8.4 KiB
| name | description | track |
|---|---|---|
| quality-gate-check | Phase-transition quality gate that validates all required artifacts are complete and consistent before allowing progression to the next development phase. Enterprise track workflow. | 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:
# 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