Initial commit

2025-11-29 18:01:30 +08:00
commit 9c0b92f025
39 changed files with 9512 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/prd-authoring/examples/workflow-test-log.md
+++ b/prd-authoring/examples/workflow-test-log.md
@@ -0,0 +1,428 @@
+# PRD Authoring Workflow - Test Results
+
+## Test Date: 2025-11-04
+
+## Test Environment
+- Project: payment-gateway-integration
+- Location: /tmp/test-prd-authoring
+
+## Test Scenario 1: Complete Happy Path Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Status Command (No Projects)
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh status
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Correctly identified no projects exist
+- Recommended running `brief` command
+- Provided correct next command
+
+### Step 2: Brief Command
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh brief "Payment Gateway Integration"
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Created directory: `docs/prds/payment-gateway-integration/`
+- Created file: `product-brief.md` with proper YAML frontmatter
+- Kebab-cased project name correctly
+- Template included all required sections:
+  - Problem Statement
+  - Target Users
+  - Proposed Solution
+  - Value Proposition
+  - Success Metrics
+
+### Step 3: Status Command (Brief Created)
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh status payment-gateway-integration
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Detected brief exists
+- Validated brief completeness (all required sections present)
+- Status: "Brief Complete"
+- Recommended running `research` command
+
+### Step 4: Research Command
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh research payment-gateway-integration
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Created file: `research.md` with YAML frontmatter
+- Template included all sections:
+  - Competitive Analysis (3 competitor templates)
+  - Market Insights
+  - User Feedback Analysis
+  - Technical Considerations
+  - Recommendations
+
+### Step 5: Status Command (Research Created)
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh status payment-gateway-integration
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Detected both brief and research exist
+- Validated completeness
+- Status: "Research Phase"
+- Recommended running `create-prd` command
+
+### Step 6: Create PRD Command
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh create-prd payment-gateway-integration
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Created file: `prd.md` with comprehensive template
+- YAML frontmatter present
+- All major sections included:
+  - Objectives (Primary and Secondary)
+  - Success Criteria (Launch, Metrics, Stretch Goals)
+  - Functional Requirements (numbered FR1, FR2, etc.)
+  - Non-Functional Requirements (NFR1-6)
+  - Constraints
+  - Assumptions
+  - Out of Scope
+
+### Step 7: Validate PRD Command (Draft Mode)
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh validate-prd payment-gateway-integration --lenient
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED (Lenient Mode)
+- Detected incomplete PRD (template placeholders)
+- Warnings issued for vague language
+- Recommended completing sections
+- Lenient mode allowed template placeholders
+
+### Step 8: Validate PRD Command (Strict Mode - After Completion)
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh validate-prd payment-gateway-integration
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED (after populating PRD)
+- All required sections present
+- SMART criteria validated
+- Measurable success criteria detected
+- No critical issues found
+- Rating: "GOOD" (some minor warnings acceptable)
+
+### Step 9: Decompose Command
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh decompose payment-gateway-integration
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Created file: `epics.md`
+- Template included:
+  - Epic decomposition guidelines
+  - Epic templates (1-3 examples)
+  - Dependencies and sequencing section
+  - Requirements traceability matrix
+  - Sprint planning guidance
+
+### Step 10: Generate Spec Command
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh generate-spec payment-gateway-integration "Payment Processing Core"
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Created directory: `docs/changes/payment-processing-core/`
+- Created files:
+  - `proposal.md` (Epic scope and objectives)
+  - `spec-delta.md` (Technical specifications)
+  - `tasks.md` (Initial task breakdown)
+- All files properly linked back to PRD and epic
+
+---
+
+## Test Scenario 2: Edge Cases and Error Handling
+
+### Test 2.1: Missing docs/prds Directory
+```bash
+$ rm -rf docs/prds
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh status
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Error message: "Error: docs/prds/ directory does not exist."
+- Helpful guidance: "Please create it first: mkdir -p docs/prds"
+- Non-zero exit code
+
+### Test 2.2: Brief Already Exists
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh brief "Payment Gateway Integration"
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh brief "Payment Gateway Integration"
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Error message: "Error: Product brief already exists"
+- File not overwritten
+- Suggested using different name or editing existing
+
+### Test 2.3: Research Without Brief
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh research nonexistent-project
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Error: "Error: Project directory 'docs/prds/nonexistent-project' does not exist."
+- Recommended: "Run 'brief' command first"
+
+### Test 2.4: Create PRD Without Prerequisites
+```bash
+$ mkdir -p docs/prds/incomplete-project
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh create-prd incomplete-project
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Detected missing product brief
+- Error: "Run 'brief' command first to create the product brief."
+
+### Test 2.5: Create PRD Without Research (Warning)
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh brief "No Research Project"
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh create-prd no-research-project
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Warning: "Research document not found. PRD quality may be reduced."
+- Prompted for confirmation: "Continue anyway? (y/n)"
+- Allowed proceeding with 'y' but discouraged it
+
+### Test 2.6: Validate PRD That Doesn't Exist
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh validate-prd nonexistent-project
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Error: "Error: PRD not found"
+- Recommended: "Run 'create-prd' command first"
+
+### Test 2.7: Decompose Without Complete PRD
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh decompose payment-gateway-integration
+```
+(With incomplete/template PRD)
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Warning: "PRD appears incomplete"
+- Recommended running validate-prd first
+- Still allowed decomposition (user judgment)
+
+### Test 2.8: Generate Spec for Non-existent Epic
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh generate-spec payment-gateway-integration "Nonexistent Epic"
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Warning: "Could not find epic 'Nonexistent Epic' in epics.md"
+- Generated generic template anyway
+- User responsible for populating manually
+
+### Test 2.9: Generate Spec When Spec Already Exists
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh generate-spec payment-gateway-integration "Payment Processing Core"
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh generate-spec payment-gateway-integration "Payment Processing Core"
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Error: "Spec proposal directory already exists"
+- Suggested using different name or deleting existing
+- Files not overwritten
+
+### Test 2.10: Invalid Project Name Characters
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh brief "Test@#$%Project!"
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Sanitized to kebab-case: "testproject"
+- Special characters removed
+- Valid directory created
+
+---
+
+## Test Scenario 3: Validation Quality Checks
+
+### Test 3.1: Vague Language Detection
+Created PRD with vague terms: "should", "might", "probably", "good", "fast"
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Validation detected all vague terms
+- Listed line numbers where issues occurred
+- Provided suggestions for making language specific
+- Example warnings:
+  - "Line 45: Contains 'should' - be more specific"
+  - "Line 67: Contains 'fast' - provide numeric target"
+
+### Test 3.2: Unmeasurable Success Criteria
+Created PRD with qualitative success criteria: "improve user experience", "better performance"
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Validation flagged unmeasurable criteria
+- Suggested adding numeric targets
+- Example: "improve UX" → "task completion rate > 85%"
+
+### Test 3.3: Missing Required Sections
+Created PRD without "Assumptions" section
+
+**Result**: PASSED (Strict Mode)
+- Error: "Missing required section: ## Assumptions"
+- Validation failed with recommendation to add section
+
+**Result**: PASSED (Lenient Mode)
+- Warning: "Missing section: ## Assumptions (lenient mode)"
+- Validation passed but noted improvement needed
+
+### Test 3.4: Well-Formed PRD
+Created PRD with:
+- All sections present
+- Specific, measurable requirements
+- SMART objectives
+- Clear acceptance criteria
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Validation: "EXCELLENT ✓"
+- "PRD meets all quality standards"
+- Zero issues, zero warnings
+
+---
+
+## Test Scenario 4: Command Variations
+
+### Test 4.1: Status Command Without Project Name
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh status
+```
+(With multiple projects)
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Listed all projects in docs/prds/
+- Suggested running status with specific project name
+
+### Test 4.2: Validate PRD Lenient Mode
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh validate-prd payment-gateway-integration --lenient
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Lenient mode enabled
+- Warnings instead of errors for missing sections
+- Useful for draft PRDs
+
+### Test 4.3: Invalid Command
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh invalid-command
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Error: "Unknown command 'invalid-command'"
+- Usage help displayed
+- Listed all valid commands
+
+### Test 4.4: Missing Required Argument
+```bash
+$ bash prd-authoring.sh brief
+```
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Error: "Project name not provided for 'brief' command"
+- Usage help: "Usage: $0 brief <project-name>"
+
+---
+
+## Test Scenario 5: Integration Tests
+
+### Test 5.1: Complete Workflow End-to-End
+Executed full workflow from status → brief → research → create-prd → validate-prd → decompose → generate-spec
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- All commands executed successfully
+- Each step built on previous
+- Final output: Complete spec proposal ready for development
+- Traceability maintained: spec → epic → PRD → brief
+
+### Test 5.2: Parallel Projects
+Created two separate projects:
+1. payment-gateway-integration
+2. mobile-app-redesign
+
+**Result**: PASSED
+- Both projects coexist independently
+- Status command lists both
+- No cross-contamination of data
+- Proper isolation in separate directories
+
+---
+
+## Test Scenario 6: Validation Accuracy
+
+### Test 6.1: YAML Frontmatter Validation
+- Missing frontmatter: FAILED validation ✓
+- Incomplete frontmatter: WARNING issued ✓
+- Proper frontmatter: PASSED ✓
+
+### Test 6.2: Section Completeness
+- All sections present: PASSED ✓
+- Missing Objectives: FAILED ✓
+- Missing Success Criteria: FAILED ✓
+- Missing Constraints: FAILED (strict) / WARNING (lenient) ✓
+
+### Test 6.3: Requirements Quality
+- Specific acceptance criteria: PASSED ✓
+- Vague requirements: WARNED ✓
+- Missing acceptance criteria: WARNED ✓
+- Unnumbered requirements: WARNED ✓
+
+---
+
+## Summary of Test Results
+
+### Commands Tested: 7/7 PASSED
+1. ✓ status - Works with and without project name
+2. ✓ brief - Creates template with proper structure
+3. ✓ research - Generates comprehensive research template
+4. ✓ create-prd - Creates full PRD template
+5. ✓ validate-prd - Detects quality issues accurately
+6. ✓ decompose - Generates epic breakdown template
+7. ✓ generate-spec - Creates spec proposal structure
+
+### Edge Cases Tested: 10/10 PASSED
+1. ✓ Missing directories - Proper error messages
+2. ✓ Duplicate files - Prevents overwriting
+3. ✓ Missing prerequisites - Clear guidance provided
+4. ✓ Invalid project names - Sanitization works correctly
+5. ✓ Incomplete documents - Warnings appropriate
+6. ✓ Invalid commands - Help text displayed
+7. ✓ Missing arguments - Usage guidance provided
+8. ✓ Parallel projects - Proper isolation
+9. ✓ Validation modes - Strict and lenient work as expected
+10. ✓ Epic generation - Handles missing epics gracefully
+
+### Validation Quality: EXCELLENT
+- Detects vague language accurately
+- Identifies unmeasurable criteria
+- Checks section completeness
+- SMART criteria validation working
+- Both strict and lenient modes functional
+
+### Overall Assessment: ALL TESTS PASSED ✓
+
+The prd-authoring skill is production-ready with:
+- Complete functionality for all commands
+- Robust error handling for edge cases
+- Clear, actionable error messages
+- Proper validation of document quality
+- Helpful guidance at each step
+- Maintains traceability throughout workflow
+
+## Recommendations
+
+1. **Documentation**: Add examples to SKILL.md showing this workflow
+2. **Troubleshooting**: Document common errors and solutions
+3. **Edge Cases**: Add more examples of error scenarios to documentation
+4. **User Guidance**: Consider adding more inline help in templates