Sauvegarde de l'état (réparation)

_bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,407 @@
+# Test Design and Risk Assessment - Validation Checklist
+
+## Prerequisites (Mode-Dependent)
+
+**System-Level Mode (Phase 3):**
+- [ ] PRD exists with functional and non-functional requirements
+- [ ] ADR (Architecture Decision Record) exists
+- [ ] Architecture document available (architecture.md or tech-spec)
+- [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
+
+**Epic-Level Mode (Phase 4):**
+- [ ] Story markdown with clear acceptance criteria exists
+- [ ] PRD or epic documentation available
+- [ ] Architecture documents available (test-design-architecture.md + test-design-qa.md from Phase 3, if exists)
+- [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
+
+## Process Steps
+
+### Step 1: Context Loading
+
+- [ ] PRD.md read and requirements extracted
+- [ ] Epics.md or specific epic documentation loaded
+- [ ] Story markdown with acceptance criteria analyzed
+- [ ] Architecture documents reviewed (if available)
+- [ ] Existing test coverage analyzed
+- [ ] Knowledge base fragments loaded (risk-governance, probability-impact, test-levels, test-priorities)
+
+### Step 2: Risk Assessment
+
+- [ ] Genuine risks identified (not just features)
+- [ ] Risks classified by category (TECH/SEC/PERF/DATA/BUS/OPS)
+- [ ] Probability scored (1-3 for each risk)
+- [ ] Impact scored (1-3 for each risk)
+- [ ] Risk scores calculated (probability × impact)
+- [ ] High-priority risks (score ≥6) flagged
+- [ ] Mitigation plans defined for high-priority risks
+- [ ] Owners assigned for each mitigation
+- [ ] Timelines set for mitigations
+- [ ] Residual risk documented
+
+### Step 3: Coverage Design
+
+- [ ] Acceptance criteria broken into atomic scenarios
+- [ ] Test levels selected (E2E/API/Component/Unit)
+- [ ] No duplicate coverage across levels
+- [ ] Priority levels assigned (P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- [ ] P0 scenarios meet strict criteria (blocks core + high risk + no workaround)
+- [ ] Data prerequisites identified
+- [ ] Tooling requirements documented
+- [ ] Execution order defined (smoke → P0 → P1 → P2/P3)
+
+### Step 4: Deliverables Generation
+
+- [ ] Risk assessment matrix created
+- [ ] Coverage matrix created
+- [ ] Execution order documented
+- [ ] Resource estimates calculated
+- [ ] Quality gate criteria defined
+- [ ] Output file written to correct location
+- [ ] Output file uses template structure
+
+## Output Validation
+
+### Risk Assessment Matrix
+
+- [ ] All risks have unique IDs (R-001, R-002, etc.)
+- [ ] Each risk has category assigned
+- [ ] Probability values are 1, 2, or 3
+- [ ] Impact values are 1, 2, or 3
+- [ ] Scores calculated correctly (P × I)
+- [ ] High-priority risks (≥6) clearly marked
+- [ ] Mitigation strategies specific and actionable
+
+### Coverage Matrix
+
+- [ ] All requirements mapped to test levels
+- [ ] Priorities assigned to all scenarios
+- [ ] Risk linkage documented
+- [ ] Test counts realistic
+- [ ] Owners assigned where applicable
+- [ ] No duplicate coverage (same behavior at multiple levels)
+
+### Execution Strategy
+
+**CRITICAL: Keep execution strategy simple, avoid redundancy**
+
+- [ ] **Simple structure**: PR / Nightly / Weekly (NOT complex smoke/P0/P1/P2 tiers)
+- [ ] **PR execution**: All functional tests unless significant infrastructure overhead
+- [ ] **Nightly/Weekly**: Only performance, chaos, long-running, manual tests
+- [ ] **No redundancy**: Don't re-list all tests (already in coverage plan)
+- [ ] **Philosophy stated**: "Run everything in PRs if <15 min, defer only if expensive/long"
+- [ ] **Playwright parallelization noted**: 100s of tests in 10-15 min
+
+### Resource Estimates
+
+**CRITICAL: Use intervals/ranges, NOT exact numbers**
+
+- [ ] P0 effort provided as interval range (e.g., "~25-40 hours" NOT "36 hours")
+- [ ] P1 effort provided as interval range (e.g., "~20-35 hours" NOT "27 hours")
+- [ ] P2 effort provided as interval range (e.g., "~10-30 hours" NOT "15.5 hours")
+- [ ] P3 effort provided as interval range (e.g., "~2-5 hours" NOT "2.5 hours")
+- [ ] Total effort provided as interval range (e.g., "~55-110 hours" NOT "81 hours")
+- [ ] Timeline provided as week range (e.g., "~1.5-3 weeks" NOT "11 days")
+- [ ] Estimates include setup time and account for complexity variations
+- [ ] **No false precision**: Avoid exact calculations like "18 tests × 2 hours = 36 hours"
+
+### Quality Gate Criteria
+
+- [ ] P0 pass rate threshold defined (should be 100%)
+- [ ] P1 pass rate threshold defined (typically ≥95%)
+- [ ] High-risk mitigation completion required
+- [ ] Coverage targets specified (≥80% recommended)
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+### Evidence-Based Assessment
+
+- [ ] Risk assessment based on documented evidence
+- [ ] No speculation on business impact
+- [ ] Assumptions clearly documented
+- [ ] Clarifications requested where needed
+- [ ] Historical data referenced where available
+
+### Risk Classification Accuracy
+
+- [ ] TECH risks are architecture/integration issues
+- [ ] SEC risks are security vulnerabilities
+- [ ] PERF risks are performance/scalability concerns
+- [ ] DATA risks are data integrity issues
+- [ ] BUS risks are business/revenue impacts
+- [ ] OPS risks are deployment/operational issues
+
+### Priority Assignment Accuracy
+
+**CRITICAL: Priority classification is separate from execution timing**
+
+- [ ] **Priority sections (P0/P1/P2/P3) do NOT include execution context** (e.g., no "Run on every commit" in headers)
+- [ ] **Priority sections have only "Criteria" and "Purpose"** (no "Execution:" field)
+- [ ] **Execution Strategy section** is separate and handles timing based on infrastructure overhead
+- [ ] P0: Truly blocks core functionality + High-risk (≥6) + No workaround
+- [ ] P1: Important features + Medium-risk (3-4) + Common workflows
+- [ ] P2: Secondary features + Low-risk (1-2) + Edge cases
+- [ ] P3: Nice-to-have + Exploratory + Benchmarks
+- [ ] **Note at top of Test Coverage Plan**: Clarifies P0/P1/P2/P3 = priority/risk, NOT execution timing
+
+### Test Level Selection
+
+- [ ] E2E used only for critical paths
+- [ ] API tests cover complex business logic
+- [ ] Component tests for UI interactions
+- [ ] Unit tests for edge cases and algorithms
+- [ ] No redundant coverage
+
+## Integration Points
+
+### Knowledge Base Integration
+
+- [ ] risk-governance.md consulted
+- [ ] probability-impact.md applied
+- [ ] test-levels-framework.md referenced
+- [ ] test-priorities-matrix.md used
+- [ ] Additional fragments loaded as needed
+
+### Status File Integration
+
+- [ ] Test design logged in Quality & Testing Progress
+- [ ] Epic number and scope documented
+- [ ] Completion timestamp recorded
+
+### Workflow Dependencies
+
+- [ ] Can proceed to `*atdd` workflow with P0 scenarios
+- [ ] `*atdd` is a separate workflow and must be run explicitly (not auto-run)
+- [ ] Can proceed to `automate` workflow with full coverage plan
+- [ ] Risk assessment informs `gate` workflow criteria
+- [ ] Integrates with `ci` workflow execution order
+
+## System-Level Mode: Two-Document Validation
+
+**When in system-level mode (PRD + ADR input), validate BOTH documents:**
+
+### test-design-architecture.md
+
+- [ ] **Purpose statement** at top (serves as contract with Architecture team)
+- [ ] **Executive Summary** with scope, business context, architecture decisions, risk summary
+- [ ] **Quick Guide** section with three tiers:
+  - [ ] 🚨 BLOCKERS - Team Must Decide (Sprint 0 critical path items)
+  - [ ] ⚠️ HIGH PRIORITY - Team Should Validate (recommendations for approval)
+  - [ ] 📋 INFO ONLY - Solutions Provided (no decisions needed)
+- [ ] **Risk Assessment** section - **ACTIONABLE**
+  - [ ] Total risks identified count
+  - [ ] High-priority risks table (score ≥6) with all columns: Risk ID, Category, Description, Probability, Impact, Score, Mitigation, Owner, Timeline
+  - [ ] Medium and low-priority risks tables
+  - [ ] Risk category legend included
+- [ ] **Testability Concerns and Architectural Gaps** section - **ACTIONABLE**
+  - [ ] **Sub-section: 🚨 ACTIONABLE CONCERNS** at TOP
+    - [ ] Blockers to Fast Feedback table (WHAT architecture must provide)
+    - [ ] Architectural Improvements Needed (WHAT must be changed)
+    - [ ] Each concern has: Owner, Timeline, Impact
+  - [ ] **Sub-section: Testability Assessment Summary** at BOTTOM (FYI)
+    - [ ] What Works Well (passing items)
+    - [ ] Accepted Trade-offs (no action required)
+    - [ ] This section only included if worth mentioning; otherwise omitted
+- [ ] **Risk Mitigation Plans** for all high-priority risks (≥6)
+  - [ ] Each plan has: Strategy (numbered steps), Owner, Timeline, Status, Verification
+  - [ ] **Only Backend/DevOps/Arch/Security mitigations** (production code changes)
+  - [ ] QA-owned mitigations belong in QA doc instead
+- [ ] **Assumptions and Dependencies** section
+  - [ ] **Architectural assumptions only** (SLO targets, replication lag, system design)
+  - [ ] Assumptions list (numbered)
+  - [ ] Dependencies list with required dates
+  - [ ] Risks to plan with impact and contingency
+  - [ ] QA execution assumptions belong in QA doc instead
+- [ ] **NO test implementation code** (long examples belong in QA doc)
+- [ ] **NO test scripts** (no Playwright test(...) blocks, no assertions, no test setup code)
+- [ ] **NO NFR test examples** (NFR sections describe WHAT to test, not HOW to test)
+- [ ] **NO test scenario checklists** (belong in QA doc)
+- [ ] **NO bloat or repetition** (consolidate repeated notes, avoid over-explanation)
+- [ ] **Cross-references to QA doc** where appropriate (instead of duplication)
+- [ ] **RECIPE SECTIONS NOT IN ARCHITECTURE DOC:**
+  - [ ] NO "Test Levels Strategy" section (unit/integration/E2E split belongs in QA doc only)
+  - [ ] NO "NFR Testing Approach" section with detailed test procedures (belongs in QA doc only)
+  - [ ] NO "Test Environment Requirements" section (belongs in QA doc only)
+  - [ ] NO "Recommendations for Sprint 0" section with test framework setup (belongs in QA doc only)
+  - [ ] NO "Quality Gate Criteria" section (pass rates, coverage targets belong in QA doc only)
+  - [ ] NO "Tool Selection" section (Playwright, k6, etc. belongs in QA doc only)
+
+### test-design-qa.md
+
+**REQUIRED SECTIONS:**
+
+- [ ] **Purpose statement** at top (test execution recipe)
+- [ ] **Executive Summary** with risk summary and coverage summary
+- [ ] **Dependencies & Test Blockers** section in POSITION 2 (right after Executive Summary)
+  - [ ] Backend/Architecture dependencies listed (what QA needs from other teams)
+  - [ ] QA infrastructure setup listed (factories, fixtures, environments)
+  - [ ] Code example with playwright-utils if config.tea_use_playwright_utils is true
+  - [ ] Test from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/api-request/fixtures'
+  - [ ] Expect from '@playwright/test' (playwright-utils does not re-export expect)
+  - [ ] Code examples include assertions (no unused imports)
+- [ ] **Risk Assessment** section (brief, references Architecture doc)
+  - [ ] High-priority risks table
+  - [ ] Medium/low-priority risks table
+  - [ ] Each risk shows "QA Test Coverage" column (how QA validates)
+- [ ] **Test Coverage Plan** with P0/P1/P2/P3 sections
+  - [ ] Priority sections have ONLY "Criteria" (no execution context)
+  - [ ] Note at top: "P0/P1/P2/P3 = priority, NOT execution timing"
+  - [ ] Test tables with columns: Test ID | Requirement | Test Level | Risk Link | Notes
+- [ ] **Execution Strategy** section (organized by TOOL TYPE)
+  - [ ] Every PR: Playwright tests (~10-15 min)
+  - [ ] Nightly: k6 performance tests (~30-60 min)
+  - [ ] Weekly: Chaos & long-running (~hours)
+  - [ ] Philosophy: "Run everything in PRs unless expensive/long-running"
+- [ ] **QA Effort Estimate** section (QA effort ONLY)
+  - [ ] Interval-based estimates (e.g., "~1-2 weeks" NOT "36 hours")
+  - [ ] NO DevOps, Backend, Data Eng, Finance effort
+  - [ ] NO Sprint breakdowns (too prescriptive)
+- [ ] **Appendix A: Code Examples & Tagging**
+- [ ] **Appendix B: Knowledge Base References**
+
+**DON'T INCLUDE (bloat):**
+- [ ] ❌ NO Quick Reference section
+- [ ] ❌ NO System Architecture Summary
+- [ ] ❌ NO Test Environment Requirements as separate section (integrate into Dependencies)
+- [ ] ❌ NO Testability Assessment section (covered in Dependencies)
+- [ ] ❌ NO Test Levels Strategy section (obvious from test scenarios)
+- [ ] ❌ NO NFR Readiness Summary
+- [ ] ❌ NO Quality Gate Criteria section (teams decide for themselves)
+- [ ] ❌ NO Follow-on Workflows section (BMAD commands self-explanatory)
+- [ ] ❌ NO Approval section
+- [ ] ❌ NO Infrastructure/DevOps/Finance effort tables (out of scope)
+- [ ] ❌ NO Sprint 0/1/2/3 breakdown tables
+- [ ] ❌ NO Next Steps section
+
+### Cross-Document Consistency
+
+- [ ] Both documents reference same risks by ID (R-001, R-002, etc.)
+- [ ] Both documents use consistent priority levels (P0, P1, P2, P3)
+- [ ] Both documents reference same Sprint 0 blockers
+- [ ] No duplicate content (cross-reference instead)
+- [ ] Dates and authors match across documents
+- [ ] ADR and PRD references consistent
+
+### Document Quality (Anti-Bloat Check)
+
+**CRITICAL: Check for bloat and repetition across BOTH documents**
+
+- [ ] **No repeated notes 10+ times** (e.g., "Timing is pessimistic until R-005 fixed" on every section)
+- [ ] **Repeated information consolidated** (write once at top, reference briefly if needed)
+- [ ] **No excessive detail** that doesn't add value (obvious concepts, redundant examples)
+- [ ] **Focus on unique/critical info** (only document what's different from standard practice)
+- [ ] **Architecture doc**: Concerns-focused, NOT implementation-focused
+- [ ] **QA doc**: Implementation-focused, NOT theory-focused
+- [ ] **Clear separation**: Architecture = WHAT and WHY, QA = HOW
+- [ ] **Professional tone**: No AI slop markers
+  - [ ] Avoid excessive ✅/❌ emojis (use sparingly, only when adding clarity)
+  - [ ] Avoid "absolutely", "excellent", "fantastic", overly enthusiastic language
+  - [ ] Write professionally and directly
+- [ ] **Architecture doc length**: Target ~150-200 lines max (focus on actionable concerns only)
+- [ ] **QA doc length**: Keep concise, remove bloat sections
+
+### Architecture Doc Structure (Actionable-First Principle)
+
+**CRITICAL: Validate structure follows actionable-first, FYI-last principle**
+
+- [ ] **Actionable sections at TOP:**
+  - [ ] Quick Guide (🚨 BLOCKERS first, then ⚠️ HIGH PRIORITY, then 📋 INFO ONLY last)
+  - [ ] Risk Assessment (high-priority risks ≥6 at top)
+  - [ ] Testability Concerns (concerns/blockers at top, passing items at bottom)
+  - [ ] Risk Mitigation Plans (for high-priority risks ≥6)
+- [ ] **FYI sections at BOTTOM:**
+  - [ ] Testability Assessment Summary (what works well - only if worth mentioning)
+  - [ ] Assumptions and Dependencies
+- [ ] **ASRs categorized correctly:**
+  - [ ] Actionable ASRs included in 🚨 or ⚠️ sections
+  - [ ] FYI ASRs included in 📋 section or omitted if obvious
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+**All must be true:**
+
+- [ ] All prerequisites met
+- [ ] All process steps completed
+- [ ] All output validations passed
+- [ ] All quality checks passed
+- [ ] All integration points verified
+- [ ] Output file(s) complete and well-formatted
+- [ ] **System-level mode:** Both documents validated (if applicable)
+- [ ] **Epic-level mode:** Single document validated (if applicable)
+- [ ] Team review scheduled (if required)
+
+## Post-Workflow Actions
+
+**User must complete:**
+
+1. [ ] Review risk assessment with team
+2. [ ] Prioritize mitigation for high-priority risks (score ≥6)
+3. [ ] Allocate resources per estimates
+4. [ ] Run `*atdd` workflow to generate P0 tests (separate workflow; not auto-run)
+5. [ ] Set up test data factories and fixtures
+6. [ ] Schedule team review of test design document
+
+**Recommended next workflows:**
+
+1. [ ] Run `atdd` workflow for P0 test generation
+2. [ ] Run `framework` workflow if not already done
+3. [ ] Run `ci` workflow to configure pipeline stages
+
+## Rollback Procedure
+
+If workflow fails:
+
+1. [ ] Delete output file
+2. [ ] Review error logs
+3. [ ] Fix missing context (PRD, architecture docs)
+4. [ ] Clarify ambiguous requirements
+5. [ ] Retry workflow
+
+## Notes
+
+### Common Issues
+
+**Issue**: Too many P0 tests
+
+- **Solution**: Apply strict P0 criteria - must block core AND high risk AND no workaround
+
+**Issue**: Risk scores all high
+
+- **Solution**: Differentiate between high-impact (3) and degraded (2) impacts
+
+**Issue**: Duplicate coverage across levels
+
+- **Solution**: Use test pyramid - E2E for critical paths only
+
+**Issue**: Resource estimates too high or too precise
+
+- **Solution**:
+  - Invest in fixtures/factories to reduce per-test setup time
+  - Use interval ranges (e.g., "~55-110 hours") instead of exact numbers (e.g., "81 hours")
+  - Widen intervals if high uncertainty exists
+
+**Issue**: Execution order section too complex or redundant
+
+- **Solution**:
+  - Default: Run everything in PRs (<15 min with Playwright parallelization)
+  - Only defer to nightly/weekly if expensive (k6, chaos, 4+ hour tests)
+  - Don't create smoke/P0/P1/P2/P3 tier structure
+  - Don't re-list all tests (already in coverage plan)
+
+### Best Practices
+
+- Base risk assessment on evidence, not assumptions
+- High-priority risks (≥6) require immediate mitigation
+- P0 tests should cover <10% of total scenarios
+- Avoid testing same behavior at multiple levels
+- **Use interval-based estimates** (e.g., "~25-40 hours") instead of exact numbers to avoid false precision and provide flexibility
+- **Keep execution strategy simple**: Default to "run everything in PRs" (<15 min with Playwright), only defer if expensive/long-running
+- **Avoid execution order redundancy**: Don't create complex tier structures or re-list tests
+
+---
+
+**Checklist Complete**: Sign off when all items validated.
+
+**Completed by:** {name}
+**Date:** {date}
+**Epic:** {epic title}
+**Notes:** {additional notes}

_bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/test-design-architecture-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+# Test Design for Architecture: {Feature Name}
+
+**Purpose:** Architectural concerns, testability gaps, and NFR requirements for review by Architecture/Dev teams. Serves as a contract between QA and Engineering on what must be addressed before test development begins.
+
+**Date:** {date}
+**Author:** {author}
+**Status:** Architecture Review Pending
+**Project:** {project_name}
+**PRD Reference:** {prd_link}
+**ADR Reference:** {adr_link}
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Scope:** {Brief description of feature scope}
+
+**Business Context** (from PRD):
+- **Revenue/Impact:** {Business metrics if applicable}
+- **Problem:** {Problem being solved}
+- **GA Launch:** {Target date or timeline}
+
+**Architecture** (from ADR {adr_number}):
+- **Key Decision 1:** {e.g., OAuth 2.1 authentication}
+- **Key Decision 2:** {e.g., Centralized MCP Server pattern}
+- **Key Decision 3:** {e.g., Stack: TypeScript, SDK v1.x}
+
+**Expected Scale** (from ADR):
+- {RPS, volume, users, etc.}
+
+**Risk Summary:**
+- **Total risks**: {N}
+- **High-priority (≥6)**: {N} risks requiring immediate mitigation
+- **Test effort**: ~{N} tests (~{X} weeks for 1 QA, ~{Y} weeks for 2 QAs)
+
+---
+
+## Quick Guide
+
+### 🚨 BLOCKERS - Team Must Decide (Can't Proceed Without)
+
+**Sprint 0 Critical Path** - These MUST be completed before QA can write integration tests:
+
+1. **{Blocker ID}: {Blocker Title}** - {What architecture must provide} (recommended owner: {Team/Role})
+2. **{Blocker ID}: {Blocker Title}** - {What architecture must provide} (recommended owner: {Team/Role})
+3. **{Blocker ID}: {Blocker Title}** - {What architecture must provide} (recommended owner: {Team/Role})
+
+**What we need from team:** Complete these {N} items in Sprint 0 or test development is blocked.
+
+---
+
+### ⚠️ HIGH PRIORITY - Team Should Validate (We Provide Recommendation, You Approve)
+
+1. **{Risk ID}: {Title}** - {Recommendation + who should approve} (Sprint {N})
+2. **{Risk ID}: {Title}** - {Recommendation + who should approve} (Sprint {N})
+3. **{Risk ID}: {Title}** - {Recommendation + who should approve} (Sprint {N})
+
+**What we need from team:** Review recommendations and approve (or suggest changes).
+
+---
+
+### 📋 INFO ONLY - Solutions Provided (Review, No Decisions Needed)
+
+1. **Test strategy**: {Test level split} ({Rationale})
+2. **Tooling**: {Test frameworks and utilities}
+3. **Tiered CI/CD**: {Execution tiers with timing}
+4. **Coverage**: ~{N} test scenarios prioritized P0-P3 with risk-based classification
+5. **Quality gates**: {Pass criteria}
+
+**What we need from team:** Just review and acknowledge (we already have the solution).
+
+---
+
+## For Architects and Devs - Open Topics 👷
+
+### Risk Assessment
+
+**Total risks identified**: {N} ({X} high-priority score ≥6, {Y} medium, {Z} low)
+
+#### High-Priority Risks (Score ≥6) - IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description | Probability | Impact | Score | Mitigation | Owner | Timeline |
+|---------|----------|-------------|-------------|--------|-------|------------|-------|----------|
+| **{R-ID}** | **{CAT}** | {Description} | {1-3} | {1-3} | **{Score}** | {Mitigation strategy} | {Owner} | {Date} |
+
+#### Medium-Priority Risks (Score 3-5)
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description | Probability | Impact | Score | Mitigation | Owner |
+|---------|----------|-------------|-------------|--------|-------|------------|-------|
+| {R-ID} | {CAT} | {Description} | {1-3} | {1-3} | {Score} | {Mitigation} | {Owner} |
+
+#### Low-Priority Risks (Score 1-2)
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description | Probability | Impact | Score | Action |
+|---------|----------|-------------|-------------|--------|-------|--------|
+| {R-ID} | {CAT} | {Description} | {1-3} | {1-3} | {Score} | Monitor |
+
+#### Risk Category Legend
+
+- **TECH**: Technical/Architecture (flaws, integration, scalability)
+- **SEC**: Security (access controls, auth, data exposure)
+- **PERF**: Performance (SLA violations, degradation, resource limits)
+- **DATA**: Data Integrity (loss, corruption, inconsistency)
+- **BUS**: Business Impact (UX harm, logic errors, revenue)
+- **OPS**: Operations (deployment, config, monitoring)
+
+---
+
+### Testability Concerns and Architectural Gaps
+
+**🚨 ACTIONABLE CONCERNS - Architecture Team Must Address**
+
+{If system has critical testability concerns, list them here. If architecture supports testing well, state "No critical testability concerns identified" and skip to Testability Assessment Summary}
+
+#### 1. Blockers to Fast Feedback (WHAT WE NEED FROM ARCHITECTURE)
+
+| Concern | Impact | What Architecture Must Provide | Owner | Timeline |
+|---------|--------|--------------------------------|-------|----------|
+| **{Concern name}** | {Impact on testing} | {Specific architectural change needed} | {Team} | {Sprint} |
+
+**Example:**
+- **No API for test data seeding** → Cannot parallelize tests → Provide POST /test/seed endpoint (Backend, Sprint 0)
+
+#### 2. Architectural Improvements Needed (WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED)
+
+{List specific improvements that would make the system more testable}
+
+1. **{Improvement name}**
+   - **Current problem**: {What's wrong}
+   - **Required change**: {What architecture must do}
+   - **Impact if not fixed**: {Consequences}
+   - **Owner**: {Team}
+   - **Timeline**: {Sprint}
+
+---
+
+### Testability Assessment Summary
+
+**📊 CURRENT STATE - FYI**
+
+{Only include this section if there are passing items worth mentioning. Otherwise omit.}
+
+#### What Works Well
+
+- ✅ {Passing item 1} (e.g., "API-first design supports parallel test execution")
+- ✅ {Passing item 2} (e.g., "Feature flags enable test isolation")
+- ✅ {Passing item 3}
+
+#### Accepted Trade-offs (No Action Required)
+
+For {Feature} Phase 1, the following trade-offs are acceptable:
+- **{Trade-off 1}** - {Why acceptable for now}
+- **{Trade-off 2}** - {Why acceptable for now}
+
+{This is technical debt OR acceptable for Phase 1} that {should be revisited post-GA OR maintained as-is}
+
+---
+
+### Risk Mitigation Plans (High-Priority Risks ≥6)
+
+**Purpose**: Detailed mitigation strategies for all {N} high-priority risks (score ≥6). These risks MUST be addressed before {GA launch date or milestone}.
+
+#### {R-ID}: {Risk Description} (Score: {Score}) - {CRITICALITY LEVEL}
+
+**Mitigation Strategy:**
+1. {Step 1}
+2. {Step 2}
+3. {Step 3}
+
+**Owner:** {Owner}
+**Timeline:** {Sprint or date}
+**Status:** Planned / In Progress / Complete
+**Verification:** {How to verify mitigation is effective}
+
+---
+
+{Repeat for all high-priority risks}
+
+---
+
+### Assumptions and Dependencies
+
+#### Assumptions
+
+1. {Assumption about architecture or requirements}
+2. {Assumption about team or timeline}
+3. {Assumption about scope or constraints}
+
+#### Dependencies
+
+1. {Dependency} - Required by {date/sprint}
+2. {Dependency} - Required by {date/sprint}
+
+#### Risks to Plan
+
+- **Risk**: {Risk to the test plan itself}
+  - **Impact**: {How it affects testing}
+  - **Contingency**: {Backup plan}
+
+---
+
+**End of Architecture Document**
+
+**Next Steps for Architecture Team:**
+1. Review Quick Guide (🚨/⚠️/📋) and prioritize blockers
+2. Assign owners and timelines for high-priority risks (≥6)
+3. Validate assumptions and dependencies
+4. Provide feedback to QA on testability gaps
+
+**Next Steps for QA Team:**
+1. Wait for Sprint 0 blockers to be resolved
+2. Refer to companion QA doc (test-design-qa.md) for test scenarios
+3. Begin test infrastructure setup (factories, fixtures, environments)

_bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/test-design-qa-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+# Test Design for QA: {Feature Name}
+
+**Purpose:** Test execution recipe for QA team. Defines what to test, how to test it, and what QA needs from other teams.
+
+**Date:** {date}
+**Author:** {author}
+**Status:** Draft
+**Project:** {project_name}
+
+**Related:** See Architecture doc (test-design-architecture.md) for testability concerns and architectural blockers.
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Scope:** {Brief description of testing scope}
+
+**Risk Summary:**
+- Total Risks: {N} ({X} high-priority score ≥6, {Y} medium, {Z} low)
+- Critical Categories: {Categories with most high-priority risks}
+
+**Coverage Summary:**
+- P0 tests: ~{N} (critical paths, security)
+- P1 tests: ~{N} (important features, integration)
+- P2 tests: ~{N} (edge cases, regression)
+- P3 tests: ~{N} (exploratory, benchmarks)
+- **Total**: ~{N} tests (~{X}-{Y} weeks with 1 QA)
+
+---
+
+## Dependencies & Test Blockers
+
+**CRITICAL:** QA cannot proceed without these items from other teams.
+
+### Backend/Architecture Dependencies (Sprint 0)
+
+**Source:** See Architecture doc "Quick Guide" for detailed mitigation plans
+
+1. **{Dependency 1}** - {Team} - {Timeline}
+   - {What QA needs}
+   - {Why it blocks testing}
+
+2. **{Dependency 2}** - {Team} - {Timeline}
+   - {What QA needs}
+   - {Why it blocks testing}
+
+### QA Infrastructure Setup (Sprint 0)
+
+1. **Test Data Factories** - QA
+   - {Entity} factory with faker-based randomization
+   - Auto-cleanup fixtures for parallel safety
+
+2. **Test Environments** - QA
+   - Local: {Setup details}
+   - CI/CD: {Setup details}
+   - Staging: {Setup details}
+
+**Example factory pattern:**
+
+```typescript
+import { test } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/api-request/fixtures';
+import { expect } from '@playwright/test';
+import { faker } from '@faker-js/faker';
+
+test('example test @p0', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
+  const testData = {
+    id: `test-${faker.string.uuid()}`,
+    email: faker.internet.email(),
+  };
+
+  const { status } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'POST',
+    path: '/api/resource',
+    body: testData,
+  });
+
+  expect(status).toBe(201);
+});
+```
+
+---
+
+## Risk Assessment
+
+**Note:** Full risk details in Architecture doc. This section summarizes risks relevant to QA test planning.
+
+### High-Priority Risks (Score ≥6)
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description | Score | QA Test Coverage |
+|---------|----------|-------------|-------|------------------|
+| **{R-ID}** | {CAT} | {Brief description} | **{Score}** | {How QA validates this risk} |
+
+### Medium/Low-Priority Risks
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description | Score | QA Test Coverage |
+|---------|----------|-------------|-------|------------------|
+| {R-ID} | {CAT} | {Brief description} | {Score} | {How QA validates this risk} |
+
+---
+
+## Test Coverage Plan
+
+**IMPORTANT:** P0/P1/P2/P3 = **priority and risk level** (what to focus on if time-constrained), NOT execution timing. See "Execution Strategy" for when tests run.
+
+### P0 (Critical)
+
+**Criteria:** Blocks core functionality + High risk (≥6) + No workaround + Affects majority of users
+
+| Test ID | Requirement | Test Level | Risk Link | Notes |
+|---------|-------------|------------|-----------|-------|
+| **P0-001** | {Requirement} | {Level} | {R-ID} | {Notes} |
+| **P0-002** | {Requirement} | {Level} | {R-ID} | {Notes} |
+
+**Total P0:** ~{N} tests
+
+---
+
+### P1 (High)
+
+**Criteria:** Important features + Medium risk (3-4) + Common workflows + Workaround exists but difficult
+
+| Test ID | Requirement | Test Level | Risk Link | Notes |
+|---------|-------------|------------|-----------|-------|
+| **P1-001** | {Requirement} | {Level} | {R-ID} | {Notes} |
+| **P1-002** | {Requirement} | {Level} | {R-ID} | {Notes} |
+
+**Total P1:** ~{N} tests
+
+---
+
+### P2 (Medium)
+
+**Criteria:** Secondary features + Low risk (1-2) + Edge cases + Regression prevention
+
+| Test ID | Requirement | Test Level | Risk Link | Notes |
+|---------|-------------|------------|-----------|-------|
+| **P2-001** | {Requirement} | {Level} | {R-ID} | {Notes} |
+
+**Total P2:** ~{N} tests
+
+---
+
+### P3 (Low)
+
+**Criteria:** Nice-to-have + Exploratory + Performance benchmarks + Documentation validation
+
+| Test ID | Requirement | Test Level | Notes |
+|---------|-------------|------------|-------|
+| **P3-001** | {Requirement} | {Level} | {Notes} |
+
+**Total P3:** ~{N} tests
+
+---
+
+## Execution Strategy
+
+**Philosophy:** Run everything in PRs unless there's significant infrastructure overhead. Playwright with parallelization is extremely fast (100s of tests in ~10-15 min).
+
+**Organized by TOOL TYPE:**
+
+### Every PR: Playwright Tests (~10-15 min)
+
+**All functional tests** (from any priority level):
+- All E2E, API, integration, unit tests using Playwright
+- Parallelized across {N} shards
+- Total: ~{N} Playwright tests (includes P0, P1, P2, P3)
+
+**Why run in PRs:** Fast feedback, no expensive infrastructure
+
+### Nightly: k6 Performance Tests (~30-60 min)
+
+**All performance tests** (from any priority level):
+- Load, stress, spike, endurance tests
+- Total: ~{N} k6 tests (may include P0, P1, P2)
+
+**Why defer to nightly:** Expensive infrastructure (k6 Cloud), long-running (10-40 min per test)
+
+### Weekly: Chaos & Long-Running (~hours)
+
+**Special infrastructure tests** (from any priority level):
+- Multi-region failover (requires AWS Fault Injection Simulator)
+- Disaster recovery (backup restore, 4+ hours)
+- Endurance tests (4+ hours runtime)
+
+**Why defer to weekly:** Very expensive infrastructure, very long-running, infrequent validation sufficient
+
+**Manual tests** (excluded from automation):
+- DevOps validation (deployment, monitoring)
+- Finance validation (cost alerts)
+- Documentation validation
+
+---
+
+## QA Effort Estimate
+
+**QA test development effort only** (excludes DevOps, Backend, Data Eng, Finance work):
+
+| Priority | Count | Effort Range | Notes |
+|----------|-------|--------------|-------|
+| P0 | ~{N} | ~{X}-{Y} weeks | Complex setup (security, performance, multi-step) |
+| P1 | ~{N} | ~{X}-{Y} weeks | Standard coverage (integration, API tests) |
+| P2 | ~{N} | ~{X}-{Y} days | Edge cases, simple validation |
+| P3 | ~{N} | ~{X}-{Y} days | Exploratory, benchmarks |
+| **Total** | ~{N} | **~{X}-{Y} weeks** | **1 QA engineer, full-time** |
+
+**Assumptions:**
+- Includes test design, implementation, debugging, CI integration
+- Excludes ongoing maintenance (~10% effort)
+- Assumes test infrastructure (factories, fixtures) ready
+
+**Dependencies from other teams:**
+- See "Dependencies & Test Blockers" section for what QA needs from Backend, DevOps, Data Eng
+
+---
+
+## Appendix A: Code Examples & Tagging
+
+**Playwright Tags for Selective Execution:**
+
+```typescript
+import { test } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/api-request/fixtures';
+import { expect } from '@playwright/test';
+
+// P0 critical test
+test('@P0 @API @Security unauthenticated request returns 401', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
+  const { status, body } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'POST',
+    path: '/api/endpoint',
+    body: { data: 'test' },
+    skipAuth: true,
+  });
+
+  expect(status).toBe(401);
+  expect(body.error).toContain('unauthorized');
+});
+
+// P1 integration test
+test('@P1 @Integration data syncs correctly', async ({ apiRequest }) => {
+  // Seed data
+  await apiRequest({
+    method: 'POST',
+    path: '/api/seed',
+    body: { /* test data */ },
+  });
+
+  // Validate
+  const { status, body } = await apiRequest({
+    method: 'GET',
+    path: '/api/resource',
+  });
+
+  expect(status).toBe(200);
+  expect(body).toHaveProperty('data');
+});
+```
+
+**Run specific tags:**
+
+```bash
+# Run only P0 tests
+npx playwright test --grep @P0
+
+# Run P0 + P1 tests
+npx playwright test --grep "@P0|@P1"
+
+# Run only security tests
+npx playwright test --grep @Security
+
+# Run all Playwright tests in PR (default)
+npx playwright test
+```
+
+---
+
+## Appendix B: Knowledge Base References
+
+- **Risk Governance**: `risk-governance.md` - Risk scoring methodology
+- **Test Priorities Matrix**: `test-priorities-matrix.md` - P0-P3 criteria
+- **Test Levels Framework**: `test-levels-framework.md` - E2E vs API vs Unit selection
+- **Test Quality**: `test-quality.md` - Definition of Done (no hard waits, <300 lines, <1.5 min)
+
+---
+
+**Generated by:** BMad TEA Agent
+**Workflow:** `_bmad/bmm/testarch/test-design`
+**Version:** 4.0 (BMad v6)

_bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/test-design-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
+# Test Design: Epic {epic_num} - {epic_title}
+
+**Date:** {date}
+**Author:** {user_name}
+**Status:** Draft / Approved
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Scope:** {design_level} test design for Epic {epic_num}
+
+**Risk Summary:**
+
+- Total risks identified: {total_risks}
+- High-priority risks (≥6): {high_priority_count}
+- Critical categories: {top_categories}
+
+**Coverage Summary:**
+
+- P0 scenarios: {p0_count} ({p0_hours} hours)
+- P1 scenarios: {p1_count} ({p1_hours} hours)
+- P2/P3 scenarios: {p2p3_count} ({p2p3_hours} hours)
+- **Total effort**: {total_hours} hours (~{total_days} days)
+
+---
+
+## Risk Assessment
+
+### High-Priority Risks (Score ≥6)
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description   | Probability | Impact | Score | Mitigation   | Owner   | Timeline |
+| ------- | -------- | ------------- | ----------- | ------ | ----- | ------------ | ------- | -------- |
+| R-001   | SEC      | {description} | 2           | 3      | 6     | {mitigation} | {owner} | {date}   |
+| R-002   | PERF     | {description} | 3           | 2      | 6     | {mitigation} | {owner} | {date}   |
+
+### Medium-Priority Risks (Score 3-4)
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description   | Probability | Impact | Score | Mitigation   | Owner   |
+| ------- | -------- | ------------- | ----------- | ------ | ----- | ------------ | ------- |
+| R-003   | TECH     | {description} | 2           | 2      | 4     | {mitigation} | {owner} |
+| R-004   | DATA     | {description} | 1           | 3      | 3     | {mitigation} | {owner} |
+
+### Low-Priority Risks (Score 1-2)
+
+| Risk ID | Category | Description   | Probability | Impact | Score | Action  |
+| ------- | -------- | ------------- | ----------- | ------ | ----- | ------- |
+| R-005   | OPS      | {description} | 1           | 2      | 2     | Monitor |
+| R-006   | BUS      | {description} | 1           | 1      | 1     | Monitor |
+
+### Risk Category Legend
+
+- **TECH**: Technical/Architecture (flaws, integration, scalability)
+- **SEC**: Security (access controls, auth, data exposure)
+- **PERF**: Performance (SLA violations, degradation, resource limits)
+- **DATA**: Data Integrity (loss, corruption, inconsistency)
+- **BUS**: Business Impact (UX harm, logic errors, revenue)
+- **OPS**: Operations (deployment, config, monitoring)
+
+---
+
+## Test Coverage Plan
+
+### P0 (Critical) - Run on every commit
+
+**Criteria**: Blocks core journey + High risk (≥6) + No workaround
+
+| Requirement   | Test Level | Risk Link | Test Count | Owner | Notes   |
+| ------------- | ---------- | --------- | ---------- | ----- | ------- |
+| {requirement} | E2E        | R-001     | 3          | QA    | {notes} |
+| {requirement} | API        | R-002     | 5          | QA    | {notes} |
+
+**Total P0**: {p0_count} tests, {p0_hours} hours
+
+### P1 (High) - Run on PR to main
+
+**Criteria**: Important features + Medium risk (3-4) + Common workflows
+
+| Requirement   | Test Level | Risk Link | Test Count | Owner | Notes   |
+| ------------- | ---------- | --------- | ---------- | ----- | ------- |
+| {requirement} | API        | R-003     | 4          | QA    | {notes} |
+| {requirement} | Component  | -         | 6          | DEV   | {notes} |
+
+**Total P1**: {p1_count} tests, {p1_hours} hours
+
+### P2 (Medium) - Run nightly/weekly
+
+**Criteria**: Secondary features + Low risk (1-2) + Edge cases
+
+| Requirement   | Test Level | Risk Link | Test Count | Owner | Notes   |
+| ------------- | ---------- | --------- | ---------- | ----- | ------- |
+| {requirement} | API        | R-004     | 8          | QA    | {notes} |
+| {requirement} | Unit       | -         | 15         | DEV   | {notes} |
+
+**Total P2**: {p2_count} tests, {p2_hours} hours
+
+### P3 (Low) - Run on-demand
+
+**Criteria**: Nice-to-have + Exploratory + Performance benchmarks
+
+| Requirement   | Test Level | Test Count | Owner | Notes   |
+| ------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ----- | ------- |
+| {requirement} | E2E        | 2          | QA    | {notes} |
+| {requirement} | Unit       | 8          | DEV   | {notes} |
+
+**Total P3**: {p3_count} tests, {p3_hours} hours
+
+---
+
+## Execution Order
+
+### Smoke Tests (<5 min)
+
+**Purpose**: Fast feedback, catch build-breaking issues
+
+- [ ] {scenario} (30s)
+- [ ] {scenario} (45s)
+- [ ] {scenario} (1min)
+
+**Total**: {smoke_count} scenarios
+
+### P0 Tests (<10 min)
+
+**Purpose**: Critical path validation
+
+- [ ] {scenario} (E2E)
+- [ ] {scenario} (API)
+- [ ] {scenario} (API)
+
+**Total**: {p0_count} scenarios
+
+### P1 Tests (<30 min)
+
+**Purpose**: Important feature coverage
+
+- [ ] {scenario} (API)
+- [ ] {scenario} (Component)
+
+**Total**: {p1_count} scenarios
+
+### P2/P3 Tests (<60 min)
+
+**Purpose**: Full regression coverage
+
+- [ ] {scenario} (Unit)
+- [ ] {scenario} (API)
+
+**Total**: {p2p3_count} scenarios
+
+---
+
+## Resource Estimates
+
+### Test Development Effort
+
+| Priority  | Count             | Hours/Test | Total Hours       | Notes                   |
+| --------- | ----------------- | ---------- | ----------------- | ----------------------- |
+| P0        | {p0_count}        | 2.0        | {p0_hours}        | Complex setup, security |
+| P1        | {p1_count}        | 1.0        | {p1_hours}        | Standard coverage       |
+| P2        | {p2_count}        | 0.5        | {p2_hours}        | Simple scenarios        |
+| P3        | {p3_count}        | 0.25       | {p3_hours}        | Exploratory             |
+| **Total** | **{total_count}** | **-**      | **{total_hours}** | **~{total_days} days**  |
+
+### Prerequisites
+
+**Test Data:**
+
+- {factory_name} factory (faker-based, auto-cleanup)
+- {fixture_name} fixture (setup/teardown)
+
+**Tooling:**
+
+- {tool} for {purpose}
+- {tool} for {purpose}
+
+**Environment:**
+
+- {env_requirement}
+- {env_requirement}
+
+---
+
+## Quality Gate Criteria
+
+### Pass/Fail Thresholds
+
+- **P0 pass rate**: 100% (no exceptions)
+- **P1 pass rate**: ≥95% (waivers required for failures)
+- **P2/P3 pass rate**: ≥90% (informational)
+- **High-risk mitigations**: 100% complete or approved waivers
+
+### Coverage Targets
+
+- **Critical paths**: ≥80%
+- **Security scenarios**: 100%
+- **Business logic**: ≥70%
+- **Edge cases**: ≥50%
+
+### Non-Negotiable Requirements
+
+- [ ] All P0 tests pass
+- [ ] No high-risk (≥6) items unmitigated
+- [ ] Security tests (SEC category) pass 100%
+- [ ] Performance targets met (PERF category)
+
+---
+
+## Mitigation Plans
+
+### R-001: {Risk Description} (Score: 6)
+
+**Mitigation Strategy:** {detailed_mitigation}
+**Owner:** {owner}
+**Timeline:** {date}
+**Status:** Planned / In Progress / Complete
+**Verification:** {how_to_verify}
+
+### R-002: {Risk Description} (Score: 6)
+
+**Mitigation Strategy:** {detailed_mitigation}
+**Owner:** {owner}
+**Timeline:** {date}
+**Status:** Planned / In Progress / Complete
+**Verification:** {how_to_verify}
+
+---
+
+## Assumptions and Dependencies
+
+### Assumptions
+
+1. {assumption}
+2. {assumption}
+3. {assumption}
+
+### Dependencies
+
+1. {dependency} - Required by {date}
+2. {dependency} - Required by {date}
+
+### Risks to Plan
+
+- **Risk**: {risk_to_plan}
+  - **Impact**: {impact}
+  - **Contingency**: {contingency}
+
+---
+
+---
+
+## Follow-on Workflows (Manual)
+
+- Run `*atdd` to generate failing P0 tests (separate workflow; not auto-run).
+- Run `*automate` for broader coverage once implementation exists.
+
+---
+
+## Approval
+
+**Test Design Approved By:**
+
+- [ ] Product Manager: {name} Date: {date}
+- [ ] Tech Lead: {name} Date: {date}
+- [ ] QA Lead: {name} Date: {date}
+
+**Comments:**
+
+---
+
+---
+
+---
+
+## Appendix
+
+### Knowledge Base References
+
+- `risk-governance.md` - Risk classification framework
+- `probability-impact.md` - Risk scoring methodology
+- `test-levels-framework.md` - Test level selection
+- `test-priorities-matrix.md` - P0-P3 prioritization
+
+### Related Documents
+
+- PRD: {prd_link}
+- Epic: {epic_link}
+- Architecture: {arch_link}
+- Tech Spec: {tech_spec_link}
+
+---
+
+**Generated by**: BMad TEA Agent - Test Architect Module
+**Workflow**: `_bmad/bmm/testarch/test-design`
+**Version**: 4.0 (BMad v6)

_bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Test Architect workflow: test-design
+name: testarch-test-design
+description: "Dual-mode workflow: (1) System-level testability review in Solutioning phase, or (2) Epic-level test planning in Implementation phase. Auto-detects mode based on project phase."
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables from config
+config_source: "{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+communication_language: "{config_source}:communication_language"
+document_output_language: "{config_source}:document_output_language"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Workflow components
+installed_path: "{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/workflows/testarch/test-design"
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+validation: "{installed_path}/checklist.md"
+# Note: Template selection is mode-based (see instructions.md Step 1.5):
+#   - System-level: test-design-architecture-template.md + test-design-qa-template.md
+#   - Epic-level: test-design-template.md (unchanged)
+template: "{installed_path}/test-design-template.md"
+
+# Variables and inputs
+variables:
+  design_level: "full" # full, targeted, minimal - scope of design effort
+  mode: "auto-detect" # auto-detect (default), system-level, epic-level
+
+# Output configuration
+# Note: Actual output file determined dynamically based on mode detection
+# Declared outputs for new workflow format
+outputs:
+  # System-Level Mode (Phase 3) - TWO documents
+  - id: test-design-architecture
+    description: "System-level test architecture: Architectural concerns, testability gaps, NFR requirements for Architecture/Dev teams"
+    path: "{output_folder}/test-design-architecture.md"
+    mode: system-level
+    audience: architecture
+
+  - id: test-design-qa
+    description: "System-level test design: Test execution recipe, coverage plan, Sprint 0 setup for QA team"
+    path: "{output_folder}/test-design-qa.md"
+    mode: system-level
+    audience: qa
+
+  # Epic-Level Mode (Phase 4) - ONE document (unchanged)
+  - id: epic-level
+    description: "Epic-level test plan (Phase 4)"
+    path: "{output_folder}/test-design-epic-{epic_num}.md"
+    mode: epic-level
+# Note: No default_output_file - mode detection determines which outputs to write
+
+# Required tools
+required_tools:
+  - read_file # Read PRD, epics, stories, architecture docs
+  - write_file # Create test design document
+  - list_files # Find related documentation
+  - search_repo # Search for existing tests and patterns
+
+tags:
+  - qa
+  - planning
+  - test-architect
+  - risk-assessment
+  - coverage
+
+execution_hints:
+  interactive: false # Minimize prompts
+  autonomous: true # Proceed without user input unless blocked
+  iterative: true