Watchtower DAP Windows Debugging

# Cross-Artifact Analysis Report: Watchtower DAP Windows Debugging **Generated**: 2025-10-17 **Artifacts Analyzed**: spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md, checklists/*.md **Focus Areas**: Windows-only scope, DAP tool coverage, performance targets, adapter registry, tech stack consistency ## Executive Summary The Watchtower DAP feature artifacts demonstrate **strong overall consistency** and alignment across all dimensions. All artifacts properly reflect the Windows-only scope, maintain comprehensive DAP tool coverage, and establish clear performance targets with implementation traceability. Minor opportunities for enhancement exist in adapter registry error messaging and cross-artifact references. ## Analysis Results by Focus Area ### ✅ Windows-Only Scope Alignment - EXCELLENT **Findings**: - **100% consistent** across all artifacts - Spec explicitly calls out "Windows-native MCP ⇄ DAP bridge" - Plan confirms "Windows-native only" with "no Linux/WSL support" - Checklists explicitly validate "Linux/WSL explicitly blocked and documented" - Tasks include Windows-specific adapter implementations **Alignment Score**: 10/10 **Evidence**: - `spec.md`: "Windows-native MCP ⇄ DAP bridge enabling step-through debugging for C#, Node/TS, Python, and Dart" - `plan.md`: "Windows-native only...no Linux/WSL support", "Target Platform: Windows 10, Windows 11" - `checklists/quality-gate.md`: CHK006 "Linux/WSL explicitly blocked and documented" --- ### ✅ DAP Tool Coverage - COMPREHENSIVE **Findings**: - **Complete coverage** of all 13 required MCP tools - **Excellent traceability** from spec → plan → tasks → checklists - **Proper tool categorization** by functionality **Alignment Score**: 10/10 **Evidence**: - **Spec Requirements**: FR-001 through FR-010 cover all core DAP operations - **Plan Structure**: All 13 tools mapped to specific implementation files (`src/tools/start.ts`, etc.) - **Tasks Implementation**: Each tool has dedicated task (T015-T023) with clear file paths - **Checklists Validation**: REQ006-REQ014 and CHK008-CHK015 validate each tool's functionality **Tool Coverage Matrix**: | Tool | Spec | Plan | Tasks | Checklists | |------|------|------|--------|------------| | dap.start | ✅ | ✅ | T015 | REQ006, REL003 | | dap.setBreakpoints | ✅ | ✅ | T016 | REQ007, REL003 | | dap.continue/pause/step | ✅ | ✅ | T017 | REQ008, REL003 | | dap.threads | ✅ | ✅ | T018 | REL004 | | dap.stackTrace | ✅ | ✅ | T019 | REQ010, REL004 | | dap.scopes/variables | ✅ | ✅ | T019 | REQ011, REL004 | | dap.evaluate | ✅ | ✅ | T020 | REQ012, REL005 | | dap.events.poll | ✅ | ✅ | T010, T022 | REQ013, CHK014, REL006 | | dap.terminate/disconnect | ✅ | ✅ | T023 | REQ014, REL007 | --- ### ✅ Performance Targets - WELL TRACED **Findings**: - **Clear targets** established: TFFB ≤ 1000ms, Step p95 ≤ 200ms - **Excellent traceability** from spec → plan → tasks → checklists - **Comprehensive measurement strategy** with OpenTelemetry integration **Alignment Score**: 9/10 (Minor gap: missing task for baseline performance benchmarking) **Evidence**: - **Spec Success Criteria**: SC-001 (TFFB ≤ 1s), SC-002 (Step p95 ≤ 200ms) - **Plan Performance Goals**: Explicit TFFB and STEP_p95 targets with event buffer capacity - **Tasks Implementation**: T009 "OpenTelemetry metrics: TFFB, STEP_p95, SR, BP1" - **Checklists Validation**: CHK029-CHK034 and REQ015-REQ017 require measurement **Recommendation**: Add task for baseline performance benchmarking setup (T051). --- ### ⚠️ Adapter Registry Error Clarity - NEEDS ENHANCEMENT **Findings**: - **Basic coverage** present but lacks specific error scenarios - **Missing detailed error taxonomy** for common failure modes - **Friendly error messages** mentioned but not well-defined **Alignment Score**: 7/10 **Evidence**: - `plan.md`: "Adapter registry & locator (Windows): probe vsdbg, netcoredbg, js-debug, debugpy, dart; friendly install hints" - `tasks.md`: T007 "Adapter registry & locator (Windows): probe vsdbg, netcoredbg, js-debug, debugpy, dart; friendly install hints" - `checklists/quality-gate.md`: CHK020 "Adapter registry provides Windows-specific adapter discovery and validation" **Gaps Identified**: - No specific error scenarios for missing adapters - Missing installation path validation diagnostics - No fallback strategy when primary adapters fail **Recommendations**: 1. Add detailed error taxonomy for common adapter failures 2. Implement specific diagnostic messages for PATH issues, missing dependencies 3. Add validation tasks for adapter installation verification --- ### ✅ Tech Stack Consistency - PERFECT **Findings**: - **100% consistent** across all artifacts - **Complete dependency coverage** with proper versioning - **Comprehensive tooling** specified **Alignment Score**: 10/10 **Evidence**: - **Plan Technical Context**: Node.js 22 LTS, TypeScript, exact dependency list - **Tasks Implementation**: T002 includes all dependencies with dev dependencies - **Checklists Validation**: CHK035-CHK040 validate tech stack setup - **Consistent Architecture**: All artifacts reference single-project MCP server structure **Tech Stack Matrix**: | Component | Spec | Plan | Tasks | Checklists | |-----------|------|------|--------|------------| | Runtime | Node.js 22 | ✅ | ✅ | CHK035 | | Language | TypeScript | ✅ | ✅ | CHK038 | | MCP SDK | @modelcontextprotocol/sdk | ✅ | T002 | CHK036 | | Protocol | vscode-jsonrpc, @vscode/debugprotocol | ✅ | T002, T005 | CHK036 | | Validation | zod | ✅ | T002 | CHK036 | | Process | execa, commander | ✅ | T002 | CHK036 | | Logging | pino | ✅ | T002, T008 | CHK036 | | Metrics | opentelemetry-sdk-node | ✅ | T002, T009 | CHK036 | | Build | esbuild | ✅ | T002 | CHK036 | | Testing | vitest | ✅ | T002 | CHK036 | ## Overall Assessment ### Strengths 1. **Exceptional Windows-only scope alignment** - No inconsistencies found 2. **Complete DAP tool coverage** with excellent traceability 3. **Strong performance target definition** with measurement strategy 4. **Perfect tech stack consistency** across all artifacts 5. **Comprehensive quality checklists** with clear validation criteria ### Areas for Improvement 1. **Adapter registry error handling** needs more detailed error scenarios 2. **Performance baseline task** should be added for benchmarking 3. **Cross-artifact references** could be more explicit (e.g., plan references to spec sections) ### Risk Assessment - **Low Risk**: Windows scope, DAP coverage, tech stack are solid - **Medium Risk**: Adapter error handling could impact user experience - **Low Risk**: Performance targets are well-defined and measurable ## Recommendations ### Immediate Actions 1. **Enhance adapter registry error messaging** with specific diagnostic scenarios 2. **Add performance baseline task** (T051) for benchmark establishment 3. **Add explicit cross-artifact references** in plan.md ### Process Improvements 1. **Establish adapter error taxonomy** during implementation 2. **Create adapter troubleshooting guide** based on common failure modes 3. **Add performance regression tests** to checklists ## Compliance Status ✅ **Constitution Principles**: All 7 principles properly reflected across artifacts ✅ **Specification Requirements**: 100% coverage ✅ **Performance Targets**: Complete with measurement strategy ✅ **Quality Gates**: Comprehensive validation criteria established ✅ **Release Readiness**: Clear progression defined --- **Overall Rating**: 9.2/10 - Excellent alignment with minor opportunities for enhancement **Recommendation**: **PROCEED** with implementation, address adapter error handling enhancements