---
type: prd
feature_id: qa
feature_name: Quality Assurance Commands System
related_brd: ../brds/qa-brd.md
related_spec: ../specs/qa-spec.md
version: 1.0
status: Draft
created: 2025-10-29
---

# Quality Assurance Commands - Product Requirements Document

## 1. Overview & Scope

The QA Commands System provides developers with 6 integrated commands for automated code analysis, security auditing, performance optimization, and test coverage validation. These commands work together to ensure code quality before publication.

**See [BRD § Business Goals](../brds/qa-brd.md#3-business-goals)** for business context - this document focuses on what features deliver those goals.

---

## 2. Business Objectives

1. **Reduce Manual Review Overhead** - Enable developers to self-review code before PR, reducing back-and-forth feedback cycles
2. **Prevent Security Incidents** - Automatic detection of authentication, data handling, and injection vulnerabilities
3. **Catch Performance Regressions** - Automated detection of 10%+ execution time increases and O(n²) patterns
4. **Improve Test Quality** - Identify untested code paths and dead code that should be removed
5. **Maintain Code Health** - Track complexity trends and refactor before codebase becomes unmaintainable

---

## 3. User Goals & Use Cases

### Primary Users
- **Backend Engineers** - Need to validate code quality before submitting PR
- **DevOps/Release Engineers** - Need automated gates to prevent bad deployments
- **Technical Leads** - Need visibility into team code quality trends

### Key Use Cases

| # | Actor | Goal | Benefit |
|---|-------|------|---------|
| **UC-1** | Backend Eng | Review my code before PR | Catch issues locally, reduce review cycles |
| **UC-2** | Tech Lead | Monitor team code quality | Spot quality trends, guide team improvement |
| **UC-3** | DevOps | Block deploy if security issues | Prevent vulnerabilities in production |
| **UC-4** | DevOps | Detect performance regression | Catch performance issues before deploy |
| **UC-5** | QA Lead | Identify untested code | Guide test writing priorities |

---

## 4. Functional Requirements

### R1: Security Vulnerability Scanning
**Goal**: Detect OWASP-classified security issues in code  
**Scope**: Authentication, authorization, data handling, injection attacks, dependency vulnerabilities  
**Output**: Categorized findings with severity, location, and remediation

### R2: Code Complexity Analysis
**Goal**: Measure and report code quality metrics  
**Scope**: Cyclomatic complexity, function size, nesting depth, maintainability index  
**Output**: Function-level metrics with refactoring recommendations

### R3: Performance Issue Detection
**Goal**: Identify performance bottlenecks and inefficiencies  
**Scope**: Slow functions, O(n²) loops, memory leaks, heavy dependencies  
**Output**: Ranked performance issues with optimization recommendations

### R4: Code Review Orchestration
**Goal**: Provide comprehensive pre-PR review checklist  
**Scope**: Requirements compliance, coding standards, quota usage, test coverage  
**Output**: Review report with APPROVE/FIX/REJECT recommendation

### R5: Test Coverage Analysis
**Goal**: Identify untested code and coverage gaps  
**Scope**: Untested functions, partially tested branches, dead code  
**Output**: Coverage report with improvement roadmap

### R6: Code Cleanup Automation
**Goal**: Safely remove old/deprecated code  
**Scope**: File deletion, function removal, reference updates, git operations  
**Output**: Cleanup report with git operations log

---

## 5. User Stories

| Story | Description | Acceptance Criteria |
|-------|-------------|-------------------|
| **US-1: Pre-PR Review** | As a backend engineer, I want to review my code locally before pushing, so I can catch issues early | 1) Run `/review-code` on issue # 2) See issues found 3) Get approval/fix recommendation |
| **US-2: Security Check** | As a DevOps engineer, I want security gate to block PRs with CRITICAL findings, so vulnerabilities don't reach production | 1) Security gate runs on PR 2) Blocks if CRITICAL found 3) Shows remediation steps |
| **US-3: Performance Monitor** | As a tech lead, I want to see when functions get slower, so we catch performance debt early | 1) Performance audit compares to baseline 2) Highlights >10% slowdowns 3) Suggests optimizations |
| **US-4: Coverage Tracking** | As a QA lead, I want to see which functions have 0% test coverage, so I can prioritize test writing | 1) Parse lcov.info 2) Rank untested functions 3) Estimate effort to test |
| **US-5: Complexity Trends** | As a tech lead, I want historical complexity data, so I can see if codebase is improving or degrading | 1) Save complexity baseline 2) Compare over time 3) Show trend 📈/📉 |

---

## 6. User Journey - Pre-PR Code Review

| Step | Action | Expected Result | System Response |
|------|--------|-----------------|-----------------|
| **1** | Engineer finishes implementing feature | Code complete, ready to review | — |
| **2** | Engineer runs `/review-code #123` | Local analysis starts | Load issue details, get changed files |
| **3** | System runs 3 audits in parallel | Complexity, security, standards check | Generate findings for each audit |
| **4** | Engineer reviews report | Issues categorized by severity | Display BLOCKER/MAJOR/MINOR findings |
| **5** | Engineer fixes issues locally | Issues resolved | — |
| **6** | Engineer pushes PR | Code merged if approved | GitHub workflows run (same audits) |
| **7** | CI/CD gate passes/fails | Build status updated | Post comment with summary to PR |
| **8** | Engineer merges to main | Feature live | Nightly audit tracks trends |

---

## 7. Requirements → Spec Mapping

| Requirement | Spec Section | Implementation |
|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
| R1: Security Scanning | 2.2 audit-security | ESLint + npm audit + pattern analysis |
| R2: Complexity Analysis | 2.4 audit-complexity | AST parsing, cyclomatic complexity |
| R3: Performance Detection | 2.3 audit-performance | Static analysis, baseline comparison |
| R4: Code Review | 2.1 review-code | Orchestrator combining R1+R2+other checks |
| R5: Coverage Analysis | 2.5 analyze-test-coverage | Parse lcov.info, rank gaps |
| R6: Code Cleanup | 2.6 code-cleanup | Safe deletion with reference updates |

---

## 8. Non-Functional Requirements

### Performance
- Commands must execute in <10 seconds for typical codebases
- CI/CD workflows must complete in <5 minutes total
- Reports must render in <1 second in CLI

### Reliability
- Graceful fallback if external tools unavailable (npm audit, ESLint)
- Retry logic for GitHub API calls (exponential backoff)
- Cached results prevent re-analysis within 1 hour

### Security
- No exposure of secrets in reports (redact API keys, tokens)
- Sanitize file paths in output (no absolute paths)
- All GitHub operations use authenticated API (no anonymous)

### Usability
- Clear error messages with remediation guidance
- Color-coded severity levels (🔴 critical, 🟠 high, 🟡 medium, 🟢 low)
- Tunable thresholds (not one-size-fits-all)

---

## 9. Out of Scope

- **Runtime Profiling** - No actual code execution, static analysis only
- **Custom Security Rules** - Use standard tool rulesets, not custom rules
- **Multi-Language Support Phase 1** - Focus on TypeScript/Node.js only
- **AI-Powered Fixes** - Recommendations only, no automated code changes
- **Real-Time Monitoring** - Snapshot audits, not continuous monitoring

---

## 10. Success Criteria

- ✅ All 6 commands implemented and tested
- ✅ <10s execution time on typical codebase
- ✅ 95%+ detection rate for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities
- ✅ CI/CD workflows auto-running on every PR
- ✅ 80%+ test coverage for all code
- ✅ Zero blocker issues in production

---

## Related Documents

- **BRD**: `../brds/qa-brd.md` - Business context and goals
- **Spec**: `../specs/qa-spec.md` - Technical implementation details
- **Narratives**: `../narratives/qa/` - Source materials and planning