# Feature Specification: Unified Task Reports by Type

**Feature Branch**: `020-task-reports-design`
**Reference UX**: `ux_reference.md` (See specific folder)  
**Created**: 2026-02-22  
**Status**: Draft  
**Input**: User description: "отображения отчетов по всем возможным задачам, со своим дизайном для каждого тип - llm документирование/проверка, бэкапы, миграции, документация."

## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)*

### User Story 1 - View all task reports in one place (Priority: P1)

As an operator, I can open a single reports area and see reports for all available task types so I do not need to switch between multiple sections to understand system outcomes.

**Why this priority**: Centralized visibility is the core value; without it, the feature does not solve the reporting fragmentation problem.

**Independent Test**: Can be fully tested by opening the reports area with a mixed set of task records and confirming each supported type appears in one consolidated list with clear type identification.

**Acceptance Scenarios**:

1. **Given** reports exist for LLM checks, backups, migrations, and documentation tasks, **When** the user opens the reports section, **Then** the system shows all report entries in a unified view.
2. **Given** reports exist for only a subset of task types, **When** the user opens the reports section, **Then** the system still renders the available reports and clearly indicates missing types as empty or absent without errors.

---

### User Story 2 - Recognize report type by distinct design (Priority: P2)

As an operator, I can visually distinguish report types by dedicated design patterns so I can quickly interpret what kind of task produced each report.

**Why this priority**: Type-specific design significantly improves speed of reading and reduces interpretation errors, but is secondary to having all reports visible.

**Independent Test**: Can be tested by rendering one report per supported type and validating that each type follows a unique, consistent visual style and label convention.

**Acceptance Scenarios**:

1. **Given** a report of type "LLM documentation/verification", **When** it is displayed, **Then** it uses the design variant defined for that type and includes explicit type labeling.
2. **Given** a report of type "Backup", "Migration", or "Documentation", **When** each report is displayed, **Then** each uses its own dedicated design variant and remains visually distinguishable from others.

---

### User Story 3 - Understand report details and outcomes quickly (Priority: P3)

As an operator, I can open a report and immediately see key outcome details (status, summary, timestamps, and relevant context) so I can decide what action is needed next.

**Why this priority**: Rich report readability improves operational response quality after the core listing and type differentiation are available.

**Independent Test**: Can be tested by opening reports with successful and failed outcomes and confirming key fields are consistently present and understandable across all types.

**Acceptance Scenarios**:

1. **Given** a successful report, **When** the user views its details, **Then** the report clearly presents completion status, summary, and execution time context.
2. **Given** a failed or partial report, **When** the user views its details, **Then** the report clearly shows failure state, what failed, and actionable next-step guidance.

---

### Edge Cases

- A report arrives with an unknown or newly added task type; the system shows it using a safe generic report design without breaking the reports page.
- A task report exists but includes incomplete fields; the system displays available fields and explicit placeholders for missing values.
- The number of reports is large; users can still locate relevant reports through clear ordering and filtering by type/status/time.
- Multiple reports share the same timestamp; ordering remains stable and deterministic.

## Requirements *(mandatory)*

### Functional Requirements

- **FR-001**: System MUST provide one consolidated reports view containing report entries from all supported task types.
- **FR-002**: System MUST support at minimum these report types as first-class categories: LLM documentation/verification, backup, migration, and documentation.
- **FR-003**: System MUST assign and render a dedicated visual design profile for each supported report type.
- **FR-004**: Users MUST be able to identify report type from both visual cues and explicit text labeling.
- **FR-005**: System MUST display for every report a consistent minimum detail set: task type, execution status, completion or update time, and short summary.
- **FR-006**: System MUST provide a detailed report view that includes outcome explanation and context needed for follow-up actions.
- **FR-007**: System MUST represent report states consistently across all types using uniform semantics. Supported states MUST include: `success`, `failed`, `running`, `partial`, and `pending`.
- **FR-008**: System MUST allow users to filter and group reports by type and status (e.g., grouping by date or type) to reduce time to find relevant items.
- **FR-009**: System MUST handle missing or partial report data gracefully by showing fallback text rather than blank or broken UI.
- **FR-010**: System MUST handle unsupported or unknown task types using a neutral fallback design that preserves visibility and readability.
- **FR-011**: System MUST preserve report readability and usability when report volume grows (e.g., clear ordering and manageable navigation behavior).
- **FR-012**: System MUST make error context visible for failed reports, including what failed and recovery-oriented guidance.

### Key Entities *(include if feature involves data)*

- **Task Report**: A user-visible summary of a task execution; key attributes include report identifier, task type, status, timestamps, summary, details, and severity/priority cues.
- **Report Type Profile**: A definition of the visual and textual presentation rules for a report category; includes type label, style variant, iconography cues, and emphasis rules.
- **Report Outcome**: A normalized status model for task results; includes state classification, message, error context (if any), and suggested next actions.
- **Report Collection View**: An ordered and filterable set of task reports; includes active filters, sorting mode, and pagination or incremental loading state.

## Success Criteria *(mandatory)*

### Measurable Outcomes

- **SC-001**: 100% of reports belonging to the four target task types are visible from one unified reports entry point.
- **SC-002**: In usability checks, at least 90% of users correctly identify report type within 3 seconds for each of the four target types.
- **SC-003**: At least 90% of users can locate a failed report using type/status filtering in under 20 seconds.
- **SC-004**: At least 95% of displayed reports include all required minimum fields (type, status, time, summary) without manual refresh or workaround.
- **SC-005**: At least 85% of users report that report layouts are clear and visually distinct across task types.
- **SC-006**: Support requests related to “where to find task results” decrease by at least 40% within one release cycle after launch.

---

## Assumptions

- Existing task executions already produce reportable outcome data for the four target types.
- Access permissions for viewing reports follow current user role rules and are not expanded in this feature.
- Users primarily need read-oriented reporting with light interaction (view, filter, inspect details), not direct task execution from the reports screen.
- A fallback presentation for unknown task types is acceptable and preferable to hiding reports.

## Dependencies

- Availability and consistency of report-producing task outputs across LLM documentation/verification, backup, migration, and documentation workflows.
- Existing navigation path where users can access the unified reports section.
- Agreed product design language that allows distinct but coherent type-based visual patterns.
