Quality

Dispatch QA validation for a code-review-approved implementation. Last gate before merge.

If bead ID provided: use it directly.

If no bead ID provided:

1. Run bd list --label approved --json to get beads that passed code review
2. Present the list showing: ID, title, priority, and labels
3. If no beads with approved label found, inform the user and stop
4. Ask the user which task to QA</on-init>

Step 1: Read Bead Context

1. Parse bead JSON. Extract: description, acceptance, design, notes, status, labels, parent
2. Read bead comments: bd comments {BEAD_ID}
3. Locate the spec/design doc from the bead's design field or parent epic
4. If spec references a Source PRD, note the path
5. Identify the implementation branch

Step 2: Dispatch QA Gate

Dispatch using exactly these parameters — no more, no less:

Agent(
    subagent_type="qa-gate",
    prompt="QA validate BEAD {BEAD_ID} on branch {branch-name}. Spec: {spec_path}. PRD: {prd_path}. Read the bead (bd show {BEAD_ID}) and comments (bd comments {BEAD_ID}) for full context — description, acceptance criteria, design notes, COMPLETED, DECISION, DEVIATION, and REVIEW comments. Run tests, build, and lint. Log a structured QA comment to the bead."
)

Do NOT add extra parameters unless the user explicitly requests it.

Step 3: Present QA Results

After the QA agent completes:

1. Read the QA comment: bd comments {BEAD_ID}
2. Extract verdict: PASS or FAIL
3. Present the QA summary

If PASS:

• Update labels: bd label add {BEAD_ID} qa-passed
• Ask: "Do you want to close this bead?"
  • If yes: bd close {BEAD_ID}
  • If no: leave open for manual merge workflow

If FAIL:

• Present specific failure reasons
• Ask how to proceed:
  • Rework: address gaps — auto-dispatches supervisor
  • Follow-up: create new bead for gaps, merge as-is
  • Override: merge anyway — user's decision
• Update labels:

  # If rework:
  bd label remove {BEAD_ID} approved
  bd label add {BEAD_ID} needs-rework
  bd update {BEAD_ID} --status in_progress
  
  # If follow-up or override:
  bd label add {BEAD_ID} qa-override

• If rework: resolve branch instruction (continue existing or fresh)

Step 4: Track QA Findings

Extract actionable findings from the QA comment and apply the severity threshold policy:

Filtering rules:

• PASS: track MAJORs as individual beads, batch MINORs into one bead, log EXTRA/RISK as epic comments
• FAIL + rework: BLOCKER/MAJOR addressed by rework; batch MINORs, log EXTRA/RISK as comments
• FAIL + follow-up/override: same as PASS policy
• If no MAJORs or MINORs exist: log EXTRA/RISK as epic comments only — do NOT dispatch Fernando for bead creation
• Findings beads (bead has any finding:* label): the QA verdict (PASS / FAIL) and rework cycle operate normally — BLOCKERs and MAJORs are still fixed via rework on the same bead. However, Step 4 tracking is skipped: MINORs found during QA of a findings bead are reported in the QA comment for transparency but do NOT generate new beads. This breaks the recursive cycle where findings create findings indefinitely.

Log EXTRA/RISK as epic comments (deferred backlog — not beads):

bd comments add {TARGET_EPIC_ID} "DEFERRED from QA of {BEAD_ID}:
- [EXTRA] {description}
- [RISK] {description}"

Resolve the target epic — findings go to the parent epic:

bd show {BEAD_ID} --json | python3 -c "import json,sys; d=json.load(sys.stdin); print(d[0].get('parent',''))"

• If parent is not empty: use it as {TARGET_EPIC_ID}
• ONLY if parent is empty: fall back to a "Review Findings" epic

Before dispatching Fernando, check what findings were already tracked from the review gate:

bd list --parent {TARGET_EPIC_ID} --json | python3 -c "import json,sys; issues=json.load(sys.stdin); tracked=[i for i in issues if any('discovered-from:{BEAD_ID}' in str(d) for d in i.get('deps',[]))]; print('\n'.join(f\"{i['id']}: {i['title']}\" for i in tracked))"

Include this list in Fernando's dispatch prompt so he can deduplicate across gates.

Only dispatch Fernando if MAJORs or MINORs exist. Use exactly these parameters — no more, no less:

Agent(
    subagent_type="beads-owner",
    prompt="Create beads issues for the following QA findings from BEAD {BEAD_ID} QA validation. IMPORTANT: Each issue MUST use --parent {TARGET_EPIC_ID} flag to place it inside the epic, and --deps 'discovered-from:{BEAD_ID}' to link back to the validated task. Do NOT use 'bd dep add' to link tasks to epics — only --parent does that. Use label 'finding:{type}' (lowercase) for each. Include relevant context from QA report. BATCHING RULE: Create individual beads for MAJOR findings only. Batch ALL MINOR findings into a single bead titled 'QA cleanup: {BEAD_ID}' with each item as a checklist in the description. Do NOT create beads for EXTRA or RISK — those are already logged as epic comments. DEDUP CONTEXT: The following findings were already tracked from the review gate — deduplicate against them before creating new issues:\n{EXISTING_REVIEW_FINDINGS}\n\nFindings:\n\n{FINDINGS_LIST}"
)

Do NOT add extra parameters unless the user explicitly requests it.

Step 5: Auto-Dispatch Supervisor (FAIL + rework only)

Skip when verdict is PASS, or user chose follow-up/override.

1. Resolve supervisor from assignee field (same as /do Step 2)
2. Confirm before dispatch:

   Ready to dispatch {resolved-supervisor} for QA rework of {BEAD_ID}: "{bead title}"
     Branch: {REWORK_BRANCH_INSTRUCTION summary}
     Failures to address: {N} BLOCKER + {M} MAJOR
   
   Proceed? [y/n]

3. If confirmed, dispatch using exactly these parameters — no more, no less:

   Agent(
       subagent_type="{resolved-supervisor}",
       prompt="QA rework for BEAD {BEAD_ID}. {REWORK_BRANCH_INSTRUCTION} Read the bead (bd show {BEAD_ID}) and comments (bd comments {BEAD_ID}) for full context. The latest QA comment contains BLOCKER and MAJOR failures that MUST be addressed — MINOR, EXTRA, RISK findings have been tracked as separate issues. After addressing failures, log a COMPLETED comment summarizing what was fixed."
   )

   Do NOT add extra parameters unless the user explicitly requests it.
4. If declined: inform "Run /do {BEAD_ID} when ready." and stop.

1. Headline: verdict in plain language — "QA passed — all checks green, ready to merge" or "QA found {N} issues: {brief summary}"
2. What was found:
   • If PASS: brief summary of what was validated (conformity, tests, build, lint). Highlight any EXTRA or RISK items logged as deferred backlog.
   • If FAIL: for each BLOCKER/MAJOR, explain in natural language what failed, why it matters, and what needs to happen. Use a ASCII diagram if failures involve multi-component interactions.
3. Findings tracked: if Fernando created beads, list with plain-language descriptions. If EXTRA/RISK items were logged to the epic, mention them.
4. Repercussions: what breaks if FAIL findings aren't addressed
5. Next step: close and merge (PASS) or confirm rework dispatch (FAIL)
6. Technical details: raw QA comment, test/build/lint output, and conformity details in a <details> block</on-complete>