Greg fa8acef423 Epic 1, Story 1.1: Project Initialization & Repository Setup
- Initialize Git repository with main branch
- Create comprehensive .gitignore for Node.js, React, and environment files
- Set up directory structure (frontend/, backend/, docs/)
- Create detailed README.md with project overview and setup instructions
- Add .env.example with all required environment variables
- Configure Prettier for consistent code formatting

All acceptance criteria met:
 Git repository initialized with appropriate .gitignore
 Directory structure matches Technical Assumptions
 README.md created with project overview and setup docs
 .env.example file with all required environment variables
 Prettier config files added for code formatting consistency

🤖 Generated with Claude Code (https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2025-12-01 15:12:30 +01:00

7.4 KiB

/nfr-assess Task

When this command is used, execute the following task:

nfr-assess

Quick NFR validation focused on the core four: security, performance, reliability, maintainability.

Inputs

required:
  - story_id: '{epic}.{story}' # e.g., "1.3"
  - story_path: `.bmad-core/core-config.yaml` for the `devStoryLocation`

optional:
  - architecture_refs: `.bmad-core/core-config.yaml` for the `architecture.architectureFile`
  - technical_preferences: `.bmad-core/core-config.yaml` for the `technicalPreferences`
  - acceptance_criteria: From story file

Purpose

Assess non-functional requirements for a story and generate:

  1. YAML block for the gate file's nfr_validation section
  2. Brief markdown assessment saved to qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md

Process

0. Fail-safe for Missing Inputs

If story_path or story file can't be found:

  • Still create assessment file with note: "Source story not found"
  • Set all selected NFRs to CONCERNS with notes: "Target unknown / evidence missing"
  • Continue with assessment to provide value

1. Elicit Scope

Interactive mode: Ask which NFRs to assess Non-interactive mode: Default to core four (security, performance, reliability, maintainability)

Which NFRs should I assess? (Enter numbers or press Enter for default)
[1] Security (default)
[2] Performance (default)
[3] Reliability (default)
[4] Maintainability (default)
[5] Usability
[6] Compatibility
[7] Portability
[8] Functional Suitability

> [Enter for 1-4]

2. Check for Thresholds

Look for NFR requirements in:

  • Story acceptance criteria
  • docs/architecture/*.md files
  • docs/technical-preferences.md

Interactive mode: Ask for missing thresholds Non-interactive mode: Mark as CONCERNS with "Target unknown"

No performance requirements found. What's your target response time?
> 200ms for API calls

No security requirements found. Required auth method?
> JWT with refresh tokens

Unknown targets policy: If a target is missing and not provided, mark status as CONCERNS with notes: "Target unknown"

3. Quick Assessment

For each selected NFR, check:

  • Is there evidence it's implemented?
  • Can we validate it?
  • Are there obvious gaps?

4. Generate Outputs

Output 1: Gate YAML Block

Generate ONLY for NFRs actually assessed (no placeholders):

# Gate YAML (copy/paste):
nfr_validation:
  _assessed: [security, performance, reliability, maintainability]
  security:
    status: CONCERNS
    notes: 'No rate limiting on auth endpoints'
  performance:
    status: PASS
    notes: 'Response times < 200ms verified'
  reliability:
    status: PASS
    notes: 'Error handling and retries implemented'
  maintainability:
    status: CONCERNS
    notes: 'Test coverage at 65%, target is 80%'

Deterministic Status Rules

  • FAIL: Any selected NFR has critical gap or target clearly not met
  • CONCERNS: No FAILs, but any NFR is unknown/partial/missing evidence
  • PASS: All selected NFRs meet targets with evidence

Quality Score Calculation

quality_score = 100
- 20 for each FAIL attribute
- 10 for each CONCERNS attribute
Floor at 0, ceiling at 100

If technical-preferences.md defines custom weights, use those instead.

Output 2: Brief Assessment Report

ALWAYS save to: qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md

# NFR Assessment: {epic}.{story}

Date: {date}
Reviewer: Quinn

<!-- Note: Source story not found (if applicable) -->

## Summary

- Security: CONCERNS - Missing rate limiting
- Performance: PASS - Meets <200ms requirement
- Reliability: PASS - Proper error handling
- Maintainability: CONCERNS - Test coverage below target

## Critical Issues

1. **No rate limiting** (Security)
   - Risk: Brute force attacks possible
   - Fix: Add rate limiting middleware to auth endpoints

2. **Test coverage 65%** (Maintainability)
   - Risk: Untested code paths
   - Fix: Add tests for uncovered branches

## Quick Wins

- Add rate limiting: ~2 hours
- Increase test coverage: ~4 hours
- Add performance monitoring: ~1 hour

Output 3: Story Update Line

End with this line for the review task to quote:

NFR assessment: qa.qaLocation/assessments/{epic}.{story}-nfr-{YYYYMMDD}.md

Output 4: Gate Integration Line

Always print at the end:

Gate NFR block ready → paste into qa.qaLocation/gates/{epic}.{story}-{slug}.yml under nfr_validation

Assessment Criteria

Security

PASS if:

  • Authentication implemented
  • Authorization enforced
  • Input validation present
  • No hardcoded secrets

CONCERNS if:

  • Missing rate limiting
  • Weak encryption
  • Incomplete authorization

FAIL if:

  • No authentication
  • Hardcoded credentials
  • SQL injection vulnerabilities

Performance

PASS if:

  • Meets response time targets
  • No obvious bottlenecks
  • Reasonable resource usage

CONCERNS if:

  • Close to limits
  • Missing indexes
  • No caching strategy

FAIL if:

  • Exceeds response time limits
  • Memory leaks
  • Unoptimized queries

Reliability

PASS if:

  • Error handling present
  • Graceful degradation
  • Retry logic where needed

CONCERNS if:

  • Some error cases unhandled
  • No circuit breakers
  • Missing health checks

FAIL if:

  • No error handling
  • Crashes on errors
  • No recovery mechanisms

Maintainability

PASS if:

  • Test coverage meets target
  • Code well-structured
  • Documentation present

CONCERNS if:

  • Test coverage below target
  • Some code duplication
  • Missing documentation

FAIL if:

  • No tests
  • Highly coupled code
  • No documentation

Quick Reference

What to Check

security:
  - Authentication mechanism
  - Authorization checks
  - Input validation
  - Secret management
  - Rate limiting

performance:
  - Response times
  - Database queries
  - Caching usage
  - Resource consumption

reliability:
  - Error handling
  - Retry logic
  - Circuit breakers
  - Health checks
  - Logging

maintainability:
  - Test coverage
  - Code structure
  - Documentation
  - Dependencies

Key Principles

  • Focus on the core four NFRs by default
  • Quick assessment, not deep analysis
  • Gate-ready output format
  • Brief, actionable findings
  • Skip what doesn't apply
  • Deterministic status rules for consistency
  • Unknown targets → CONCERNS, not guesses

Appendix: ISO 25010 Reference

Full ISO 25010 Quality Model (click to expand)

All 8 Quality Characteristics

  1. Functional Suitability: Completeness, correctness, appropriateness
  2. Performance Efficiency: Time behavior, resource use, capacity
  3. Compatibility: Co-existence, interoperability
  4. Usability: Learnability, operability, accessibility
  5. Reliability: Maturity, availability, fault tolerance
  6. Security: Confidentiality, integrity, authenticity
  7. Maintainability: Modularity, reusability, testability
  8. Portability: Adaptability, installability

Use these when assessing beyond the core four.

Example: Deep Performance Analysis (click to expand)
performance_deep_dive:
  response_times:
    p50: 45ms
    p95: 180ms
    p99: 350ms
  database:
    slow_queries: 2
    missing_indexes: ['users.email', 'orders.user_id']
  caching:
    hit_rate: 0%
    recommendation: 'Add Redis for session data'
  load_test:
    max_rps: 150
    breaking_point: 200 rps