Files

2025-11-01 19:22:39 +08:00

13 KiB

Raw Blame History

Non-Functional Requirements Assessment - Validation Checklist

Workflow: testarch-nfr Purpose: Ensure comprehensive and evidence-based NFR assessment with actionable recommendations

Prerequisites Validation

Implementation is deployed and accessible for evaluation
Evidence sources are available (test results, metrics, logs, CI results)
NFR categories are determined (performance, security, reliability, maintainability, custom)
Evidence directories exist and are accessible (test_results_dir, metrics_dir, logs_dir)
Knowledge base is loaded (nfr-criteria, ci-burn-in, test-quality)

Context Loading

Tech-spec.md loaded successfully (if available)
PRD.md loaded (if available)
Story file loaded (if applicable)
Relevant knowledge fragments loaded from tea-index.csv:
- nfr-criteria.md
- ci-burn-in.md
- test-quality.md
- playwright-config.md (if using Playwright)

NFR Categories and Thresholds

Performance

Response time threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Throughput threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Resource usage thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Scalability requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN

Security

Authentication requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Authorization requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Data protection requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Vulnerability management thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Compliance requirements identified (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.)

Reliability

Availability (uptime) threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Error rate threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
MTTR (Mean Time To Recovery) threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Fault tolerance requirements defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Disaster recovery requirements defined (RTO, RPO) or marked as UNKNOWN

Maintainability

Test coverage threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Code quality threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Technical debt threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Documentation completeness threshold defined or marked as UNKNOWN

Custom NFR Categories (if applicable)

Custom NFR category 1: Thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Custom NFR category 2: Thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN
Custom NFR category 3: Thresholds defined or marked as UNKNOWN

Evidence Gathering

Performance Evidence

Load test results collected (JMeter, k6, Gatling, etc.)
Application metrics collected (response times, throughput, resource usage)
APM data collected (New Relic, Datadog, Dynatrace, etc.)
Lighthouse reports collected (if web app)
Playwright performance traces collected (if applicable)

Security Evidence

SAST results collected (SonarQube, Checkmarx, Veracode, etc.)
DAST results collected (OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, etc.)
Dependency scanning results collected (Snyk, Dependabot, npm audit)
Penetration test reports collected (if available)
Security audit logs collected
Compliance audit results collected (if applicable)

Reliability Evidence

Uptime monitoring data collected (Pingdom, UptimeRobot, StatusCake)
Error logs collected
Error rate metrics collected
CI burn-in results collected (stability over time)
Chaos engineering test results collected (if available)
Failover/recovery test results collected (if available)
Incident reports and postmortems collected (if applicable)

Maintainability Evidence

Code coverage reports collected (Istanbul, NYC, c8, JaCoCo)
Static analysis results collected (ESLint, SonarQube, CodeClimate)
Technical debt metrics collected
Documentation audit results collected
Test review report collected (from test-review workflow, if available)
Git metrics collected (code churn, commit frequency, etc.)

NFR Assessment with Deterministic Rules

Performance Assessment

Response time assessed against threshold
Throughput assessed against threshold
Resource usage assessed against threshold
Scalability assessed against requirements
Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
Evidence source documented (file path, metric name)

Security Assessment

Authentication strength assessed against requirements
Authorization controls assessed against requirements
Data protection assessed against requirements
Vulnerability management assessed against thresholds
Compliance assessed against requirements
Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
Evidence source documented (file path, scan result)

Reliability Assessment

Availability (uptime) assessed against threshold
Error rate assessed against threshold
MTTR assessed against threshold
Fault tolerance assessed against requirements
Disaster recovery assessed against requirements (RTO, RPO)
CI burn-in assessed (stability over time)
Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
Evidence source documented (file path, monitoring data)

Maintainability Assessment

Test coverage assessed against threshold
Code quality assessed against threshold
Technical debt assessed against threshold
Documentation completeness assessed against threshold
Test quality assessed (from test-review, if available)
Status classified (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL) with justification
Evidence source documented (file path, coverage report)

Custom NFR Assessment (if applicable)

Custom NFR 1 assessed against threshold with justification
Custom NFR 2 assessed against threshold with justification
Custom NFR 3 assessed against threshold with justification

Status Classification Validation

PASS Criteria Verified

Evidence exists for PASS status
Evidence meets or exceeds threshold
No concerns flagged in evidence
Quality is acceptable

CONCERNS Criteria Verified

Threshold is UNKNOWN (documented) OR
Evidence is MISSING or INCOMPLETE (documented) OR
Evidence is close to threshold (within 10%, documented) OR
Evidence shows intermittent issues (documented)

FAIL Criteria Verified

Evidence exists BUT does not meet threshold (documented) OR
Critical evidence is MISSING (documented) OR
Evidence shows consistent failures (documented) OR
Quality is unacceptable (documented)

No Threshold Guessing

All thresholds are either defined or marked as UNKNOWN
No thresholds were guessed or inferred
All UNKNOWN thresholds result in CONCERNS status

Quick Wins and Recommended Actions

Quick Wins Identified

Low-effort, high-impact improvements identified for CONCERNS/FAIL
Configuration changes (no code changes) identified
Optimization opportunities identified (caching, indexing, compression)
Monitoring additions identified (detect issues before failures)

Recommended Actions

Specific remediation steps provided (not generic advice)
Priority assigned (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
Estimated effort provided (hours, days)
Owner suggestions provided (dev, ops, security)

Monitoring Hooks

Performance monitoring suggested (APM, synthetic monitoring)
Error tracking suggested (Sentry, Rollbar, error logs)
Security monitoring suggested (intrusion detection, audit logs)
Alerting thresholds suggested (notify before breach)

Fail-Fast Mechanisms

Circuit breakers suggested for reliability
Rate limiting suggested for performance
Validation gates suggested for security
Smoke tests suggested for maintainability

Deliverables Generated

NFR Assessment Report

File created at {output_folder}/nfr-assessment.md
Template from nfr-report-template.md used
Executive summary included (overall status, critical issues)
Assessment by category included (performance, security, reliability, maintainability)
Evidence for each NFR documented
Status classifications documented (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
Findings summary included (PASS count, CONCERNS count, FAIL count)
Quick wins section included
Recommended actions section included
Evidence gaps checklist included

Gate YAML Snippet (if enabled)

YAML snippet generated
Date included
Categories status included (performance, security, reliability, maintainability)
Overall status included (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL)
Issue counts included (critical, high, medium, concerns)
Blockers flag included (true/false)
Recommendations included

Evidence Checklist (if enabled)

All NFRs with MISSING or INCOMPLETE evidence listed
Owners assigned for evidence collection
Suggested evidence sources provided
Deadlines set for evidence collection

Updated Story File (if enabled and requested)

"NFR Assessment" section added to story markdown
Link to NFR assessment report included
Overall status and critical issues included
Gate status included

Quality Assurance

Accuracy Checks

All NFR categories assessed (none skipped)
All thresholds documented (defined or UNKNOWN)
All evidence sources documented (file paths, metric names)
Status classifications are deterministic and consistent
No false positives (status correctly assigned)
No false negatives (all issues identified)

Completeness Checks

All NFR categories covered (performance, security, reliability, maintainability, custom)
All evidence sources checked (test results, metrics, logs, CI results)
All status types used appropriately (PASS, CONCERNS, FAIL)
All NFRs with CONCERNS/FAIL have recommendations
All evidence gaps have owners and deadlines

Actionability Checks

Recommendations are specific (not generic)
Remediation steps are clear and actionable
Priorities are assigned (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
Effort estimates are provided (hours, days)
Owners are suggested (dev, ops, security)

Integration with BMad Artifacts

With tech-spec.md

Tech spec loaded for NFR requirements and thresholds
Performance targets extracted
Security requirements extracted
Reliability SLAs extracted
Architectural decisions considered

With test-design.md

Test design loaded for NFR test plan
Test priorities referenced (P0/P1/P2/P3)
Assessment aligned with planned NFR validation

With PRD.md

PRD loaded for product-level NFR context
User experience goals considered
Unstated requirements checked
Product-level SLAs referenced

Quality Gates Validation

Release Blocker (FAIL)

Critical NFR status checked (security, reliability)
Performance failures assessed for user impact
Release blocker flagged if critical NFR has FAIL status

PR Blocker (HIGH CONCERNS)

High-priority NFR status checked
Multiple CONCERNS assessed
PR blocker flagged if HIGH priority issues exist

Warning (CONCERNS)

Any NFR with CONCERNS status flagged
Missing or incomplete evidence documented
Warning issued to address before next release

Pass (PASS)

All NFRs have PASS status
No blockers or concerns exist
Ready for release confirmed

Non-Prescriptive Validation

NFR categories adapted to team needs
Thresholds appropriate for project context
Assessment criteria customized as needed
Teams can extend with custom NFR categories
Integration with external tools supported (New Relic, Datadog, SonarQube, JIRA)

Documentation and Communication

NFR assessment report is readable and well-formatted
Tables render correctly in markdown
Code blocks have proper syntax highlighting
Links are valid and accessible
Recommendations are clear and prioritized
Overall status is prominent and unambiguous
Executive summary provides quick understanding

Final Validation

All prerequisites met
All NFR categories assessed with evidence (or gaps documented)
No thresholds were guessed (all defined or UNKNOWN)
Status classifications are deterministic and justified
Quick wins identified for all CONCERNS/FAIL
Recommended actions are specific and actionable
Evidence gaps documented with owners and deadlines
NFR assessment report generated and saved
Gate YAML snippet generated (if enabled)
Evidence checklist generated (if enabled)
Workflow completed successfully

Sign-Off

NFR Assessment Status:

✅ PASS - All NFRs meet requirements, ready for release
⚠️ CONCERNS - Some NFRs have concerns, address before next release
❌ FAIL - Critical NFRs not met, BLOCKER for release

Next Actions:

If PASS ✅: Proceed to *gate workflow or release
If CONCERNS ⚠️: Address HIGH/CRITICAL issues, re-run *nfr-assess
If FAIL ❌: Resolve FAIL status NFRs, re-run *nfr-assess

Critical Issues: {COUNT} High Priority Issues: {COUNT} Concerns: {COUNT}

13 KiB Raw Blame History