docs: add evidence-oriented sprint QA checklist

[groupthinking]

Canonical issue

Closes #1990

Outcome

Adds an internal QA checklist for the current sprint tasks. The document relies on exact automated commands and manual observations, separating release blockers from known limitations without modifying application behavior.

Scope

• Included:
  • docs/SPRINT_QA_CHECKLIST.md with evidence-oriented checks for responsive layout, OAuth retry flows, security boundaries, and repository hygiene.
  • Identification of the backend coverage gate failure as a release blocker.
• Explicitly excluded:
  • Application behavior, CI settings, deployments, and production configuration changes.
  • Claims that draft PRs are reviewed, merged, or deployed.

Risk

• Risk level: low (documentation-only).
• Failure mode: inaccurate evidence wording could overstate draft or local results.
• Rollback: revert the commit.

Verification

• Document checks: git diff --check and one-H1 check passed.
• Required CI
• Review threads resolved

Production evidence

Not applicable. This documentation-only PR does not create a deployment or a production claim.

Agent handoff

• One canonical issue is linked.
• No competing PR implements the same issue.
• Acceptance criteria are satisfied by the checklist content.
• Required checks pass on the current head.
• No human decision is requested for product, security, irreversible infrastructure, or production approval.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
v0-uvai	Canceled	v0	Sep 17, 2026 4:59am UTC

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository: groupthinking/EventRelay/.coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 4b5a30ae-3e11-4d95-b72a-bafd47d1981a

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

Dependency Review

✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.

Snapshot Warnings

⚠️: No snapshots were found for the head SHA 952a82d.

Ensure that dependencies are being submitted on PR branches. Re-running this action after a short time may resolve the issue. See the documentation for more information and troubleshooting advice.

Scanned Files

None

[linear-code]

GRV-601

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

Several evidence references are nonexistent, unverifiable, authentication-dependent, or already stale.

Get a fresh assessment by requesting another Copilot review.

Pull request overview

Adds a documentation-only sprint QA checklist covering UI, OAuth, security, and release evidence.

Changes:

• Defines automated and manual QA checks.
• Separates blockers from known limitations.
• Links supporting sprint references.

File summaries

File	Description
docs/SPRINT_QA_CHECKLIST.md	Adds the sprint QA checklist and evidence register.

Review details

Suppressed comments (5)

docs/SPRINT_QA_CHECKLIST.md:44

• “Documented local test equivalents” does not identify any document, command, or observation, contrary to the issue's requirement that every item name its exact evidence source. Link the concrete local substitute or remove this item; the correct source cannot be inferred from the checklist.

  - *Evidence:* Documented local test equivalents for preview environments.

docs/SPRINT_QA_CHECKLIST.md:51

• gh pr view normally requires GitHub CLI authentication, so this conflicts with the acceptance criterion that another reviewer can execute the checklist without hidden credentials. The public PR page exposes the draft badge without requiring a token.

  - *Evidence:* `gh pr view <number> --json isDraft`

docs/SPRINT_QA_CHECKLIST.md:60

• The 77.29% result has no run URL, commit, date, report, or exact command, and that number appears nowhere else in the repository. Because this is presented as a current release blocker, attach the exact CI/local evidence at a named revision so reviewers can distinguish a current failure from a stale result.

- **Backend Coverage Gate:** The backend test suite executed successfully, but aggregate coverage (77.29%) fell below the `fail_under = 88.1833` threshold in `pyproject.toml`. This blocks a clean CI pipeline.

docs/SPRINT_QA_CHECKLIST.md:61

• This status is already stale: GitHub reports PR #1980 merged at 2026-09-18 20:51 UTC, while PR #1978 is open and unmerged but no longer marked draft. Keeping both under “Unmerged Drafts” overstates the current blockers, which is the failure mode this PR explicitly aims to avoid.

- **Unmerged Drafts:** PR #1978 (OAuth fix) and PR #1980 (Agenda) remain unmerged drafts.

docs/SPRINT_QA_CHECKLIST.md:71

• These link labels repeat the stale draft status: GitHub currently shows #1978 as open/non-draft and #1980 as merged. Use neutral/current labels so the reference list does not make false lifecycle claims.

- [Draft PR #1978: recover failed Google sign-in initiation](https://github.com/groupthinking/EventRelay/pull/1978)
- [Draft PR #1980: add evidence-backed sprint demo agenda](https://github.com/groupthinking/EventRelay/pull/1980)

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 3
• Review effort level: Balanced

---

💡 Configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.