ui-aqa-flow-code-analysis

<ui_aqa_flow_code_analysis>

<description_and_purpose> Understand existing test architecture, identify reusable components, and determine where new test should be integrated. </description_and_purpose>

<workflow_context>

• Phase 3 of 8 in ui-aqa-flow
• Input: test plan with assertions and clarifications
• Output artifact path (single SSoT — referenced by other sections): plans/ui-aqa-<test-name>/code-analysis.md (resolve <test-name> per qa-structure's UI layout slug rules)
• Prerequisite: Phases 1 and 2 complete
• Read-only scope (single SSoT — referenced by other sections as "the read-only scope"): read project description, configured project context, page objects, similar tests, utilities; produce the report + a one-paragraph ## Code Analysis summary in the test plan. NO edits to page objects, test files, source under analysis, project_description.md, gain.json, or repo docs; NO running tests/lint/build. A finding that implies code work is surfaced in the report, not acted on.
• Required skills: qa-knowledge (code_analysis mode), reverse-engineering (test-automation architecture analysis), sensitive-data (redaction), qa-structure (slug + report path) </workflow_context>

<input_contract> The phase supplies these paths to the skill; defaults apply when not configured:

Input	Default path	Required content
Test plan	plans/ui-aqa-<test-name>/test-plan.md	Test name + clarified assertions
Project setup	repository-root gain.json	SDLC configuration + any file-location overrides
Project description	project_description.md (repo root)	Framework, language, structure, coding standards — read when present
Project context	configured paths; canonical docs/CONTEXT.md, docs/ARCHITECTURE.md, agents/IMPLEMENTATION.md	Architecture and conventions — read when present
Optional user instructions	agents/user-instructions/	Test guidelines, custom matchers, style
Optional frontend source	repo-specific (e.g. refsrc/<repo>/)	Component files for selector / test-id discovery
Output	plans/ui-aqa-<test-name>/code-analysis.md	The report (this phase's contract, below)

Input GATE. Before analysis: test plan exists and is non-empty; project_description.md, gain.json, or one authoritative project-context file exists; codebase root is readable. Resolve file locations from gain.json, falling back to the canonical paths above. Any miss → stop Phase 3, record the gap in ui-aqa-state.md, ask the user. Do NOT infer framework from incidental file extensions.

Path/content precedence. gain.json wins for file locations. For engineering conventions, authoritative repo docs win over project_description.md, user-instruction files, and examples; record conflicts in ## Conflicts and Precedence. </input_contract>

<code_analysis_report_contract> plans/ui-aqa-<test-name>/code-analysis.md is tracked + downstream-fed — PUBLIC by default. USE SKILL sensitive-data: scan the rendered artifact BEFORE writing, fail-closed (no scan → no emit). The report's 9-section structure and the test-location decision rule are qa-knowledge's code-analysis report template — every section present (empty optional section says not available — see Coverage section).

After writing the report, update the test plan's ## Code Analysis section with a one-paragraph summary linking to it — do NOT duplicate report contents into the plan. </code_analysis_report_contract>

<phase_steps>

1. Execute codebase analysis (reads project description + resolved project context, page objects, similar tests)
2. Validate findings
3. Update state </phase_steps>

<execute_analysis step="3.1" subagent="discoverer" role="Test architecture analyst">

1. USE SKILL qa-structure to resolve run paths. Run the <input_contract> Input GATE.
2. USE SKILL reverse-engineering and USE SKILL qa-knowledge (code_analysis mode — test-automation architecture analysis) with the phase-supplied bindings: inputs + defaults = <input_contract>; report structure + test-location rule = the skill's code-analysis report template; output path = plans/ui-aqa-<test-name>/code-analysis.md. USE SKILL sensitive-data before writing.
3. Conditional-input else-paths:
   • If agents/user-instructions/ is absent or empty: record not available — see Coverage section in report section 2 and not available in section 9; Phase 3 continues, does not stop.
   • If a frontend source path is not discoverable (no gain.json/configured source reference, no refsrc/<repo>/): skip frontend analysis, record the gap in section 9 per the coverage epistemic-honesty rule; Phase 3 continues.
4. Do not fabricate framework, page objects, or pass/fail data. Honor the read-only scope (<workflow_context>).
5. Post-analysis verification: confirm the report exists with every section from the code-analysis report template and the test plan's ## Code Analysis summary is added. If missing/incomplete: re-run once with the same bindings; if still failing, stop Phase 3, record Phase 3 blocked: code-analysis report not produced/incomplete in agents/TEMP/<FEATURE>/ui-aqa-state.md, ask the user. </execute_analysis>