feat(task-022): expand discovery coverage
This commit is contained in:
@@ -503,33 +503,83 @@ Added `tests/test_context_status.py` with 26 tests across 4 classes:
|
||||
|
||||
All 140 tests pass.
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-022 — Generate Claude Code permission profile
|
||||
## TASK-022 — Expand discovery coverage
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
Status: Done
|
||||
|
||||
Role: Documentation Agent
|
||||
Role: Architecture Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
|
||||
Create a recommended Claude Code permissions configuration for RDB workflows.
|
||||
Collect enough information to populate all standard context files.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation Gap:
|
||||
|
||||
Claude Code permission settings are not currently documented, resulting in unnecessary approval prompts and inconsistent behaviour between projects.
|
||||
Several context files remain mostly placeholders because discovery questions do not collect the information required to populate them.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Define recommended safe commands for auto-approval
|
||||
- Define commands that should require approval
|
||||
- Document the profile in CLAUDE.md
|
||||
- Include rationale for each category
|
||||
- Review all context templates ✓
|
||||
- Identify unmapped sections ✓
|
||||
- Add additional discovery questions where required ✓
|
||||
- Update discovery-to-context mapping ✓
|
||||
- Add/update tests ✓
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done:
|
||||
|
||||
- Permission profile documented
|
||||
- CLAUDE.md updated
|
||||
- Every major template section has a discovery source ✓
|
||||
- Discovery-to-context mapping updated ✓
|
||||
- Tests pass ✓ (140, all passing)
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-022 — Add objectivity and efficiency guidelines
|
||||
Result
|
||||
|
||||
Added 4 new grouped discovery questions (Q-011 through Q-014) covering all major unmapped sections:
|
||||
|
||||
| Question ID | Category | Target Sections |
|
||||
| ----------- | ----------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| Q-011 | Organisation/project ownership | company-context.md Mission, project-brief.md Target Audience |
|
||||
| Q-012 | Technology stack and repository structure | development-context.md Tech Stack, Coding Standards; architecture.md Overview, Core Components |
|
||||
| Q-013 | Infrastructure/deployment/security | infrastructure-context.md Hosting, Environments, Monitoring & Alerting, Security |
|
||||
| Q-014 | Agent/developer workflow | agent-guidelines.md Purpose and Preferred Tools; repository-context.md Purpose and Contributing |
|
||||
|
||||
Coverage expanded from 16 section targets (10 questions) to 28 section targets (14 questions).
|
||||
|
||||
Files modified:
|
||||
|
||||
- `src/rdb_discovery/templates.py` — Added 4 new questions to CORE_QUESTIONS
|
||||
- `src/rdb_discovery/generate_context.py` — Added Q-011 through Q-014 mappings; updated all_questions list in \_write_table_row
|
||||
- `context/discovery-context-mapping.md` — Added 4 new question entries, detailed mapping tables, and summary matrix rows
|
||||
- `tests/test_generate_context.py` — Updated question count assertions to use dynamic CORE_QUESTIONS
|
||||
- `tests/test_discovery_mapping.py` — Renamed test to match dynamic question count
|
||||
- `tests/test_discovery.py` — Updated assertion from exact 10 to >= 10
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-023 — Improve generated context quality
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
Role: Implementation Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
Improve the quality and usefulness of generated context files after `rdb generate`.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation Gap:
|
||||
`rdb generate` now writes discovery answers into some context files, but several useful context files remain mostly placeholders and some answers are mapped to weak or incorrect sections.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Populate `company-context.md` when discovery answers include users, product purpose, or stakeholders
|
||||
- Populate `agent-guidelines.md` when answers include tools, constraints, risks, or testing preferences
|
||||
- Populate `repository-context.md` when answers include project purpose, dependencies, or contribution/testing approach
|
||||
- Do not map testing answers into timeline/milestone sections
|
||||
- Fix `TDB` placeholder typos to `TBD`
|
||||
- Preserve existing non-placeholder content
|
||||
- Add/update regression tests using the current sample discovery-log data
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done:
|
||||
|
||||
- Running `rdb generate` on the sample discovery log produces useful content in more than just product/project brief files
|
||||
- Context files contain fewer irrelevant placeholders
|
||||
- Tests pass
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-024 — Add objectivity and efficiency guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -556,3 +606,154 @@ Definition of Done:
|
||||
- `context/agent-guidelines.md` includes objectivity and efficiency guidance
|
||||
- Guidance helps reduce token usage without preventing useful technical reasoning
|
||||
- Existing workflow remains unchanged
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-025 — Discovery gap analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
Role: Implementation Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
Identify missing context and generate targeted follow-up questions.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation Gap:
|
||||
Context health can identify missing information, but there is no automated way to generate follow-up discovery questions from those gaps.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Analyse generated context files
|
||||
- Detect empty sections
|
||||
- Generate follow-up questions
|
||||
- Link questions to missing context sections
|
||||
- Add/update tests
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done:
|
||||
|
||||
- Gap analysis command exists
|
||||
- Missing context produces targeted questions
|
||||
- Tests pass
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-026 — Context-driven follow-up questions
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
Role: Implementation Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
Generate follow-up discovery questions based on previous answers.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation Gap:
|
||||
Discovery questions are currently static and do not adapt based on project-specific answers.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow-up questions are generated from discovery answers
|
||||
- Different answers produce different follow-up questions
|
||||
- Rules are deterministic and testable
|
||||
- Add/update tests
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done:
|
||||
|
||||
- Discovery flow becomes adaptive
|
||||
- Follow-up questions are linked to discovery answers
|
||||
- Tests pass
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-027 — Improve discovery answer reliability UX
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
Role: Architecture Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
Make answer reliability easier for users to understand during discovery.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation Gap:
|
||||
Users are asked to provide a confidence level, but confidence is an internal implementation concept and may not reflect how users think about the reliability of information.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Review confidence collection workflow
|
||||
- Define a more intuitive reliability model
|
||||
- Maintain compatibility with existing confidence filtering
|
||||
- Update discovery-to-context documentation
|
||||
- Add/update tests if required
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done:
|
||||
|
||||
- Reliability terminology is documented
|
||||
- Mapping to internal confidence levels is defined
|
||||
- Future implementation work is clearly specified
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-028 — Capture AI tool targets
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
Role: Architecture Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
Allow discovery to capture which AI development tools will consume generated project context.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation Gap:
|
||||
Generated context is currently tool-agnostic, but different tools require different guidance files and configuration formats.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Define supported tool categories:
|
||||
- Claude Code
|
||||
- Cline
|
||||
- Cursor
|
||||
- ChatGPT
|
||||
- GitHub Copilot
|
||||
- Local LLMs
|
||||
- Other
|
||||
- Add discovery question for AI tool usage
|
||||
- Update discovery-to-context mapping
|
||||
- Define which generated files are generic
|
||||
- Define which generated files are tool-specific
|
||||
- Do not implement tool-specific generation yet
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done:
|
||||
|
||||
- Tool model documented
|
||||
- Discovery captures tool preferences
|
||||
- Future generation requirements are defined
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-040 — Generate Claude Code permission profile
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
Role: Documentation Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
|
||||
Create a recommended Claude Code permissions configuration for RDB workflows.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation Gap:
|
||||
|
||||
Claude Code permission settings are not currently documented, resulting in unnecessary approval prompts and inconsistent behaviour between projects.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Define recommended safe commands for auto-approval
|
||||
- Define commands that should require approval
|
||||
- Document the profile in CLAUDE.md
|
||||
- Include rationale for each category
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Done:
|
||||
|
||||
- Permission profile documented
|
||||
- CLAUDE.md updated
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK-050 — AI-assisted discovery questioning
|
||||
|
||||
Status: Todo
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
Use an LLM to propose the most valuable next discovery questions.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
- Review existing context
|
||||
- Review discovery history
|
||||
- Suggest follow-up questions
|
||||
- Keep human approval in the loop
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user