14 KiB
validate-consolidated-fixes
Agent: architect
Type: BatchTask
Purpose
Validate that consolidated fixes have been properly implemented by examining story documentation and using Playwright MCP for UX changes, serving as the single validation gate for Round 2+ iterations.
Context
This task provides efficient architect-only validation after comprehensive Round 1 reviews:
- Validates fixes against original consolidated feedback
- Uses story documentation as primary evidence source
- Employs Playwright MCP for UX validation when needed
- Provides final approval or requests additional fixes
- Eliminates need for full re-review cycles
Inputs
Required
story_file(string): Path to story file with implementation detailsoriginal_feedback(object): Original consolidated feedback for comparisonimplemented_fixes(object): Summary of changes implemented by dev
Outputs
validation_status(string): "APPROVED" | "NEEDS_FIXES" | "BLOCKED"validation_results(object): Detailed validation findingsadditional_feedback(string): Specific guidance for any remaining issuesstory_file(string): Updated story file with validation results
Instructions
Pre-Validation Analysis
-
Review implementation documentation
- Read story file implementation section thoroughly
- Compare implemented fixes against original consolidated feedback
- Identify any REQUIRED-FOR-COMPLETION items that were not addressed
- Note any technical decisions or changes made during implementation
-
Assess validation approach needed
- Identify which fixes require technical code review
- Determine which changes need UX validation via Playwright
- Note any business logic changes requiring functional testing
- Plan validation sequence based on dependencies
Validation Process
-
Validate technical fixes
Architecture fixes validation:
- Review code changes described in story documentation
- Verify security improvements implemented correctly
- Check performance optimizations are reasonable
- Confirm technical debt addressed appropriately
Quality fixes validation:
- Verify test coverage improvements documented
- Check that quality gates are passing
- Confirm code quality standards maintained
- Validate error handling additions
-
Validate business fixes
Acceptance criteria validation:
- Confirm AC adjustments align with business requirements
- Verify business rule corrections documented properly
- Check user journey improvements are logical
- Validate data validation enhancements
Epic alignment validation:
- Ensure changes maintain epic scope and objectives
- Verify business value delivery still intact
- Check that project phase boundaries respected
-
Validate UX fixes using project-appropriate testing tools
When UX validation needed:
- User interface changes described in story (web, desktop, mobile, CLI, etc.)
- User interaction flow modifications
- Accessibility improvements requiring testing
- Design consistency updates
Comprehensive UI Testing Protocol:
Phase 1: Environment Setup
- Launch UI testing tools as specified in project documentation (check README.md or test configuration)
- Use clean testing environment appropriate for project type (browser, desktop app, mobile simulator, CLI, etc.)
- Clear relevant caches and state according to project architecture
- Set appropriate viewport/window size for project target platform
- Configure testing environment for debugging (enable logging as per project standards)
Phase 2: Pre-Testing Validation
- Navigate to application entry point (URL, app launch, CLI command, etc.)
- Verify application loads/starts without errors (check relevant logs)
- Take baseline screenshot/capture of unaffected areas for comparison
- Document initial application state and version
Phase 3: Feature-Specific Testing
- Navigate systematically to each UI area mentioned in story fixes
- For each changed component/page:
- Capture screenshot BEFORE interacting
- Test all documented user interactions (clicks, form submissions, navigation)
- Verify visual changes match story implementation descriptions
- Test error states and edge cases if applicable
- Capture screenshot AFTER each significant interaction
- Validate loading states and transitions work correctly
Phase 4: Accessibility & Responsive Testing (if applicable to project type)
- Test keyboard/alternative navigation for new/changed interactive elements
- Verify accessibility features if improvements documented (ARIA, screen reader compatibility, etc.)
- Test responsive behavior according to project target platforms (mobile, tablet, desktop, multiple screen sizes)
- Validate contrast and readability for visual changes according to project standards
Phase 5: Cross-Platform Compatibility (if critical changes)
- Repeat core tests across project target platforms (different browsers, OS versions, device types, etc.)
- Document any platform-specific issues discovered
- Capture comparative evidence across platforms for visual/behavioral changes
Phase 6: Evidence Documentation and Cleanup
- Save all screenshots/captures to temporary validation directory with descriptive filenames (feature_state_timestamp.png)
- Record any errors or warnings encountered in relevant logs
- Document specific testing commands/tools used for reproducibility
- Create testing summary with pass/fail status for each tested component
- Note: All testing artifacts are temporary and will be cleaned up after validation completion
Testing Session Management:
- Maintain consistent testing context throughout validation for consistency
- Reset application state between major test sections to ensure clean state
- Restart testing environment if session becomes unstable
- Document testing tool versions and configuration used (refer to project documentation)
- Clean up testing sessions and temporary files after validation
File Management:
- All screenshots and evidence saved to temporary validation workspace
- Artifacts automatically cleaned up after validation completion
- Only validation results and decisions persisted in story documentation
- No permanent files created during browser testing process
Validation Decision Making
-
Assess overall fix quality
APPROVED criteria:
- All REQUIRED-FOR-COMPLETION items addressed satisfactorily
- All QUALITY-STANDARD items addressed per project requirements
- Quality gates passing
- UX changes validated via browser MCP testing (if applicable)
- No new issues introduced
- Documentation clear and complete
NEEDS_FIXES criteria:
- Some REQUIRED-FOR-COMPLETION or QUALITY-STANDARD items incomplete or incorrect
- Quality gates failing
- UX changes not working as expected
- Minor issues that can be corrected quickly
BLOCKED criteria:
- Major technical blockers preventing completion
- Fundamental misunderstanding of requirements
- Scope changes required beyond current story
- Environment or infrastructure issues
-
Document validation results
Update story file with validation findings:
## Round 2+ Validation Results **Validation Date**: [Current date] **Validation Status**: [APPROVED/NEEDS_FIXES/BLOCKED] ### Architecture Fixes Validation - [Fix 1]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS - [Fix 2]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS ### Business Fixes Validation - [Fix 1]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS - [Fix 2]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS ### Quality Fixes Validation - [Fix 1]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS - [Fix 2]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS ### UX Fixes Validation (Browser MCP Testing) **Browser MCP Tool Used:** [Playwright MCP / Puppeteer MCP / Other Browser MCP] **Testing Session ID:** [Unique identifier for reproducibility] **Test Environment:** [URL, version, browser details] **Component-Level Results:** - [Component 1]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS * **Interaction Testing:** [Pass/Fail with specific interactions tested] * **Visual Validation:** [Pass/Fail with screenshot evidence] * **Accessibility Check:** [Pass/Fail/N/A with specific findings] * **Responsive Testing:** [Pass/Fail across viewports] - [Component 2]: ✅ VALIDATED / ❌ NEEDS_WORK / ⚠️ CONCERNS * **Interaction Testing:** [Pass/Fail with specific interactions tested] * **Visual Validation:** [Pass/Fail with screenshot evidence] * **Accessibility Check:** [Pass/Fail/N/A with specific findings] * **Responsive Testing:** [Pass/Fail across viewports] **Cross-Browser Compatibility:** [Tested/Not Required] - Chrome: [Pass/Fail/Not Tested] - [Specific findings] - Firefox: [Pass/Fail/Not Tested] - [Specific findings] - Safari: [Pass/Fail/Not Tested] - [Specific findings] **Evidence Artifacts:** - Screenshots captured: [Count] files saved with naming convention - Console errors logged: [Count] with severity levels - MCP session logs: [Available/Not Available] for debugging **Overall UX Validation Status:** [PASSED/FAILED/PARTIALLY_PASSED] **Detailed Findings:** [Comprehensive summary of all UX testing results] ### Additional Feedback (if NEEDS_FIXES) [Specific, actionable guidance for remaining issues] ### Next Steps [Clear direction for completion or additional work needed]
Completion Actions
-
Provide clear next steps
If APPROVED:
- Mark story as ready for delivery
- Document successful completion
- Note any IMPROVEMENT items for future tracking
If NEEDS_FIXES:
- Provide specific, actionable feedback
- Prioritize remaining issues
- Set up for another validation cycle
- Maintain positive momentum
If BLOCKED:
- Document blockers clearly
- Recommend escalation path
- Suggest scope adjustments if needed
- Provide technical guidance for resolution
Success Criteria
- All REQUIRED-FOR-COMPLETION and QUALITY-STANDARD fixes validated against original requirements
- UX changes comprehensively tested via browser MCP with evidence documentation
- Browser MCP testing includes interaction validation, visual verification, accessibility checks, and responsive testing
- Cross-browser compatibility validated for critical changes (Chrome, Firefox, Safari)
- Quality gates confirmed passing with specific validation evidence
- Screenshot evidence captured and properly documented for all UI changes
- Browser MCP session properly managed with clean state testing throughout
- Clear validation decision made (APPROVED/NEEDS_FIXES/BLOCKED) with comprehensive rationale
- Story documentation updated with detailed validation results including browser MCP findings
- Next steps clearly communicated with specific actionable guidance
Failure Conditions
- Unable to validate fixes due to insufficient documentation
- Browser MCP testing fails for UX changes
- Critical regressions discovered during validation
- Original requirements misunderstood in implementation
- Technical blockers prevent completion
Error Handling
If documentation is insufficient:
- Request specific clarification from dev
- Document what additional information is needed
- Provide guidance on documentation standards
- Validate what can be assessed from available information
If browser MCP testing fails:
-
Document failure details comprehensively:
- Specific MCP tool and version used (Playwright MCP, Browser MCP, etc.)
- Exact failure scenarios with timestamps
- Browser console errors and MCP session logs
- Screenshots of failure states if captured
-
Attempt alternative browser MCP approaches:
- Try different browser MCP tool if available (switch from Playwright to Browser MCP)
- Test in different browser engines (Chromium, Firefox, WebKit)
- Use different viewport sizes to isolate responsive issues
- Clear browser context completely and retry
-
Fallback validation methods:
- Request manual testing documentation from dev with comprehensive screenshots
- Require video screen recordings of user interactions for complex flows
- Request specific console log outputs for JavaScript errors
- Ask for accessibility audit results using browser dev tools
-
Escalation procedures:
- Escalate to DevOps if browser MCP infrastructure issues suspected
- Involve UX Expert for complex accessibility or interaction validation
- Engage with development team for application-specific testing guidance
- Consider scope adjustment if UX changes cannot be properly validated via available MCP tools
If validation reveals new issues:
- Classify as REQUIRED-FOR-COMPLETION vs IMPROVEMENT
- Provide clear guidance for resolution
- Update feedback for next implementation cycle
- Consider if scope adjustment needed
Notes
- This task serves as the single validation gate for efficient iterations
- Focus on validating against original consolidated feedback
- Use browser MCP tools (Playwright MCP/Puppeteer MCP/similar) for UX changes requiring server interaction
- Story documentation quality is critical for effective validation
- Maintain positive, constructive feedback for development team
Integration Points
- Input from: implement-consolidated-fixes task (dev agent)
- Output to: Story completion OR additional fix cycles
- Dependencies: Story file with implementation documentation
- Tools: Browser MCP tools (Playwright MCP/Puppeteer MCP/similar) for UX validation, project quality gates
- Escalation: Product Owner for business decisions, DevOps for infrastructure issues