# SQA Review Record: UC-001

## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-002 |
| CrossReference | [UC-001], [QC-UC-001] |

## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version; criterion 10 re-checked after UCD-001 | pending |

---

## Artifact Under Review

- Instance reviewed: [UC-001]
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001]
- Review date: 2026-10-05

## Checklist Results

| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | N-A | Format is Fully Dressed. |
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Fully Dressed. |
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | Pass | Scope, level, primary actor, stakeholders, preconditions, postconditions, main scenario and extensions are present. |
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Preconditions and postconditions are defined. |
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | Primary actor: Maintainer. |
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S01, S02 and S03 with their interests. |
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | Pass | Ten numbered steps; optional steps 5 and 7 are marked. |
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No include or extend relationships are used. |
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | Pass | Business rules table per step. |
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match US-001 and UCD-001 (re-checked after UCD-001 was created). |
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope RepoFoundry, level user-goal. |
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Written from the Maintainer's goal. A reference to a hooks setting option was reworded during this review; HTTPS or SSH, the submodule and the AGPL license remain because they are the Maintainer's stated requirements. |

## Overall Verdict

Go — All mandatory criteria pass after UCD-001 was created. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.

## Action Items

| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Create the Use Case Diagram (see RC-001) and re-check criterion 10 | S01 | Done 2026-10-05 |

---

[UC-001]: ../../uc-001/uc.md
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md