jira-ten-qa

name	jira-ten-qa
description	QA review of a TEN JIRA issue. Scores issue quality 1–10 and posts constructive feedback as a comment if the score is 7 or lower.

JIRA Issue QA Review

Takes a TEN JIRA issue key (e.g. TEN-500), evaluates how well the issue is written, scores it 1–10, and posts feedback as a JIRA comment if the score is 7 or lower.

Safety rules — ALWAYS follow these

1. Project scope: Only operate on project TEN. Never touch issues in other projects.
2. Read-only except comments: Never edit the issue's summary, description, status, assignee, labels, type, or any other field. The ONLY write operation allowed is adding/replacing a comment.
3. Threshold gate: If the score is 8 or higher, do NOT post a comment. Do NOT touch JIRA at all.
4. Always use --body-file for ADF comments — never pass ADF inline via --body.
5. Be constructive: Feedback should help the reporter improve the issue, never criticize the person. Frame suggestions positively.
6. Write Norwegian: All JIRA comments must be written in concise Norwegian (bokmål).

TEN project context

• Issue types: Story, Bug, Epic, Oppgave, Sub-task, Service Request
• Language: Issue content is typically in Norwegian

Scoring system

Score scale

Score	Label	Meaning
9–10	Utmerket	All key fields well-documented. No improvement needed.
8	Bra	Minor gaps but fully actionable. No comment posted.
7	Akseptabel	Workable but noticeable gaps. Feedback posted.
5–6	Trenger forbedring	Several missing or unclear areas.
3–4	Mangelfull	Major information gaps. Hard to act on.
1–2	Utilstrekkelig	Almost no useful information.

Criteria by issue type

Evaluate each criterion on a 1–10 scale. The final score is the weighted average, rounded to the nearest integer.

If a criterion is not applicable (e.g. stack trace for a UX-only bug), redistribute its weight proportionally to the remaining criteria.

Bug

#	Criterion	Weight	What to look for
1	Tittelkvalitet	10%	Short, specific, uniquely identifies the problem
2	Problembeskrivelse	20%	Clear explanation of what is broken
3	Forventet vs faktisk oppførsel	20%	Both sides documented — what should happen and what happens instead
4	Reproduksjonssteg / kontekst	15%	Steps to reproduce, environment, which SED/BUC type or service
5	Stacktrace / feilinformasjon	15%	Technical evidence included. For UX/behavioral bugs where stack traces don't apply, evaluate whether visual/behavioral evidence is provided instead (screenshots, specific UI behavior). The weight stays the same.
6	Samsvar med issuetype	10%	Content genuinely describes a bug, not a feature request or task
7	Påvirkning / alvorlighetsgrad	10%	Who is affected, how often, how critical

Story

#	Criterion	Weight	What to look for
1	Tittelkvalitet	10%	Short, describes the feature or change
2	Mål / brukerbehov	25%	Clear what should be built and for whom
3	Akseptansekriterier	20%	Concrete conditions for "done"
4	Forretningskontekst	15%	Why this matters, what problem it solves
5	Omfang	15%	What's in/out, boundaries defined
6	Samsvar med issuetype	10%	Content is a feature/enhancement, not a bug
7	Handlingsdyktighet	5%	Can someone start working without asking questions

Epic

#	Criterion	Weight	What to look for
1	Tittelkvalitet	10%	Short, identifies the initiative
2	Overordnet mål	25%	What the epic achieves overall
3	Nedbrytning / struktur	20%	Sub-areas or sub-issues identified
4	Forretningsverdi	20%	Why this initiative matters
5	Suksesskriterier	15%	How to measure if the epic succeeded
6	Samsvar med issuetype	10%	Content is truly epic-level, not a single story

Oppgave / Sub-task / Service Request

#	Criterion	Weight	What to look for
1	Tittelkvalitet	15%	Short, descriptive
2	Oppgavebeskrivelse	30%	Clear what needs to be done
3	Kontekst / motivasjon	20%	Why this task exists
4	Ferdigkriterier	20%	How to verify completion
5	Samsvar med issuetype	15%	Content matches the task-like nature

Scoring guidelines

• Score each criterion individually before computing the weighted average.
• Be fair: a missing description is a low score, but a brief-but-sufficient one can still score well.
• Consider the reporter's perspective: not everyone has access to stack traces or deep technical context. If the reporter clearly cannot provide something (e.g. they are a non-technical stakeholder), note this but don't penalize as harshly.
• Issue type alignment matters: if a "Bug" is actually a feature request, that affects multiple criteria (not just the alignment criterion).
• Acknowledged gaps are OK: If the reporter has addressed a concern but explicitly acknowledges that the information is not available at this time (e.g. "I don't have the stack trace but the error occurs when…"), that is generally acceptable — don't penalize heavily. The acknowledgement must be clean and clear, not just omitting the information without comment.
• Threshold decision: Use the raw weighted average (not rounded) for the ≤7 / ≥8 comment decision. Round only for display. Example: raw 7.6 → display "8/10" but the threshold treats it as 7.6, so feedback IS posted.

ADF (Atlassian Document Format)

Always use ADF JSON for JIRA comments. Always use --body-file — never pass ADF inline via --body.

Workflow for ADF comments

1. Build the ADF JSON object in memory.
2. Write it to a temp file (e.g. /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json).
3. Pass the file via --body-file.
4. Delete the temp file.

cat > /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json << 'ENDOFJSON'
{"version":1,"type":"doc","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Comment text"}]}]}
ENDOFJSON
acli jira workitem comment create --key TEN-123 --body-file /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json
rm -f /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json

ADF structure

{"version":1,"type":"doc","content":[...nodes]}

Common node types

Paragraph:

{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Some text"}]}

Heading (level 1-3):

{"type":"heading","attrs":{"level":3},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Title"}]}

Bullet list:

{"type":"bulletList","content":[
  {"type":"listItem","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Item"}]}]}
]}

Bold text:

{"type":"text","text":"bold text","marks":[{"type":"strong"}]}

Rule (horizontal line):

{"type":"rule"}

Table:

{"type":"table","attrs":{"isNumberColumnEnabled":false,"layout":"default"},"content":[
  {"type":"tableRow","content":[
    {"type":"tableHeader","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Header"}]}]},
    {"type":"tableHeader","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Header"}]}]}
  ]},
  {"type":"tableRow","content":[
    {"type":"tableCell","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Cell"}]}]},
    {"type":"tableCell","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Cell"}]}]}
  ]}
]}

ADF guidelines

• NEVER pass ADF inline via --body — always write to a temp file and use --body-file.
• Keep ADF as single-line JSON (no pretty-printing) inside the file.
• Use heredoc with single-quoted delimiter (<< 'ENDOFJSON') to prevent shell variable expansion.

Command reference (acli)

View an issue

acli jira workitem view TEN-123
acli jira workitem view TEN-123 --json
acli jira workitem view TEN-123 --fields "summary,status,comment,assignee,reporter,description"

List and delete comments

# List comments as JSON
acli jira workitem comment list --key TEN-123 --json --paginate

# Delete a comment by ID
acli jira workitem comment delete --key TEN-123 --id <comment-id>

Add a comment

cat > /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json << 'ENDOFJSON'
{"version":1,"type":"doc","content":[{"type":"paragraph","content":[{"type":"text","text":"Comment text"}]}]}
ENDOFJSON
acli jira workitem comment create --key TEN-123 --body-file /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json
rm -f /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json

Steps

When invoked with a JIRA issue key (e.g. /jira-ten-qa TEN-500):

Step 1 — Fetch the issue

Retrieve the full issue details:

acli jira workitem view TEN-500 --json

Extract and note:

• Issue type (Bug, Story, Epic, Oppgave, Sub-task, Service Request)
• Summary (the title)
• Description (the main body — may be ADF or plain text)
• Status

Then fetch all comments explicitly — reporters often add crucial context (stack traces, reproduction steps, clarifications) in follow-up comments:

acli jira workitem comment list --key TEN-500 --json --paginate

Read through all comments. Context added in comments counts toward the scoring evaluation (e.g. if the description lacks reproduction steps but a comment provides them, credit that).

Step 2 — Analyze and score

Using the scoring criteria for the matching issue type (see tables above):

1. Score each criterion individually (1–10) with a brief justification.
2. If a criterion is not applicable, redistribute its weight.
3. Compute the weighted average (keep the raw decimal value).
4. Round to the nearest integer for display → this is the display score.
5. Use the raw average for the threshold decision (≤7.0 vs >7.0).

Be thorough: read the entire description and all comments fetched in Step 1. Context added in comments counts toward the evaluation.

Step 3 — Print results to terminal

Always print the score and a summary to the terminal, regardless of score.

Format:

═══════════════════════════════════════
  QA Review: TEN-500 (Bug)
  Score: 6/10 — Trenger forbedring
═══════════════════════════════════════

Criteria breakdown:
  Tittelkvalitet:              7/10 — OK but could be more specific
  Problembeskrivelse:          4/10 — Very vague, missing details
  Forventet vs faktisk:        3/10 — Not documented
  Reproduksjonssteg:           8/10 — Good context provided
  Stacktrace:                  6/10 — Partial error message
  Samsvar med issuetype:       9/10 — Correct type
  Påvirkning:                  5/10 — Not mentioned

Action: Posting feedback comment to JIRA...

For score ≥ 8 (raw > 7.0):

═══════════════════════════════════════
  QA Review: TEN-500 (Story)
  Score: 9/10 — Utmerket
═══════════════════════════════════════

Criteria breakdown:
  ...

✅ Godt skrevet issue! Ingen kommentar lagt til i JIRA.

If an old QA comment was cleaned up, also print:

🧹 Fjernet gammel QA-kommentar fra TEN-500 (issue er nå god nok).

Step 4 — Decide: comment or not

• Raw average > 7.0 (display score ≥ 8): Clean up any stale QA comment (Step 5), then stop. Do NOT post a new comment. Print positive message to terminal.
• Raw average ≤ 7.0 (display score ≤ 7): Proceed to Step 5 to replace/post feedback.

Step 5 — Remove existing QA comment (if any)

Always run this step — both for high scores (cleanup only) and low scores (cleanup before posting new).

5a — Find the existing comment

acli jira workitem comment list --key TEN-500 --json --paginate

Parse the JSON output. Look for any comment whose body contains a heading node with text 🔍 jira-ten-qa. This is the strict identifier — do not match on other mentions of the skill name in unrelated comments. Also verify the comment was authored by the current bot/user when possible.

5b — Delete existing comment(s)

If a matching comment is found:

acli jira workitem comment delete --key TEN-500 --id <comment-id>

Delete all matches (there should be at most one, but be safe).

If raw average > 7.0: Stop here after cleanup. The stale comment is removed and no new comment is posted.

If raw average ≤ 7.0: Proceed to Step 6.

Step 6 — Post the feedback comment

Build an ADF comment with this structure:

1. Heading: 🔍 jira-ten-qa (level 2) — this is the identifier for future replacement
2. TLDR paragraph: Poeng: X/10 — <one-line summary of why>
3. Horizontal rule
4. Table with columns: Kriterium | Poeng | Kommentar
   • One row per criterion that scored below 8
   • Only include criteria that need improvement — skip criteria that scored 8+
5. Heading: Forslag til forbedring (level 3)
6. Bullet list: Specific, actionable suggestions in Norwegian

Write the ADF to a temp file and post:

cat > /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json << 'ENDOFJSON'
<ADF JSON here>
ENDOFJSON
acli jira workitem comment create --key TEN-500 --body-file /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json
rm -f /tmp/jira-qa-comment.json

Step 7 — Confirm

Verify the comment was posted successfully. If it failed, report the error to the terminal.

Print to terminal:

✅ Feedback posted to TEN-500. Score: 6/10.