review-process

Development Process Fitness Review

Analyze the repository for development process maturity. Score each dimension 1-10 with evidence from actual repo contents. Reference the detailed checklist at review-process/references/checklist.md for specific items to verify.

Reference: Fundamentals of Software Development, Fundamentals of Agile Software Development, Fundamentals of Software Project Management — see also Fundamentals

Domain Knowledge

For detailed scoring rubrics, severity definitions, what-good-looks-like / what-bad-looks-like criteria, and domain expertise, read references/wisdom.md before scoring. That file is auto-generated from:

• Fundamentals of Software Development
• Fundamentals of Agile Software Development
• Fundamentals of Software Project Management

Use the wisdom reference when evaluating the repository and assigning dimension scores.

Configuration

Invoke the resolver CLI to obtain effective weights and thresholds for the review target. Never load fitness-config.json directly.

python3 scripts/fitness-config.py show --path <target>

Where <target> is the file or directory under review. The CLI walks up to discover any module override and merges it with the root config. Include the Config: and Effective weights: lines from the resolver output within the first 10 lines of the final report as the provenance trail (AC-03.1, AC-08.2). The effective object inside the JSON block delimited by <!-- BEGIN_EFFECTIVE_CONFIG_JSON --> / <!-- END_EFFECTIVE_CONFIG_JSON --> carries weights, status thresholds, security, and scoring for any programmatic needs.

Workflow

1. Read domain knowledge — Read references/wisdom.md to load scoring rubrics, thresholds, and severity definitions.

2. Scan the repository — Use Glob and Read to locate documentation files, configuration, CI/CD pipelines, dependency manifests, and contribution guides.

3. Score each dimension — Evaluate the seven dimensions below. Apply the rubrics/thresholds from the wisdom reference. Cite specific files and lines as evidence.

4. Identify gaps — Note missing artifacts, stale docs, or process antipatterns. Apply the severity definitions from the wisdom reference.

5. Produce the report — Write scores, evidence, and action items in the output format below.

Confidence and Severity

Only report findings with confidence >= 7/10. For each finding, assess:

• Is this a real pattern in the code, not a guess about runtime behavior?
• Can you point to a specific file and line?
• Is the problematic pattern actually reachable in normal execution?

If any answer is no, do not report it. It is better to miss a theoretical issue than to flood the report with noise.

For severity level definitions (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW) with domain-specific examples, consult references/wisdom.md.

Scoring Dimensions (1-10 each)

Dimensions to score (detailed rubrics including what-to-check, what-good-looks-like, and what-bad-looks-like are in references/wisdom.md):

1. Documentation Quality — README completeness, contribution guides, architecture decision records, API docs, inline comments
2. Development Workflow — Branch strategy, CI/CD pipelines, automated tests, linting/formatting, commit conventions
3. Code Review Practices — PR templates, review engagement, turnaround time, PR size, CODEOWNERS
4. Dependency Management — Lockfiles, version pinning, update tooling, vulnerability scanning, license compliance
5. Project Organization — Directory structure, module boundaries, configuration separation, entry point clarity, .gitignore coverage
6. Portability — Platform abstraction, containerization, configurable endpoints, cross-platform builds, encoding handling
7. Technical Leadership Signals — Technical vision docs, decision-making visibility, iteration evidence, backlog health, tech debt tracking

Output Format

Produce a markdown report with this structure:

# Development Process Fitness Report

## Summary

| Dimension                      | Score | Key Finding |
|-------------------------------|-------|-------------|
| Documentation Quality          | X/10  | ...         |
| Development Workflow           | X/10  | ...         |
| Code Review Practices          | X/10  | ...         |
| Dependency Management          | X/10  | ...         |
| Project Organization           | X/10  | ...         |
| Portability                    | X/10  | ...         |
| Technical Leadership Signals   | X/10  | ...         |
| **Overall**                    | X/10  | ...         |

## Detailed Findings

### Finding 1: [Title]
- **Severity:** CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
- **Confidence:** X/10
- **Dimension:** [which scoring dimension]
- **Location:** file:line
- **Description:** What the issue is and why it matters.
- **Evidence:** The specific code pattern found.
- **Impact:** What could go wrong for contributors or quality.
- **Remediation:** Concrete fix with code example or specific steps.

(repeat for each finding, ordered by severity)

### Documentation Quality (X/10)
**Evidence:** [specific files and observations]
**Strengths:** ...
**Gaps:** ...

[Repeat for each dimension]

## Top 5 Action Items (by impact)

1. [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM] Description -- file:line
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...

## Checklist Reference

See review-process/references/checklist.md for the full process checklist
derived from software development fundamentals.

## Reference

Based on [Fundamentals of Software Development](https://jeffbailey.us/blog/2025/10/02/fundamentals-of-software-development/), [Fundamentals of Agile Software Development](https://jeffbailey.us/blog/2025/12/23/fundamentals-of-agile-software-development/), [Fundamentals of Software Project Management](https://jeffbailey.us/blog/2026/01/12/fundamentals-of-software-project-management/), and guidance from https://jeffbailey.us/categories/fundamentals/

Write the report to docs/process-review.md.