Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:46:50 +08:00
commit a3a73d67d7
67 changed files with 19703 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/summoner/References/quality-gates.md
+++ b/skills/summoner/References/quality-gates.md
@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+# Quality Gates Checklist
+
+This document provides detailed quality gates for validating work at task, phase, and project levels.
+
+---
+
+## Task-Level Quality Gates
+
+Run these checks after completing each individual task:
+
+### ✅ Functional Requirements
+- [ ] All specified outputs delivered
+- [ ] Functionality works as described
+- [ ] Edge cases handled
+- [ ] Error cases handled gracefully
+- [ ] No regression in existing functionality
+
+### ✅ Code Quality
+- [ ] Code is readable and self-documenting
+- [ ] Variable/function names are meaningful
+- [ ] No magic numbers or strings
+- [ ] No commented-out code (unless explicitly documented why)
+- [ ] Consistent code style with project
+
+### ✅ DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
+- [ ] No duplicated logic
+- [ ] Shared functionality extracted to utilities
+- [ ] Constants defined once, referenced everywhere
+- [ ] No copy-paste code blocks
+
+### ✅ Testing
+- [ ] Unit tests written for new code
+- [ ] Tests cover happy path
+- [ ] Tests cover edge cases
+- [ ] Tests cover error conditions
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] Test names clearly describe what they test
+
+### ✅ Documentation
+- [ ] Complex logic has explanatory comments
+- [ ] Public APIs documented (JSDoc, docstrings, etc.)
+- [ ] README updated if user-facing changes
+- [ ] Breaking changes documented
+
+---
+
+## Phase-Level Quality Gates
+
+Run these checks after completing a phase (group of related tasks):
+
+### ✅ Integration
+- [ ] All components integrate correctly
+- [ ] Data flows between components as expected
+- [ ] No integration bugs
+- [ ] APIs between components are clean
+- [ ] Interfaces are well-defined
+
+### ✅ CLEAN Principles
+- [ ] **C**lear: Code is easy to understand
+- [ ] **L**imited: Functions/methods have single responsibility
+- [ ] **E**xpressive: Naming reveals intent
+- [ ] **A**bstracted: Proper level of abstraction
+- [ ] **N**eat: Organized, well-structured code
+
+### ✅ Performance
+- [ ] No obvious performance issues
+- [ ] Efficient algorithms used
+- [ ] No unnecessary computations
+- [ ] Resources properly managed (memory, connections, etc.)
+- [ ] Meets stated performance requirements
+
+### ✅ Security
+- [ ] No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, Command, etc.)
+- [ ] Input validation in place
+- [ ] Output encoding where needed
+- [ ] Authentication/authorization checked
+- [ ] Sensitive data not logged or exposed
+- [ ] Dependencies have no known vulnerabilities
+
+---
+
+## Project-Level Quality Gates
+
+Run these checks before marking the entire project complete:
+
+### ✅ SOLID Principles
+
+#### Single Responsibility Principle
+- [ ] Each class/module has one reason to change
+- [ ] Each function does one thing well
+- [ ] No god objects or god functions
+- [ ] Responsibilities clearly separated
+
+#### Open/Closed Principle
+- [ ] Open for extension (can add new behavior)
+- [ ] Closed for modification (don't change existing code)
+- [ ] Use abstractions (interfaces, base classes) for extension points
+- [ ] Configuration over hardcoding
+
+#### Liskov Substitution Principle
+- [ ] Subtypes can replace base types without breaking
+- [ ] Derived classes don't weaken preconditions
+- [ ] Derived classes don't strengthen postconditions
+- [ ] Inheritance is "is-a" relationship, not "has-a"
+
+#### Interface Segregation Principle
+- [ ] Interfaces are focused and cohesive
+- [ ] No client forced to depend on methods it doesn't use
+- [ ] Many small interfaces > one large interface
+- [ ] Clients see only methods they need
+
+#### Dependency Inversion Principle
+- [ ] High-level modules don't depend on low-level modules
+- [ ] Both depend on abstractions
+- [ ] Abstractions don't depend on details
+- [ ] Details depend on abstractions
+- [ ] Dependencies injected, not hardcoded
+
+### ✅ Architecture Quality
+- [ ] Architecture supports future growth
+- [ ] Clear separation of concerns
+- [ ] Proper layering (presentation, business logic, data)
+- [ ] No architectural violations
+- [ ] Design patterns used appropriately
+
+### ✅ Testing Coverage
+- [ ] Unit test coverage meets threshold (e.g., 80%)
+- [ ] Integration tests for key workflows
+- [ ] E2E tests for critical user paths
+- [ ] All tests passing consistently
+- [ ] No flaky tests
+
+### ✅ Documentation Completeness
+- [ ] README is current and accurate
+- [ ] API documentation complete
+- [ ] Architecture documented
+- [ ] Setup/installation instructions clear
+- [ ] Troubleshooting guide if applicable
+- [ ] Inline documentation for complex code
+
+### ✅ Production Readiness
+- [ ] No breaking changes (or migration guide provided)
+- [ ] Error handling comprehensive
+- [ ] Logging appropriate (not too much, not too little)
+- [ ] Monitoring/observability in place
+- [ ] Configuration externalized
+- [ ] Secrets/credentials properly managed
+
+### ✅ User Impact
+- [ ] User-facing features work as expected
+- [ ] UX is intuitive
+- [ ] Error messages are helpful
+- [ ] Performance is acceptable to users
+- [ ] Accessibility considerations addressed (if applicable)
+
+---
+
+## Quality Gate Severity Levels
+
+When a quality gate fails, assess severity:
+
+### 🔴 Critical (MUST FIX)
+- Security vulnerabilities
+- Data loss or corruption
+- Breaking changes without migration path
+- Production crashes or errors
+- Major performance degradation
+
+### 🟡 Warning (SHOULD FIX)
+- SOLID principle violations
+- Missing tests for complex logic
+- Poor performance (but not critical)
+- Missing documentation
+- Code duplication
+
+### 🟢 Info (NICE TO FIX)
+- Minor style inconsistencies
+- Optimization opportunities
+- Refactoring suggestions
+- Documentation enhancements
+
+---
+
+## Remediation Process
+
+When quality gates fail:
+
+1. **Document the Issue**
+   - What gate failed
+   - Severity level
+   - Impact assessment
+
+2. **Create Remediation Task**
+   - Add to task index
+   - Assign to appropriate agent
+   - Provide context and acceptance criteria
+
+3. **Revalidate**
+   - After fix, re-run quality gate
+   - Ensure no new issues introduced
+   - Update MCD with results
+
+4. **Learn**
+   - Why did this get through?
+   - How to prevent in future?
+   - Update checklist if needed
+
+---
+
+## Automated Checks
+
+Where possible, automate quality gates:
+
+### Recommended Tools
+
+**Linting:**
+- ESLint (JavaScript/TypeScript)
+- Pylint/Flake8 (Python)
+- RuboCop (Ruby)
+- Clippy (Rust)
+
+**Testing:**
+- Jest, Vitest (JavaScript)
+- pytest (Python)
+- RSpec (Ruby)
+- cargo test (Rust)
+
+**Security:**
+- npm audit, yarn audit
+- Snyk
+- OWASP Dependency-Check
+- Trivy
+
+**Coverage:**
+- Istanbul/nyc (JavaScript)
+- Coverage.py (Python)
+- SimpleCov (Ruby)
+- Tarpaulin (Rust)
+
+**Type Checking:**
+- TypeScript
+- mypy (Python)
+- Sorbet (Ruby)
+
+---
+
+## Sign-Off Template
+
+```markdown
+## Quality Gate Sign-Off
+
+**Task/Phase/Project**: [Name]
+**Date**: [Date]
+**Reviewed By**: [Agent/Person]
+
+### Results
+- ✅ Functional Requirements: PASS
+- ✅ Code Quality: PASS
+- ✅ DRY: PASS
+- ✅ Testing: PASS
+- ✅ Documentation: PASS
+- ✅ SOLID Principles: PASS
+- ✅ Security: PASS
+- ✅ Performance: PASS
+
+### Issues Found
+- [None] OR
+- [Issue 1 - Severity - Status]
+- [Issue 2 - Severity - Status]
+
+### Recommendation
+- [ ] Approved - Ready to proceed
+- [ ] Approved with conditions - [List conditions]
+- [ ] Rejected - [List blockers]
+
+### Notes
+[Any additional notes or observations]
+```
+
+---
+
+**Remember: Quality is not negotiable. It's faster to build it right than to fix it later.**