Admin feature parity

Severity: Recommended

Check automatically:

1. Find admin routes/controllers:

# Look for admin routes
find . -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js" \) -path "*/admin/*" | head -20

# Find admin route definitions
grep -riE "router\.(get|post|put|delete).*admin|/admin/" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" | head -20

# Look for admin controllers/pages
find . -type f \( -name "*admin*" -o -name "*Admin*" \) \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.jsx" \) | head -20

2. Compare to user-facing features:

# Find main feature areas (non-admin)
find . -type d -name "components" -o -name "pages" -o -name "routes" 2>/dev/null | head -10

# List user-facing routes for comparison
grep -riE "router\.(get|post)|app\.(get|post)" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" | grep -v admin | head -20

Cross-reference with:

• DOC-002 (complex systems documented - admin features mentioned)

Ask user:

• What are the major user-facing features in this project?
• Which ones have admin equivalents for viewing/managing/debugging?
• For features without admin equivalents - intentional or gap?

Pass criteria:

• Each major user-facing feature has admin capability to view/manage/debug
• Admins can troubleshoot user issues without direct database queries
• At minimum: view user data, view activity, manage state

Fail criteria:

• Major features (payments, orders, subscriptions, user accounts) have no admin visibility
• Admins must query database directly to debug user issues
• Admin panel exists but only covers a fraction of features

Evidence to capture:

• List of user-facing features
• Corresponding admin capabilities (or gaps)
• Coverage assessment (e.g., "5/7 major features have admin support")

---