# Quality Validation CLI Tool - User Stories and Acceptance Criteria

**Document ID:** QUAL-USR-001
**Version:** 1.0
**Date:** January 20, 2025
**Status:** APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT

---

## Epic: Quality Validation and Reporting

This epic encompasses all user stories related to validating code quality and generating comprehensive reports that help developers maintain and improve codebase health.

---

## User Story 1: Run Quick Quality Check

**ID:** QUAL-US-001

**As a** developer working on the snippet-pastebin project
**I want** to run a quick command that checks overall code quality
**So that** I can understand the health of the codebase before committing code

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I execute `npm run quality:check`
**THEN** the tool analyzes the codebase and produces a summary report

**WHEN** the analysis completes
**THEN** a letter grade (A-F) is displayed with overall score percentage

**WHEN** code quality is good (Grade A-B)
**THEN** console output uses green color to indicate passing status

**WHEN** code quality is marginal (Grade C-D)
**THEN** console output uses yellow/orange color to indicate warning status

**WHEN** code quality is poor (Grade F)
**THEN** console output uses red color and shows top 3 areas needing improvement

**IF** the tool encounters an error during analysis
**THEN** a meaningful error message is displayed with troubleshooting steps

**FOR** each invocation
**VERIFY** execution completes in under 30 seconds

**FOR** each metric category (code quality, tests, architecture, security)
**VERIFY** at least one result is displayed

### Technical Notes
- Integrates with existing npm scripts
- Uses color output for terminal readability
- Catches and reports errors gracefully
- No external network calls required

### Story Points
8

### Priority
HIGH

### Dependencies
None (foundational story)

---

## User Story 2: Analyze Code Complexity

**ID:** QUAL-US-002

**As a** code reviewer
**I want** to see detailed code complexity metrics for functions and files
**So that** I can identify functions that are too complex and need refactoring

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I run `npm run quality:check --format json`
**THEN** the output includes a `codeQuality.complexity` section

**WHEN** analyzing the codebase
**THEN** each function's cyclomatic complexity is calculated

**WHEN** a function has CC > 20 (critical threshold)
**THEN** it appears in the "Critical Complexity Issues" section with location (file:line)

**WHEN** a function has 11 ≤ CC ≤ 20 (warning threshold)
**THEN** it appears in the "Moderate Complexity Issues" section

**IF** no complexity issues exist
**THEN** the report states "All functions have acceptable complexity"

**FOR** each flagged function
**VERIFY** the report includes:
- Function name
- Current cyclomatic complexity value
- File path and line number
- Recommended complexity target (≤ 10)

**FOR** the overall complexity metric
**VERIFY** average CC per file is calculated and shown

### Technical Notes
- Uses AST parsing to identify functions
- Supports both function declarations and arrow functions
- Counts all control flow paths (if/else, switch, loops, logical operators)
- Excludes test files from analysis

### Story Points
8

### Priority
HIGH

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001 (quick check foundation)

---

## User Story 3: Detect Code Duplication

**ID:** QUAL-US-003

**As a** developer
**I want** to see what code is duplicated in the project
**So that** I can refactor common code into reusable components or utilities

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I run the quality check
**THEN** the report includes duplication percentage for the entire codebase

**WHEN** duplication is < 3%
**THEN** the duplication status is marked as "Good"

**WHEN** duplication is 3-5%
**THEN** the duplication status is marked as "Warning"

**WHEN** duplication is > 5%
**THEN** the duplication status is marked as "Critical"

**WHEN** duplicate blocks are detected
**THEN** they are listed with:
- File paths of all duplicated locations
- Line number ranges for each occurrence
- Number of lines in the duplicate block
- Suggested refactoring approach

**IF** duplicates form a pattern (e.g., similar component structure)
**THEN** a specific refactoring suggestion is provided (e.g., "Consider extracting to shared component")

**FOR** each duplicate block
**VERIFY** minimum 4 consecutive lines required for flagging

**FOR** duplicate detection
**VERIFY** generated files and node_modules are excluded

### Technical Notes
- Analyzes .ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx files only
- Minimum block size: 4 consecutive lines
- Detects both exact and near-duplicates (with tolerance)
- Provides specific refactoring suggestions

### Story Points
8

### Priority
MEDIUM

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 4: Review Code Style Violations

**ID:** QUAL-US-004

**As a** developer
**I want** to see ESLint violations organized by severity and rule
**So that** I can prioritize which style issues to fix first

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I run the quality check
**THEN** linting violations are aggregated and reported

**WHEN** violations exist
**THEN** they are displayed with count by severity:
- Errors (must fix before merge)
- Warnings (should fix before merge)
- Info (nice to fix)

**WHEN** displaying violations
**THEN** each violation includes:
- File path and line:column position
- Rule name
- Violation description
- Severity level
- Auto-fix status (fixable or not)

**WHEN** a rule has multiple violations
**THEN** violations are grouped by rule with count shown

**WHEN** > 5 violations exist for a single rule
**THEN** a suggestion to fix all instances of that rule is shown

**IF** no violations exist
**THEN** report confirms "All files pass ESLint validation"

**FOR** violation severity levels
**VERIFY** project threshold: pass if ≤ 3 errors OR ≤ 15 warnings

### Technical Notes
- Leverages existing ESLint configuration
- Respects .eslintignore patterns
- Provides auto-fixable violation count
- Groups findings for easier scanning

### Story Points
5

### Priority
HIGH

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 5: Check Test Coverage Status

**ID:** QUAL-US-005

**As a** team lead
**I want** to see overall test coverage metrics for the project
**So that** I can track progress toward our 80% coverage goal

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I run the quality check
**THEN** test coverage metrics are displayed:
- Overall line coverage %
- Overall branch coverage %
- Overall function coverage %
- Overall statement coverage %

**WHEN** coverage is ≥ 80%
**THEN** coverage is marked as "Excellent" with green indicator

**WHEN** 60-79% coverage
**THEN** coverage is marked as "Acceptable" with yellow indicator

**WHEN** < 60% coverage
**THEN** coverage is marked as "Poor" with red indicator

**WHEN** multiple coverage types show different results
**THEN** each type is displayed with its individual status

**IF** coverage data not available
**THEN** a message indicates "Coverage data not found. Run `npm test` to generate coverage."

**FOR** each coverage metric
**VERIFY** the percentage is accurate to 2 decimal places

### Technical Notes
- Reads Jest coverage-final.json
- Parses coverage reporter output
- Handles missing coverage files gracefully
- Tracks historical data if available

### Story Points
5

### Priority
HIGH

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 6: Identify Untested Code

**ID:** QUAL-US-006

**As a** QA engineer
**I want** to see which files and functions have low test coverage
**So that** I can work with developers to increase coverage

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I request detailed coverage report
**THEN** files are listed with coverage percentage

**WHEN** a file has < 60% coverage
**THEN** it appears in "Low Coverage Files" section with coverage % shown

**WHEN** displaying low coverage files
**THEN** files are sorted by coverage percentage (lowest first)

**FOR** each low coverage file
**VERIFY** it includes:
- File path
- Current coverage percentage
- Number of uncovered lines
- Coverage status (poor/acceptable/good)

**WHEN** > 10 files have low coverage
**THEN** top 10 highest-impact files are highlighted

**IF** a file has 0% coverage
**THEN** it is flagged as "Not Tested" with highest priority

**FOR** coverage gap identification
**VERIFY** prioritization considers:
- File size/complexity
- Number of functions
- Risk assessment (utils vs. UI)

### Technical Notes
- Prioritizes critical modules
- Considers code complexity in prioritization
- Suggests specific functions to test
- Estimates impact of covering each file

### Story Points
8

### Priority
HIGH

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-005

---

## User Story 7: Evaluate Test Quality

**ID:** QUAL-US-007

**As a** developer
**I want** to understand if my tests are actually effective at catching bugs
**So that** I can improve test quality beyond just coverage percentage

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** analyzing test effectiveness
**THEN** the following metrics are calculated:
- Total number of test cases
- Tests with meaningful names
- Average assertions per test
- Tests with no assertions (warning)
- Inappropriate mock usage

**WHEN** a test file is analyzed
**THEN** test naming conventions are evaluated:
- Test names should be descriptive (not just "test 1")
- Test names should indicate what is being tested

**IF** tests lack meaningful names
**THEN** recommendations are provided for improvement

**WHEN** examining assertions
**THEN** tests with 0 assertions are flagged as "Tests without assertions"

**WHEN** examining mocks
**THEN** excessive mocking (> 50% of test code) is flagged with suggestion to test real behavior

**FOR** test isolation
**VERIFY** detection of:
- Tests that depend on execution order
- Tests that share state
- Proper cleanup in afterEach hooks

**WHEN** displaying test effectiveness score
**THEN** a numeric score (0-100) is shown indicating test quality

### Technical Notes
- Parses test files for naming patterns
- Analyzes assertion calls (expect, assert, etc.)
- Detects mock patterns (jest.mock, jest.spyOn, etc.)
- Suggests specific improvements

### Story Points
8

### Priority
MEDIUM

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 8: Validate Component Architecture

**ID:** QUAL-US-008

**As a** architect
**I want** to verify that components follow atomic design principles
**So that** our component library stays well-organized and maintainable

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** analyzing component architecture
**THEN** components are classified by atomic level:
- Atoms
- Molecules
- Organisms
- Templates

**WHEN** a component is in correct folder structure
**THEN** it passes architectural validation

**WHEN** a component is in wrong folder
**THEN** it appears in "Misplaced Components" section

**WHEN** component file size is analyzed
**THEN** components > 500 LOC are flagged as "Oversized"

**WHEN** displaying component metrics
**THEN** show:
- Total components by type (atoms/molecules/etc.)
- Average component size
- Components exceeding 300 LOC (warning)
- Components exceeding 500 LOC (critical)

**FOR** each flagged component
**VERIFY** suggestions are provided:
- Consider breaking into smaller components
- Extract common patterns
- Move business logic to hooks

**WHEN** examining component dependencies
**THEN** circular dependencies are detected

**IF** circular dependencies found
**THEN** paths are shown with specific file references

### Technical Notes
- Uses file system structure and naming conventions
- Analyzes import statements for dependencies
- Detects component size via line counting
- Checks for proper component organization

### Story Points
8

### Priority
MEDIUM

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 9: Identify Security Issues

**ID:** QUAL-US-009

**As a** security-conscious developer
**I want** to be alerted to potential security vulnerabilities in the code
**So that** I can fix them before they become issues

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** analyzing security
**THEN** the following are checked:
- Dependency vulnerabilities
- Hard-coded secrets/credentials
- Unsafe DOM manipulation
- Missing input validation
- XSS risks

**WHEN** dependency vulnerabilities exist
**THEN** they are listed with:
- Package name and current version
- Vulnerability description
- Severity (critical/high/medium/low)
- Recommended fix (version to upgrade to)

**WHEN** scanning code for hard-coded secrets
**THEN** suspicious patterns trigger warnings:
- Variables containing "password", "secret", "token", "apiKey"
- Hard-coded numeric IDs > 1000
- Suspicious string patterns

**WHEN** unsafe patterns are detected
**THEN** specific findings include:
- `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` usage locations
- Unvalidated user input usage
- Unsafe external library dependencies

**FOR** each security finding
**VERIFY** severity level and remediation steps are provided

**IF** critical vulnerabilities exist
**THEN** they are highlighted prominently with "MUST FIX" label

**WHEN** vulnerability count is shown
**THEN** summary shows:
- Critical count
- High count
- Medium count
- Low count

### Technical Notes
- Integrates with npm audit for dependency scanning
- Uses static analysis for code patterns
- Flags suspicious variable names and values
- Provides specific remediation guidance

### Story Points
8

### Priority
HIGH

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 10: Export Report as JSON

**ID:** QUAL-US-010

**As a** CI/CD engineer
**I want** to export quality metrics as JSON
**So that** I can integrate quality validation into automated pipelines

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I run `npm run quality:check --format json`
**THEN** output is valid JSON format

**WHEN** JSON report is generated
**THEN** it includes:
- Timestamp of analysis
- Tool version
- Overall grade and score
- All metric categories with results
- List of findings with severity

**WHEN** JSON is exported to file via `npm run quality:check --output report.json`
**THEN** file is created with complete JSON data

**FOR** JSON structure
**VERIFY** it is schema-compatible for tool integration:
```json
{
  "metadata": {
    "timestamp": "ISO-8601 date",
    "toolVersion": "version",
    "projectPath": "path"
  },
  "overall": {
    "grade": "A",
    "score": 92.5,
    "status": "pass"
  },
  "codeQuality": { ... },
  "testCoverage": { ... },
  "architecture": { ... },
  "security": { ... }
}
```

**WHEN** tool output is directed to file
**THEN** exit code indicates success (0) or failure (1)

**FOR** JSON validity
**VERIFY** report is parseable by tools like jq

**IF** errors occur during analysis
**THEN** JSON includes error section with details

### Technical Notes
- Supports `--format json` flag
- Supports `--output [filename]` flag
- Maintains consistent schema for tool integration
- Enables CI/CD gate logic based on JSON parsing

### Story Points
5

### Priority
MEDIUM

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 11: Generate HTML Report

**ID:** QUAL-US-011

**As a** project manager
**I want** to view quality metrics in an interactive HTML report
**So that** I can easily share quality status with stakeholders

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I run `npm run quality:check --format html --output report.html`
**THEN** an HTML file is generated

**WHEN** HTML report is opened in browser
**THEN** it displays:
- Overall quality grade prominently
- Summary metrics for each category
- Visual charts/graphs for trends
- Detailed findings section
- Actionable remediation steps

**WHEN** viewing the HTML report
**THEN** it is fully self-contained (no external CDN dependencies)

**WHEN** examining metrics in HTML
**THEN** visualizations include:
- Grade progress bar
- Metric comparison charts
- File-level detail table
- Trend sparklines (if historical data available)

**WHEN** clicking on a finding
**THEN** detailed information is shown with code references

**FOR** HTML report styling
**VERIFY** it is:
- Responsive (works on mobile/tablet/desktop)
- Accessible (AA compliance)
- Professional looking
- Easy to understand

**IF** historical reports exist
**THEN** comparison with previous run is shown

### Technical Notes
- Generates standalone HTML (no external dependencies)
- Includes inline CSS and JavaScript
- Responsive design for all screen sizes
- Includes interactive drill-down capability

### Story Points
8

### Priority
MEDIUM

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 12: Configure Quality Thresholds

**ID:** QUAL-US-012

**As a** team lead
**I want** to customize quality thresholds for my team
**So that** we can enforce standards that match our project's needs

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** I create `.qualityrc.json` in project root
**THEN** the tool uses custom configuration values

**WHEN** configuration file exists
**THEN** it can override these defaults:
- Code complexity maximum
- Code duplication percentage limit
- Test coverage minimum percentage
- Linting errors allowed
- Component size limits

**WHEN** thresholds are customized
**THEN** reports reflect custom thresholds instead of defaults

**WHEN** a metric fails custom threshold
**THEN** it is reported with actual vs. threshold values

**IF** configuration file is invalid
**THEN** tool provides clear error message with line number

**FOR** configuration schema
**VERIFY** it supports:
```json
{
  "codeQuality": {
    "complexityMax": 15,
    "duplicationLimit": 5
  },
  "testCoverage": {
    "minimum": 80
  },
  "linting": {
    "maxErrors": 3,
    "maxWarnings": 15
  }
}
```

**WHEN** no configuration exists
**THEN** sensible defaults are used

**IF** partial configuration provided
**THEN** missing values default to standard thresholds

### Technical Notes
- Supports .qualityrc.json format
- Configuration inheritance from defaults
- Validation of configuration values
- Clear error messages for invalid configs

### Story Points
5

### Priority
LOW

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 13: Integrate with NPM Scripts

**ID:** QUAL-US-013

**As a** developer
**I want** to run quality validation with a simple npm command
**So that** it becomes part of my normal workflow

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** `npm run quality:check` is executed
**THEN** the quality validation tool runs

**WHEN** quality check completes
**THEN** output is displayed in console

**WHEN** quality passes all thresholds
**THEN** exit code is 0 (success)

**WHEN** quality fails any threshold
**THEN** exit code is 1 (failure)

**IF** tool is used in CI/CD
**THEN** failing exit code prevents pipeline progression

**WHEN** additional commands are invoked
**THEN** the following are available:
- `npm run quality:check` - Full analysis
- `npm run quality:quick` - Fast summary only
- `npm run quality:detailed` - Full report with all findings

**FOR** npm integration
**VERIFY** package.json includes quality scripts

**WHEN** help is requested via `npm run quality:check -- --help`
**THEN** usage information and available flags are displayed

### Technical Notes
- Scripts configured in package.json
- Exit codes used for CI/CD integration
- Help text available for all commands
- Clear documentation for npm script usage

### Story Points
3

### Priority
HIGH

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 14: Track Quality Trends

**ID:** QUAL-US-014

**As a** engineering manager
**I want** to see how code quality changes over time
**So that** I can demonstrate progress and identify regressions

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**WHEN** quality check is run multiple times
**THEN** results are stored in `.quality/history.json`

**WHEN** historical data exists
**THEN** reports show:
- Current vs. previous score
- Percent change since last run
- Trend direction (improving/stable/degrading)
- Metrics trending up/down

**WHEN** displaying trends
**THEN** show changes for:
- Overall score
- Code complexity average
- Code duplication percentage
- Test coverage percentage
- Vulnerability count

**IF** metric is improving
**THEN** it is marked with "↑" indicator

**IF** metric is degrading
**THEN** it is marked with "↓" indicator with warning

**WHEN** trend report requested
**THEN** show last 5 runs with scores

**FOR** historical tracking
**VERIFY** data persists between runs

**IF** user wants to reset history
**THEN** `--reset-history` flag clears data

### Technical Notes
- Stores historical data in .quality/history.json
- Tracks last 10 runs by default
- Calculates trend direction
- Shows percentage changes
- Can be disabled with configuration

### Story Points
5

### Priority
LOW

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## User Story 15: Get Specific Remediation Guidance

**ID:** QUAL-US-015

**As a** developer
**I want** specific guidance on how to fix detected issues
**So that** I don't have to research how to improve code quality

### Acceptance Criteria (EARS Format)

**FOR** each finding reported
**VERIFY** remediation guidance is included

**WHEN** complexity issue is reported
**THEN** suggestion includes:
- Specific refactoring approach (extract method, reduce nesting)
- Link to complexity reduction guide
- Example of how to reduce complexity

**WHEN** duplication is reported
**THEN** guidance includes:
- "Extract to shared component named X"
- "Create utility function for this pattern"
- Example refactored code pattern

**WHEN** test coverage gap identified
**THEN** guidance includes:
- "Add tests for error cases in this function"
- "Test edge cases in this feature"
- Example test structure

**WHEN** security issue flagged
**THEN** guidance includes:
- Risk description
- How to fix it
- Links to security guidelines
- Example of secure implementation

**WHEN** architectural violation found
**THEN** guidance includes:
- Why this is a violation
- How to reorganize code
- Where to move files/imports

**FOR** remediation suggestions
**VERIFY** they are:
- Specific and actionable
- Technically sound
- Achievable without major refactoring
- Aligned with project patterns

### Technical Notes
- Provides context-specific guidance
- Links to documentation where applicable
- Suggests refactoring approaches
- Shows example patterns
- Considers project-specific conventions

### Story Points
5

### Priority
MEDIUM

### Dependencies
- QUAL-US-001

---

## Story Mapping and Priorities

### Phase 1: MVP (Weeks 1-2)
1. QUAL-US-001: Run quick quality check
2. QUAL-US-002: Analyze code complexity
3. QUAL-US-005: Check test coverage
4. QUAL-US-004: Review code style violations
5. QUAL-US-009: Identify security issues

### Phase 2: Enhanced Reporting (Weeks 3-4)
6. QUAL-US-010: Export JSON
7. QUAL-US-011: Generate HTML report
8. QUAL-US-006: Identify untested code
9. QUAL-US-013: NPM script integration

### Phase 3: Advanced Analysis (Weeks 5-6)
10. QUAL-US-003: Detect code duplication
11. QUAL-US-008: Validate component architecture
12. QUAL-US-007: Evaluate test quality
13. QUAL-US-015: Remediation guidance

### Phase 4: Polish & Optimization (Week 7)
14. QUAL-US-012: Configure quality thresholds
15. QUAL-US-014: Track quality trends

---

## Definition of Done

Each user story is considered complete when:

1. **Functional Criteria Met**
   - All acceptance criteria satisfied
   - Code merges without conflicts
   - No regressions in existing functionality

2. **Quality Gates Passed**
   - 80%+ unit test coverage for new code
   - Zero critical bugs
   - ESLint passes with no errors
   - TypeScript strict mode passes

3. **Documentation Complete**
   - Code comments for complex logic
   - Function/parameter documentation
   - Updated README if user-facing changes

4. **Testing Complete**
   - Unit tests written for all paths
   - Integration tests for user story scenarios
   - Manual testing verified acceptance criteria

5. **Code Review**
   - Minimum 2 approvals
   - All feedback addressed
   - No requested changes pending

---

**End of Document**
