Nw Quality Framework

Quality Framework

Commit Readiness Gates (11)

All pass before committing:

1. Active acceptance test passes (not skipped, not ignored)
2. All unit tests pass
3. All integration tests pass
4. All other enabled tests pass
5. Code formatting validation passes
6. Static analysis passes
7. Build validation passes (all projects)
8. No test skips in execution (ignores OK during progressive implementation)
9. Test count within behavior budget
10. No mocks inside hexagon
11. Business language in tests verified

Note: Reviewer approval (formerly Gate 12) and Testing Theater detection (formerly Gate 13) enforced at deliver-level Phase 4 (Adversarial Review via /nw-review), not per step.

Quality Gates by Category

• Architecture: all layers touched | integration points validated | stack proven E2E | pipeline functional
• Implementation: real functionality (not placeholders) | automated pipeline | happy path coverage | production patterns
• Business Value: meaningful user value | testable AC | measurable success metrics
• Real Data: golden masters present | edge cases tested | no silent errors | API assumptions documented
• Test Integrity: every test falsifiable | behavioral assertions only | no circular verification | no mock-dominated tests | no assertion-free tests | no fixture theater (see below)

Testing Theater Pattern 8: Fixture Theater

Definition: Acceptance tests pass because test fixtures create the expected end-state directly, rather than exercising production code through the driving port. Tests verify the correct outcome from the WRONG source.

Detection: After GREEN phase, run git diff --name-only. If files_to_modify from the roadmap step have NO changes but tests flipped from RED to GREEN, this is Fixture Theater. The test fixtures are implementing the feature, not production code.

Litmus test: Delete the new production code (or revert production files to pre-GREEN state). If tests still pass, it's Fixture Theater.

Prevention:

1. Post-GREEN wiring check: every file in files_to_modify MUST appear in git diff
2. Acceptance test Given steps set up PRECONDITIONS, never the expected end-state
3. If git diff --stat shows only test files changed after GREEN, BLOCK the COMMIT

Extension Justification (Mandate against Parallel Implementations)

Provenance: 2026-05-02, RCA docs/analysis/rca-systematic-duplication-despite-design.md. Outcomes-registry catches duplicate outcomes (same input/output contract). It does NOT catch the failure mode where a NEW outcome is genuinely different but should have extended an existing component instead of being shipped as a parallel implementation in a new file.

This rule is language-agnostic: it applies to any source file regardless of host language. Examples in this section use multiple languages to underscore that.

Rule: before creating a NEW source file under a path that already contains ≥1 file in the same role/layer, the crafter MUST emit an Extension Justification block. The block has exactly four lines:

WHY-NEW-FILE: <relative-path-of-new-file>
  CLOSEST-EXISTING: <relative-path-of-the-most-similar-existing-file>
  EXTENSION-COST: <one sentence on what extending CLOSEST-EXISTING would require>
  PARALLEL-RATIONALE: <one sentence on why a separate file is justified instead>

Trigger: applies when ANY of these are true for the proposed new file:

• The parent directory exists and has ≥1 sibling file in the same architectural role (e.g. new domain/rules/e3b_cherry_pick.<ext> when e3_non_empty.<ext> exists; or new internal/handlers/login.go when signup.go exists; or new src/services/Email.cs when Sms.cs exists)
• The new file's dependency surface (top imports / use / require / using / include / import) overlaps an existing sibling by ≥50%
• The new file's primary class/function naming follows a sibling pattern (E3Rule ↔ E3bRule, LoginHandler ↔ SignupHandler, EmailService ↔ SmsService, PgRepository ↔ MysqlRepository)

Not triggered when:

• Parent directory is empty (greenfield — no extension candidate exists)
• The new file is a language-mandated boilerplate marker with no behavior of its own — examples by language: Python __init__.py / conftest.py; Go doc.go; Rust mod.rs; TypeScript index.ts re-export shim; Ruby version.rb; Java/Kotlin empty package-info.java. The rule of thumb: if removing the file's contents (keeping the empty file) leaves the package importable, it is a marker — not a component.
• The new file is in a path explicitly listed in the DESIGN wave's component table with rationale already captured

Enforcement: the crafter's PREPARE phase MUST inventory existing files in <target-path>/ before producing the first file-write. If the inventory is non-empty for a target path AND the new file is not a marker per the exclusion above, the Extension Justification block is mandatory before each new-file write. Reviewer agents flag missing blocks as a HIGH severity finding.

Self-test for the rationale: a valid PARALLEL-RATIONALE answers the question "what would break or what would become awkward if this lived inside CLOSEST-EXISTING?". Non-answers like "different concern", "cleaner separation", "single responsibility" are rejected — those are the phrases a parallel-creation bias produces without effort. Concrete answers cite at least one of: incompatible interface/signature, different lifecycle (init order, hot-reload, deployment unit), incompatible dependency set, divergent target/runtime (e.g. server-side vs client-side, native vs WASM), or DESIGN-table-recorded boundary that already adjudicated the split.

Why this is a discipline rule, not a structural detector: structural detectors (call-graph + body-shape match) live in project tsunami and are language-aware by design. Extension Justification is the cheap behavioral nudge that runs at WRITE-time on any LLM-driven crafter regardless of target language. The block makes the bias visible to the reviewer; it does NOT block the write. If the rationale is weak, the reviewer catches it at Phase 4 (Adversarial Review).

Build and Test Protocol

After every TDD cycle, Mikado leaf, or atomic transformation:

# 1. BUILD
dotnet build --configuration Release --no-restore

# 2. TEST
dotnet test --configuration Release --no-build --verbosity minimal

# 2.5. QUALITY VALIDATION (before committing)
# - Edge cases tested (null, empty, malformed, boundary)
# - No silent error handling (all errors logged/alerted)
# - Real data golden masters included where applicable
# - API assumptions documented

# 3. COMMIT (if tests pass)
# Use appropriate format below

# 4. ROLLBACK (if tests fail)
git reset --hard HEAD^  # Maintain 100% green discipline

For commit message formats, load the collaboration-and-handoffs skill.

Validation Checkpoints

• Pre-work: all tests passing | code smell detection complete | execution plan created
• During work: atomic transformation safety | 100% test pass rate | commit after each step | level sequence adherence
• Post-work: quality metrics quantified | architectural compliance validated | test suite integrity maintained

Quality Metrics

Track: cyclomatic complexity (reduction) | maintainability index (improvement) | technical debt ratio (reduction) | test coverage (maintenance) | test effectiveness (75-80% mutation kill rate at Phase 2.25) | code smells (systematic elimination across 22 types).

For mutation testing integration, load the property-based-testing skill.

Object Calisthenics (Application + Domain Layers)

9 design constraints for clean OOP code in the hexagonal core (Jeff Bay, ThoughtWorks Anthology). Apply during GREEN and COMMIT phases.

Rules

Rule 9 Relaxation Policy

Getters are acceptable in these cases:

• DTOs/response objects at port boundaries (serialization needs)
• CQRS read models (query-optimized projections)
• Value objects with computed properties (e.g., Money.amount)
• Framework requirements (ORM mapping, serialization)

Rule 9 applies strictly to domain entities and application services. Behavior through commands, not data access.

Scope

• Applies to: Domain layer, Application layer (inside the hexagon)
• Does NOT apply to: Adapters, infrastructure, DTOs, configuration
• Enforcement phase: GREEN (writing new code) + COMMIT (refactoring)

Dimension 9: Environmental Realism

9a: WS Strategy Audit

• Is the WS strategy declared in wave-decisions.md? (A/B/C/D)
• Does the WS implementation match the declared strategy?
• For strategies B/D: is CI configured to run with real adapters?

9b: Adapter Coverage Audit (Structured Table)

For EVERY driven port adapter, complete this table:

If "Covered By" is empty for any row, the test suite has a blind spot. Flag as HIGH.

9d: Test Double Input Validation Audit

For EVERY InMemory test double, verify it validates inputs like the real adapter:

If any cell is NO, the test double is a liar — it accepts inputs the real adapter rejects. Flag as HIGH.

A permissive test double creates invisible wiring bugs: tests pass, production crashes.

9c: External Boundary Audit

For EVERY external system (subprocess, API, DB):

• Is there a contract or smoke test?
• Is it in CI or local-only?
• What is the cost per run?

Consequence rules:

• No contract or smoke test for an external system → flag as HIGH
• Contract test is local-only for a CI-triggered adapter → flag as HIGH
• Cost per run undocumented → flag as MEDIUM