docs: update all documentation and add AI tooling configs
- Rewrite README.md with current architecture, features and stack - Update docs/API.md with all current endpoints (corporate, BI, client 360) - Update docs/ARCHITECTURE.md with cache, modular queries, services, ETL - Update docs/GUIA-USUARIO.md for all roles (admin, corporate, agente) - Add docs/INDEX.md documentation index - Add PROJETO.md comprehensive project reference - Add BI-CCC-Implementation-Guide.md - Include AI agent configs (.claude, .agents, .gemini, _bmad) - Add netbird VPN configuration - Add status report Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: step-07-quality-review
|
||||
description: Self-review all scenarios against the quality rubric
|
||||
|
||||
# File References
|
||||
nextStepFile: './step-08-update-design-log.md'
|
||||
|
||||
# Data References
|
||||
qualityChecklist: '../data/quality-checklist.md'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Step 7: Quality Review
|
||||
|
||||
## STEP GOAL:
|
||||
|
||||
Self-review all scenarios against the quality rubric across four dimensions (completeness, quality criteria, mistakes avoided, best practices), fix any failing items, and present a review summary.
|
||||
|
||||
## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
|
||||
|
||||
### Universal Rules:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
|
||||
- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
|
||||
- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
|
||||
- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
|
||||
- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
|
||||
|
||||
### Role Reinforcement:
|
||||
|
||||
- ✅ You are a UX Scenario Facilitator collaborating with the project owner
|
||||
- ✅ If you already have been given a name, communication_style and identity, continue to use those while playing this new role
|
||||
- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
|
||||
- ✅ You bring scenario thinking and user journey expertise, user brings their project knowledge, together we create concrete UX scenario outlines
|
||||
- ✅ Maintain collaborative equal-partner tone throughout
|
||||
|
||||
### Step-Specific Rules:
|
||||
|
||||
- 🎯 Focus only on reviewing quality against the rubric — no new content creation
|
||||
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to skip any dimension of the quality review
|
||||
- 💬 Approach: Be honest and thorough in self-review, fix gaps before proceeding
|
||||
- 📋 Present clear summary with scores for each scenario
|
||||
|
||||
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
|
||||
|
||||
- 📖 Load the full quality checklist before starting review
|
||||
- ✅ Score each scenario across all four dimensions
|
||||
- 🔧 Fix any failing items before presenting summary
|
||||
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to proceed if minimum thresholds are not met
|
||||
|
||||
## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
|
||||
|
||||
- Available context: All completed scenario outlines and overview file
|
||||
- Focus: Quality verification and gap remediation
|
||||
- Limits: Only fix quality issues, do not add new scenarios
|
||||
- Dependencies: All scenarios and overview must be complete from Steps 5-6
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequence of Instructions (Do not deviate, skip, or optimize)
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Load Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Load the full checklist: `{qualityChecklist}`
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Review Each Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
For **each scenario**, verify these four dimensions:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Dimension 1: Completeness (7 components)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Core Feature defined (aligned to business goal)
|
||||
- [ ] Entry Point realistic (device + context + discovery)
|
||||
- [ ] Mental State with Trigger/Hope/Worry (all three specific)
|
||||
- [ ] Success Goals mutual (business + user, both measurable)
|
||||
- [ ] Shortest Path linear (numbered steps, zero branches)
|
||||
- [ ] Scenario Name includes persona name + ID assigned
|
||||
- [ ] Trigger Map Connections explicit (persona, forces, goal)
|
||||
|
||||
**Score: [X]/7**
|
||||
|
||||
#### Dimension 2: Quality Criteria (7 checks)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Persona-specific (not generic "user")
|
||||
- [ ] Mental state is visceral (not "interested" or "curious")
|
||||
- [ ] Both successes are measurable (not "get more customers")
|
||||
- [ ] Path has zero "if" statements
|
||||
- [ ] Minimum viable steps (each step justifies existence)
|
||||
- [ ] Entry point is realistic (not "user opens app")
|
||||
- [ ] Business goal connection is explicit (not assumed)
|
||||
|
||||
**Score: [X]/7**
|
||||
|
||||
#### Dimension 3: Mistakes Avoided (6 checks)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No edge cases in sunshine path
|
||||
- [ ] Goal-first, not feature-first naming
|
||||
- [ ] Mental state present (not just actions)
|
||||
- [ ] Page descriptions include purpose (not just page name)
|
||||
- [ ] Uses Trigger Map persona (not invented user)
|
||||
- [ ] Business value explicitly defined
|
||||
|
||||
**Score: [X]/6 avoided**
|
||||
|
||||
#### Dimension 4: Best Practices (4 checks)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Scenario named after persona
|
||||
- [ ] Started with highest-value persona
|
||||
- [ ] One job-to-be-done per scenario
|
||||
- [ ] Driving forces explicitly linked
|
||||
|
||||
**Score: [X]/4**
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Check Thresholds
|
||||
|
||||
**Minimum (must meet to proceed):**
|
||||
- Completeness: 6/7
|
||||
- Quality: 5/7
|
||||
- Mistakes avoided: 6/6 (all must be avoided)
|
||||
- Best practices: 2/4
|
||||
|
||||
**Excellent:**
|
||||
- All scores maxed
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Fix Failing Items
|
||||
|
||||
If any scenario fails:
|
||||
1. Identify which scenario(s) fail which checks
|
||||
2. Go back to the scenario file and fix the specific gaps
|
||||
3. Re-verify after fixing
|
||||
|
||||
**If still failing after corrections:** Note remaining gaps and present to user for guidance.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Present Review Summary
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Quality Review Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenarios Reviewed:** [N]
|
||||
|
||||
| Scenario | Complete | Quality | Mistakes | Practices | Status |
|
||||
|----------|----------|---------|----------|-----------|--------|
|
||||
| 01 | 7/7 | 7/7 | 6/6 | 4/4 | ✅ Excellent |
|
||||
| 02 | 7/7 | 6/7 | 6/6 | 3/4 | ✅ Good |
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall:** [Excellent / Good / Needs Work]
|
||||
**Gaps:** [list any, or "None"]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Present MENU OPTIONS
|
||||
|
||||
Display: "Are you ready to [C] Continue to Updating the Design Log?"
|
||||
|
||||
#### Menu Handling Logic:
|
||||
|
||||
- IF C: Load, read entire file, then execute {nextStepFile}
|
||||
|
||||
#### EXECUTION RULES:
|
||||
|
||||
- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
|
||||
- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
|
||||
- After other menu items execution, return to this menu
|
||||
- User can chat or ask questions - always respond and then end with display again of the menu options
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
|
||||
|
||||
ONLY WHEN [C continue option] is selected and [all scenarios meet minimum quality thresholds], will you then load and read fully `{nextStepFile}` to execute and begin updating the design log.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ SUCCESS:
|
||||
|
||||
- All scenarios reviewed across all four dimensions
|
||||
- Quality checklist loaded and applied thoroughly
|
||||
- Failing items identified and fixed before proceeding
|
||||
- Clear summary with scores presented to user
|
||||
- All scenarios meet minimum quality thresholds
|
||||
- Menu presented and user input handled correctly
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
|
||||
|
||||
- Skipping any review dimension
|
||||
- Not loading the quality checklist
|
||||
- Proceeding with scenarios below minimum thresholds
|
||||
- Not presenting the review summary
|
||||
- Rubber-stamping without thorough checking
|
||||
|
||||
**Master Rule:** Skipping steps, optimizing sequences, or not following exact instructions is FORBIDDEN and constitutes SYSTEM FAILURE.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user