6.8 KiB

Raw Blame History

Story Quality Validation Task

Purpose

Ensure all user stories meet comprehensive quality standards before development begins. This task validates story completeness, clarity, testability, and alignment with product goals to prevent rework and confusion during implementation.

Integration with Memory System

What patterns to search for: Common story defects, successful story formats, estimation accuracy patterns, acceptance criteria completeness
What outcomes to track: Story rejection rates, clarification requests, implementation accuracy, delivery predictability
What learnings to capture: Effective story formats, common missing elements, team-specific needs, domain-specific patterns

Story Quality Dimensions

Structure Quality

story_structure:
  format: "As a [persona], I want [functionality], so that [value]"
  
  required_elements:
    - user_persona: Clearly defined target user
    - functionality: Specific feature/capability
    - business_value: Measurable benefit
    - acceptance_criteria: Testable conditions
    - dependencies: Related stories/systems
  
  optional_elements:
    - mockups: Visual representations
    - technical_notes: Implementation hints
    - analytics: Success metrics

Content Quality Checklist

Single Responsibility: Story focuses on one capability
User-Centric: Written from user perspective
Independent: Can be developed/tested alone
Negotiable: Open to discussion, not prescriptive
Valuable: Clear value to user/business
Estimable: Team can estimate effort
Small: Fits in one sprint
Testable: Clear pass/fail criteria

Validation Process

Step 1: Structural Validation

def validate_story_structure(story):
    validation_results = {
        "has_persona": check_persona_definition(story),
        "has_functionality": check_functionality_clarity(story),
        "has_value": check_value_statement(story),
        "has_acceptance_criteria": check_acceptance_criteria(story),
        "follows_invest": check_invest_criteria(story)
    }
    
    structure_score = calculate_structure_score(validation_results)
    return structure_score, validation_results

Step 2: Acceptance Criteria Quality

## Acceptance Criteria Validation
**Story**: {story_title}

### Criteria Quality Checks
- [ ] **Specific**: No ambiguous terms (e.g., "user-friendly")
- [ ] **Measurable**: Quantifiable outcomes defined
- [ ] **Achievable**: Technically feasible within constraints
- [ ] **Relevant**: Directly related to story value
- [ ] **Time-bound**: Clear completion definition

### Example Format
GIVEN {initial context}
WHEN {action taken}
THEN {expected outcome}
AND {additional outcomes}

Step 3: Dependency Analysis

Dependency Type	Description	Impact	Status
Technical	API dependency	Blocking	Resolved
Data	Migration required	High	In Progress
UX	Design approval	Medium	Pending
Business	Legal review	Low	Not Started

Quality Gates

Story Creation Gate

User persona validated against persona library
Value statement quantified where possible
Acceptance criteria cover happy path
Edge cases identified
Non-functional requirements noted

Refinement Gate

Team questions answered
Estimates consensus reached
Technical approach agreed
Dependencies resolved or planned
Success metrics defined

Sprint Ready Gate

All quality checks passed
No blocking dependencies
Test scenarios documented
Design assets available
Product owner approved

Common Story Defects

Anti-Patterns to Detect

story_anti_patterns = {
    "technical_story": "As a developer, I want to refactor...",
    "vague_value": "...so that it works better",
    "missing_criteria": "No acceptance criteria defined",
    "too_large": "Story spans multiple epics",
    "solution_focused": "Implement using technology X",
    "unmeasurable": "Make the system faster"
}

def detect_anti_patterns(story):
    detected = []
    for pattern, description in story_anti_patterns.items():
        if matches_pattern(story, pattern):
            detected.append({
                "pattern": pattern,
                "severity": get_severity(pattern),
                "suggestion": get_improvement_suggestion(pattern)
            })
    return detected

Success Criteria

100% stories have complete acceptance criteria
Zero stories rejected during sprint for quality issues
Story clarification requests <10%
Estimation accuracy within 20%
Value delivery validation >90%

Memory Integration

# Story quality memory
story_quality_memory = {
    "type": "story_quality_validation",
    "story": {
        "id": story_id,
        "title": story_title,
        "sprint": target_sprint
    },
    "validation": {
        "structure_score": structural_validation_score,
        "content_score": content_quality_score,
        "criteria_score": acceptance_criteria_score,
        "overall_score": weighted_average
    },
    "issues": {
        "structural": structural_issues_found,
        "content": content_quality_issues,
        "dependencies": unresolved_dependencies,
        "risks": identified_risks
    },
    "improvements": {
        "applied": improvements_made,
        "suggested": remaining_suggestions
    },
    "outcomes": {
        "implementation_accuracy": actual_vs_expected,
        "clarifications_needed": clarification_count,
        "delivery_time": actual_vs_estimated
    }
}

Story Quality Report Template

# Story Quality Validation Report
**Story**: {story_id} - {story_title}
**Date**: {timestamp}
**Quality Score**: {score}/100

## Story Content
**As a** {persona}
**I want** {functionality}
**So that** {value}

## Acceptance Criteria Assessment
| Criterion | Quality | Issues | Suggestions |
|-----------|---------|---------|-------------|
| {criterion} | {score} | {issues} | {improvements} |

## Quality Dimensions
- **Structure**: {score}/100
- **Clarity**: {score}/100
- **Testability**: {score}/100
- **Value Definition**: {score}/100
- **Size**: {appropriate/too large/too small}

## Dependencies & Risks
### Dependencies
1. {dependency}: {status}

### Risks
1. {risk}: {mitigation}

## Validation Results
- [ ] INVEST criteria met
- [ ] Acceptance criteria complete
- [ ] Dependencies identified
- [ ] Team ready to estimate
- [ ] Product Owner approved

## Required Improvements
1. {improvement}: {action}

## Recommendation
{proceed/revise/split/defer} with confidence: {percentage}%

Brotherhood Collaboration

Story review with development team
Acceptance criteria with QA team
Value validation with product owner
Dependency check with affected teams

6.8 KiB Raw Blame History