Skip to content

Demo Baselines — NTK-10006 Real-Time Adventure Tracking

Purpose: Reference baselines for evaluating ECC-adapted Copilot prompts against NTK-10006.

Ticket: NTK-10006 — Real-Time Adventure Tracking and Emergency Alerting System Priority: Critical Services: svc-adventure-tracking (new), svc-emergency-response (new), svc-check-in, svc-notifications, svc-safety-compliance


Baseline 1: Security Review

Prompt: @workspace /security-review → "Review the NTK-10006 solution design"

Expected Findings (minimum quality bar)

Severity Finding Category
CRITICAL Real-time GPS data is PII — location tracking of guests requires explicit consent and bounded retention PII and Sensitive Data (OWASP A02)
HIGH Two new services (svc-adventure-tracking, svc-emergency-response) need authentication and authorization schemes defined Authentication and Identity (OWASP A07)
HIGH WebSocket/streaming connections for real-time data need session binding and timeout policies Cross-Service Communication (OWASP A08)
MEDIUM Emergency alert broadcasting must not leak guest PII to unauthorized recipients Authorization and Access Control (OWASP A01)
MEDIUM GPS coordinate validation — out-of-range values could trigger false emergency alerts Input Validation (OWASP A03)
LOW New services must be added to cross-service-calls.yaml Data Integrity and Ownership

Quality Indicators

  • References ADR-005 (Pattern 3 default) for unknown adventure categories in tracking context
  • Identifies GPS data as PII with retention concerns
  • Checks data ownership: who owns tracking records? (should be svc-adventure-tracking)
  • Considers insurance mandate compliance as a business logic check
  • Produces severity-rated findings table with file path citations

Baseline 2: Investigation

Prompt: @workspace /investigation → "Investigate NTK-10006"

Expected Investigation Flow

  1. JIRA first: Retrieves ticket via python3 scripts/ticket-client.py --ticket NTK-10006
  2. Elastic logs: Searches for related errors in svc-check-in and svc-notifications (existing services that will integrate)
  3. GitLab MRs: Checks for any related MRs in affected services
  4. Architecture context: Reads OpenAPI specs for svc-check-in, svc-notifications, svc-safety-compliance

Expected Findings

  • NTK-10006 introduces two entirely new services — no existing specs to review
  • Cross-service dependencies: svc-check-in must provide active adventure status, svc-notifications must support broadcast alerts
  • Safety compliance integration: svc-safety-compliance must expose waiver and adventure classification data for tracking context
  • No production logs for new services (they don't exist yet) — investigation pivots to dependency analysis

Quality Indicators

  • Follows strict tool sequence: ticket-client → Elastic → GitLab → architecture files
  • Does not fabricate log data for non-existent services
  • Identifies the ticket as a new-capability request (not a bug investigation)
  • Documents which existing service endpoints need modification
  • Produces structured report with evidence citations

Baseline 3: Solution Design Verification

Prompt: @workspace /solution-verification → "Verify the NTK-10006 solution design"

Expected Verification Checks

Check Expected Result
Solution folder structure architecture/solutions/_NTK-10006-real-time-adventure-tracking/ exists but is incomplete (missing required subdirectories)
Master document Missing — NTK-10006-solution-design.md not found
Requirements folder Missing 1.requirements/
Analysis folder Missing 2.analysis/
Capability changelog entry Check architecture/metadata/capability-changelog.yaml for NTK-10006
MADR decisions Check for decisions in 3.solution/d.decisions/
Impact assessments Check for per-service impacts in 3.solution/i.impacts/
Prior art search Should find related tickets touching safety/tracking capabilities
Data ownership Verify new services are registered as data owners in metadata

Quality Indicators

  • Identifies that the solution design is largely incomplete (skeleton only)
  • Does not fabricate content for missing files
  • Cross-references the solution folder structure against copilot-instructions.md requirements
  • Checks capability-changelog.yaml for NTK-10006 entries
  • Runs prior-art discovery (ticket-client with capability filters)
  • Produces a gap analysis showing what's missing vs. what's required

Evaluation Criteria

For each demo, compare the AI output against these baselines:

Criterion Weight Description
Tool usage sequence 25% Did it follow the prescribed tool order?
Evidence grounding 25% Are all claims supported by workspace evidence?
Domain rule application 20% Did it apply NovaTrek-specific rules (Pattern 3 default, data ownership, etc.)?
Output structure 15% Does the output match the expected format?
No fabrication 15% Did it avoid inventing data not present in the workspace?