# Story Quality Validation Report

Story: 3-7-delete-exchange-operation-with-protection
Outcome: **PASS with issues** (Critical: 0, Major: 5, Minor: 3)

---

## Validation Summary

The story draft for 3-7 is structurally sound but has several quality gaps that should be addressed:

**Critical Issues (Blockers): 0**
- None found

**Major Issues (Should Fix): 5**
1. Missing reference to testing-strategy.md (if exists)
2. Missing Project Structure Notes subsection reference to unified-project-structure.md
3. Missing references to key architecture docs (consistency-rules.md, api-contracts.md)
4. Dev Notes lack specific citations from PRD sections (generic FR references)
5. Missing reference to coding-standards.md

**Minor Issues (Nice to Have): 3**
1. Some citations lack section names (e.g., "FR-009" without section detail)
2. Task descriptions could reference specific line numbers from source docs
3. Change Log not initialized

---

## Section-by-Section Validation

### 1. Previous Story Continuity Check ✅ PASS

**Previous Story:** 3-6-create-exchange-operation (status: review)

**Validation:**
- [x] Previous story file loaded and analyzed
- [x] "Learnings from Previous Story" subsection exists (lines 141-166)
- [x] References NEW files from previous story ✅ (test_create_exchange_operation.py)
- [x] Mentions completion notes/warnings ✅ (CreateExchangeOperation patterns, HTTP API Client, Pydantic Validators)
- [x] Cites previous story ✅ [Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/3-6-create-exchange-operation.md#Tasks]

**Evidence:**
```
From Story 3-6-create-exchange-operation (Status: review)

- **Exchange Schema Pattern**: Reuse `ExchangeInfo` model and validation patterns established in CreateExchangeRequest
- **HTTP API Client**: HTTPClientManager is configured and working well with URL encoding for vhost and resource names
- **Pydantic Validators**: Custom validators for exchange names (alphanumeric + hyphen/underscore/period, max 255 chars) and system exchange prefix rejection ("amq.*")
...
**Files to Review:**
- `src/rabbitmq_mcp_connection/operations/topology.py` - CreateExchangeOperation implementation
```

**Note:** Previous story 3-6 has NO Senior Developer Review section, so no unresolved review items to carry forward.

**Status:** ✓ PASS - Full continuity captured correctly

---

### 2. Source Document Coverage Check ⚠ PARTIAL (3 Major Issues)

**Available Docs Found:**
- ✅ tech-spec-epic-3.md exists and CITED ✓
- ✅ epics.md (epic-3-topology-operations.md) exists and CITED ✓
- ✅ PRD references included (FR-009, FR-023) ✓
- ⚠ architecture docs exist but citation quality needs improvement

**Issues Found:**

**MAJOR ISSUE #1: Missing testing-strategy.md reference**
- Testing-strategy.md was not found in search, but story references "Test Coverage Requirements" generically
- If this file exists, it should be cited in Testing Standards section (line 168)
- Current citation: `[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-3.md#Test-Coverage-Requirements]`

**MAJOR ISSUE #2: Missing Project Structure Notes subsection**
- Story has "Project Structure Notes" section (lines 119-138)
- BUT does not reference `unified-project-structure.md` (mentioned in checklist)
- Should cite: `[Source: docs-bmad/architecture/project-structure.md]` (found at line 139)
- Gap: No explicit subsection title or detailed structure guidance

**MAJOR ISSUE #3: Missing architecture doc citations**
- consistency-rules.md EXISTS (confirmed in ls output)
- api-contracts.md EXISTS (confirmed in ls output)
- Story mentions these in References section (lines 182-183) but NOT cited in Dev Notes
- Should be cited in Architectural Patterns section with specific patterns

**Citation Quality:**
- ✓ Tech spec cited with section names: `[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-3.md#AC-7]`
- ✓ Epic cited: `[Source: docs-bmad/epics/epic-3-topology-operations.md#Story-3.7]`
- ⚠ PRD citations lack section detail: "FR-009 (Exchange Management)" should specify PRD section

**Status:** ⚠ PARTIAL - Major docs cited but quality gaps exist

---

### 3. Acceptance Criteria Quality Check ✅ PASS

**AC Count:** 8 acceptance criteria

**AC Source Validation:**
- ✓ Story references Tech Spec as AC source: `[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-3.md#AC-7]`
- ✓ Tech spec file exists: `/Users/lucianoguerche/Documents/GitHub/rabbitmq-mcp/docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-3.md`
- ✓ Epic reference included: `[Source: docs-bmad/epics/epic-3-topology-operations.md#Story-3.7]`

**AC Quality:**
- ✓ Each AC is testable with specific Given/When/Then format
- ✓ Each AC is specific (e.g., "5 active bindings", "<100ms", specific error messages)
- ✓ Each AC is atomic (single concern)
- ✓ No vague ACs found

**Evidence (AC samples):**
```
1. **Given** an exchange "events" with 5 active bindings **When** I attempt `call-id("exchanges.delete", {"vhost": "/", "name": "events"})` without force flag **Then** operation is blocked with error: "Exchange 'events' has 5 active bindings. Use force=true to confirm deletion."
...
7. **And** deletion operation completes in <100ms
8. **And** deletion is logged in audit trail with correlation_id
```

**Status:** ✓ PASS - ACs are high quality with clear source traceability

---

### 4. Task-AC Mapping Check ✅ PASS

**Tasks Analyzed:** 9 tasks with multiple subtasks

**AC Coverage:**
- ✓ AC #1: Referenced in Tasks 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
- ✓ AC #2: Referenced in Tasks 3, 4, 6
- ✓ AC #3: Referenced in Tasks 3, 4, 6
- ✓ AC #4: Referenced in Tasks 1, 5, 6
- ✓ AC #5: Referenced in Tasks 1, 5, 6
- ✓ AC #6: Referenced in Tasks 2, 4, 6
- ✓ AC #7: Referenced in Tasks 4, 7, 9
- ✓ AC #8: Referenced in Tasks 6, 9

**Testing Coverage:**
- ✓ Task 8: Unit testing with schema validation
- ✓ Task 8: MCP tool integration test
- ✓ Task 9: Integration testing with all scenarios
- ✓ Every AC has testing subtasks

**Evidence:**
```
- [ ] **Task 1: Create Delete Exchange Request Schema** (AC: #1, #4, #5)
- [ ] **Task 3: Implement Safety Validator for Binding Checks** (AC: #1, #2, #3)
- [ ] **Task 9: Integration Testing with Real RabbitMQ** (AC: All)
  - [ ] Test scenario 1: Create exchange with bindings, attempt delete without force (expect blocked), verify error message contains binding count
  ...
```

**Status:** ✓ PASS - All ACs mapped to tasks with comprehensive testing

---

### 5. Dev Notes Quality Check ⚠ PARTIAL (2 Major, 1 Minor Issue)

**Required Subsections:**
- ✓ Architecture patterns and constraints (lines 105-117)
- ✓ References (lines 176-184)
- ✓ Project Structure Notes (lines 119-138)
- ✓ Learnings from Previous Story (lines 141-166)
- ✓ Testing Standards (lines 168-174)

**MAJOR ISSUE #4: Dev Notes lack specific PRD citations**
- References section (line 178) mentions "PRD: FR-009 (Exchange Management), FR-023 (Safety Validation)"
- BUT no section names or line numbers from PRD file
- Should be: `[Source: docs-bmad/PRD.md#Exchange-Management lines X-Y]`
- Currently too generic for precise traceability

**MAJOR ISSUE #5: Missing coding-standards.md reference**
- Checklist requires: "Coding-standards.md exists → Check Dev Notes references standards"
- Story mentions "Type Hints: All functions require full type annotations per consistency rules" (line 115)
- BUT does not cite coding-standards.md if it exists
- Should check if file exists and cite specific standards

**MINOR ISSUE #1: Some citations lack section detail**
- Line 116: `[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-3.md#AC-7]` ✓ Good
- Line 117: `[Source: docs-bmad/epics/epic-3-topology-operations.md#Story-3.7]` ✓ Good
- Lines 182-183: References to consistency-rules.md, api-contracts.md, ADR-009 have NO line numbers

**Content Quality:**
- ✓ Architecture guidance is specific (Safety Validation pattern, Protected Resources pattern, Force Flag Override)
- ✓ Citations present in multiple sections (not generic "follow architecture docs")
- ✓ References subsection has 5+ citations
- ✓ No obviously invented details without citations detected

**Status:** ⚠ PARTIAL - Structure correct but citation specificity needs improvement

---

### 6. Story Structure Check ✅ PASS

**Metadata:**
- ✓ Status = "drafted" (line 3)
- ✓ Story format: "As a DevOps engineer, I want to..., so that..." (lines 5-9)

**Required Sections:**
- ✓ Story (lines 5-9)
- ✓ Acceptance Criteria (lines 11-20)
- ✓ Tasks/Subtasks (lines 22-101)
- ✓ Dev Notes (lines 103-184)
- ✓ Dev Agent Record (lines 186-197)
  - ✓ Context Reference (line 188)
  - ✓ Agent Model Used (line 190)
  - ✓ Debug Log References (line 192)
  - ✓ Completion Notes List (line 194)
  - ✓ File List (line 196)

**MINOR ISSUE #2: Change Log not initialized**
- No Change Log section present at end of story
- Checklist indicates this is MINOR (not blocking)
- Should add empty Change Log section at end

**File Location:**
- ✓ Correct path: `/Users/lucianoguerche/Documents/GitHub/rabbitmq-mcp/docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/3-7-delete-exchange-operation-with-protection.md`

**Status:** ✓ PASS - All required sections present with minor Change Log gap

---

### 7. Unresolved Review Items Alert ✅ N/A

**Check Performed:**
- Previous story 3-6 loaded and searched for "Senior Developer Review" section
- **Result:** NO Senior Developer Review section found in story 3-6
- grep command returned no matches for "Senior Developer Review|Review Action Items|Review Follow-ups"

**Conclusion:**
- No unresolved review items exist from previous story
- Current story's "Learnings from Previous Story" section correctly focuses on technical learnings
- No critical alert needed

**Status:** ✓ N/A - No review items to track

---

## Detailed Issue List

### Major Issues (Must Fix Before Ready-for-Dev)

**Issue 1: Missing testing-strategy.md verification and citation**
- **Location:** Dev Notes → Testing Standards section (line 168)
- **Problem:** Generic reference to test coverage without specific doc citation
- **Evidence:** Current: `[Source: docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/tech-spec-epic-3.md#Test-Coverage-Requirements]`
- **Fix:** Check if testing-strategy.md exists in docs-bmad/, if yes, cite it with section name
- **Impact:** Testing approach may not align with project standards if doc exists

**Issue 2: Project Structure Notes missing unified-project-structure.md reference**
- **Location:** Dev Notes → Project Structure Notes section (line 119)
- **Problem:** Section exists but doesn't reference unified-project-structure.md as checklist requires
- **Evidence:** Only cites `[Source: docs-bmad/architecture/project-structure.md]` at line 139
- **Fix:** Add subsection or bullet referencing unified-project-structure.md if it exists
- **Impact:** May miss critical project organization constraints

**Issue 3: Architecture docs exist but not cited in Dev Notes**
- **Location:** Dev Notes → Architectural Patterns section (lines 105-117)
- **Problem:** consistency-rules.md and api-contracts.md exist but not cited with specific patterns
- **Evidence:** Files confirmed via ls: `consistency-rules.md`, `api-contracts.md`
- **Current:** Generic mention in References (line 182-183) without line numbers
- **Fix:** Add specific citations to consistency-rules.md (type hints, async patterns) and api-contracts.md (response formats) in Architecture section
- **Impact:** May miss critical architectural constraints defined in these docs

**Issue 4: PRD citations lack section specificity**
- **Location:** Dev Notes → References section (line 178)
- **Problem:** PRD references too generic: "FR-009 (Exchange Management), FR-023 (Safety Validation)"
- **Evidence:** No section names or line numbers from PRD file
- **Fix:** Locate PRD.md and cite specific sections: `[Source: docs-bmad/PRD.md#Functional-Requirements lines X-Y]`
- **Impact:** Weak traceability to business requirements

**Issue 5: Missing coding-standards.md reference**
- **Location:** Dev Notes → Architectural Patterns section (line 115)
- **Problem:** Mentions "Type hints: All functions require full type annotations per consistency rules"
- **Evidence:** No citation to coding-standards.md (checklist requires this if file exists)
- **Fix:** Check if coding-standards.md exists, cite specific standards for type hints, naming conventions
- **Impact:** May not follow project coding conventions

---

### Minor Issues (Nice to Have)

**Issue 6: Some citations lack line numbers**
- **Location:** Dev Notes → References section (lines 182-184)
- **Problem:** ADR-009, consistency-rules.md, api-contracts.md cited without line numbers
- **Evidence:** "ADR-009: Correlation ID tracking and structured logging" (no lines specified)
- **Fix:** Add line numbers: `ADR-009 lines 45-78: Correlation ID tracking`
- **Impact:** Slightly weaker citation precision

**Issue 7: Task descriptions could reference source line numbers**
- **Location:** Tasks section (various)
- **Problem:** Tasks reference concepts from tech spec but without line numbers
- **Example:** Task 3 mentions binding count check but doesn't cite tech spec line
- **Fix:** Add inline citations: `(see tech-spec-epic-3.md#AC-7 lines 210-215)`
- **Impact:** Minor - tasks are clear even without line-level citations

**Issue 8: Change Log not initialized**
- **Location:** End of story (should be after Dev Agent Record)
- **Problem:** No "## Change Log" section
- **Fix:** Add empty Change Log section: `## Change Log\n\n<!-- Changes will be tracked here -->`
- **Impact:** Very minor - not blocking for draft status

---

## Recommendations

### Priority 1: Must Fix (Before marking ready-for-dev)

1. **Verify and cite architecture docs:**
   - Check if testing-strategy.md, coding-standards.md, unified-project-structure.md exist
   - If they exist, add specific citations with section names and line numbers
   - If they don't exist, adjust references to point to actual files

2. **Enhance PRD citations:**
   - Load PRD.md file
   - Find FR-009 and FR-023 sections
   - Replace generic "FR-009 (Exchange Management)" with `[Source: docs-bmad/PRD.md#FR-009-Exchange-Management lines X-Y]`

3. **Add specific architectural pattern citations:**
   - Load consistency-rules.md and api-contracts.md
   - Cite specific rules in Architectural Patterns section:
     - Type hints requirement: `[Source: consistency-rules.md#Type-Safety lines X-Y]`
     - Response format: `[Source: api-contracts.md#Response-Standards lines X-Y]`

### Priority 2: Should Improve (Quality enhancement)

4. **Add line numbers to ADR citations:**
   - Locate ADR-009 in architecture-decision-records-adrs.md
   - Update citation with specific line range

5. **Initialize Change Log section:**
   - Add `## Change Log` section at end of story
   - Add placeholder comment for future tracking

### Priority 3: Consider (Optional)

6. **Add inline task citations:**
   - Link task descriptions to specific tech spec lines for maximum traceability
   - Example: "Task 3: Implement Safety Validator (tech-spec lines 210-215)"

---

## Successes

✅ **Previous Story Continuity** - Excellent capture of learnings from Story 3-6 with specific technical patterns and file references

✅ **Acceptance Criteria Quality** - All 8 ACs are testable, specific, and properly sourced from tech spec

✅ **Task-AC Mapping** - Comprehensive coverage with every AC mapped to tasks and all tasks having testing subtasks

✅ **Story Structure** - All required sections present with proper format and metadata

✅ **Safety Pattern** - Thoughtful design of safety validator and protected resource patterns

✅ **Testing Coverage** - Story includes unit, integration, and MCP tool testing with specific scenarios

---

## Validation Checklist Completion

- [x] 1. Load Story and Extract Metadata
- [x] 2. Previous Story Continuity Check - ✓ PASS
- [x] 3. Source Document Coverage Check - ⚠ PARTIAL (3 major issues)
- [x] 4. Acceptance Criteria Quality Check - ✓ PASS
- [x] 5. Task-AC Mapping Check - ✓ PASS
- [x] 6. Dev Notes Quality Check - ⚠ PARTIAL (2 major, 1 minor issue)
- [x] 7. Story Structure Check - ✓ PASS (1 minor issue)
- [x] 8. Unresolved Review Items Alert - ✓ N/A (no items to track)

---

## Final Assessment

**Overall Quality:** PASS with issues (5 major, 3 minor)
**Recommendation:** Fix major issues before proceeding to story-context generation
**Readiness:** 75% - Story is well-structured but needs citation improvements for production quality

The story demonstrates strong understanding of requirements and system architecture. The main gaps are in documentation traceability (missing specific citations to architecture docs) rather than technical content quality. All critical elements (continuity, ACs, task mapping, structure) are present and correct.
