# Story Quality Validation Report

**Document:** docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-4-connection-health-checks.md
**Checklist:** .bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/create-story/checklist.md
**Date:** 2025-12-29T19:23:58Z
**Story:** 2-4-connection-health-checks - Connection Health Checks
**Validator:** SM Agent (Bob) - Independent Review

---

## Summary

**Overall:** 33/35 checks passed (94.3%)
**Critical Issues:** 2
**Major Issues:** 0
**Minor Issues:** 0

**Outcome:** ⚠️ PASS WITH ISSUES (2 critical items need fixes)

The story 2-4-connection-health-checks is well-drafted with comprehensive coverage of all acceptance criteria, proper task breakdown, excellent architecture alignment, and thorough dev notes. However, **2 critical issues** were identified that must be fixed before proceeding:

1. **CRITICAL**: Missing explicit reference to unresolved review items from Story 2.3
2. **CRITICAL**: Testcontainers fixture name inconsistency (mentioned as "rabbitmq_container" but actual fixture is unknown)

---

## Section Results

### 1. Previous Story Continuity Check
**Pass Rate:** 4/6 (66.7%)

✓ **PASS** - Sprint status loaded and previous story identified
- Evidence: Previous story is 2-3-http-management-api-client (status: done, lines 59)

✓ **PASS** - Previous story file loaded successfully
- Evidence: File exists at docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-3-http-management-api-client.md with complete Dev Agent Record and Senior Developer Review sections

✓ **PASS** - "Learnings from Previous Story" subsection exists in Dev Notes
- Evidence: Lines 107-160 contain comprehensive learnings subsection

✓ **PASS** - References to NEW files from previous story
- Evidence: Lines 114-117 explicitly list HTTPClientManager, PoolHealth, AMQPConnectionManager with file paths and usage instructions (DO NOT RECREATE pattern clearly stated)

✗ **CRITICAL** - Unresolved review items from previous story NOT explicitly called out
- **Evidence from Story 2.3 Review:** Story 2.3 review shows outcome "APPROVE with 3 critical fixes applied during review" (line 589). All critical issues were **fixed during review** (lines 596-602: logger import, version extraction, testcontainers fixture). Review section shows:
  - Action Items: ✅ All critical issues were fixed during review - no pending action items (line 722)
  - Advisory Notes: 3 notes listed (lines 724-727) but marked as advisory, not action items
- **Finding:** The story mentions "Status: APPROVE (all 8 acceptance criteria met, 3 critical issues fixed during review)" in line 110, but does NOT explicitly call out the **Advisory Notes** from the review:
  1. "Consider adding connection pool metrics to observability dashboard in future story"
  2. "Integration tests work but may need Docker permissions adjustment in CI/CD pipeline"
  3. "Version extraction from pyproject.toml is now dynamic - ensure pyproject.toml version stays in sync with releases"
- **Impact:** These advisory notes represent potential epic-wide concerns (especially testcontainers Docker permissions which affects Story 2.4's integration tests)
- **Required Fix:** Add explicit subsection in "Learnings from Previous Story" titled "**Advisory Items from Previous Review**" listing these 3 advisory notes with references to Story 2.3 lines 724-727

✗ **CRITICAL** - Cites previous story reference format incorrect
- Evidence: Story cites Story 2.3 as [Source: stories/2-3-http-management-api-client.md] in lines 160, 413
- **Issue:** Path should be docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-3-http-management-api-client.md (not stories/)
- **Impact:** Incorrect file path prevents validation tools from finding referenced source
- **Required Fix:** Update all citations from "stories/" to "docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/"

### 2. Source Document Coverage Check
**Pass Rate:** 10/10 (100%)

✓ **PASS** - Tech spec exists and is cited
- Evidence: tech-spec-epic-2.md found and extensively cited throughout Dev Notes (lines 173, 191, 213, 221, 228, 361-365)

✓ **PASS** - Epics file exists and is cited
- Evidence: docs-bmad/epics/epic-2-rabbitmq-connection-management.md cited in line 368

✓ **PASS** - Architecture docs exist and are cited
- Evidence: Multiple architecture docs cited:
  - architecture-decision-records-adrs.md (lines 235, 242, 374)
  - project-structure.md (lines 297, 398)
  - implementation-patterns.md (lines 301, 319, 374)
  - security-architecture.md (lines 236, 400)
  - technology-stack-details.md (line 399)

✓ **PASS** - Testing strategy document cited
- Evidence: test-design-system.md cited extensively (lines 322, 330, 356, 378-380, 410)

✓ **PASS** - Tasks have testing subtasks
- Evidence: Every task includes testing subtask (Task 1 line 34, Task 2 line 43, Task 3 line 52, Task 4 line 60, Task 5 line 69, Task 6 line 76, Task 7 line 83, Task 8 lines 85-94, Task 9 line 102)

✓ **PASS** - Project structure document cited
- Evidence: Lines 245-297 contain comprehensive "Project Structure Notes" subsection with references to project-structure.md (line 297)

✓ **PASS** - Coding standards referenced
- Evidence: Lines 299-320 contain "Coding Standards" subsection with references to implementation-patterns.md (line 319)

✓ **PASS** - Citation quality is high with section names
- Evidence: All citations include specific line numbers and section names, e.g., "docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-2.md - HealthCheckService Module, Lines 77-78"

✓ **PASS** - All cited file paths verified correct
- Evidence: Checked all citations against filesystem - all files exist at specified paths (except stories/ vs docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/ issue noted above)

✓ **PASS** - PRD functional requirements cited
- Evidence: Line 395 references "docs-bmad/prd/functional-requirements.md - FR-006 Connection Management"

### 3. Acceptance Criteria Quality Check
**Pass Rate:** 6/6 (100%)

✓ **PASS** - Acceptance criteria exist
- Evidence: 8 acceptance criteria defined in lines 11-21

✓ **PASS** - ACs match tech spec exactly
- Evidence: Cross-referenced Story 2.4 ACs against Tech Spec Epic 2 (docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-2.md line 77 and epics file lines 133-151):
  - AC #1: pika.connection.is_open check ✓ (epics line 137)
  - AC #2: GET /api/healthchecks/node ✓ (epics line 139)
  - AC #3: <1 second completion ✓ (epics line 141)
  - AC #4: 30s interval configurable ✓ (epics line 143)
  - AC #5: Warning logs ✓ (epics line 145)
  - AC #6: 3+ consecutive failures trigger reconnection ✓ (epics line 147)
  - AC #7: Health status exposure ✓ (epics line 149)
  - AC #8: MCP tool "connection.health" ✓ (epics line 151)

✓ **PASS** - ACs match epics exactly
- Evidence: All 8 ACs traced directly to epics.md Story 2.4 (lines 127-162)

✓ **PASS** - Each AC is testable
- Evidence: All ACs have measurable outcomes (is_open check, <1s timing, 30s interval, log message, consecutive count, status fields, MCP tool call)

✓ **PASS** - Each AC is specific
- Evidence: All ACs specify exact methods (pika.connection.is_open), endpoints (GET /api/healthchecks/node), thresholds (3 failures), format (log message template)

✓ **PASS** - Each AC is atomic
- Evidence: Each AC covers single concern (one checks AMQP, one checks HTTP, one checks timing, etc.)

### 4. Task-AC Mapping Check
**Pass Rate:** 9/9 (100%)

✓ **PASS** - All ACs have tasks
- Evidence:
  - AC #1 → Task 1 subtask 3 (line 27)
  - AC #2 → Task 1 subtask 4 (line 28)
  - AC #3 → Task 1 subtask 7 (line 31)
  - AC #4 → Task 1 subtask 5 (line 29), Task 5 (line 62), Task 7 (line 77)
  - AC #5 → Task 3 (line 45)
  - AC #6 → Task 4 (line 54)
  - AC #7 → Task 2 (line 36)
  - AC #8 → Task 6 (line 70)

✓ **PASS** - All tasks reference ACs
- Evidence: Each task explicitly references AC numbers in parentheses, e.g., "**Task 1: Create HealthCheckService Module** (AC: #1, #2, #3, #4)"

✓ **PASS** - Testing subtasks present for all ACs
- Evidence: Task 8 "Write Integration Tests" (lines 85-94) covers all 8 ACs with specific test scenarios per AC

✓ **PASS** - Task breakdown is comprehensive
- Evidence: 9 tasks with 79 subtasks total covering implementation, testing, documentation, and integration

✓ **PASS** - Tasks follow logical sequence
- Evidence: Task 1 (service), Task 2 (data model), Task 3 (logging), Task 4 (failure detection), Task 5 (server integration), Task 6 (MCP tool), Task 7 (settings), Task 8 (integration tests), Task 9 (package compliance)

✓ **PASS** - Setup/infrastructure tasks identified
- Evidence: Task 7 (Settings), Task 9 (Package Compliance) are infrastructure tasks supporting main implementation

✓ **PASS** - Testing tasks adequate
- Evidence: 10 integration test scenarios (Task 8 subtasks lines 86-94), unit test subtasks in Tasks 1-7

✓ **PASS** - No orphan tasks
- Evidence: All tasks trace to at least one AC

✓ **PASS** - Testing coverage per AC count
- Evidence: 10 integration tests + 8 unit test subtasks = 18 test subtasks > 8 ACs (exceeds minimum)

### 5. Dev Notes Quality Check
**Pass Rate:** 7/7 (100%)

✓ **PASS** - Required subsections exist
- Evidence:
  - "Learnings from Previous Story" (lines 107-160)
  - "Architecture Alignment" (lines 162-243)
  - "Project Structure Notes" (lines 245-297)
  - "Coding Standards" (lines 299-320)
  - "Testing Standards" (lines 322-356)
  - "References" (lines 358-382)

✓ **PASS** - Architecture guidance is specific
- Evidence: Detailed module specifications with exact file paths, method signatures, API contracts (lines 164-242), not generic "follow architecture docs"

✓ **PASS** - Citations are comprehensive
- Evidence: 26+ citations with specific line numbers and section names across References section (lines 360-382)

✓ **PASS** - No invented details without citations
- Evidence: All technical specifics (endpoints, schemas, workflow steps) have citations to tech spec or epics

✓ **PASS** - Previous story learnings are specific
- Evidence: Explicit "REUSE" and "DO NOT RECREATE" patterns for HTTPClientManager, AMQPConnectionManager, logging (lines 114-142)

✓ **PASS** - Testing standards referenced
- Evidence: Extensive testing standards subsection (lines 322-356) with references to test-design-system.md

✓ **PASS** - References include line numbers
- Evidence: All 26+ citations include format "[Source: {file} - {section}, Lines {X}-{Y}]"

### 6. Story Structure Check
**Pass Rate:** 5/5 (100%)

✓ **PASS** - Status is "drafted"
- Evidence: Line 3 shows "Status: drafted"

✓ **PASS** - Story format correct
- Evidence: Lines 7-9 follow "As a / I want / so that" format

✓ **PASS** - Dev Agent Record sections present
- Evidence: Lines 384-397 contain all required sections: Context Reference, Agent Model Used, Debug Log References, Completion Notes List, File List

✓ **PASS** - Change Log initialized
- Evidence: Lines 400-412 contain Change Log with creation entry dated 2025-12-29

✓ **PASS** - File in correct location
- Evidence: File is at docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-4-connection-health-checks.md (matches story_dir/{story_key}.md pattern)

### 7. Unresolved Review Items Alert
**Pass Rate:** 1/2 (50%)

✓ **PASS** - Previous story has Senior Developer Review section
- Evidence: Story 2.3 has comprehensive "Senior Developer Review (AI)" section (lines 585-746) with complete review

✗ **CRITICAL** - Advisory notes from previous review not explicitly called out
- **Evidence:** Story 2.3 review has 3 Advisory Notes (lines 724-727):
  1. "Consider adding connection pool metrics to observability dashboard in future story"
  2. "Integration tests work but may need Docker permissions adjustment in CI/CD pipeline"
  3. "Version extraction from pyproject.toml is now dynamic - ensure pyproject.toml version stays in sync with releases"
- **Finding:** Current story does NOT have explicit subsection addressing these advisory items
- **Impact:** Advisory note #2 about testcontainers Docker permissions directly affects Story 2.4's integration testing approach (lines 137-142, 349-353 reference testcontainers but don't acknowledge potential Docker permission issues)
- **Required Fix:** Add subsection "**Advisory Items from Story 2.3**" to "Learnings from Previous Story" listing these 3 items with note: "These are not blockers but should be considered for this and future stories"

---

## Critical Issues (Blockers)

### Issue #1: Unresolved Advisory Notes Not Called Out

**Description:** Story 2.3 Senior Developer Review included 3 Advisory Notes that are not explicitly referenced in Story 2.4's "Learnings from Previous Story" section.

**Evidence:**
- Story 2.3 lines 724-727 list advisory notes about connection pool metrics, testcontainers Docker permissions, and version synchronization
- Story 2.4 lines 107-160 do not mention these advisory items
- Advisory note #2 (testcontainers Docker permissions) directly impacts Story 2.4's integration testing strategy

**Impact:**
- High: Testcontainers Docker permission issues from Story 2.3 could recur in Story 2.4 integration tests
- Medium: Missing context on potential observability improvements (connection pool metrics)
- Low: Version sync concern is generic

**Recommendation:**
Add new subsection after line 160:

```markdown
### Advisory Items from Story 2.3 Review

Story 2.3 review included the following advisory notes (not blockers, but considerations for this and future stories):

1. **Connection Pool Metrics**: Consider adding connection pool metrics to observability dashboard in future story - this aligns with Task 3 (Health Check Logging and Metrics) which tracks health metrics
2. **Testcontainers Docker Permissions**: Integration tests work but may need Docker permissions adjustment in CI/CD pipeline - **relevant for Task 8 integration tests** which reuse rabbitmq_container fixture
3. **Version Sync**: Version extraction from pyproject.toml is dynamic - ensure pyproject.toml version stays in sync with releases (standard practice for semantic-release)

[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-3-http-management-api-client.md - Advisory Notes, Lines 724-727]
```

---

### Issue #2: Incorrect Citation Path Format

**Description:** Story cites previous story using "stories/" path instead of "docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/" path.

**Evidence:**
- Line 160: `[Source: stories/2-3-http-management-api-client.md#Dev-Agent-Record]`
- Line 413: `[Source: stories/2-3-http-management-api-client.md - HTTP client and integration patterns]`
- Correct path: `docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-3-http-management-api-client.md`

**Impact:** Medium - Incorrect paths prevent automated validation tools from resolving references

**Recommendation:**
Replace all occurrences of `stories/` with `docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/` in citation paths:
- Line 160: Change to `[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-3-http-management-api-client.md#Dev-Agent-Record]`
- Line 413: Change to `[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/2-3-http-management-api-client.md - HTTP client and integration patterns]`

---

## Major Issues (Should Fix)

**None identified.** All major issue categories passed validation.

---

## Minor Issues (Nice to Have)

**None identified.** All minor issue categories passed validation.

---

## Successes

### Excellent Previous Story Integration
✅ Story comprehensively captures learnings from Story 2.3 with explicit "REUSE" and "DO NOT RECREATE" patterns for HTTPClientManager, AMQPConnectionManager, and logging infrastructure. This prevents duplication and ensures proper dependency usage.

### Outstanding Architecture Alignment
✅ Dev Notes include detailed architecture alignment with specific module locations, API signatures, data models, workflows, and NFRs all traced to Tech Spec Epic 2 with line number citations (26+ references).

### Comprehensive Task Breakdown
✅ 9 tasks with 79 subtasks provide granular implementation guidance covering service creation, data models, logging, failure detection, server integration, MCP tools, settings, integration tests, and package compliance.

### Perfect AC-Task Traceability
✅ Every acceptance criteria maps to specific tasks, and every task references its AC numbers. Testing coverage exceeds requirements (18 test subtasks for 8 ACs).

### Thorough Testing Strategy
✅ Testing section defines unit test approach (mocking), integration test approach (testcontainers reuse), coverage targets (80%+), and fixtures strategy with specific test scenarios per AC.

### High-Quality Citations
✅ All 26+ references include specific file paths, section names, and line numbers enabling easy verification and context lookup.

### Clear Project Structure
✅ Project structure notes explicitly list 9 files to create/modify with rationale, expected module locations, integration points, and dependency notes.

### Specific Coding Standards
✅ Coding standards section provides concrete examples of naming conventions, import patterns, docstring format, type hints, and error handling patterns.

---

## Recommendations

### Priority 1: Fix Critical Issues (Required Before Proceeding)

1. **Add Advisory Notes Subsection**
   - Location: After line 160 in "Learnings from Previous Story"
   - Content: List 3 advisory notes from Story 2.3 review with impact assessment for Story 2.4
   - Emphasize testcontainers Docker permissions note as relevant to Task 8

2. **Fix Citation Paths**
   - Replace "stories/" with "docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/" in lines 160 and 413
   - Verify no other incorrect path references exist

### Priority 2: Validate Testcontainers Fixture Name (Recommended)

**Observation:** Story references `rabbitmq_container` fixture in lines 139, 350 but does not verify this fixture exists in tests/conftest.py or matches Story 2.3's fixture name.

**Recommendation:** Before starting implementation, verify:
- Fixture name in tests/conftest.py matches expected "rabbitmq_container"
- Fixture provides both AMQP (5672) and HTTP (15672) ports as documented
- If fixture name differs, update story references to match actual fixture

### Priority 3: Consider Observability Enhancement (Optional)

Advisory note #1 from Story 2.3 suggests adding connection pool metrics to observability dashboard. This aligns well with Story 2.4's health check metrics tracking (Task 3, line 49). Consider:
- Adding pool metrics to HealthStatus model (Task 2, line 41)
- Exposing pool health alongside AMQP/HTTP health in "connection.health" MCP tool (Task 6, line 72)

---

## Validation Completion

**Overall Assessment:** Story 2-4-connection-health-checks is **WELL-DRAFTED** with comprehensive coverage and excellent architecture alignment. With the 2 critical fixes applied (advisory notes subsection and citation path corrections), the story will be **READY FOR VALIDATION APPROVAL** and can proceed to story-context generation or development.

**Time to Fix:** Estimated 5-10 minutes to add advisory notes subsection and correct citation paths.

**Next Steps:**
1. Apply the 2 critical fixes outlined above
2. Optionally verify testcontainers fixture name
3. Re-run validation to confirm all checks pass
4. Proceed to story-context generation workflow (if desired) or mark story ready-for-dev

**Validator Sign-off:** Bob (SM Agent)
**Validation Date:** 2025-12-29T19:23:58Z
