# Quality Validation CLI Tool - Requirements Specification

**Document ID:** QUAL-REQ-001
**Version:** 1.0
**Date:** January 20, 2025
**Author:** Requirements Analysis Team
**Status:** APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT

---

## Executive Summary

The **Quality Validation CLI Tool** is a comprehensive, standalone utility that enables developers to validate the codebase quality of the snippet-pastebin React application across four critical dimensions: code quality metrics, test coverage effectiveness, architecture compliance, and security vulnerabilities. This tool serves as an automated gating mechanism that ensures code changes maintain or improve overall system health before merging to production.

### Key Objectives
1. Provide comprehensive code quality assessment across complexity, duplication, and style metrics
2. Validate test coverage adequacy and test effectiveness
3. Enforce architectural patterns and design compliance
4. Identify and report security and performance vulnerabilities
5. Generate actionable, developer-friendly reports with clear remediation guidance

---

## Problem Statement

The snippet-pastebin project currently lacks a unified mechanism to systematically validate code quality across multiple dimensions. Developers must manually run separate tools (ESLint, Jest, TypeScript), interpret fragmented results, and make subjective quality decisions. This leads to:

- **Inconsistent quality standards** - No single source of truth for acceptable code quality
- **Hidden technical debt** - Code complexity, duplication, and dependency issues remain undetected
- **Incomplete test validation** - Test coverage percentages don't indicate test quality or effectiveness
- **Architectural drift** - Design pattern violations and anti-patterns go unnoticed until late in development
- **Undetected vulnerabilities** - Security issues and performance problems aren't systematically identified
- **Delayed feedback loops** - Manual validation takes time, slowing development velocity
- **No historical trends** - Lack of data to track quality improvements or regressions over time

### Stakeholders Affected
- **Development Team** - Need clear, actionable quality feedback
- **Code Reviewers** - Need objective metrics to inform review decisions
- **Engineering Managers** - Need visibility into technical debt and quality trends
- **DevOps/CI-CD Engineers** - Need integration points for automated quality gates
- **Quality Assurance** - Need confidence that code meets quality standards before testing

---

## Proposed Solution

A standalone **Quality Validation CLI tool** that:

1. **Aggregates quality metrics** from multiple analysis sources into a unified report
2. **Provides intelligent grading** with thresholds for different quality levels
3. **Generates human-readable reports** with specific, actionable recommendations
4. **Integrates with CI/CD pipelines** for automated quality gates
5. **Tracks metrics over time** to identify trends and progress
6. **Offers multiple output formats** (console, JSON, HTML, CSV) for different use cases

### High-Level Architecture

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│          Quality Validation CLI Tool                         │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                              │
│  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐      │
│  │Code Quality  │  │Test Coverage │  │Architecture  │      │
│  │Analyzer      │  │Validator     │  │Checker       │      │
│  └──────────────┘  └──────────────┘  └──────────────┘      │
│         │                  │                  │             │
│         └──────────────────┼──────────────────┘             │
│                            │                                │
│                    ┌───────▼─────────┐                      │
│                    │Metrics Aggregator│                     │
│                    └───────┬─────────┘                      │
│                            │                                │
│                    ┌───────▼──────────┐                     │
│                    │Scoring Engine    │                     │
│                    │(Grade Calculation)                     │
│                    └───────┬──────────┘                     │
│                            │                                │
│        ┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐            │
│        │                   │                   │            │
│   ┌────▼────┐      ┌───────▼─────┐      ┌────▼────┐       │
│   │Console  │      │JSON Export  │      │HTML     │       │
│   │Report   │      │             │      │Report   │       │
│   └─────────┘      └─────────────┘      └─────────┘       │
│                                                              │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

---

## Functional Requirements

### FR-001: Code Quality Analysis

**Description:** The tool must analyze code quality across complexity, duplication, and code style metrics.

**Priority:** HIGH
**Complexity:** HIGH

#### FR-001.1: Cyclomatic Complexity Analysis
- **Description:** Measure and report cyclomatic complexity for all TypeScript/TSX functions
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Function-level cyclomatic complexity (CC)
  - Average CC per file
  - Maximum CC in codebase
  - Distribution of complexity levels
- **Thresholds:**
  - Green (Good): CC ≤ 10
  - Yellow (Warning): 11 ≤ CC ≤ 20
  - Red (Critical): CC > 20
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Analyze all .ts and .tsx files in src/ directory
  - [ ] Report individual functions with CC > 15
  - [ ] Identify files with high average complexity
  - [ ] Provide specific line numbers for flagged functions
  - [ ] Include function names and parameter counts

#### FR-001.2: Code Duplication Detection
- **Description:** Identify duplicate code blocks and similar patterns
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Total duplicate lines
  - Duplication percentage (duplicated lines / total lines)
  - Number of duplicate blocks detected
  - Location of duplicates (file:line references)
- **Thresholds:**
  - Green (Good): < 3% duplication
  - Yellow (Warning): 3-5% duplication
  - Red (Critical): > 5% duplication
- **Minimum Block Size:** 4 consecutive lines
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Detect exact and near-duplicate code blocks
  - [ ] Report duplication percentage across codebase
  - [ ] List specific locations of duplicate code
  - [ ] Suggest refactoring opportunities (e.g., shared components, utility functions)
  - [ ] Exclude generated files and node_modules

#### FR-001.3: Code Style Compliance
- **Description:** Verify code follows ESLint configuration and style standards
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Total linting violations
  - Distribution by severity (error, warning, info)
  - Distribution by rule
  - Files with most violations
- **Thresholds:**
  - Green (Good): 0 errors, ≤ 5 warnings
  - Yellow (Warning): 1-3 errors or 6-15 warnings
  - Red (Critical): > 3 errors or > 15 warnings
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Run ESLint with project configuration
  - [ ] Report all violations with file:line:col references
  - [ ] Categorize by severity and rule type
  - [ ] Identify most common violations for quick fixes
  - [ ] Show percentage of files passing linting

### FR-002: Test Coverage Validation

**Description:** The tool must evaluate test coverage quantity and quality.

**Priority:** HIGH
**Complexity:** HIGH

#### FR-002.1: Coverage Metrics Analysis
- **Description:** Collect and analyze Jest coverage metrics
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Line coverage percentage
  - Branch coverage percentage
  - Function coverage percentage
  - Statement coverage percentage
  - Coverage by file
- **Thresholds:**
  - Green (Good): All metrics ≥ 80%
  - Yellow (Warning): 60-79% coverage
  - Red (Critical): < 60% coverage
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Parse Jest coverage-final.json output
  - [ ] Calculate aggregate coverage percentages
  - [ ] Identify files below threshold
  - [ ] Report uncovered lines and branches
  - [ ] Track coverage trends (if historical data available)

#### FR-002.2: Test Effectiveness Scoring
- **Description:** Evaluate test quality and effectiveness beyond coverage percentages
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Number of test files
  - Tests per file ratio
  - Test case descriptions quality (readability)
  - Assertion density (assertions per test)
  - Mock usage appropriateness
  - Test isolation score
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Count total test files and test cases
  - [ ] Analyze test naming conventions
  - [ ] Flag tests with no assertions
  - [ ] Identify tests with excessive mocking
  - [ ] Detect tests that depend on execution order
  - [ ] Report average assertions per test

#### FR-002.3: Coverage Gap Identification
- **Description:** Identify high-value targets for improving test coverage
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Uncovered functions in critical modules
  - Uncovered branches in error handling
  - Untested edge cases
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] List modules with lowest coverage
  - [ ] Highlight untested error paths
  - [ ] Suggest critical paths for testing
  - [ ] Estimate impact of covering each gap

### FR-003: Architecture and Design Compliance

**Description:** The tool must verify adherence to architectural patterns and design principles.

**Priority:** MEDIUM
**Complexity:** MEDIUM

#### FR-003.1: Component Architecture Validation
- **Description:** Verify React components follow atomic design principles and best practices
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Component organization by type (atom, molecule, organism, template)
  - Component size (lines of code)
  - Component dependency graph
  - Props complexity
- **Thresholds:**
  - Green (Good): Well-organized, < 300 LOC per component
  - Yellow (Warning): 300-500 LOC per component
  - Red (Critical): > 500 LOC per component
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Verify components in correct atomic design level
  - [ ] Identify oversized components
  - [ ] Analyze component dependency relationships
  - [ ] Flag circular dependencies
  - [ ] Check for proper prop typing

#### FR-003.2: Module Dependency Analysis
- **Description:** Analyze module dependencies and architectural boundaries
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Dependency graph visualization data
  - Cyclic dependencies count
  - Layer violations
  - External dependency usage
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Build module dependency graph
  - [ ] Detect circular dependencies
  - [ ] Identify layer violations (e.g., components importing from store)
  - [ ] Flag excessive external dependencies
  - [ ] Suggest refactoring approaches

#### FR-003.3: Redux Store Pattern Compliance
- **Description:** Verify Redux store usage follows established patterns
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Slice organization
  - Reducer purity violations
  - Selector usage patterns
  - Middleware appropriateness
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Verify slices are properly organized
  - [ ] Check for side effects in reducers
  - [ ] Validate selector usage
  - [ ] Identify direct state mutations
  - [ ] Report proper use of middleware

#### FR-003.4: Hook Usage Patterns
- **Description:** Validate React hooks are used correctly and safely
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Hook usage violations
  - Dependencies array completeness
  - Custom hook organization
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Detect hooks used in conditional logic
  - [ ] Identify missing dependencies in useEffect/useCallback
  - [ ] Flag hooks called from non-hook functions
  - [ ] Validate custom hook naming conventions

### FR-004: Security and Vulnerability Detection

**Description:** The tool must identify security vulnerabilities and anti-patterns.

**Priority:** HIGH
**Complexity:** MEDIUM

#### FR-004.1: Dependency Vulnerability Scanning
- **Description:** Check for known vulnerabilities in dependencies
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Number of vulnerable dependencies
  - Severity distribution (critical, high, medium, low)
  - Outdated packages
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Scan package.json using npm audit or similar
  - [ ] Report critical and high severity vulnerabilities
  - [ ] Provide remediation steps
  - [ ] Suggest version upgrades

#### FR-004.2: Security Anti-Pattern Detection
- **Description:** Identify common security anti-patterns in code
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Hard-coded secrets/keys
  - Unsafe DOM manipulation
  - Missing input validation
  - SQL injection risks (if applicable)
  - XSS vulnerabilities
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Flag suspicious patterns (e.g., containing "password", "secret", "token" in code)
  - [ ] Detect unsafe dangerouslySetInnerHTML usage
  - [ ] Identify unvalidated user input
  - [ ] Flag potentially unsafe external dependencies
  - [ ] Report findings with severity levels

#### FR-004.3: Performance Anti-Patterns
- **Description:** Identify code patterns that may cause performance issues
- **Metrics to Capture:**
  - Unnecessary re-renders
  - Missing React.memo usage
  - Unoptimized imports
  - Large bundle contributors
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Detect inline function definitions in JSX
  - [ ] Flag missing keys in lists
  - [ ] Identify expensive computations without memoization
  - [ ] Detect unused imports
  - [ ] Report large library usage

### FR-005: Metrics Aggregation and Scoring

**Description:** The tool must aggregate metrics and produce a unified quality score.

**Priority:** HIGH
**Complexity:** MEDIUM

#### FR-005.1: Weighted Scoring System
- **Description:** Calculate overall quality grade based on multiple metrics
- **Scoring Categories:**
  - Code Quality (30% weight)
  - Test Coverage (35% weight)
  - Architecture Compliance (20% weight)
  - Security/Performance (15% weight)
- **Grade Scale:**
  - A: 90-100% (Excellent)
  - B: 80-89% (Good)
  - C: 70-79% (Acceptable)
  - D: 60-69% (Poor)
  - F: < 60% (Failing)
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Calculate weighted scores
  - [ ] Assign letter grade
  - [ ] Generate summary assessment
  - [ ] Identify top 3 improvement areas

#### FR-005.2: Trend Analysis
- **Description:** Track quality metrics over time
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Store historical metrics in JSON format
  - [ ] Compare current metrics to previous runs
  - [ ] Identify improving or degrading trends
  - [ ] Show percent change since last run

### FR-006: Reporting and Output

**Description:** The tool must generate clear, actionable reports in multiple formats.

**Priority:** HIGH
**Complexity:** MEDIUM

#### FR-006.1: Console Report Output
- **Description:** Human-readable report displayed in terminal
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Display summary metrics prominently
  - [ ] Show overall grade with color coding
  - [ ] List findings organized by category
  - [ ] Include specific file:line references
  - [ ] Show improvement suggestions
  - [ ] Display execution time

#### FR-006.2: JSON Export
- **Description:** Machine-readable JSON for CI/CD integration
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Export all metrics in structured JSON
  - [ ] Include metadata (timestamp, version, etc.)
  - [ ] Support programmatic threshold checking
  - [ ] Enable trend tracking storage

#### FR-006.3: HTML Report
- **Description:** Interactive web-based report
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Generate standalone HTML file
  - [ ] Include visualizations (charts, graphs)
  - [ ] Provide drill-down capability
  - [ ] Show comparison with historical data
  - [ ] Include remediation suggestions

#### FR-006.4: CSV Export
- **Description:** Spreadsheet-compatible output for analysis
- **Acceptance Criteria:**
  - [ ] Export metrics per file
  - [ ] Include file-level detail
  - [ ] Enable trend analysis in spreadsheet tools
  - [ ] Support filtering and sorting

---

## Non-Functional Requirements

### NFR-001: Performance
- **Description:** Tool execution time must be acceptable for CI/CD pipelines
- **Metrics:**
  - Full analysis < 30 seconds for typical project
  - Individual analyses < 10 seconds each
  - Memory usage < 512 MB
- **Target Environment:** Node.js v18+

### NFR-002: Reliability
- **Description:** Tool must handle edge cases gracefully
- **Requirements:**
  - Continue analysis even if one metric fails
  - Provide meaningful error messages
  - Include fallback calculations
  - Zero silent failures

### NFR-003: Usability
- **Description:** Tool must be easy for developers to understand and use
- **Requirements:**
  - Clear command-line interface with help documentation
  - Intuitive output formatting
  - Actionable remediation suggestions
  - Consistent terminology

### NFR-004: Maintainability
- **Description:** Tool must be maintainable and extensible
- **Requirements:**
  - Modular architecture with clear separation of concerns
  - Comprehensive inline documentation
  - Unit tests for all analysis modules (≥ 80% coverage)
  - Plugin architecture for custom validators

### NFR-005: Scalability
- **Description:** Tool must handle large codebases efficiently
- **Requirements:**
  - Analyze projects with 500+ components
  - Process large test suites (1000+ tests)
  - Generate reports < 100 MB
  - Support incremental analysis mode

### NFR-006: Configurability
- **Description:** Tool must support project-specific configurations
- **Requirements:**
  - Configuration file support (.qualityrc.json)
  - Environment-specific thresholds
  - Custom rule definitions
  - Exclude patterns for generated code

### NFR-007: Integration
- **Description:** Tool must integrate seamlessly with existing development workflows
- **Requirements:**
  - npm script integration
  - CI/CD pipeline integration (GitHub Actions, etc.)
  - Pre-commit hook support
  - IDE plugin support (planned)

---

## Success Metrics and Validation Criteria

### Metric 1: Coverage Report Completeness
- **How Measured:** Number of quality dimensions analyzed / Total planned dimensions
- **Success Criteria:** 100% of four quality dimensions covered
- **Baseline:** 0% (no current integrated tool)
- **Target:** 100% coverage of all dimensions in v1.0

### Metric 2: Adoption Rate
- **How Measured:** Percentage of developers running tool before commits
- **Success Criteria:** > 75% adoption within 3 months
- **Tracking Method:** CI pipeline execution logs, git hooks integration

### Metric 3: Issue Detection Accuracy
- **How Measured:** Percentage of detected issues confirmed as valid
- **Success Criteria:** > 95% accuracy (false positive rate < 5%)
- **Validation Method:** Manual code review of tool findings

### Metric 4: Execution Performance
- **How Measured:** Average time to complete full analysis
- **Success Criteria:** < 30 seconds for typical project
- **Performance Criteria:**
  - Code quality analysis: < 10 seconds
  - Test coverage analysis: < 8 seconds
  - Architecture analysis: < 7 seconds
  - Report generation: < 5 seconds

### Metric 5: Actionability of Recommendations
- **How Measured:** Percentage of recommendations that reduce quality issues
- **Success Criteria:** > 80% of recommendations lead to code improvements
- **Tracking Method:** Follow-up analysis after developer implements suggestions

### Metric 6: False Positive Rate
- **How Measured:** Ratio of incorrectly flagged issues to total issues
- **Success Criteria:** < 5% false positive rate
- **Validation:** Manual review by development team

---

## Technical Constraints and Assumptions

### Technical Constraints

1. **Language & Runtime:**
   - Must run on Node.js v18+
   - Cannot require compilation or build steps
   - Must work on macOS, Linux, and Windows

2. **Codebase Scope:**
   - Focused on TypeScript/TSX files in src/ directory
   - Supports test files in standard Jest locations
   - Configuration files are secondary scope

3. **External Tool Dependencies:**
   - Must integrate with existing ESLint setup (already in project)
   - Must read Jest coverage output (already generated)
   - Can leverage TypeScript compiler APIs
   - Must not interfere with existing development tools

4. **Data Storage:**
   - Historical metrics stored locally in JSON format
   - No database or external service required
   - Configuration in .qualityrc.json in project root

5. **Output Constraints:**
   - Console output must be readable in standard terminals
   - HTML reports must work without external CSS/JS
   - JSON output must be valid and schema-compatible
   - CSV format must be Excel-compatible

### Assumptions

1. **Development Environment:**
   - Developers have Node.js v18+ installed
   - Project uses npm as package manager
   - ESLint is properly configured and available
   - Jest is configured with coverage reporting

2. **Codebase Characteristics:**
   - Follows existing atomic design principles (atoms, molecules, organisms, templates)
   - Uses Redux for state management
   - Primarily React/TypeScript components
   - Test files follow standard naming conventions (.test.ts, .spec.ts)

3. **Usage Patterns:**
   - Tool will be invoked via npm script or CI pipeline
   - Developers will run tool before committing code
   - Tool will be integrated into pre-commit hooks eventually
   - CI pipeline may enforce quality gates based on tool output

4. **Quality Benchmarks:**
   - Project aspires to 80%+ test coverage
   - Code complexity should remain < 15 per function
   - Code duplication should be < 3%
   - No critical security vulnerabilities

5. **Third-Party Availability:**
   - npm audit API remains available
   - TypeScript compiler APIs remain stable
   - Jest continues supporting coverage JSON export
   - ESLint configuration format stable

---

## Constraints, Limitations, and Trade-offs

### Constraints

1. **Scope Limitation:** Initial version focuses on code analysis, not runtime performance profiling
2. **Test Execution:** Will not re-run tests; analyzes existing coverage data only
3. **Language Support:** v1.0 focuses on TypeScript/TSX; JavaScript support planned for v2.0
4. **Integration Depth:** Cannot modify ESLint or Jest configuration; works with existing setup

### Limitations

1. **Complexity Detection:** May not catch all complexity patterns (e.g., complex type logic)
2. **Duplication Detection:** Minimum 4-line blocks; shorter duplications not flagged
3. **Architecture Analysis:** Limited to module-level patterns; component hierarchy analysis is heuristic
4. **Security Scanning:** Focuses on code patterns, not runtime behavior analysis
5. **Cross-File Analysis:** Some analyses are file-scoped; cross-file patterns harder to detect

### Trade-offs

| Trade-off | Choice | Rationale |
|-----------|--------|-----------|
| **Accuracy vs. Speed** | Prioritize Speed | Faster feedback loops enable higher adoption |
| **Detail vs. Readability** | Prioritize Readability | Default output targets developers, JSON for detailed analysis |
| **Built-in Tools vs. Integration** | Prioritize Integration | Leverage existing tools (ESLint, Jest) reduces maintenance |
| **Real-time vs. Batch** | Batch Analysis | Simpler implementation, suitable for CI/CD integration |
| **Self-contained vs. Lightweight** | Self-contained | Pre-packaged tool easier to distribute |

---

## Out of Scope

The following items are explicitly NOT included in v1.0:

1. **IDE Integration** - VSCode plugin, WebStorm plugin (planned for v2.0)
2. **Runtime Performance Profiling** - Real application profiling, heap analysis
3. **Static Type Checking Enhancement** - Going beyond TypeScript compiler checks
4. **Test Execution** - Running tests; analysis only of existing test files
5. **Backend Code Analysis** - Focus is on React frontend only
6. **Automatic Code Fixing** - Tool reports issues; developers fix manually (autofix planned for v2.0)
7. **Cloud-based Comparison** - Trend analysis only compares local runs
8. **AI-powered Recommendations** - Recommendations based on heuristics, not ML (AI recommendations planned for v3.0)
9. **Multi-project Analysis** - Single project per invocation only
10. **License Compliance** - Dependency license checking not included

---

## Acceptance Criteria Summary

### Core Functionality Acceptance
- [ ] Tool successfully analyzes code quality metrics
- [ ] Tool successfully validates test coverage
- [ ] Tool successfully identifies architecture issues
- [ ] Tool successfully detects security concerns
- [ ] Tool generates all required report formats
- [ ] Tool integrates with npm scripts
- [ ] Tool supports configuration file

### Quality Acceptance
- [ ] No critical bugs on initial release
- [ ] False positive rate < 5%
- [ ] Accuracy > 95% for detected issues
- [ ] Performance < 30 seconds for typical project
- [ ] Tool documentation is comprehensive

### User Experience Acceptance
- [ ] Output is clear and actionable
- [ ] Recommendations are specific
- [ ] Severity levels are well-calibrated
- [ ] Error messages are helpful
- [ ] Help documentation is available

---

## Success Definition

The Quality Validation CLI tool will be considered successful when:

1. **Functional Success:**
   - All four quality dimensions analyzed and reported
   - All report formats generated without errors
   - Tool runs in < 30 seconds
   - Configuration system works as designed

2. **Business Success:**
   - > 75% developer adoption within 3 months
   - Detects > 80% of quality issues before code review
   - > 80% of recommendations lead to improvements
   - Reduces code review time by 15%+ through objective metrics

3. **Technical Success:**
   - Modular, extensible architecture
   - 80%+ unit test coverage
   - Zero critical bugs in production
   - Zero security vulnerabilities in tool itself

4. **User Success:**
   - Developers find reports actionable
   - Clear remediation paths for each finding
   - Integrates seamlessly into existing workflow
   - Becomes part of standard code submission process

---

## Related Documents

- `docs/2025_01_20/specs/QUALITY_VALIDATOR_USER_STORIES.md` - Detailed user stories and acceptance criteria
- `docs/2025_01_20/design/QUALITY_VALIDATOR_ARCHITECTURE.md` - Technical design and implementation approach
- `docs/2025_01_20/tasks/QUALITY_VALIDATOR_IMPLEMENTATION.md` - Implementation task breakdown

---

## Glossary

- **Cyclomatic Complexity (CC):** Number of linearly independent paths through code
- **Code Duplication:** Identical or similar code blocks appearing in multiple locations
- **Code Coverage:** Percentage of code executed by tests (line, branch, function, statement)
- **Test Effectiveness:** Quality metric indicating test's ability to catch bugs
- **Atomic Design:** Design methodology organizing components into atoms, molecules, organisms, templates
- **Architecture Compliance:** Code adherence to defined architectural patterns and principles
- **Anti-pattern:** Programming patterns that appear to be good but lead to poor results
- **False Positive:** Incorrectly flagged issue that isn't actually a problem
- **Threshold:** Acceptable limit for a quality metric (e.g., max CC = 15)

---

**End of Document**
