TirSystem/github-action
0
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 5 Pull Requests 1 Actions Packages Projects Releases 3 Wiki Activity

Write and accept the brief use cases for the P1 candidates

Browse Source 
Add the use case diagram UCD-001, the user stories US-001 and the brief use
cases UC-001 to UC-004 (Synchronize Repository Metadata, Configure Workflow
Credentials, Onboard a Repository, Diagnose a Failed Workflow). Review and
accept them (RC-019 to RC-024) and the PP-001 row that records them
(RC-025), and update TM-001 and the registry.

Task: MIL-002#1
This commit is contained in:
Tirsvad
2026-10-10 13:04:30 +08:00
parent e73975e3a6
commit a2bf2d4204
16 changed files with 795 additions and 13 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/sqa/reviews/rc-019-ucd-001.md
+47
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
# Review Record: UCD-001
## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-019 |
| CrossReference | [UCD-001], [QC-UCD-001] |
## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
---
## Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: [UCD-001]
- Checklist used: [QC-UCD-001]
## Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Actors are defined with correct UML stereotypes (e.g. `<<System>>`, `<<Actor>>`) | Pass | DevOps Professional and Platform Operator are `<<Actor>>`; Gitea Instance and GitHub are `<<System>>`. |
| 2 | System boundary is clearly drawn and labeled | Pass | Boundary "Reusable Workflow Collection". |
| 3 | Include/extend relationships are used correctly per UML 2.5.1, not as generic "uses" arrows | Pass | One include and one extend, each with a justification in the Relationships table; the extend applies only on failure. |
| 4 | Every actor participates in at least one use case (no orphan actors) | Pass | All four actors appear in the Actor Table with goals. |
| 5 | Diagram is traceable to a documented stakeholder need | Pass | S05, S03 and S04 in the Actor Table; SA-001 and BC-001 cited. |
| 6 | Use case names are verb phrases describing actor goals, not internal system operations | Pass | Four goal names, none a system operation. |
| 7 | Diagram is free of implementation detail (e.g. UI widgets, database tables) | Pass | No tool, file or UI detail. |
| 8 | Actor and use case naming is consistent with corresponding Use Case and User Story documents | Pass | Checked mechanically: all four titles and both story roles match. |
## Overall Verdict
Go - all eight criteria pass. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | - | - |
---
[UCD-001]: ../../use-case-diagram.md
[QC-UCD-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case-diagram.md
docs/sqa/reviews/rc-020-us-001.md
+46
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
# Review Record: US-001
## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-020 |
| CrossReference | [US-001], [QC-US-001] |
## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
---
## Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: [US-001]
- Checklist used: [QC-US-001]
## Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Follows INVEST criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable) | Pass | INVEST check present; US-001.05 and US-001.06 depend on US-001.04 and say so. |
| 2 | Written in "As a / I want / So that" form | Pass | All eight. |
| 3 | Clear, testable acceptance criteria are included | Pass | Two Given/When/Then criteria per story, each checked by a run or the guide. |
| 4 | Traceable to a use case or epic | Pass | Each story traces to one of UC-001 to UC-004 and to MIL-002. |
| 5 | Story is sized to fit within a single iteration | Pass | Each is one goal; two are already implemented and only tested. |
| 6 | Story statement avoids technical implementation detail | Pass | Domain terms only (mirror, token, runner). |
| 7 | Role named in the story matches an actor defined in the Use Case Diagram | Pass | DevOps Professional and Platform Operator both appear in UCD-001. |
## Overall Verdict
Go - all seven criteria pass. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | - | - |
---
[US-001]: ../../user-stories.md
[QC-US-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-user-story.md
docs/sqa/reviews/rc-021-uc-001.md
+51
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
# Review Record: UC-001
## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-021 |
| CrossReference | [UC-001], [QC-UC-001] |
## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
---
## Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: [UC-001]
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
## Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the no-mirror alternative; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (the alternative is US-001.02). |
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
## Overall Verdict
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | - | - |
---
[UC-001]: ../../uc-001/uc.md
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
docs/sqa/reviews/rc-022-uc-002.md
+51
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
# Review Record: UC-002
## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-022 |
| CrossReference | [UC-002], [QC-UC-001] |
## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
---
## Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: [UC-002]
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
## Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the failure alternatives; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (the alternatives are in US-001.03). |
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
## Overall Verdict
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | - | - |
---
[UC-002]: ../../uc-002/uc.md
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
docs/sqa/reviews/rc-023-uc-003.md
+51
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
# Review Record: UC-003
## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-023 |
| CrossReference | [UC-003], [QC-UC-001] |
## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
---
## Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: [UC-003]
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
## Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the defect alternative; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (see US-001.06). |
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
## Overall Verdict
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | - | - |
---
[UC-003]: ../../uc-003/uc.md
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
docs/sqa/reviews/rc-024-uc-004.md
+51
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
# Review Record: UC-004
## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-024 |
| CrossReference | [UC-004], [QC-UC-001] |
## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
---
## Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: [UC-004]
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
## Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the runner and no-category alternatives; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (the alternatives are in US-001.07 and US-001.08). |
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
## Overall Verdict
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | - | - |
---
[UC-004]: ../../uc-004/uc.md
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
docs/sqa/reviews/rc-025-pp-001-use-cases.md
+46
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
# Review Record: PP-001 Project Plan (P1 use cases)
## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-025 |
| CrossReference | [PP-001], [BC-001] |
## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
---
## Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: [PP-001]
- Checklist used: none: the Project Plan has no QC checklist. Validated against the Business Case [BC-001] and the Go / No-Go criteria of each listed milestone, as `PP.md` prescribes.
## Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Every milestone in the plan has a `MIL-*` document and the plan's dates equal that document's target date | Pass | Unchanged. |
| 2 | Every Business Case scope item is covered by a gateway | Pass | Unchanged. |
| 3 | The schedule respects the Business Case constraints | Pass | Unchanged. |
| 4 | Dependencies between milestones are stated | Pass | Unchanged. |
| 5 | Every gateway has an owner who is a stakeholder ID | Pass | Unchanged. |
| 6 | Plan content is internally consistent | Pass | The appendix's use case candidates 1 to 4 correspond to UC-001 to UC-004; the plan cites US-001. |
| 7 | Open Issues are current | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the item about use cases said the documents "need review". It now states that the P1 candidates are written as UC-001 to UC-004 with UCD-001 and US-001, and that P2 and P3 have none. |
## Overall Verdict
Go - all seven criteria pass; the one finding was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | - | - |
---
[PP-001]: ../../project-plan.md
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md