chore: initial monorepo scaffold + WDS Phase 1+2 artifacts
- Nx 22.7 monorepo (pnpm 11.1, TypeScript 5.9, Node 24) - apps/api: NestJS 11 (CJS conforme CODING-RULES.md PGD-DB-004) - apps/web: React 19 + Vite 8 (ESM) - libs/shared/api-interface: Zod contract base - Docker Compose dev: Postgres 18, Valkey 8, MinIO, Mailpit - WDS artifacts: - design-artifacts/A-Product-Brief/ (5 docs canônicos + 16 dialogs) - design-artifacts/B-Trigger-Map/ (hub + 4 personas + feature impact) - Stack canon: STACK.md v2.2 + CODING-RULES.md v2.0 + brand.md - AGENTS.md + README.md como entrada para devs/agentes Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
74
.agents/skills/bmad-checkpoint-preview/step-04-testing.md
Normal file
74
.agents/skills/bmad-checkpoint-preview/step-04-testing.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
|
||||
# Step 4: Testing
|
||||
|
||||
Display: `Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → [Testing]`
|
||||
|
||||
## Follow Global Step Rules in SKILL.md
|
||||
|
||||
- This is **experiential**, not analytical. The detail pass asked "did you think about X?" — this says "you could see X with your own eyes."
|
||||
- Do not prescribe. The human decides whether observing the behavior is worth their time. Frame suggestions as options, not obligations.
|
||||
- Do not duplicate CI, test suites, or automated checks. Assume those exist and work. This is about manual observation — the kind of confidence-building no automated test provides.
|
||||
- If the change has no user-visible behavior, say so explicitly. Do not invent observations.
|
||||
|
||||
## IDENTIFY OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR
|
||||
|
||||
Scan the diff and spec for changes that produce behavior a human could directly observe. Categories to look for:
|
||||
|
||||
- **UI changes** — new screens, modified layouts, changed interactions, error states
|
||||
- **CLI/terminal output** — new commands, changed output, new flags or options
|
||||
- **API responses** — new endpoints, changed payloads, different status codes
|
||||
- **State changes** — database records, file system artifacts, config effects
|
||||
- **Error paths** — bad input, missing dependencies, edge conditions
|
||||
|
||||
For each observable behavior, determine:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **What to do** — the specific action (command to run, button to click, request to send)
|
||||
2. **What to expect** — the observable result that confirms the change works
|
||||
3. **Why bother** — one phrase connecting this observation to the change's intent (omit if obvious from context)
|
||||
|
||||
Target 2–5 suggestions for a typical change. If more than 5 qualify, prioritize by how much confidence the observation provides relative to effort. A change with zero observable behavior is fine — do not pad with trivial observations.
|
||||
|
||||
## PRESENT
|
||||
|
||||
Output as a single message:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Orientation → Walkthrough → Detail Pass → [Testing]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Then the testing suggestions using this format:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
### How to See It Working
|
||||
|
||||
**{Brief description}**
|
||||
Do: {specific action}
|
||||
Expect: {observable result}
|
||||
|
||||
**{Brief description}**
|
||||
Do: {specific action}
|
||||
Expect: {observable result}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Include code blocks for commands or requests where helpful.
|
||||
|
||||
If the change has no observable behavior, replace the suggestions with:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
### How to See It Working
|
||||
|
||||
This change is internal — no user-visible behavior to observe. The diff and tests tell the full story.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Closing
|
||||
|
||||
End the message with:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
You've seen the change and how to verify it. When you're ready to make a call, just say so.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## NEXT
|
||||
|
||||
When the human signals they're ready to make a decision about this {change_type}, read fully and follow `./step-05-wrapup.md`
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user