🧠 Test Coverage Validator Agent Specification¶

🎯 Purpose¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent is the coverage watchdog of the ConnectSoft QA Engineering Cluster.

Its mission is to evaluate the completeness, correctness, and relevance of tests across all services, ensuring that:

✅ Every blueprint, handler, and scenario is sufficiently tested 🔐 Role-based access is covered and validated 🌍 Edition-specific and tenant-specific behaviors are included 📎 Trace IDs are linked to real executions 🧪 No test is missing, orphaned, or outdated

🧩 What It Validates¶

Dimension	Description
Trace ID Coverage	All testable blueprints have corresponding tests
Edition Awareness	All product tiers (`lite`, `pro`, `enterprise`) are represented
Role Matrix	All allowed roles for a handler/use case are tested
Scenario Completeness	Happy path, edge case, negative case, and access control scenarios exist
Prompt Backfill	Tests generated from QA prompts have been executed and logged
Regression Resilience	Bug fixes are protected by reproducible regression tests
Coverage Delta	Test coverage trends per trace over time (baseline → now)

🧠 Position in the Factory¶

The agent acts as:

🧪 A QA auditor
📊 A coverage reporter
🔁 A trigger for test regeneration or augmentation
📣 A notifier for QA engineers and Studio dashboards
🤝 A feedback partner to Test Generator and Automation Engineer agents

📘 Example Validation Scenario¶

Trace: cancel-2025-0142 Handler: CancelInvoiceHandler

Agent checks:

✅ Unit test exists for Handle method
✅ BDD .feature includes normal and access-denied scenarios
❌ Edition lite does not include Guest role scenario
❌ Prompt from QA: “What if CFO cancels after approval?” was not covered

→ Result: Triggers regeneration + QA warning

🚦 Impact of the Agent¶

Without this agent:

🔍 Uncovered roles go unnoticed
⚠️ Editions may ship with missing test paths
📉 Coverage may degrade silently over time
🧱 Security, resilience, or localization bugs could sneak into production

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent ensures that test generation is:

🧠 Strategic, not reactive
🔁 Complete, not just happy-path focused
📎 Traceable, with cross-edition and multi-role verification
🔊 Actionable, surfacing real gaps to QA engineers and other agents

This agent turns ConnectSoft’s testing architecture into a continuous quality assurance engine, not just a one-time generator.

🧱 Strategic Positioning¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent is strategically positioned as the QA intelligence layer responsible for:

📊 Monitoring overall test completeness
🔍 Auditing trace, edition, and role coverage per use case
🔁 Feeding gaps and insights back into Studio, the QA team, and generator agents
🧪 Ensuring all automated tests executed by the Test Automation Engineer Agent actually fulfill the coverage requirements defined in the blueprint and QA plan

🧠 Functional Positioning in the QA Engineering Cluster¶

flowchart TD
    A[TestCaseGeneratorAgent] --> C[TestAutomationEngineerAgent]
    B[TestGeneratorAgent] --> C
    C --> D[TestCoverageValidatorAgent]
    D --> E[QAEngineerAgent]
    D --> F[Studio]
    D --> G[TestGeneratorAgent]
    D --> H[Trace Coverage Reports]

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

The Validator Agent is invoked:

After test generation
After test execution
At periodic checkpoints (e.g., before merge, during regression, nightly audits)

🧩 Position Across the Factory Lifecycle¶

Factory Phase	Validator Agent Role
📦 Blueprint Finalization	Loads expected coverage matrix from handler/role/edition mappings
⚙️ Test Generation	Validates whether generated tests fulfill expected dimensions
🧪 Test Execution	Verifies whether tests ran as planned, and passed for all required combinations
🔁 Post-Execution Feedback	Identifies and logs missing, flaky, or skipped scenarios
📊 Studio Visualization	Provides trace-based coverage scores and heatmaps
🔔 CI/CD & QA Notifications	Flags failing gates, missing role/edition pairs, test regression

📎 Strategic Goals It Supports¶

The agent supports the following ConnectSoft platform goals:

✅ Observability-First QA → by tracing execution and coverage spans
✅ Edition- and Role-Aware Testing → by enforcing matrix coverage
✅ Security-First Development → by validating RBAC scenario completeness
✅ Autonomous QA → by automatically triggering Generator Agent and retries
✅ Studio-Driven QA Oversight → by producing coverage summaries for QA and PMs

🧠 Studio and CI Feedback Loop¶

sequenceDiagram
    participant ValidatorAgent
    participant Studio
    participant QAEngineer
    participant GeneratorAgent

    ValidatorAgent->>Studio: Emit trace coverage score
    Studio->>QAEngineer: Display heatmap
    ValidatorAgent->>GeneratorAgent: Trigger missing scenario regen
    ValidatorAgent->>QAEngineer: Notify uncovered edition path

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent is the coverage assurance nerve center of the QA cluster. It:

📊 Sits between generation and execution
🔁 Feeds gaps to generator and automation layers
📣 Alerts QA teams through Studio and dashboards
🔐 Ensures that all test cases reflect the real-world complexity of roles, editions, prompts, and tenants

It’s not just watching for gaps — it closes the loop to fill and prevent them.

📋 Responsibilities¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent owns the measurement, validation, and assurance of test coverage across all executable software blueprints in the ConnectSoft AI Software Factory.

It is not responsible for generating or executing tests, but for validating:

Whether enough of the right tests exist
Whether they executed as expected
Whether they cover the blueprint’s functional dimensions

✅ Key Responsibilities Breakdown¶

Responsibility	Description
1. Trace-Level Coverage Validation	Confirms that every `trace_id` has test coverage for all required paths
2. Edition Matrix Verification	Checks that `lite`, `pro`, and `enterprise` variants are covered
3. Role Coverage Mapping	Ensures that all roles with access are tested for both success and failure cases
4. Scenario Completeness Check	Confirms that each blueprint contains at least: happy path, failure, edge, and security scenarios
5. Prompt Coverage Enforcement	Verifies that QA-initiated prompts resulted in generated + executed tests
6. Test Result Verification	Verifies that tests ran and passed for required scenarios in Test Automation reports
7. Regression Readiness Auditing	Ensures all fixed bugs are covered by traceable regression tests
8. Coverage Drift Detection	Compares current coverage vs. baseline (i.e., regressions in scope)
9. Studio Heatmap Updates	Publishes per-trace coverage status to QA dashboards
10. Triggering Generator Agent	Emits gap alerts to regenerate missing test paths
11. Quarantine and Retry Enforcement	Flags unstable or flaky tests for QA triage
12. CI/CD Gate Evaluation	Decides if coverage threshold allows merge/release
13. QA Alerting and Reports	Notifies QA Engineer Agent of gap clusters, regressions, and quality risks
14. Test Blueprint vs. Artifact Mapping	Maps blueprint inputs (e.g., `ports`, `use_cases`) to test artifacts and evaluates completeness
15. Coverage Metadata Emission	Produces machine-readable coverage stats for analytics and trend monitoring

📘 Example Responsibilities in Action¶

Trace: capture-2025-0143 Handler: CapturePaymentHandler Blueprint roles: Cashier, Guest Editions: lite, enterprise

Responsibilities Fulfilled:¶

✅ Unit test exists and ran for both editions
✅ .feature scenario exists for Cashier success
❌ Missing Guest access denial scenario
❌ lite edition has no negative or security tests
🔁 Result: Trigger Test Generator Agent → regenerate
📊 Result: Studio trace view shows Coverage = 67%

📎 Collaboration Summary¶

Collaborator Agent	Type of Collaboration
Test Generator Agent	Suggests specific role × edition × scenario tests to generate
Test Automation Engineer Agent	Confirms what was executed, passed, skipped, or retried
QA Engineer Agent	Shares coverage gap reports and delta insights
Studio Agent	Feeds per-trace, per-role, and per-edition coverage status for dashboards
Bug Resolver Agent	Validates whether bugs are protected by regression test coverage

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent is responsible for transforming raw test generation and execution into a measurable quality assurance surface, ensuring:

🎯 Every role-edition combination is validated
🔁 Prompt-based and bug-related tests exist and are linked
📎 Dashboards reflect accurate trace-to-test mappings
🔊 Coverage gaps are visible and recoverable

It acts as the quality checkpoint, coverage enforcer, and validation auditor of the entire QA process.

📥 Inputs¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent collects and correlates inputs from blueprints, test metadata, execution logs, Studio actions, and QA plans to measure and validate software test coverage across all dimensions.

These inputs allow it to:

🧭 Understand what should be covered
🧪 Compare it to what was actually tested and executed
🔍 Detect omissions, regressions, or misalignments

📦 Primary Input Categories¶

Input Type	Description	Source
Blueprints / Microservice Manifests	Contains `trace_id`, roles, edition, and handler data	`agent-microservice-standard-blueprint.md`
Trace Metadata	Maps test artifacts (unit, BDD, validator) to functional traces	`test-metadata.yaml`, `test-augmentation-metadata.yaml`
Execution Summaries	Test results with role/edition success status	`test-execution-summary.yaml` from Test Automation Engineer Agent
Studio QA Prompts	QA-entered prompts that require test generation	Studio → Prompt log entries
Bug Trace Logs	Bug IDs linked to blueprints and test validation markers	Bug Resolver Agent
QA Plan Requirements	Required editions, roles, tags, or scenarios per blueprint	`qa-plan.yaml`
Feature Tags & Roles	Annotated scenario tags (`@role:`, `@edition:`, `@security`)	`.feature` files, scenario metadata
Retried / Quarantined Tests	Tests marked flaky or unstable	`retry-history.yaml`, quarantine index
Historical Coverage Baseline	Previous validated test coverage for deltas	`coverage-snapshots.json`
Edition Config	Determines which editions are active and their expected flows	`edition-config.json`, tenant manifests

📘 Example: Blueprint Input (from generator)¶

trace_id: capture-2025-0143
handler: CapturePaymentHandler
roles_allowed:
  - Cashier
  - Guest
editions_supported:
  - lite
  - enterprise
required_scenarios:
  - success
  - duplicate
  - unauthorized

📘 Example: Test Execution Summary (per trace)¶

trace_id: capture-2025-0143
executed:
  - edition: enterprise
    role: Cashier
    result: passed
  - edition: enterprise
    role: Guest
    result: failed
  - edition: lite
    role: Guest
    result: missing

🔍 Prompt Log Input (from QA)¶

{
  "prompt": "What if Guest tries to approve payment?",
  "trace_id": "capture-2025-0143",
  "status": "generated",
  "executed": false
}

→ Agent detects prompt exists but no .feature scenario was generated or executed → triggers Generator Agent.

📦 Tags and Scenario Input¶

From .feature:

@edition:lite @role:Cashier @security
Scenario: Prevent duplicate payment

→ Agent validates:

✅ Correct edition present
✅ Role-specific security case exists
❌ If edition pro or Guest is missing → gap reported

🧠 Inputs Used for Diff & Delta Analysis¶

Snapshot	Use
`coverage-snapshots.json`	Compares what was covered last week vs. now
`trace-coverage-history.yaml`	Tracks per-trace evolution of coverage quality
`qa-backlog.yaml`	Stores unfulfilled prompts or uncovered scenarios

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent relies on rich, multi-source input streams to:

🧠 Understand expected test coverage per trace, edition, role, and prompt
🧪 Analyze actual test execution and validate completeness
🔁 Detect and surface unexecuted, under-tested, or missing paths
📘 Provide all downstream agents with actionable insights

This input model transforms coverage from a code metric to a business-aligned quality score.

📤 Outputs¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent produces a rich set of machine-readable, human-readable, and dashboard-integrated outputs that power:

📊 Studio dashboards and trace-level coverage views
🔔 QA notifications and decision support
🔁 Automated triggers for Generator, Automation, and Bug Resolver agents
📎 Historical tracking and observability logs

These outputs turn raw coverage data into actionable QA insights.

📦 Primary Output Artifacts¶

Output	Format	Description
`trace-coverage-report.yaml`	YAML	Coverage result per trace ID
`coverage-gap-matrix.yaml`	YAML	List of missing roles, editions, and scenarios
`qa-coverage-summary.md`	Markdown	Human-readable QA overview
`coverage-deltas.json`	JSON	Before/after coverage comparison
`trace-execution-matrix.json`	JSON	Detailed result matrix by edition × role × scenario
`unfulfilled-prompts.yaml`	YAML	QA prompts that haven’t been converted or executed
`gap-alert-events.jsonl`	JSONL	Streaming event log for dashboard and agent listeners
`studio-coverage-feed.json`	JSON	Sent to Studio for heatmaps and trace views
`regression-risk-report.md`	Markdown	Highlights handlers with unstable or decreasing coverage

📘 Example: `trace-coverage-report.yaml`¶

trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
handler: CancelInvoiceHandler
status: partial
total_required: 6
covered: 4
missing:
  - role: Guest
    edition: lite
    scenario: AccessDenied
  - role: CFO
    edition: pro
    scenario: AfterApproval

📊 Example: Studio Coverage Feed¶

{
  "trace_id": "invoice-2025-0147",
  "coverage_score": 72,
  "roles_tested": ["CFO", "FinanceManager"],
  "roles_missing": ["Guest"],
  "editions_tested": ["enterprise"],
  "editions_missing": ["lite", "pro"],
  "status": "incomplete"
}

→ Enables per-trace heatmaps and dashboard status indicators.

📄 QA Markdown Summary¶

### 🧪 Coverage Report: CancelInvoiceHandler

📎 Trace ID: cancel-2025-0142  
🎯 Required Roles: CFO, Guest  
🧱 Editions: lite, pro, enterprise  

✅ Covered:
- CFO in enterprise edition
- Guest in pro edition

❌ Missing:
- CFO in pro edition (access denied case)
- Guest in lite edition (security scenario)

🔁 Suggested Action:
- Trigger Test Generator for missing paths
- Schedule rerun via Studio

🔔 Gap Alert Example (Event Log)¶

{
  "event": "CoverageGapDetected",
  "trace_id": "refund-2025-0183",
  "role": "SupportAgent",
  "edition": "lite",
  "scenario": "Duplicate Refund",
  "source": "ValidatorAgent",
  "suggested_action": "TriggerTestGenerator"
}

🧠 Trigger Signals for Other Agents¶

Agent	Trigger
🧪 Test Generator Agent	Emit `coverage-gap-matrix.yaml` with missing roles/editions
⚙️ Test Automation Engineer Agent	Request re-run of unexecuted/unstable scenarios
👤 QA Engineer Agent	Push Markdown summaries to review dashboard
📘 Studio Agent	Feed dashboard views with live coverage matrix and gap map
🧠 Bug Resolver Agent	Notify when post-bug test has no regression trace coverage

🧾 Reporting Artifacts Timeline¶

Artifact	When Emitted
`trace-coverage-report.yaml`	After every major test execution
`qa-coverage-summary.md`	After Studio-triggered QA audit
`unfulfilled-prompts.yaml`	Every 15 min or during gap scan cycle
`gap-alert-events.jsonl`	Streaming output during validation

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent outputs:

📘 YAML + JSON for traceable agent-to-agent collaboration
📄 Markdown summaries for QA and Studio review
📊 Coverage heatmap feeds to visualize test health
🔁 Trigger artifacts to power regeneration, reruns, and retries

These outputs close the loop between test generation, execution, and quality validation — turning test coverage into a governable, observable QA discipline.

🎯 Coverage Dimensions¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent evaluates test quality across multiple dimensions, ensuring that ConnectSoft’s QA system goes beyond "did it run?" and answers:

"Did we test the right behavior in the right context — for every user, edition, tenant, and condition?"

This cycle defines the coverage dimensions the agent analyzes and enforces.

📊 Key Dimensions of Coverage¶

Dimension	Description
Trace ID	Unique identifier for a blueprint unit (e.g., handler, endpoint, service use case)
Role	RBAC roles allowed to access the feature (e.g., Admin, Guest, CFO)
Edition	Product tier or configuration variant (e.g., Lite, Pro, Enterprise)
Scenario Type	Happy path, edge case, security path, failure condition, retries
Test Type	Unit, integration, BDD, validation, regression
Tenant	Multi-tenant customization layer (rules, locales, feature toggles)
Locale/Language	Variants in UI strings or behavior per culture
Bug Trace ID	Ensures regression test exists for any fixed bug
Prompt Source	Whether QA prompt–based tests were fulfilled and executed
Execution Mode	Scheduled, CI-based, or manually triggered via Studio

📘 Example: Trace Coverage Dimensions for `CreateInvoiceHandler`¶

Dimension	Status
Trace ID	`invoice-2025-0147` ✅
Roles Tested	`CFO`, `Guest` ✅ / ❌
Editions Tested	`lite` ❌, `enterprise` ✅
Scenario Types	happy ✅, edge ✅, failure ❌
Prompt Fulfilled	“What if Guest submits duplicate invoice?” → ❌ not tested
Bug Trace	#INV-448 fixed, but no regression test found ❌

→ Coverage = 58% → triggers generator + QA review

📦 Internal Model: Coverage Matrix Object¶

{
  "trace_id": "invoice-2025-0147",
  "roles": ["CFO", "Guest"],
  "editions": ["lite", "enterprise"],
  "scenarios": ["happy", "failure", "security"],
  "executed_matrix": [
    { "role": "CFO", "edition": "enterprise", "scenarios": ["happy", "failure"] },
    { "role": "Guest", "edition": "enterprise", "scenarios": ["security"] }
  ],
  "missing": [
    { "role": "Guest", "edition": "lite", "scenario": "failure" }
  ]
}

🧠 How the Agent Intersects Dimensions¶

Intersection	Example
`role × edition`	CFO in `lite` edition triggers specific config
`trace × bug_trace`	bug #INV-448 → ensures regression test exists for `trace_id = invoice-2025-0147`
`scenario × prompt`	QA prompt: “What if Guest reuses same invoice ID?” → requires test generated & executed
`role × scenario type`	Ensures `Guest` scenarios include `access denied`, not just positive paths
`trace × tenant`	Tests must execute for tenant-specific rules (e.g., late fee rules in Israel vs US)

📊 Studio Heatmap Visualization¶

The coverage matrix enables dashboard views like:

Role ↓ Edition →	Lite	Pro	Enterprise
CFO	✅	✅	✅
Guest	❌	✅	✅
Admin	❌	❌	✅

Color-coded by:

✅ = tested and passed
❌ = missing or untested
⚠️ = failed or unstable

📎 Tags Used Per Dimension¶

Tag	Purpose
`@edition:lite`	Marks a test as scoped to a specific edition
`@role:Admin`	Role injection for security validation
`@scenario:failure`	Required for failure case coverage
`@prompt_generated`	Tracks QA-initiated scenario requirement
`@bug:INV-448`	Traceability for regression protection

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent defines and enforces QA coverage across a full matrix of meaningful dimensions, including:

📎 trace_id, edition, role, scenario type, prompt, bug, locale, tenant
🧠 Gaps are detected per dimension, not just overall
🔁 This model powers dashboards, regeneration flows, and CI/CD quality gates

Without multidimensional validation, you risk testing a product that no one actually uses — and missing the one that matters.

🎯 Static vs. Dynamic Coverage Models¶

To ensure completeness and relevance, the Test Coverage Validator Agent evaluates test coverage using two complementary models:

🔁 Static Coverage — what should be tested based on design and blueprint 🧪 Dynamic Coverage — what was actually tested at runtime, across all dimensions

This enables the agent to detect misalignments between design intent and execution reality — and drive automated remediation.

📊 Static Coverage Model¶

✅ What It Represents¶

Expected test coverage based on:
Blueprints
QA plans
Handler metadata
Edition/role access rules
Required scenario tags (@security, @failure)
QA prompt and bug trace backlog

📘 Example (Expected State)¶

trace_id: invoice-2025-0147
required:
  roles: [Admin, CFO, Guest]
  editions: [lite, enterprise]
  scenarios:
    - happy
    - failure
    - access_denied
    - regression:#INV-0442

🧠 Static Sources¶

agent-microservice-standard-blueprint.md
test-metadata.yaml
qa-plan.yaml
unfulfilled-prompts.yaml
edition-config.json

🧪 Dynamic Coverage Model¶

✅ What It Represents¶

Actual executed and passed test runs collected from:
test-execution-summary.yaml
assertion-logs.jsonl
retry-history.yaml
Studio-triggered test traces

📘 Example (Observed State)¶

executed:
  - Admin in enterprise (happy, access_denied)
  - CFO in enterprise (happy)
  - Guest in enterprise (❌ failed)
  - Admin in lite (not run)

📉 Comparison: Static vs. Dynamic¶

Trace ID	Role	Edition	Expected Scenario	Executed	Result
invoice-2025-0147	Admin	enterprise	happy	✅	passed
invoice-2025-0147	Guest	enterprise	access_denied	✅	❌ failed
invoice-2025-0147	CFO	lite	failure	❌	—
invoice-2025-0147	Admin	lite	regression:#INV-0442	❌	—

📎 Coverage Delta Calculation¶

expected_matrix: 12
executed_matrix: 8
passed_matrix: 7
coverage_score: 66.6%
missing_combinations:
  - Admin × lite
  - CFO × lite
  - Guest × regression

Used in:

🛑 CI quality gates
🔁 Generator Agent triggers
📊 Studio dashboards
📘 QA markdown reports

🔁 Feedback Actions¶

Gap Type	Triggered Action
❌ Static present, dynamic missing	Generator Agent task + retry suggestion
⚠️ Static present, dynamic failed	QA alert + retry log + potential quarantine
✅ Static matched dynamic	Marked as covered
📉 Dynamic exists, not in static	Tagged as “unmapped” → QA triage (possibly orphaned or redundant test)

🧠 Use Cases Enabled¶

Nightly QA audits
CI/CD coverage regression blockers
Studio “Why is this red?” trace views
Edition/role expansion checks
Bug protection assurance for released versions

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent uses a dual-model strategy to guarantee:

🧱 Design-time intent is fully realized at runtime
🧪 Runtime test results are validated against expectations
📎 Gaps are traceable, actionable, and automatically remediable
📊 QA metrics reflect reality, not assumption

This model bridges test design → execution → validation, and powers the closed-loop QA system at the heart of ConnectSoft’s AI Software Factory.

🎯 Studio Integration for Visualization¶

To make coverage insights immediately accessible and actionable, the Test Coverage Validator Agent integrates directly with Studio, enabling:

📊 Visual dashboards per trace ID, role, and edition
🔁 Feedback on test gaps and retries
🧠 Smart QA triage for incomplete or unstable tests
📎 Interactive trace-to-test views for QA, PMs, and developers

This cycle defines how the agent feeds coverage results into Studio and how those are rendered and interacted with by QA users.

🧱 Core Studio Integration Points¶

Studio Module	Data Supplied by Validator Agent
Trace View	`trace_id`, test status, gap matrix, scenario summary
Coverage Heatmap	Matrix of role × edition × scenario → status (✅, ❌, ⚠️)
Prompt Audit Trail	Whether QA prompt was fulfilled, executed, passed
Edition/Role Filter	Role/edition-level coverage across all traces
Gap Alerts Panel	Missing or failed scenarios by severity
Test Status Timeline	Time-based pass/fail/retry record per trace or scenario
QA Review Queue	List of uncovered or failed required paths needing triage

📘 Sample Feed: `studio-coverage-feed.json`¶

{
  "trace_id": "invoice-2025-0147",
  "status": "partial",
  "coverage_score": 66.7,
  "roles": ["Admin", "CFO", "Guest"],
  "editions": ["lite", "enterprise"],
  "matrix": [
    { "role": "Admin", "edition": "enterprise", "scenarios": ["happy"], "status": "passed" },
    { "role": "Guest", "edition": "enterprise", "scenarios": ["access_denied"], "status": "failed" },
    { "role": "CFO", "edition": "lite", "scenarios": ["failure"], "status": "missing" }
  ],
  "last_run": "2025-05-17T13:44:00Z"
}

🧩 Visual Elements Enabled¶

1. 🔲 Coverage Matrix Grid¶

Role Edition	lite	pro	enterprise
Admin	✅	⚠️	✅
Guest	❌	✅	❌
CFO	✅	❌	✅

✅ = Covered and passed
❌ = Missing
⚠️ = Flaky, failed, or unstable

2. 📋 Trace QA View¶

Trace ID: invoice-2025-0147
Coverage: 66.7%
Gaps:
- Guest in lite edition (access denied scenario)
- CFO in lite edition (failure case)
- Prompt: “What if Guest reuses invoice ID?” — Not executed

[ Trigger Test Generator ] [ View Retry Logs ] [ Mark Flaky ]

3. 📎 Prompt Status Panel¶

Prompt	Status	Test Generated	Executed	Result
“Guest cancels after approval”	✅	✅	✅	❌
“Guest retries after timeout”	❌	❌	❌	—

→ QA can approve, request generation, or edit prompt.

🔔 Live Coverage Alerts¶

Scenario fails or missing → alerts appear in Studio’s QA inbox
Bug trace lacks regression → red warning in QA coverage view
Edition or role not tested → dropdown badge with ❌

🧠 Interactive QA Actions Enabled¶

Action	Result
Trigger scenario regeneration	Sends gap back to Test Generator Agent
Manually rerun a scenario	Dispatches job to Test Automation Engineer Agent
Mark scenario unstable	Tagged in Studio, deferred to nightly
Approve partially covered trace	Logs QA approval to override gate (manual exception)

📎 Trace Metadata Displayed¶

trace_id
Test coverage score
Role × edition execution map
Scenario list with pass/fail
Execution date, retry count, root cause (if failed)
QA prompts linked
Regression trace tags (if applicable)

✅ Summary¶

This cycle enables the Test Coverage Validator Agent to:

🎛️ Make coverage status visible, filterable, and actionable in Studio
📎 Show per-trace coverage heatmaps
📘 Highlight prompt fulfillment, bug coverage, and QA approval gaps
🔁 Enable in-place actions: retry, regenerate, approve, defer

Studio becomes a QA command center, powered by the validator’s multi-dimensional coverage insights.

🎯 Collaboration with Generator and Automation Agents¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent ensures quality through intelligent collaboration with other QA Engineering Cluster agents — especially:

🧠 Test Generator Agent — to create missing tests
⚙️ Test Automation Engineer Agent — to rerun, quarantine, or validate scenarios
🧑‍💼 QA Engineer Agent — to review and approve uncovered paths or unstable tests

This creates a closed-loop quality system — where coverage gaps automatically trigger repair actions.

🤝 Collaboration with Test Generator Agent¶

Triggered By	Action
Missing role × edition × scenario	Emit `coverage-gap-matrix.yaml` to trigger targeted generation
Unfulfilled QA prompt	Send `prompt-reminder.json` with suggested scenario and trace context
Uncovered bug trace	Suggest `@bug:` regression scenario generation
Studio-annotated gap	Send enriched prompt including QA rationale

🔄 API Trigger Example¶

{
  "trace_id": "invoice-2025-0147",
  "missing": [
    {
      "role": "Guest",
      "edition": "lite",
      "scenario": "access_denied"
    }
  ],
  "source": "coverage_validator",
  "reason": "QA requirement not fulfilled"
}

→ Generator Agent responds by emitting .feature, .cs, and Markdown.

⚙️ Collaboration with Test Automation Engineer Agent¶

Trigger	Action
Test missing in execution logs	Schedule on-demand rerun or next CI job
Test marked flaky	Send quarantine metadata, remove from gate checks
Retry exceeded	Create “regression candidate” trace for QA triage
Edition/role mismatch	Inject corrected configuration and rerun variant
Nightly audit plan	Validate coverage compliance across full edition matrix

📘 Execution Rerun Instruction¶

trace_id: refund-2025-0143
role: SupportAgent
edition: lite
scenario: duplicate refund
trigger: coverage_validator
reason: not executed in last 2 builds
action: rerun

→ Test Automation Engineer Agent reruns test with exact config and emits new result file.

🧑‍💼 Collaboration with QA Engineer Agent¶

Data Sent	Purpose
`qa-coverage-summary.md`	Studio dashboards and approval queues
`gap-alert-events.jsonl`	Streaming list of failing/missing tests
`unfulfilled-prompts.yaml`	Prompts that need manual QA intervention
`regression-risk-report.md`	Areas with unstable or regressed coverage
`manual-approval-needed.yaml`	For exceptions in gates or pre-release coverage drop

🧩 Workflow Diagram¶

flowchart TD
    Validator -->|missing test| Generator
    Validator -->|needs rerun| Automation
    Validator -->|QA approval| QAEngineerAgent
    Generator --> Validator
    Automation --> Validator
    QAEngineerAgent --> Validator

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

📎 Metadata Tags¶

Each collaboration step is logged with:

source_agent: coverage_validator
trigger_type: gap | prompt | edition_mismatch | regression
affected_trace_id, role, edition, scenario_type
action_taken: generate | rerun | quarantine | approve_required

Example:

source: coverage_validator
trace_id: capture-2025-0143
role: Guest
edition: enterprise
action: trigger_test_generator
reason: missing access_denied test

✅ Summary¶

This cycle defines how the Test Coverage Validator Agent interlocks with the rest of the QA system by:

🧠 Triggering the Generator Agent to patch coverage holes
⚙️ Requesting the Automation Agent to rerun or fix missed tests
👤 Working with the QA Agent to review, approve, or defer test gaps
🔁 Closing every QA loop — from missing → generated → executed → validated

This forms the autonomous QA feedback mesh at the core of ConnectSoft’s AI-driven testing strategy.

🎯 Test Gap Detection Algorithms¶

To ensure no scenario, role, edition, or prompt is left untested, the Test Coverage Validator Agent uses a set of intelligent, multi-layered algorithms to detect test coverage gaps.

These algorithms power:

🧭 Blueprint-to-test mapping
🔎 Role × Edition matrix scanning
🧠 Prompt fulfillment tracking
🔁 Execution vs. expectation deltas
📊 Test quality scoring

🧩 Core Gap Detection Layers¶

Layer	Description	Trigger
1️⃣ Blueprint Gap Detection	Compares blueprint requirements to test metadata	On blueprint update or daily
2️⃣ Execution Gap Detection	Detects scenarios that were never executed or failed	After each test run
3️⃣ Prompt Fulfillment Scan	Detects QA prompts not backed by tests	Every 15 min or on save
4️⃣ Edition-Role Matrix Gap	Missing combinations of allowed roles × editions	After plan or matrix generation
5️⃣ Regression Gap Detection	No test exists for fixed bugs	Post-release audit
6️⃣ Scenario Type Completeness	Missing `happy`, `failure`, `access_denied`, `edge`, `chaos`	Weekly audit or PR premerge
7️⃣ Unlinked Prompt/Trace	Prompt exists but isn’t mapped to trace or scenario	On Studio QA review
8️⃣ Coverage Drift Comparison	Drop in test % from last known snapshot	Daily comparison
9️⃣ Unstable Test Detection	Flaky, quarantined, or inconsistent outputs	Via retry logs
🔟 Edition Divergence	Tests exist for one edition but not others	Edition diff scan

📘 Blueprint Gap Detection Example¶

Blueprint says:

roles_allowed: [Admin, Guest]
editions: [lite, enterprise]
scenarios_required: [happy, access_denied]

Existing tests:

✅ Admin + enterprise (happy)
❌ Guest + lite (missing)
⚠️ No access_denied scenario

Gap output:

- trace_id: invoice-2025-0147
  gaps:
    - Guest + lite: missing
    - Scenario: access_denied: missing

🧠 Edition-Role Matrix Scanner¶

Evaluates:

required_matrix: 6
executed_matrix: 4
missing:
  - Admin × lite
  - Guest × enterprise

Triggers test-generator-agent with enriched prompt:

“Generate scenario where Guest accesses invoice in enterprise edition — access should be denied.”

🔎 Prompt Fulfillment Scanner¶

Scans:

prompt_log:
  - prompt_id: 1133
    text: "What if CFO cancels invoice twice?"
    trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
    generated: true
    executed: false

→ Flags unfulfilled_prompts.yaml → Sends notification to Studio QA panel → May auto-trigger test generation

📊 Drift Detection Logic¶

Compares:

Trace	Last Coverage	Current	Δ
invoice-2025-0147	91%	78%	-13% ❌
cancel-2025-0142	88%	88%	0% ✅
refund-2025-0143	93%	95%	+2% ✅

Triggers alert if delta < -5%.

📎 Sample Gap Matrix Output¶

trace_id: refund-2025-0143
missing_roles:
  - Guest
  - SupportAgent
missing_editions:
  - lite
missing_scenarios:
  - duplicate refund
  - access_denied
unfulfilled_prompts:
  - "Guest retries a refund too soon"
flaky_tests:
  - "Refund succeeds but retry fails"

🧠 Result Actions¶

Gap Type	Response
❌ Test missing	Trigger test generator
⚠️ Flaky	Quarantine and mark for retry audit
❓ Prompt unexecuted	QA notification and rerun option
🔁 Coverage drop	Alert Studio and add to audit queue

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent uses intelligent, proactive detection algorithms to:

🔍 Identify missing or unstable test coverage
📘 Ensure role-edition-scenario matrices are complete
🧠 Connect QA prompts and bug fixes to trace executions
🔁 Trigger repair loops via generation, retry, or review

It doesn't wait for QA to find gaps — it finds, classifies, and acts on them before release.

🎯 Edition-Aware Coverage Validation¶

Modern SaaS products — like those generated by ConnectSoft — support multiple editions (e.g., lite, pro, enterprise) with distinct:

🧩 Features
🔐 Access controls
🔁 Workflow behaviors
🌍 Configuration profiles

The Test Coverage Validator Agent ensures that tests validate each feature as it behaves across editions, guaranteeing:

Complete edition-specific scenario coverage and configuration validation across the factory-generated SaaS matrix.

🧩 Core Responsibilities in Edition Coverage¶

Responsibility	Description
Edition Matrix Completeness	Validate that every handler/use case is tested in all supported editions
Edition-Differentiated Behavior	Ensure edition-specific behavior toggles are reflected in tests
Conditional Scenario Enforcement	Scenarios tagged `@edition:enterprise` must only execute in matching edition
Edition Configuration Drift Detection	Detect changes in edition settings that invalidate existing tests
Edition Gap Reporting	Identify untested or incorrectly mapped editions in the QA matrix

📘 Example: Edition Matrix Snapshot¶

Blueprint:

trace_id: refund-2025-0143
editions_supported:
  - lite
  - pro
  - enterprise
scenarios_required:
  - happy
  - failure
  - duplicate_refund

Actual Test Coverage:

Edition	Scenarios Tested	Status
`lite`	happy	⚠️ partial (missing edge/failure)
`pro`	happy, failure	✅ complete
`enterprise`	happy, failure, duplicate_refund	✅ complete

→ Gap detected: lite edition is under-tested → Result: triggers scenario expansion + edition config injection

🏷️ Scenario Tagging Enforcement¶

Scenarios in .feature files must include proper tags:

@edition:pro @role:CFO
Scenario: Approve refund after verification

Validator ensures:

This scenario runs only in pro
Equivalent scenario exists in lite or enterprise, if required
Edition toggle EnablePostApprovalFlow=true is present during execution

🔁 Edition Behavior Validation Example¶

Handler: CreateInvoiceHandler Edition config diff:

Key	lite	pro	enterprise
`AllowDuplicateInvoices`	false	false	true
`EnableLateFee`	false	true	true

Agent enforces:

duplicate invoice test exists for enterprise (expected: allowed)
Same test fails for lite and pro (expected: rejection)

🔎 Detection Methods¶

Method	Description
Test Execution Diff	Compares results across editions → mismatch triggers flag
Tag Coverage Analysis	Parses `.feature` files for missing or misused edition tags
Edition-Specific Validator Triggers	Runs post-execution validation to enforce config-path alignment
Gap Comparison Engine	Ensures every edition/role/scenario cell in matrix is covered or justifiably excluded

📘 Sample Coverage Gap Output¶

trace_id: capture-2025-0143
missing_editions:
  - lite
missing_scenarios:
  - access_denied (lite)
  - retry_policy_fail (lite)
reason: Not tested with `EnableInvoiceLocking = false`
suggested_action:
  - Trigger Generator Agent for edition variants

🎯 Output to Studio¶

Edition	Status	Scenarios	Notes
lite	❌ Incomplete	⅓	Missing retry test
pro	✅ Full	3/3	—
enterprise	✅ Full	3/3	—

→ QA notified. Generator Agent triggered.

📎 Inter-Agent Impact¶

Trigger	Response
`EnableRefundValidation` enabled in `pro`	Generator adds new refund validator tests
Enterprise-only scenario mis-tagged	Generator receives patch request
Edition matrix drops coverage	QA alerted; Generator regenerates edge cases

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent enforces edition-aware QA coverage by:

🔍 Scanning all handler/use case tests for correct edition variants
🧪 Validating config-driven behavior differences (feature toggles, workflows)
🏷️ Ensuring tagged scenarios align with editions and toggle logic
🔁 Triggering Generator and Automation agents to resolve edition gaps

This protects ConnectSoft SaaS outputs from misconfigured, under-tested, or drifted edition behaviors.

🎯 Role Matrix Analysis¶

In a multi-role SaaS platform, access and behavior often vary by user role — CFO, Admin, Guest, Analyst, etc. To guarantee correct functionality and security, the Test Coverage Validator Agent performs role matrix validation:

🧪 Ensuring all allowed and disallowed roles are properly tested across all applicable editions, tenants, and scenarios.

This ensures RBAC correctness, access control validation, and functional behavior separation by role.

📦 Core Responsibilities for Role Matrix Validation¶

Responsibility	Description
Allowed Role Test Validation	Verifies that all roles allowed in a blueprint have matching tests
Denied Role Test Validation	Confirms that unauthorized roles are explicitly tested to fail
Edition × Role Expansion	Cross-validates that all role-edition combinations are tested
Access Control Enforcement	Ensures `403 Forbidden`, `401 Unauthorized`, and other rejection cases are asserted
Role Tag Compliance	Validates `@role:` tags in `.feature` and metadata alignment
Prompt Coverage per Role	Confirms QA prompts targeting specific roles were fulfilled

📘 Blueprint Example: Required Role Matrix¶

trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
handler: CancelInvoiceHandler
roles_allowed: [CFO, Admin]
roles_denied: [Guest, Analyst]
editions_supported: [lite, enterprise]

Expected Matrix¶

Role	Edition	Expected Scenario
CFO	enterprise	happy + edge
Admin	lite	failure + success
Guest	enterprise	access_denied
Analyst	lite	access_denied

🧪 Example Test Coverage Matrix¶

Role	Edition	Executed?	Status
CFO	enterprise	✅	passed
Admin	lite	✅	passed
Guest	enterprise	❌	missing
Analyst	lite	✅	failed as expected

→ Guest not tested → triggers scenario generation + QA warning

🧠 Detection Methods¶

Method	Behavior
Role-Based Scenario Parsing	Reads `@role:Admin`, `@role:Guest`, etc. from `.feature` files
Access Response Expectation	Requires assertions like `Then system returns 403 Forbidden`
Cross-Edition Role Scan	Confirms that role tests span all applicable editions
QA Prompt Trace Linkage	Verifies whether prompts like “What if Analyst tries to cancel?” were fulfilled
Failure Path Assertions	Looks for `Then response is Unauthorized` or `Assert.Forbidden()` in `.cs` tests

📘 Missing Role Coverage Output¶

trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
missing_roles:
  - Guest (enterprise): no test for access denial
  - Admin (lite): missing retry scenario
role_tags_present: true
status: partial
suggested_actions:
  - Trigger Generator for Guest access_denied
  - Add edition-aware Admin scenario in lite

📊 Studio Matrix View (Per Trace)¶

Role ↓ / Edition →	lite	enterprise
CFO	✅	✅
Admin	✅	⚠️ partial
Guest	❌	❌
Analyst	✅	✅

→ Color-coded:

✅ Fully tested
⚠️ Incomplete
❌ Missing

📎 Inter-Agent Actions¶

Gap	Triggered Agent
Missing `@role:Guest` scenario	🧠 Test Generator Agent
Role-only test exists, not linked to edition	⚙️ Test Automation Engineer Agent for rerun
Prompt unfulfilled for Guest	👤 QA Engineer Agent approval required

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent enforces role-level test completeness by:

🔍 Validating allowed + denied role execution paths
🧪 Ensuring 403, 401, and rejection conditions are tested
🔁 Triggering test generation for missing or partial role coverage
📘 Supporting Studio heatmaps and QA trace insights

Without this, security, access control, and role separation may silently break across editions — even if tests pass.

🎯 Scenario Completeness Check¶

To guarantee every use case is fully validated in depth, the Test Coverage Validator Agent checks that each trace (handler, feature, or endpoint) includes a comprehensive set of test scenarios:

🧪 Happy path, failure modes, negative paths, access denial, boundary cases, and edition-variant behaviors.

This ensures tests don’t just exist — they reflect the real-world complexity of behavior, validation, and configuration.

🧩 Required Scenario Types¶

Scenario Type	Description
✅ Happy Path	The expected, successful behavior under valid conditions
❌ Failure Path	Business logic failure (e.g., invoice already canceled)
🔐 Access Denied	User lacks permission → must return 403/401
⚠️ Invalid Input	DTO fails validation, system rejects request
🧪 Boundary/Edge Case	e.g., amount = 0, max items, null fields
🔁 Duplicate / Retry	Same action called twice, or replayed scenario
🛠️ Feature-Flag Variant	Behavior changes under edition or toggle switch
🐞 Regression	Bug scenario captured as test after fix
💥 Unhandled Condition	Scenario hits error or guardrail in system

📘 Scenario Type Mapping Example¶

Trace: cancel-2025-0142

Scenario	Type	Covered?
Cancel invoice (success)	Happy Path	✅
Cancel already canceled invoice	Failure Path	✅
Guest tries to cancel	Access Denied	❌
Cancel invoice with missing ID	Invalid Input	✅
Cancel invoice twice	Duplicate	❌
Cancel under enterprise flag	Feature Toggle	✅
Bug #4881: Post-approval cancel	Regression	❌

→ Result: Scenario completeness score = ⅝ = 62.5%

🧠 Detection Methods¶

Method	Description
`.feature` Tag Parser	Scans for `@scenario:` and Gherkin title matches
`.cs` Analyzer	Uses naming conventions + test metadata to classify test cases
Prompt Backlink	Checks if QA-generated scenarios exist for edge/failure cases
Validator Rule Mapping	Ensures DTO rules are tested with negative values
Bug Trace Matcher	Ensures every `@bug:` tagged fix has test match
Config Flag Analyzer	Detects missing edition/toggle variations in behavior path tests

📘 Sample Validator Output: Missing Scenarios¶

trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
scenarios_required:
  - happy
  - failure
  - access_denied
  - invalid_input
  - retry
  - edition_variant
  - regression:#4881
coverage:
  happy: ✅
  failure: ✅
  access_denied: ❌
  invalid_input: ✅
  retry: ❌
  edition_variant: ✅
  regression: ❌
score: 62.5%
recommendations:
  - Generate @access_denied for Guest
  - Replay bug trace #4881
  - Add retry scenario in .feature

📊 Studio View: Scenario Completeness Badge¶

Trace: cancel-2025-0142
🧪 Scenario Completeness: ❌ 62.5%
Missing:
- Guest access denied
- Retry after cancel
- Bug #4881 regression

Actions:

[ Trigger Generator ]
[ View Retry History ]
[ QA Approve Exception ]

📎 Collaboration Triggers¶

Gap Type	Triggered Agent
Missing edge/failure case	🧠 Test Generator Agent
Missing bug-based regression test	🐞 Bug Resolver Agent
QA-reviewed prompt unfulfilled	👤 QA Engineer Agent
Unexecuted retry scenario	⚙️ Test Automation Engineer Agent

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent ensures completeness of testing per trace by:

📋 Classifying tests across all expected behavior types
📎 Detecting missing scenarios from prompts, bugs, blueprints, or QA plans
🔁 Triggering agents to fill missing behavior coverage
📊 Providing trace-level “completeness scores” to QA dashboards and PRs

Without this, a trace might be “tested” — but never truly validated.

🎯 Regression Coverage Assurance¶

Every bug or production issue fixed in ConnectSoft's platform must be protected by a dedicated regression test — to ensure it never recurs silently.

The Test Coverage Validator Agent enforces this by:

🐞 Detecting bug fixes without corresponding regression tests and ensuring all regression scenarios are trace-linked, executed, and observable.

🧱 Core Responsibilities for Regression Coverage¶

Responsibility	Description
Bug Trace Validation	Ensures each bug fix (`bug_id`) is covered by a linked test
Post-Fix Test Execution	Confirms that regression tests were executed post-fix
Regression Assertion Detection	Checks that the test includes a strong assertion for the fixed condition
Studio + QA Linkage	Adds regression coverage status to Studio dashboards
Alerting for Unprotected Bugs	Warns QA and Generator agents if regressions are missing

📘 Bug Trace Model¶

Bug entry:

bug_id: INV-448
trace_id: invoice-2025-0147
fixed_in: release-2025.05.12
expected_behavior:
  role: Admin
  scenario: Cannot cancel locked invoice

Validator looks for:

A .feature or .cs test tagged with @bug:INV-448
Executed after fix date
Contains a strong assertion (e.g. returns 403)

🧪 Regression Check Logic¶

Check	Criteria
Test exists	At least one test references `bug_id`
Test executes	Was run and passed in post-fix build
Assertion present	Verifies symptom of original bug (status, output, etc.)
Edition/role match	Same role, edition, tenant as where bug occurred
Prompt match (optional)	Test derived from prompt like “What if…” logged by QA

📊 Regression Audit Report¶

bug_id: INV-448
trace_id: invoice-2025-0147
status: ❌ not covered
reason: No regression scenario for "locked invoice cancellation"
recommendation:
  - Generate test using scenario: "Admin cancels locked invoice → fail"
  - Assert status_code = 403
  - Tag with @bug:INV-448

📎 Sample .feature Snippet (Valid Regression)¶

@bug:INV-448 @role:Admin @edition:enterprise
Scenario: Cancel locked invoice should be forbidden
  Given an invoice is in Locked status
  And the user is Admin
  When they attempt to cancel it
  Then the system returns 403 Forbidden

Validator:

Confirms scenario exists
Ran in build after release-2025.05.12
Passed → ✅ marked as protected

🧠 Sources Used¶

bug-log.yaml
test-execution-summary.yaml
.feature and .cs files
Prompt-to-scenario mapping
Studio QA comments ("Please make sure this doesn't happen again")

🔔 Studio View (Regression Protection)¶

Bug ID	Trace	Status	Test Exists	Executed	Result
INV-448	invoice-2025-0147	❌ Missing	❌	—	—
PAY-333	capture-2025-0143	✅ Covered	✅	✅	✅ Passed

→ Red status triggers Generator + QA alert.

🤖 Generator Feedback Loop¶

If regression test is missing:

{
  "trigger": "regression_gap",
  "bug_id": "INV-448",
  "trace_id": "invoice-2025-0147",
  "scenario": "Admin cancels locked invoice",
  "expected_result": "403 Forbidden",
  "source": "coverage_validator"
}

→ Generator agent emits .feature + .cs → Validator watches for next execution.

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent guarantees regression-proof releases by:

🔍 Auditing all fixed bugs for matching regression tests
🧪 Verifying proper assertion, role, edition, and trace alignment
🔁 Closing gaps by triggering Generator Agent or rerun tasks
📊 Reporting regression test status in Studio and QA reviews

A bug without a test is a bug waiting to return.

🎯 Prompt & Bug Trace Backfill Validation¶

Many test scenarios in the ConnectSoft AI Software Factory originate from:

👤 QA prompts (Studio or test plans)
🐞 Bug reports or incident traces

The Test Coverage Validator Agent ensures that all such test requests are:

🧪 Properly fulfilled, executed, and traceable — closing the loop between input (prompt/bug) and output (test scenario + result).

🧩 Core Responsibilities¶

Source	Validation Task
QA Prompts	Was a test generated from the prompt? Was it executed? Did it pass?
Bug Traces	Was the issue converted into a regression scenario? Did it run?
Prompt-to-Trace Linking	Did the generated test clearly associate with the right trace/handler?
Execution Fulfillment	Was the scenario tested for all relevant editions, roles, and conditions?
Studio Sync	Does Studio reflect the status of prompt and bug fulfillment?

📘 Prompt Fulfillment Example¶

QA Prompt:

“What if a Guest tries to cancel an already approved invoice?”

Logged:

prompt_id: 1051
trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
source: studio.qa
status: generated
test_id: scenario-guest-approved-denied
executed: false

Validator Action:

🔁 Triggers Generator Agent if test is missing
⚙️ Triggers Automation Agent to rerun if not executed
🔔 Alerts QA if unresolved after 1 day

🐞 Bug Trace Fulfillment Example¶

Bug Report:

bug_id: PAY-333
issue: Retry on duplicate refund fails silently
required_regression:
  trace_id: refund-2025-0143
  scenario: Retry same refund ID twice

Test Coverage:

❌ No test named or tagged @bug:PAY-333
❌ No execution record in test-execution-summary.yaml

→ Agent emits regression_gap.yaml to Generator Agent

🔍 Detection Process¶

Check	Logic
Prompt exists → no generated scenario	Unfulfilled → trigger Generator
Scenario exists → not executed	Schedule via Automation Agent
Executed → no matching assertion	Incomplete → Studio shows "Partial"
Executed → passed	✅ Fulfilled
Prompt covered → role/edition missing	Partial fulfillment → QA warning

📊 Studio Prompt Backlog View¶

Prompt	Status	Scenario	Executed	Result
“Guest cancels after approval”	✅	cancel_guest_approved	✅	✅ Passed
“What if Guest retries?”	❌	—	—	—
“CFO retries failed refund”	✅	refund_retry_cfo	❌	—

→ Studio shows badges and action buttons:

[ Trigger Test Generation ]
[ Schedule Execution ]
[ Mark Complete ]

📎 Validator Output: `unfulfilled-prompts.yaml`¶

unfulfilled:
  - prompt_id: 1051
    trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
    prompt_text: "Guest cancels approved invoice"
    scenario: not generated
    action: generator_trigger
  - prompt_id: 1062
    trace_id: refund-2025-0143
    scenario: refund_retry_cfo
    generated: true
    executed: false
    action: schedule_execution

🤖 Feedback Loop Triggers¶

Source	Agent
`scenario: not generated`	🧠 Test Generator Agent
`executed: false`	⚙️ Test Automation Engineer Agent
`partial: edition missing`	👤 QA Engineer Agent notified
`prompt not linked`	Studio flagged for QA input

✅ Summary¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent closes the QA feedback loop by:

📋 Ensuring all prompts and bug traces are fulfilled
🧪 Verifying tests were generated, executed, and passed
🔁 Triggering next actions if any link in the chain is missing
📊 Reflecting status in Studio dashboards for transparency

Without this cycle, prompts become suggestions, not guarantees — and bugs may remain untested ghosts.

🎯 Coverage Scoring and Heatmap Calculation¶

To enable quantitative QA reporting and drive decisions in Studio, CI/CD, and release planning, the Test Coverage Validator Agent calculates:

📊 Coverage scores, 📈 trend deltas, and 🗺️ visual heatmaps for every trace, role, edition, and scenario.

These scores provide a measurable, comparable, and visual view of test health across the platform.

🧮 What Is a Coverage Score?¶

A coverage score is a numeric indicator (0–100%) that reflects:

✅ How completely a trace is tested
🧪 Whether all roles, editions, and scenario types are covered
🔁 If prompt-based or bug-related scenarios were executed
📉 If any test failed, was flaky, or missing

📘 Formula (Simplified)¶

Coverage Score = 
  (Weighted coverage of roles × editions × scenario types × test types × sources) 
  - Penalties for failures, quarantines, and gaps

📊 Example: Score Breakdown¶

Trace: cancel-2025-0142

Metric	Value
Roles covered	3 / 4 = 75%
Editions covered	2 / 3 = 66%
Scenario types fulfilled	5 / 7 = 71%
Prompt-based tests executed	1 / 2 = 50%
Bug traces covered	1 / 1 = 100%
No retries/quarantine	✅
➡️ Final Score	72.6%

🗺️ Heatmap Calculation¶

The agent emits color-coded matrices per trace and global view:

Role ↓ / Edition →	lite	pro	enterprise
CFO	✅	✅	✅
Guest	❌	⚠️	✅
Admin	✅	✅	❌

Legend:¶

✅ Tested and passed
⚠️ Tested, but failed or flaky
❌ Not tested or missing

→ Studio renders this in dashboards and PR views.

📁 Outputs for Coverage Scoring¶

File	Description
`trace-coverage-score.yaml`	Per-trace score breakdown
`coverage-deltas.json`	Change in score since last run
`studio-heatmap.json`	Edition × role coverage matrix
`qa-scoreboard.md`	Markdown summary for QA and release teams

📘 Sample: `trace-coverage-score.yaml`¶

trace_id: refund-2025-0143
score: 81.3
roles:
  - Guest: 100%
  - Admin: 100%
  - CFO: 66%
editions:
  - lite: 50%
  - enterprise: 100%
scenario_types:
  - happy: ✅
  - failure: ✅
  - retry: ❌
  - access_denied: ✅
penalties:
  - retry_required: 1
  - unexecuted_prompt: 1
coverage_trend: -2.7

📎 QA Scoreboard Sample¶

### 📊 QA Coverage Scoreboard

- Trace: cancel-2025-0142
- Score: 72.6%
- Trend: ⬇ -4.3% since last release
- Gaps:
  - Guest role in `lite`
  - Scenario: duplicate cancellation
  - Prompt: “What if canceled twice?” not executed

Actions:
- [Regenerate Scenarios]
- [Schedule Execution]
- [QA Review Required]

🎛️ Studio & CI Integration¶

Merge gate can block if score < threshold (e.g., 80%)
Trend analysis helps detect silent regressions
Heatmap + matrix visualizes trace health at a glance
QA approval panel uses score to prioritize reviews

✅ Summary¶

This cycle enables the Test Coverage Validator Agent to:

📊 Assign meaningful test quality scores
🗺️ Visualize edition × role × scenario completeness
📉 Detect trends and coverage regressions
📘 Drive dashboards, release decisions, and test priorities

Without scores and heatmaps, QA becomes intuition — with them, it becomes governance.

🎯 Failure Risk Prediction Based on Coverage¶

Beyond scoring what’s covered, the Test Coverage Validator Agent estimates:

🔮 How likely a trace is to fail or regress in production based on what’s not covered.

This enables ConnectSoft to proactively:

🛡️ Strengthen weak areas before release
📊 Prioritize test effort where it matters most
⚠️ Flag features with high risk and low resilience

🧠 What Is Failure Risk?¶

Failure Risk = Likelihood × Impact of Undetected Defect

The agent calculates risk using a multi-factor model:

Factor	Contribution
❌ Coverage gaps (roles, editions, scenarios)	High
🔁 Retry or flaky history	Medium
🐞 Past bug trace gaps	High
🧪 Missing edge case or failure scenarios	High
📉 Coverage delta (recent drops)	Medium
🛠 Complexity score (handler depth, DTO size)	Optional
📊 Usage frequency (from telemetry)	Optional future enhancement

📘 Risk Score Output¶

trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
coverage_score: 72.6%
missing_elements:
  - Guest in lite
  - Scenario: duplicate cancellation
  - Bug #INV-488 not tested
flaky_tests: 1
retry_count: 3
regression_coverage: partial
failure_risk_score: 84.2  # out of 100
risk_level: HIGH
recommendations:
  - Generate access_denied scenario
  - Rerun failed prompt test
  - Add regression test for #INV-488

📊 Risk Level Bands¶

Score Range	Risk Level	Description
0–30	🟢 Low	Well-tested, stable
31–60	🟡 Medium	Some gaps or retries present
61–80	🟠 Elevated	Weak paths or recent regressions
81–100	🔴 High	Missing critical coverage or frequent instability

🔍 Failure Risk Tags (Used in CI, Studio, QA)¶

risk:low
risk:medium
risk:elevated
risk:high

→ Used to sort trace lists, prioritize test reviews, or block releases

🗺️ Studio Impact¶

QA Trace Panel¶

Trace ID	Coverage	Risk	Missing
`cancel-2025-0142`	72%	🔴 High	Guest+lite, bug regression
`invoice-2025-0147`	88%	🟡 Medium	AccessDenied+CFO
`refund-2025-0143`	96%	🟢 Low	—

→ QA clicks [See Why] to view risk rationale and action buttons:

[Generate Missing]
[Request Rerun]
[Mark Known Risk]

📦 Outputs¶

File	Description
`risk-prediction.yaml`	Per-trace failure risk with root causes
`qa-risk-dashboard.md`	Markdown view for Studio and QA report
`risk-tags.json`	Tagged list for CI/CD and gating
`risk-heatmap.json`	Clustered visualization data (future)

🤖 Agent Actions Triggered¶

Risk Factor	Triggered Agent
Role × edition gap	🧠 Test Generator
Retry history + unexecuted	⚙️ Test Automation
Bug trace uncovered	🐞 Bug Resolver
Risk > threshold before release	👤 QA approval + Studio warning

✅ Summary¶

This cycle equips the Validator Agent to:

🔮 Predict production failure risk per trace
📊 Add a risk dimension to coverage scores
⚠️ Warn QA and CI/CD when critical features are under-tested
🎛️ Drive smarter prioritization in testing, planning, and release

Without risk prediction, coverage is just a number — with it, it's a shield.

🎯 Reporting and Alerts to QA Agents & Studio¶

The final value of the Validator Agent’s insights lies in how well they’re communicated to QA engineers, product managers, and CI/CD pipelines.

This cycle defines how the agent delivers its findings through:

📣 Dashboards, reports, alerts, and embedded feedback surfaces — in Studio, QA queues, and DevOps pipelines.

📋 Reporting Responsibilities¶

Output Channel	Used For
Studio Dashboards	Visualizing per-trace coverage, risk, and gaps
QA Notification Inbox	Listing missing tests, failed prompts, unprotected bugs
Pull Request Comments	Summary of test status, coverage score, risk level
Pre-Release Quality Report	Human-readable PDF/Markdown QA summary
Email/Slack Alerts	Push alerts on regressions, high-risk gaps, or prompt failures
CI/CD Output	Structured coverage gates + badges

📘 Markdown Summary: `qa-coverage-summary.md`¶

### 🧪 QA Summary: Trace ID cancel-2025-0142

📊 Coverage Score: 72.6%
🔴 Risk Level: HIGH
❌ Missing:
- Guest role in lite edition
- Scenario: duplicate cancellation
- Bug trace #INV-488 regression test

🧠 Recommendations:
- Trigger test generator for Guest
- Rerun failed prompt scenario
- QA approval required before release

🧩 Linked Prompt:
"Guest tries to cancel approved invoice" → Not fulfilled

📦 Generated Files¶

File	Format	Description
`qa-coverage-summary.md`	Markdown	Human-readable report for QA/PM
`studio-gap-alerts.json`	JSON	Used in Studio to highlight incomplete traces
`ci-coverage-gate.yaml`	YAML	Feed for merge/release gate evaluation
`qa-inbox-alerts.jsonl`	JSONL	QA’s task queue (one alert per gap)
`risk-feed.json`	JSON	Dashboard risk metrics and heatmap matrix

📣 Studio Notifications¶

“🚨 Coverage Alert: cancel-2025-0142 has untested scenario access_denied in lite edition. Risk Level: HIGH.”

→ Appears in:

📥 QA Studio Inbox
🔍 Trace summary panel
⚠️ Merge block reason tooltip
✅ Action buttons: [Regenerate] [Rerun] [Mark Approved]

🧠 QA Alert Inbox Entry¶

{
  "trace_id": "cancel-2025-0142",
  "alert_type": "coverage_gap",
  "severity": "high",
  "missing": ["Guest × lite × access_denied"],
  "recommendation": "Generate .feature scenario and execute before release"
}

✅ Pull Request Comment¶

### QA Coverage Validator

- Trace: `cancel-2025-0142`
- 📊 Coverage: 72.6%
- 🔴 Risk: HIGH
- Missing:
  - Guest in lite edition
  - Prompt ID 1051 not fulfilled
- CI Gate: ❌ Blocked (coverage < 80%)

[See Studio Report] [Approve Exception]

📊 CI Badge Status (Optional)¶

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom
Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom
Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

✅ Summary¶

This cycle defines how the Validator Agent:

📣 Delivers findings in Studio, CI, QA, and PM workflows
📋 Produces actionable, role-aware, and edition-aware reports
🔔 Sends gap alerts and regression warnings with direct links to fix them
🧠 Drives prompt fulfillment, bug test enforcement, and coverage improvement

Without alerts and reports, coverage data is just background noise. This cycle makes it operationally actionable.

🎯 Feedback Loop with QA, Generator, and Automation Agents¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent is not a passive auditor — it is an active participant in the software factory’s closed-loop testing system.

This cycle defines how the agent:

🔁 Triggers actions in other agents when coverage gaps, failures, or drift are detected — enabling self-correcting, continuously improving QA.

🔄 Feedback Loop Summary¶

Condition Detected	Action Triggered	Target Agent
❌ Scenario missing for role × edition	Emit scenario plan	🧠 Test Generator Agent
⚠️ Test exists but not executed	Dispatch execution request	⚙️ Test Automation Engineer Agent
🐞 Bug fix without regression	Create `regression_gap.yaml`	🧠 Generator / 🐞 Bug Resolver Agent
🔁 Retry failure or flakiness	Flag retry & isolate	⚙️ Automation Agent
📉 Coverage score dropped	Alert QA & Studio	👤 QA Engineer Agent
❓ Prompt not linked or executed	Add to prompt backlog	🧠 Generator Agent
🧪 Execution unstable over time	Mark `quarantine_pending`	⚙️ Automation / QA Engineer Agent

📘 Feedback Artifact: `coverage-gap-matrix.yaml`¶

trace_id: cancel-2025-0142
missing:
  - role: Guest
    edition: lite
    scenario: access_denied
  - scenario: duplicate_cancellation
trigger_source: coverage_validator
suggested_action: trigger_generation

→ Received by Generator Agent → emits .feature file

📘 Execution Trigger: `execution-request.yaml`¶

trace_id: refund-2025-0143
scenario_id: refund_retry_twice
role: CFO
edition: enterprise
reason: Prompt fulfilled, not executed
triggered_by: validator

→ Picked up by Test Automation Agent for execution run

📎 Regression Feedback to Bug Resolver¶

bug_id: INV-488
trace_id: invoice-2025-0147
status: regression_unprotected
recommendation:
  - Generate scenario: "Locked invoice cannot be canceled"
  - Tag with @bug:INV-488

→ Feeds into Generator and Studio QA prompt interface

👤 QA Engineer Agent Feedback¶

Type	Description
`qa-coverage-summary.md`	Human-readable report sent for review
`gap-alert-events.jsonl`	Event stream of gaps, flakiness, and missing prompts
`qa-approval-required.yaml`	Generated when high-risk test is missing before release
Studio push	Inbox + matrix updates for trace(s) needing review

📊 Studio Action Sync¶

Feedback loop supports:

[Trigger Test Generator]
[Schedule Rerun]
[Mark Quarantine]
[Approve Without Full Coverage]
[Regenerate Prompt]

🔁 Feedback Flow Diagram¶

flowchart TD
    Validator --> Generator
    Validator --> Automation
    Validator --> QAEngineer
    Validator --> BugResolver
    Validator --> Studio

    Generator --> Studio
    Automation --> Validator
    QAEngineer --> Validator

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

Each loop includes:

🧠 Gap detection
📎 Context-aware action suggestion
🔁 Execution + observation
✅ Revalidation

✅ Summary¶

This cycle makes the Validator Agent:

🔄 A continuous orchestrator of missing, failed, or flaky tests
⚙️ A dispatcher of task requests to Generator and Automation agents
🧠 A source of contextual QA insight to Studio and QA teams
🧾 A smart auditor with the power to trigger fixes

This feedback loop turns static test coverage into a living, self-healing QA system.

🧭 Final Summary and Ecosystem Positioning¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent is the QA intelligence core of the ConnectSoft AI Software Factory.

It ensures that:

🧪 Every use case, role, edition, scenario, prompt, and bug is not only tested — but measurably, observably, and provably validated.

It transforms test generation and execution into a continuous quality governance loop.

🧱 Ecosystem Positioning in QA Cluster¶

flowchart TD
    Blueprint --> Generator
    Generator --> Automation
    Automation --> Validator
    Validator --> Studio
    Validator --> Generator
    Validator --> Automation
    Validator --> QAEngineer
    Validator --> BugResolver

Hold "Alt" / "Option" to enable pan & zoom

🧠 Generator Agent: Produces new tests from gaps
⚙️ Automation Agent: Executes and reruns missing cases
👤 QA Engineer Agent: Reviews, approves, or escalates critical issues
🐞 Bug Resolver Agent: Ensures regression tests are added
🧭 Validator Agent: Ensures it all adds up

🧪 What It Validates¶

Dimension	Scope
📎 Trace IDs	All generated use cases
🔐 Roles	Allowed + denied behavior
🌐 Editions	Feature parity, flag-driven behavior
📚 Scenario Types	Happy, failure, access_denied, edge, chaos, etc.
📥 QA Prompts	Prompt coverage and fulfillment
🐞 Bug Traces	Regression test enforcement
🧠 Flakiness & Quarantine	Retry handling and test stability
📊 Risk & Trend Deltas	Failure likelihood and score drops

📋 Key Outputs¶

Artifact	Purpose
`trace-coverage-report.yaml`	Gap report per use case
`coverage-deltas.json`	Trend regression detection
`risk-prediction.yaml`	Failure likelihood scoring
`studio-coverage-feed.json`	Studio matrix visualizations
`qa-coverage-summary.md`	Markdown report for QA decision-making
`gap-alert-events.jsonl`	Real-time notification stream
`execution-request.yaml`	Rerun trigger to Automation Agent
`prompt-reminder.yaml`	Prompt resolution reminder to Generator Agent

✅ Summary Statement¶

The Test Coverage Validator Agent transforms test coverage from a checklist into a strategic, risk-aware, role-edition-scenario matrix — validating the factory’s outputs, one trace at a time.

It is:

📊 The scorekeeper
🔁 The gap closer
⚠️ The risk detector
🧠 The QA brainstem

It ensures every blueprint is battle-tested — and if not, it triggers agents to make it so.

🧠 Test Coverage Validator Agent Specification¶

🎯 Purpose¶

🧩 What It Validates¶

🧠 Position in the Factory¶

📘 Example Validation Scenario¶

🚦 Impact of the Agent¶

✅ Summary¶

🧱 Strategic Positioning¶

🧠 Functional Positioning in the QA Engineering Cluster¶

🧩 Position Across the Factory Lifecycle¶

📎 Strategic Goals It Supports¶

🧠 Studio and CI Feedback Loop¶

✅ Summary¶

📋 Responsibilities¶

✅ Key Responsibilities Breakdown¶

📘 Example Responsibilities in Action¶

Responsibilities Fulfilled:¶

📎 Collaboration Summary¶

✅ Summary¶

📥 Inputs¶

📦 Primary Input Categories¶

📘 Example: Blueprint Input (from generator)¶

📘 Example: Test Execution Summary (per trace)¶

🔍 Prompt Log Input (from QA)¶

📦 Tags and Scenario Input¶

🧠 Inputs Used for Diff & Delta Analysis¶

✅ Summary¶

📤 Outputs¶

📦 Primary Output Artifacts¶

📘 Example: trace-coverage-report.yaml¶

📊 Example: Studio Coverage Feed¶

📄 QA Markdown Summary¶

🔔 Gap Alert Example (Event Log)¶

🧠 Trigger Signals for Other Agents¶

🧾 Reporting Artifacts Timeline¶

✅ Summary¶

🎯 Coverage Dimensions¶

📊 Key Dimensions of Coverage¶

📘 Example: Trace Coverage Dimensions for CreateInvoiceHandler¶

📦 Internal Model: Coverage Matrix Object¶

🧠 How the Agent Intersects Dimensions¶

📊 Studio Heatmap Visualization¶

📎 Tags Used Per Dimension¶

✅ Summary¶

🎯 Static vs. Dynamic Coverage Models¶

📊 Static Coverage Model¶

✅ What It Represents¶

📘 Example (Expected State)¶

🧠 Static Sources¶

🧪 Dynamic Coverage Model¶

✅ What It Represents¶

📘 Example (Observed State)¶

📉 Comparison: Static vs. Dynamic¶

📎 Coverage Delta Calculation¶

🔁 Feedback Actions¶

🧠 Use Cases Enabled¶

✅ Summary¶

🎯 Studio Integration for Visualization¶

🧱 Core Studio Integration Points¶

📘 Sample Feed: studio-coverage-feed.json¶

🧩 Visual Elements Enabled¶

1. 🔲 Coverage Matrix Grid¶

2. 📋 Trace QA View¶

3. 📎 Prompt Status Panel¶

🔔 Live Coverage Alerts¶

🧠 Interactive QA Actions Enabled¶

📎 Trace Metadata Displayed¶

✅ Summary¶

🎯 Collaboration with Generator and Automation Agents¶

🤝 Collaboration with Test Generator Agent¶

🔄 API Trigger Example¶

⚙️ Collaboration with Test Automation Engineer Agent¶

📘 Execution Rerun Instruction¶

🧑‍💼 Collaboration with QA Engineer Agent¶

🧩 Workflow Diagram¶

📎 Metadata Tags¶

✅ Summary¶

🎯 Test Gap Detection Algorithms¶

🧩 Core Gap Detection Layers¶

📘 Blueprint Gap Detection Example¶

📘 Example: `trace-coverage-report.yaml`¶

📘 Example: Trace Coverage Dimensions for `CreateInvoiceHandler`¶

📘 Sample Feed: `studio-coverage-feed.json`¶

📎 Validator Output: `unfulfilled-prompts.yaml`¶

📘 Sample: `trace-coverage-score.yaml`¶