Nw Ad Critique Dimensions

Acceptance Test Critique Dimensions

Load when performing peer review of acceptance tests (during *handoff-develop).

Dimension 1: Happy Path Bias

Pattern: Only successful scenarios, error paths missing.

Detection: Count success vs error scenarios. Error should be at least 40%. Missing coverage examples: login success but no invalid password | Payment processed but no decline/timeout | Search results but no empty/error cases.

Severity: blocker (production error handling untested).

Dimension 2: GWT Format Compliance

Pattern: Scenarios violate Given-When-Then structure.

Violations: Missing Given context | Multiple When actions (split into separate scenarios) | Then with technical assertions instead of business outcomes. Each scenario: Given (context), When (single action), Then (observable outcome).

Severity: high (tests not behavior-driven).

Dimension 3: Business Language Purity

Pattern: Technical terms leak into acceptance tests.

Flag: database, API, HTTP, REST, JSON, classes, methods, services, controllers, status codes (500, 404), infrastructure (Redis, Kafka, Lambda).

Business alternatives: "Customer data is stored" not "Database persists record" | "Order is confirmed" not "API returns 200 OK" | "Payment fails" not "Gateway throws exception"

Severity: high (tests coupled to implementation).

Dimension 4: Coverage Completeness

Pattern: User stories lack acceptance test coverage.

Validation: Map each story to scenarios | Verify all AC have corresponding tests | Confirm edge cases and boundaries tested.

Severity: blocker (unverified requirements).

Dimension 5: Walking Skeleton User-Centricity

Pattern: Walking skeletons describe technical layer connectivity instead of user value.

Detection litmus test for @walking_skeleton scenarios:

• Title describes user goal or technical flow?
• Then steps describe user observations or internal side effects?
• Could non-technical stakeholder confirm "yes, that is what users need"?

Violations: "End-to-end order flow through all layers" (technical framing) | Then "order row inserted in database" (internal side effects) | Given "database contains user record" instead of "customer has an account"

Severity: high (skeletons that only prove wiring miss the point -- first skeleton should be demo-able to stakeholder).

Dimension 6: Priority Validation

Pattern: Tests address secondary concerns while larger gaps exist.

Questions: 1. Is this the largest bottleneck? (timing data or gap analysis) | 2. Simpler alternatives considered? | 3. Constraint prioritization correct? | 4. Test design decisions data-justified?

Severity: blocker if wrong problem addressed, high if no measurement data.

Dimension 7: Observable Behavior Assertions

Pattern: Tests assert internal state or method calls instead of observable behavior.

For EVERY Then step in EVERY scenario, apply this mechanical checklist:

1. Does the assertion check a return value from a driving port call? YES = pass, NO = flag.
2. Does the assertion check an observable outcome (user sees X, system produces Y)? YES = pass, NO = flag.
3. Does the assertion check internal state, private fields, or method call counts? YES = REJECT the scenario.

Concrete violations to flag:

• assert mock_repo.save.called — asserts method call, not observable outcome
• assert len(db.query(Order).all()) == 1 — asserts internal DB state
• assert obj._internal_field == "value" — asserts private state
• assert os.path.exists("output.json") — asserts file existence (implementation detail)

Concrete passing assertions:

• assert result.is_confirmed() — observable business outcome
• assert result.order_number is not None — return value from driving port
• assert "confirmation" in customer_notification.subject — observable user outcome

Relationship to Dim 5 (Walking Skeleton User-Centricity):

• Dim 5 validates walking skeleton SCOPE (user goal framing vs technical layer framing)
• Dim 7 validates ASSERTION TYPE for ALL scenarios (walking skeletons AND focused scenarios)
• A scenario can pass Dim 5 (good user-centric framing) and fail Dim 7 (internal state assertions)

Severity: high (tests coupled to implementation break on refactoring).

Dimension 8: Traceability Coverage

Pattern: Scenarios exist without traceability to upstream wave artifacts.

Two mandatory traceability checks:

Check A — Story-to-Scenario mapping:

1. Read docs/feature/{feature-id}/discuss/user-stories.md
2. Extract ALL story IDs (e.g., US-01, US-02)
3. For EACH story ID, verify at least one scenario references it (via tag or comment)
4. Flag EVERY story ID with zero matching scenarios as BLOCKER

Check B — Environment-to-Scenario mapping:

1. Read docs/feature/{feature-id}/devops/environments.yaml
2. If missing, use defaults: clean, with-pre-commit, with-stale-config
3. For EACH environment, verify at least one walking skeleton includes a Given clause referencing that environment's preconditions
4. Flag EVERY environment with zero matching Given clauses as HIGH

What this dimension does NOT cover:

• KPI measurability — that is PO-reviewer scope during DELIVER post-merge gate
• Scenario quality — covered by Dims 1-7

Severity: blocker for Check A (untraceable requirements), high for Check B (untested environments).

Review Output Format

review_id: "accept_rev_{timestamp}"
reviewer: "acceptance-designer (review mode)"

strengths:
  - "{positive test design aspect with example}"

issues_identified:
  happy_path_bias:
    - issue: "Feature {name} only tests success"
      severity: "blocker"
      recommendation: "Add error scenarios: invalid input, timeout, service failure"

  gwt_format:
    - issue: "Scenario has multiple When actions"
      severity: "high"
      recommendation: "Split into separate scenarios"

  business_language:
    - issue: "Technical term '{term}' in scenario"
      severity: "high"
      recommendation: "Replace with: '{business alternative}'"

  coverage_gaps:
    - issue: "User story {US-ID} has no acceptance tests"
      severity: "blocker"
      recommendation: "Create scenarios for all AC of {US-ID}"

  walking_skeleton_centricity:
    - issue: "Walking skeleton '{name}' describes technical flow, not user goal"
      severity: "high"
      recommendation: "Reframe: title as user goal, Then steps as observable user outcomes"

  observable_behavior:
    - issue: "Scenario '{name}' Then step asserts internal state: {assertion}"
      severity: "high"
      recommendation: "Replace with observable outcome assertion: {alternative}"

  traceability_coverage:
    - issue: "Story {US-ID} has no matching scenario"
      severity: "blocker"
      recommendation: "Create at least one scenario tagged @{US-ID}"
    - issue: "Environment '{env}' has no matching Given clause in walking skeletons"
      severity: "high"
      recommendation: "Add walking skeleton with Given clause: 'Given a {env} environment with {preconditions}'"

  walking_skeleton_boundary:
    - issue: "WS uses @in-memory for a driven-internal/local resource adapter"
      severity: "blocker"
      recommendation: "Replace InMemory with real adapter (tmp_path, real subprocess) per the Architecture of Reference"
    - issue: "Driven adapter '{name}' has no real I/O integration test"
      severity: "blocker"
      recommendation: "Add integration test with real I/O for this adapter"

approval_status: "approved|rejected_pending_revisions|conditionally_approved"

Reviewer Scope Boundaries

The acceptance-designer-reviewer (Sentinel) owns Dimensions 1-9 during DISTILL.

Responsibilities that belong to OTHER reviewers (do NOT evaluate these):

• KPI measurability: PO-reviewer validates during DELIVER post-merge gate
• Infrastructure readiness: PA-reviewer validates during DEVOPS-to-DISTILL handoff
• Code quality: Software-crafter-reviewer validates during DELIVER Phase 4

If a finding touches KPI measurement or infrastructure readiness, tag it @escalate:{reviewer} in the review output and move on. Do NOT attempt to evaluate it.

Dimension 9: Walking Skeleton Boundary Proof

For walking skeleton scenarios, validate that the WS actually proves adapter wiring with real I/O.

9a: Port-Class Treatment Match

Does the WS implementation match the port-class defaults from the Architecture of Reference (nw-distill-port-treatment-policy)?

• Driven-internal/local-resource port uses @in-memory: BLOCKER
• Driven-external/costly port has no @requires_external marker: HIGH

9b: Adapter Integration Coverage

Does every driven adapter have a real I/O integration test?

• Missing adapter test: BLOCKER regardless of port treatment

9c: Walking Skeleton Fixture Tier

Walking skeleton fixtures — what adapter tier do they use?

• Litmus test: "If I deleted the real adapter, would this WS still pass?"
• If YES for a driven-internal/local-resource port: WS is testing InMemory, not wiring, and cannot observe the declared failure. REJECT.

9d: Fake-Cannot-Observe-Failure Detection

Grep for @in-memory on walking skeleton scenarios that exercise a driven-internal/local-resource port.

• If found: HIGH — WS claims real-I/O boundary proof but uses a fake that cannot observe the promised failure