feat: archive zoo_backup for home sync

2026-06-24 19:27:05 +02:00
parent 02844e4c4a
commit 038e546963
133 changed files with 19953 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+# Skill: plan-review
+
+Plan and testplan quality review before implementation.
+
+## Description
+
+Reviews assessment documents, implementation plans, and test plans for completeness, correctness, and feasibility. Produces a structured review with APPROVED/REVISE verdict. This creates a quality gate between planning and implementation — ensuring plans are solid before code is written.
+
+## Invoked by
+
+📋✅ Plan Reviewer mode
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+| Input | Source | Example |
+|-------|--------|---------|
+| `TICKET_KEY` | Jira issue key | `ESIDEPAISY-12081` |
+| `MODULE` | PAISY module name | `eau`, `eubp`, `svmeldungen` |
+
+## Output
+
+Markdown file: `docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-plan-review.md`
+
+## Steps
+
+### 1. Read the planning documents
+
+Read all available docs in `docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/`:
+- Assessment (`*-assessment.md`) — required
+- Implementation plan (`*-plan.md`) — required
+- Test plan (`*-testplan.md`) — required
+
+If any required document is missing, flag as REVISE immediately.
+
+### 2. Read the Jira ticket
+
+```python
+retrieve_ticket_details(TICKET_KEY)
+# Extract: summary, description, acceptance criteria (customfield_10510)
+```
+
+Cross-reference: do the plan documents address ALL requirements from the ticket?
+
+### 3. Read affected source code
+
+For each file/class mentioned in the plan:
+- Verify the file exists at the stated path
+- Verify the class/method names are correct
+- Verify the patterns described match the actual code
+- Check if the plan missed any related files that should also be changed
+
+### 4. Run the plan review checklist
+
+#### Assessment Review
+
+| # | Check | What to verify |
+|---|-------|---------------|
+| 1 | Problem statement complete | Is the problem clearly described? Does it match the Jira ticket? |
+| 2 | Affected components identified | Are all affected files/classes listed? Any missing? |
+| 3 | Current state accurate | Does the Ist-Zustand description match the actual code? |
+| 4 | Risk assessment realistic | Are risks properly categorized? Any missing risks? |
+| 5 | Solution options evaluated | Were alternatives considered? Is the recommendation justified? |
+
+#### Implementation Plan Review
+
+| # | Check | What to verify |
+|---|-------|---------------|
+| 6 | All requirements covered | Every Jira requirement maps to at least one implementation step |
+| 7 | Correct PAISY patterns | Plan references correct patterns (AbstractMeldung, Datenbaustein, ServiceCenter, EMFactory, JAXB) |
+| 8 | File paths correct | All referenced file paths exist and are accurate |
+| 9 | Implementation order logical | Steps are ordered correctly — dependencies before dependents |
+| 10 | No gaps in steps | No missing steps between plan items (e.g., missing Flyway migration, missing test) |
+| 11 | Flyway migrations planned | If DB changes needed: both H2 and Oracle variants mentioned? |
+| 12 | Error handling planned | Plan addresses error cases, not just happy path |
+| 13 | No scope creep | Plan doesn't include changes beyond what the ticket requires |
+
+#### Test Plan Review
+
+| # | Check | What to verify |
+|---|-------|---------------|
+| 14 | Coverage complete | Every implementation step has at least one test case |
+| 15 | Test types appropriate | Unit tests for logic, integration for DB/ServiceCenter, SSH for batch |
+| 16 | Edge cases covered | Null handling, empty dates, F; responses, boundary values |
+| 17 | Test class naming correct | Follows `<OriginalClass>Test.java` convention |
+| 18 | Test method naming correct | Follows `test<What>_<Scenario>_<Expected>()` pattern |
+| 19 | Test data defined | Required test fixtures and data are specified |
+| 20 | SSH tests identified | If batch/ServiceCenter changes: SSH test cases included? |
+
+### 5. Verify cross-references
+
+- Every class mentioned in the plan exists in the codebase
+- Every test case in the testplan maps to a plan step
+- Every plan step maps to a Jira requirement
+- Assessment risks are addressed by plan mitigations
+
+### 5.5 Expert Panel Review (mandatory)
+
+Before generating the verdict, run the `expert-panel-review` skill to get a multi-perspective analysis:
+
+1. Load the `expert-panel-review` skill
+2. Execute with:
+   - `ARTIFACT_TYPE`: `plan`
+   - `ARTIFACT_PATH`: the plan document path (`docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-plan.md`)
+3. Incorporate the panel's findings into the review:
+   - Panel blockers (❌) → add to "Muss überarbeitet werden" section
+   - Panel warnings (⚠️) → add to "Hinweise" section
+   - Panel confidence level → include in Verdict section
+4. If panel confidence < 70%: verdict MUST be 🔄 REVISE regardless of checklist results
+
+The expert panel provides Domain Expert (🏛️), Architecture Expert (🔧), and Risk/Compliance Expert (🛡️) perspectives. This catches domain-level errors that the mechanical checklist alone cannot detect.
+
+### 6. Generate plan review document
+
+Write `docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-plan-review.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Plan Review: <TICKET_KEY> — <Summary>
+
+**Datum:** <today>
+**Modul:** <MODULE>
+**Reviewer:** Roo (Plan Reviewer)
+**Dokumente:** assessment.md v<N>, plan.md v<N>, testplan.md v<N>
+**Verdict:** ✅ APPROVED / 🔄 REVISE
+
+---
+
+## Zusammenfassung
+
+<1-2 sentence summary of the review outcome>
+
+## Geprüfte Dokumente
+
+| Dokument | Version | Bewertung |
+|----------|---------|-----------|
+| Assessment | v<N> | ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ |
+| Plan | v<N> | ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ |
+| Testplan | v<N> | ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ |
+
+## Checkliste
+
+### Assessment
+
+| # | Prüfpunkt | Ergebnis | Anmerkung |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 1 | Problemstellung vollständig | ✅/❌ | |
+| 2 | Betroffene Komponenten identifiziert | ✅/❌ | |
+| 3 | Ist-Zustand korrekt | ✅/❌ | |
+| 4 | Risikobewertung realistisch | ✅/❌ | |
+| 5 | Lösungsoptionen bewertet | ✅/❌ | |
+
+### Implementierungsplan
+
+| # | Prüfpunkt | Ergebnis | Anmerkung |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 6 | Alle Anforderungen abgedeckt | ✅/❌ | |
+| 7 | Korrekte PAISY-Patterns | ✅/❌ | |
+| 8 | Dateipfade korrekt | ✅/❌ | |
+| 9 | Implementierungsreihenfolge logisch | ✅/❌ | |
+| 10 | Keine Lücken in Schritten | ✅/❌ | |
+| 11 | Flyway-Migrationen geplant | ✅/N/A | |
+| 12 | Fehlerbehandlung geplant | ✅/❌ | |
+| 13 | Kein Scope Creep | ✅/❌ | |
+
+### Testplan
+
+| # | Prüfpunkt | Ergebnis | Anmerkung |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 14 | Abdeckung vollständig | ✅/❌ | |
+| 15 | Testtypen angemessen | ✅/❌ | |
+| 16 | Randfälle abgedeckt | ✅/❌ | |
+| 17 | Testklassen-Benennung korrekt | ✅/❌ | |
+| 18 | Testmethoden-Benennung korrekt | ✅/❌ | |
+| 19 | Testdaten definiert | ✅/❌ | |
+| 20 | SSH-Tests identifiziert | ✅/N/A | |
+
+## Befunde
+
+### ❌ Muss überarbeitet werden (blocking)
+
+1. **<document>** — <description of issue>
+   - Empfehlung: <what needs to change>
+
+### ⚠️ Hinweise (non-blocking)
+
+1. **<document>** — <description of suggestion>
+   - Empfehlung: <improvement suggestion>
+
+## Traceability Matrix
+
+| Jira-Anforderung | Plan-Schritt | Testfall | Status |
+|-----------------|-------------|----------|--------|
+| <requirement 1> | Step <N> | T-<NN> | ✅ Abgedeckt |
+| <requirement 2> | Step <N> | T-<NN> | ❌ Fehlt |
+
+## Verdict
+
+**✅ APPROVED** — Plan ist vollständig, korrekt und umsetzungsbereit. Empfehlung: GO erteilen.
+— oder —
+**🔄 REVISE** — <N> Punkte müssen überarbeitet werden. Zurück an Planner für v<N+1>.
+**Panel-Confidence:** <X>% (<Domain: Y%, Architecture: Z%, Risk: W%>)
+```
+
+### 7. Store in BigMind
+
+```python
+memory_store_fact(
+    category="codebase",
+    fact=f"{TICKET_KEY}: Plan review completed — {verdict}. {findings_count} findings ({blockers} blocking)."
+)
+```
+
+## Expected Output
+
+- Plan review document at `docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-plan-review.md`
+- Clear verdict: APPROVED or REVISE
+- Traceability matrix linking requirements → plan steps → test cases
+- BigMind fact stored
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Error | Resolution |
+|-------|------------|
+| Assessment missing | Flag as REVISE — assessment is required before plan review |
+| Plan missing | Flag as REVISE — cannot review without a plan |
+| Testplan missing | Flag as REVISE — testplan is required |
+| Referenced file not found | Flag specific file path as incorrect in findings |
+| Worktree not found | Use main repo to verify file paths |
+
+## Verdict Criteria
+
+| Verdict | Criteria |
+|---------|---------|
+| ✅ APPROVED | All 20 checklist items pass (✅ or N/A). No blocking findings. |
+| 🔄 REVISE | Any checklist item fails (❌). One or more blocking findings. |
+
+## Review Loop
+
+The Plan Reviewer creates a feedback loop with the Planner:
+
+1. Planner produces assessment v1, plan v1, testplan v1
+2. Plan Reviewer reviews → REVISE with specific findings
+3. Planner revises → assessment v2, plan v2, testplan v2
+4. Plan Reviewer reviews → APPROVED
+5. Patrick gives GO
+6. Pipeline proceeds to Phase 3 (JiraOps)
+
+This loop continues until APPROVED. Maximum 3 iterations recommended — if still not approved after v3, escalate to Patrick for manual review.
+
+## Language
+
+- Document content: **German**
+- Code references (class names, methods, patterns): English as-is
+- Checklist items: German