirements
|
|
|
|
## Appendix: Quality Checklists
|
|
|
|
### Code Quality Checklist
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Code follows architectural patterns
|
|
- [ ] Functions/components have single responsibility
|
|
- [ ] Naming is clear and consistent
|
|
- [ ] Error handling is comprehensive
|
|
- [ ] No code smells (long methods, large classes, etc.)
|
|
- [ ] No duplication of logic
|
|
- [ ] Consistent formatting and style
|
|
- [ ] No commented-out code
|
|
- [ ] No hardcoded values that should be configurable
|
|
- [ ] Appropriate use of language/framework features
|
|
|
|
### Functionality Checklist
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All requirements implemented correctly
|
|
- [ ] Edge cases handled appropriately
|
|
- [ ] Error states managed gracefully
|
|
- [ ] Accessibility requirements met
|
|
- [ ] Cross-browser/device compatibility verified
|
|
- [ ] Internationalization supported if required
|
|
- [ ] Security best practices followed
|
|
- [ ] User experience consistent with design specifications
|
|
- [ ] Performance requirements met
|
|
- [ ] Integration points work correctly
|
|
|
|
### Testing Checklist
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Unit tests cover core functionality
|
|
- [ ] Integration tests verify component interactions
|
|
- [ ] Edge cases and error conditions tested
|
|
- [ ] Performance tests for critical paths
|
|
- [ ] Accessibility tests included
|
|
- [ ] Tests are deterministic (no flakiness)
|
|
- [ ] Test descriptions are clear and meaningful
|
|
- [ ] Mocks and test doubles used appropriately
|
|
- [ ] Test coverage meets minimum thresholds
|
|
- [ ] Tests follow AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert) pattern
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*Last Updated: June 2025*
|