rust_browser/_bmad/tea/workflows/testarch/test-review/test-review-template.md

stepsCompleted, lastStep, lastSaved, workflowType, inputDocuments

stepsCompleted	lastStep	lastSaved	workflowType	inputDocuments
			testarch-test-review

Test Quality Review: {test_filename}

Quality Score: {score}/100 ({grade} - {assessment}) Review Date: {YYYY-MM-DD} Review Scope: {single | directory | suite} Reviewer: {user_name or TEA Agent}

---

Note: This review audits existing tests; it does not generate tests. Coverage mapping and coverage gates are out of scope here. Use trace for coverage decisions.

Executive Summary

Overall Assessment: {Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Critical Issues}

Recommendation: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}

Key Strengths

✅ {strength_1} ✅ {strength_2} ✅ {strength_3}

Key Weaknesses

❌ {weakness_1} ❌ {weakness_2} ❌ {weakness_3}

Summary

{1-2 paragraph summary of overall test quality, highlighting major findings and recommendation rationale}

---

Quality Criteria Assessment

Criterion	Status	Violations	Notes
BDD Format (Given-When-Then)	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Test IDs	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Priority Markers (P0/P1/P2/P3)	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Hard Waits (sleep, waitForTimeout)	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Determinism (no conditionals)	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Isolation (cleanup, no shared state)	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Fixture Patterns	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Data Factories	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Network-First Pattern	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Explicit Assertions	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}
Test Length (≤300 lines)	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{lines}	{brief_note}
Test Duration (≤1.5 min)	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{duration}	{brief_note}
Flakiness Patterns	{✅ PASS | ⚠️ WARN | ❌ FAIL}	{count}	{brief_note}

Total Violations: {critical_count} Critical, {high_count} High, {medium_count} Medium, {low_count} Low

---

Quality Score Breakdown

Starting Score:          100
Critical Violations:     -{critical_count} × 10 = -{critical_deduction}
High Violations:         -{high_count} × 5 = -{high_deduction}
Medium Violations:       -{medium_count} × 2 = -{medium_deduction}
Low Violations:          -{low_count} × 1 = -{low_deduction}

Bonus Points:
  Excellent BDD:         +{0|5}
  Comprehensive Fixtures: +{0|5}
  Data Factories:        +{0|5}
  Network-First:         +{0|5}
  Perfect Isolation:     +{0|5}
  All Test IDs:          +{0|5}
                         --------
Total Bonus:             +{bonus_total}

Final Score:             {final_score}/100
Grade:                   {grade}

---

Critical Issues (Must Fix)

{If no critical issues: "No critical issues detected. ✅"}

{For each critical issue:}

{issue_number}. {Issue Title}

Severity: P0 (Critical) Location: {filename}:{line_number} Criterion: {criterion_name} Knowledge Base: {fragment_name}

Issue Description: {Detailed explanation of what the problem is and why it's critical}

Current Code:

// ❌ Bad (current implementation)
{
  code_snippet_showing_problem;
}

Recommended Fix:

// ✅ Good (recommended approach)
{
  code_snippet_showing_solution;
}

Why This Matters: {Explanation of impact - flakiness risk, maintainability, reliability}

Related Violations: {If similar issue appears elsewhere, note line numbers}

---

Recommendations (Should Fix)

{If no recommendations: "No additional recommendations. Test quality is excellent. ✅"}

{For each recommendation:}

{rec_number}. {Recommendation Title}

Severity: {P1 (High) | P2 (Medium) | P3 (Low)} Location: {filename}:{line_number} Criterion: {criterion_name} Knowledge Base: {fragment_name}

Issue Description: {Detailed explanation of what could be improved and why}

Current Code:

// ⚠️ Could be improved (current implementation)
{
  code_snippet_showing_current_approach;
}

Recommended Improvement:

// ✅ Better approach (recommended)
{
  code_snippet_showing_improvement;
}

Benefits: {Explanation of benefits - maintainability, readability, reusability}

Priority: {Why this is P1/P2/P3 - urgency and impact}

---

Best Practices Found

{If good patterns found, highlight them}

{For each best practice:}

{practice_number}. {Best Practice Title}

Location: {filename}:{line_number} Pattern: {pattern_name} Knowledge Base: {fragment_name}

Why This Is Good: {Explanation of why this pattern is excellent}

Code Example:

// ✅ Excellent pattern demonstrated in this test
{
  code_snippet_showing_best_practice;
}

Use as Reference: {Encourage using this pattern in other tests}

---

Test File Analysis

File Metadata

• File Path: {relative_path_from_project_root}
• File Size: {line_count} lines, {kb_size} KB
• Test Framework: {Playwright | Jest | Cypress | Vitest | Other}
• Language: {TypeScript | JavaScript}

Test Structure

• Describe Blocks: {describe_count}
• Test Cases (it/test): {test_count}
• Average Test Length: {avg_lines_per_test} lines per test
• Fixtures Used: {fixture_count} ({fixture_names})
• Data Factories Used: {factory_count} ({factory_names})

Test Scope

• Test IDs: {test_id_list}
• Priority Distribution:
  • P0 (Critical): {p0_count} tests
  • P1 (High): {p1_count} tests
  • P2 (Medium): {p2_count} tests
  • P3 (Low): {p3_count} tests
  • Unknown: {unknown_count} tests

Assertions Analysis

• Total Assertions: {assertion_count}
• Assertions per Test: {avg_assertions_per_test} (avg)
• Assertion Types: {assertion_types_used}

---

Context and Integration

Related Artifacts

{If story file found:}

• Story File: {story_filename}

{If test-design found:}

• Test Design: {test_design_filename}
• Risk Assessment: {risk_level}
• Priority Framework: P0-P3 applied

---

Knowledge Base References

This review consulted the following knowledge base fragments:

• test-quality.md - Definition of Done for tests (no hard waits, <300 lines, <1.5 min, self-cleaning)
• fixture-architecture.md - Pure function → Fixture → mergeTests pattern
• network-first.md - Route intercept before navigate (race condition prevention)
• data-factories.md - Factory functions with overrides, API-first setup
• test-levels-framework.md - E2E vs API vs Component vs Unit appropriateness
• tdd-cycles.md - Red-Green-Refactor patterns
• selective-testing.md - Duplicate coverage detection
• ci-burn-in.md - Flakiness detection patterns (10-iteration loop)
• test-priorities.md - P0/P1/P2/P3 classification framework

For coverage mapping, consult trace workflow outputs.

See tea-index.csv for complete knowledge base.

---

Next Steps

Immediate Actions (Before Merge)

1. {action_1} - {description}

   • Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
   • Owner: {team_or_person}
   • Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}

2. {action_2} - {description}

   • Priority: {P0 | P1 | P2}
   • Owner: {team_or_person}
   • Estimated Effort: {time_estimate}

Follow-up Actions (Future PRs)

1. {action_1} - {description}

   • Priority: {P2 | P3}
   • Target: {next_milestone | backlog}

2. {action_2} - {description}

   • Priority: {P2 | P3}
   • Target: {next_milestone | backlog}

Re-Review Needed?

{✅ No re-review needed - approve as-is} {⚠️ Re-review after critical fixes - request changes, then re-review} {❌ Major refactor required - block merge, pair programming recommended}

---

Decision

Recommendation: {Approve | Approve with Comments | Request Changes | Block}

Rationale: {1-2 paragraph explanation of recommendation based on findings}

For Approve:

Test quality is excellent/good with {score}/100 score. {Minor issues noted can be addressed in follow-up PRs.} Tests are production-ready and follow best practices.

For Approve with Comments:

Test quality is acceptable with {score}/100 score. {High-priority recommendations should be addressed but don't block merge.} Critical issues resolved, but improvements would enhance maintainability.

For Request Changes:

Test quality needs improvement with {score}/100 score. {Critical issues must be fixed before merge.} {X} critical violations detected that pose flakiness/maintainability risks.

For Block:

Test quality is insufficient with {score}/100 score. {Multiple critical issues make tests unsuitable for production.} Recommend pairing session with QA engineer to apply patterns from knowledge base.

---

Appendix

Violation Summary by Location

{Table of all violations sorted by line number:}

Line	Severity	Criterion	Issue	Fix
{line}	{P0/P1/P2/P3}	{criterion}	{brief_issue}	{brief_fix}
{line}	{P0/P1/P2/P3}	{criterion}	{brief_issue}	{brief_fix}

Quality Trends

{If reviewing same file multiple times, show trend:}

Review Date	Score	Grade	Critical Issues	Trend
{YYYY-MM-DD}	{score_1}/100	{grade_1}	{count_1}	⬆️ Improved
{YYYY-MM-DD}	{score_2}/100	{grade_2}	{count_2}	⬇️ Declined
{YYYY-MM-DD}	{score_3}/100	{grade_3}	{count_3}	➡️ Stable

Related Reviews

{If reviewing multiple files in directory/suite:}

File	Score	Grade	Critical	Status
{file_1}	{score}/100	{grade}	{count}	{Approved/Blocked}
{file_2}	{score}/100	{grade}	{count}	{Approved/Blocked}
{file_3}	{score}/100	{grade}	{count}	{Approved/Blocked}

Suite Average: {avg_score}/100 ({avg_grade})

---

Review Metadata

Generated By: BMad TEA Agent (Test Architect) Workflow: testarch-test-review v4.0 Review ID: test-review-{filename}-{YYYYMMDD} Timestamp: {YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS} Version: 1.0

---

Feedback on This Review

If you have questions or feedback on this review:

1. Review patterns in knowledge base: testarch/knowledge/
2. Consult tea-index.csv for detailed guidance
3. Request clarification on specific violations
4. Pair with QA engineer to apply patterns

This review is guidance, not rigid rules. Context matters - if a pattern is justified, document it with a comment.