- 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>
6.1 KiB
name, description, nextStepFile, qualityChecklist
| name | description | nextStepFile | qualityChecklist |
|---|---|---|---|
| step-07-quality-review | Self-review all scenarios against the quality rubric | ./step-08-update-design-log.md | ../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:
- Identify which scenario(s) fail which checks
- Go back to the scenario file and fix the specific gaps
- 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.