Files
pig-farm-controller/bmad/bmm/workflows/3-solutioning/solutioning-gate-check/validation-criteria.yaml
2025-11-01 19:22:39 +08:00

190 lines
6.1 KiB
YAML

# Implementation Readiness Validation Criteria
# Defines systematic validation rules by project level
validation_rules:
# Level 0-1 Projects (Simple, minimal planning)
level_0_1:
required_documents:
- tech_spec
- stories_or_tasks
validations:
- name: "Tech Spec Completeness"
checks:
- "All features defined with implementation approach"
- "Technical dependencies identified"
- "API contracts defined if applicable"
- "Data models specified"
- name: "Story Coverage"
checks:
- "All tech spec features have corresponding stories"
- "Stories are sequenced logically"
- "Technical tasks are defined"
- "No critical gaps in coverage"
# Level 2 Projects (PRD + Tech Spec, no separate architecture)
level_2:
required_documents:
- prd
- tech_spec # Includes architecture decisions
- epics_and_stories
validations:
- name: "PRD to Tech Spec Alignment"
checks:
- "All PRD requirements addressed in tech spec"
- "Architecture embedded in tech spec covers PRD needs"
- "Non-functional requirements are specified"
- "Technical approach supports business goals"
- name: "Story Coverage and Alignment"
checks:
- "Every PRD requirement has story coverage"
- "Stories align with tech spec approach"
- "Epic breakdown is complete"
- "Acceptance criteria match PRD success criteria"
- name: "Sequencing Validation"
checks:
- "Foundation stories come first"
- "Dependencies are properly ordered"
- "Iterative delivery is possible"
- "No circular dependencies"
# Level 3-4 Projects (Full planning with separate architecture)
level_3_4:
required_documents:
- prd
- architecture
- epics_and_stories
validations:
- name: "PRD Completeness"
checks:
- "User requirements fully documented"
- "Success criteria are measurable"
- "Scope boundaries clearly defined"
- "Priorities are assigned"
- name: "Architecture Coverage"
checks:
- "All PRD requirements have architectural support"
- "System design is complete"
- "Integration points defined"
- "Security architecture specified"
- "Performance considerations addressed"
- "If architecture.md: Implementation patterns defined"
- "If architecture.md: Technology versions verified and current"
- "If architecture.md: Starter template command documented (if applicable)"
- name: "PRD-Architecture Alignment"
checks:
- "No architecture gold-plating beyond PRD"
- "NFRs from PRD reflected in architecture"
- "Technology choices support requirements"
- "Scalability matches expected growth"
- "If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements"
- "If UX spec exists: Component library supports interaction patterns"
- name: "Story Implementation Coverage"
checks:
- "All architectural components have stories"
- "Infrastructure setup stories exist"
- "Integration implementation planned"
- "Security implementation stories present"
- name: "Comprehensive Sequencing"
checks:
- "Infrastructure before features"
- "Authentication before protected resources"
- "Core features before enhancements"
- "Dependencies properly ordered"
- "Allows for iterative releases"
# Special validation contexts
special_contexts:
greenfield:
additional_checks:
- "Project initialization stories exist"
- "If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization"
- "Development environment setup documented"
- "CI/CD pipeline stories included"
- "Initial data/schema setup planned"
- "Deployment infrastructure stories present"
ux_workflow_active:
additional_checks:
- "UX requirements in PRD"
- "UX implementation stories exist"
- "Accessibility requirements covered"
- "Responsive design addressed"
- "User flow continuity maintained"
api_heavy:
additional_checks:
- "API contracts fully defined"
- "Versioning strategy documented"
- "Authentication/authorization specified"
- "Rate limiting considered"
- "API documentation stories included"
# Severity definitions
severity_levels:
critical:
description: "Must be resolved before implementation"
examples:
- "Missing stories for core requirements"
- "Conflicting technical approaches"
- "No infrastructure setup for greenfield"
- "Security requirements not addressed"
high:
description: "Should be addressed to reduce risk"
examples:
- "Incomplete acceptance criteria"
- "Unclear story dependencies"
- "Missing error handling coverage"
- "Performance requirements not validated"
medium:
description: "Consider addressing for smoother implementation"
examples:
- "Documentation gaps"
- "Test strategy not defined"
- "Monitoring approach unclear"
- "Minor sequencing improvements possible"
low:
description: "Minor improvements for consideration"
examples:
- "Formatting inconsistencies"
- "Optional enhancements identified"
- "Style guide compliance"
- "Nice-to-have features noted"
# Readiness decision criteria
readiness_decisions:
ready:
criteria:
- "No critical issues found"
- "All required documents present"
- "Core alignments validated"
- "Story sequencing logical"
- "Team can begin implementation"
ready_with_conditions:
criteria:
- "Only high/medium issues found"
- "Mitigation plans identified"
- "Core path to MVP clear"
- "Issues won't block initial stories"
not_ready:
criteria:
- "Critical issues identified"
- "Major gaps in coverage"
- "Conflicting approaches found"
- "Required documents missing"
- "Blocking dependencies unresolved"