Hyvä Developer Role Map for a Named Storefront Pod
Use this map to assign every storefront output, technical decision, test, release task, and handoff to a named person. One person can cover several functions. No important function should be left without an owner.
· Sources checked August 28, 2026
Buyer tool. Not affiliated with Hyvä Themes or Adobe Inc.
Working rule: approve functions and outputs before approving headcount. A practical Hyvä pod needs frontend ownership, Magento backend or solution escalation, QA and performance ownership, and release and acceptance ownership. Add UX, accessibility, security, integration, or DevOps depth when the estate needs it.
A company case, partner tier, or certification total does not identify the people assigned to your work. Ask for the proposed names, individual evidence, allocation, exact responsibility, substitution rule, and handoff duty.
Complete the role map before the proposal is accepted
Print this page or copy the tables into the buyer's working document. Do not add production secrets, credentials, or customer data.
List the functions your scope needs
Start with the eight functions below. Mark a conditional function as not required only when the reason and approving buyer are recorded.
Name the person for each function
Record the proposed person, location, working-hour overlap, allocation, start date, and expected duration. A company name is not a person.
Inspect role evidence
Check the person's CV, current Hyvä badge and pass year where claimed, exact responsibility on a comparable project, interview answers, and work sample or repository review.
Write the handoff
Name the artifact passed to the next role, the reviewer, the acceptance rule, and where the approved version is stored.
Approve changes to the pod
Set the notice, buyer approval, evidence, overlap, and knowledge-transfer requirements for any substitution.
Assign outputs, proof, and handoffs
These are functions, not required full-time job titles. The same named person can hold more than one function when capacity, independence, and review remain credible.
| Function | Accountable outputs | Evidence to inspect | Required handoff |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Buyer product and acceptance owner | Business outcome, priority, scope decisions, access approvals, acceptance decisions, and change budget. | Named authority, decision availability, acceptance calendar, and escalation route. | Approved scope, priorities, constraints, and signed acceptance record. |
| 2. Magento solution or technical lead | Edition and version baseline, architecture boundary, module and integration inventory, Hyvä product map, compatibility decisions, and technical risks. | Comparable architecture responsibility, interview, repository review, decision examples, and current Magento and Hyvä knowledge. | Approved architecture note, compatibility register, dependency map, and technical decision log. |
| 3. Hyvä frontend engineer | Layout XML, blocks, view models, PHTML templates, secure escaping, Tailwind CSS, Alpine.js, content security policy aware JavaScript, components, responsive behavior, and frontend budgets. | Individual Hyvä badge and pass year where claimed, code sample, technical interview, exact case responsibility, and representative fixture. | Reviewable code, component notes, changed-route list, build steps, and known limitations. |
| 4. Magento backend and integration engineer | Extension dependencies, APIs, events, customer and account flows, pricing, checkout, payment, shipping, tax, fraud, search, and data-contract continuity. | Matched integration or extension work, code review, debugging example, failure-mode discussion, and test-fixture experience. | Interface contracts, module changes, test data rules, error handling, and operational notes. |
| 5. UX, UI, and CRO specialist | Information hierarchy, component and state designs, responsive behavior, content rules, accessibility intent, and measurable funnel hypotheses. | Relevant storefront samples, design-system handoff, accessibility awareness, research method, and case responsibility. | Approved designs, tokens, states, content rules, assets, and unresolved questions. |
| 6. QA, accessibility, and performance owner | Functional, visual, browser, device, accessibility, security-relevant, and performance baselines; regression matrix; defect severity; acceptance evidence. | Test plan, sample defect, accessibility method, lab and field measurement knowledge, automation boundary, and independent review authority. | Versioned test results, defect log, exceptions, retest evidence, and release recommendation. |
| 7. DevOps and release owner | Repository rules, environments, build, CI, secrets boundary, deployment rehearsal, cutover, cache and index steps, monitoring, rollback, and incident route. | Release runbook, access model, prior cutover example, rollback proof, monitoring design, and on-call commitment. | Approved runbook, environment record, rehearsal result, release log, rollback decision, and access audit. |
| 8. Delivery, documentation, and handover owner | Plan, dependencies, decisions, demonstrations, change control, documentation set, replacement process, knowledge transfer, IP delivery, and final handover. | Sample plan, risk and decision logs, documentation outline, replacement rule, and final-acceptance process. | Current plan, decision history, complete document index, access return, and signed handover record. |
The buyer function cannot be outsourced completely. The supplier can prepare evidence and recommend a decision, but the buyer must name who accepts scope, risk, access, release, and completion.
Record the named pod
Complete one row for every proposed person. Add rows if needed. If a person covers several functions, list all function numbers and confirm that the allocation is credible.
| Person and functions | Location, overlap, allocation | Evidence inspected | Buyer decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Name: ____________________ Functions: _______________ | Location: _________________ Overlap: __________________ Allocation: ________________ | □ CV □ Badge and year □ Matched responsibility □ Interview □ Work sample | □ Approve □ Clarify □ Replace Reviewer: _________________ |
| Name: ____________________ Functions: _______________ | Location: _________________ Overlap: __________________ Allocation: ________________ | □ CV □ Badge and year □ Matched responsibility □ Interview □ Work sample | □ Approve □ Clarify □ Replace Reviewer: _________________ |
| Name: ____________________ Functions: _______________ | Location: _________________ Overlap: __________________ Allocation: ________________ | □ CV □ Badge and year □ Matched responsibility □ Interview □ Work sample | □ Approve □ Clarify □ Replace Reviewer: _________________ |
| Name: ____________________ Functions: _______________ | Location: _________________ Overlap: __________________ Allocation: ________________ | □ CV □ Badge and year □ Matched responsibility □ Interview □ Work sample | □ Approve □ Clarify □ Replace Reviewer: _________________ |
Ask for decisions, not a list of tools
A useful answer names the context, choice, tradeoff, evidence, result, and limit. It is acceptable for a candidate to say that another role owned part of the decision.
Frontend and compatibility
- □ Show how you decide between native support, a compatibility module, a custom rewrite, temporary fallback, or retirement.
- □ Explain one layout, template, Alpine.js, Tailwind, or content security policy decision you personally made.
- □ Name the routes and states you would inspect before estimating.
- □ Explain how you keep custom code maintainable through upgrades.
Backend and integration
- □ Explain a storefront change that exposed a backend or data-contract problem.
- □ Describe how you test payment, shipping, tax, fraud, search, account, or pricing failure modes.
- □ Show where responsibility ends between the theme, module, service, and buyer.
- □ Explain how a fallback path affects scripts, styling, analytics, and testing.
Quality and performance
- □ Separate lab performance from real-user Core Web Vitals.
- □ Explain test pages, devices, networks, percentiles, windows, and third-party script assumptions.
- □ Describe keyboard, screen-reader, zoom, contrast, motion, and error-state checks.
- □ Show how a defect becomes release evidence or an accepted exception.
Release and handover
- □ Walk through rehearsal, go or no-go, monitoring, rollback, and stabilization.
- □ Name the documents and access records handed to the buyer.
- □ Explain what happens if you leave the pod before completion.
- □ Describe one past decision you would make differently and why.
Make the work reviewable from scope to support
Each handoff needs an owner, reviewer, stored artifact, and acceptance rule. A meeting without a retained artifact is not a complete handoff.
| Handoff | Prepared by | Reviewed by | Stored evidence and acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and current-state baseline | ________________ | ________________ | Location: ____________________ Accepted when: ____________________ |
| Architecture and compatibility register | ________________ | ________________ | Location: ____________________ Accepted when: ____________________ |
| Designs, components, states, and content rules | ________________ | ________________ | Location: ____________________ Accepted when: ____________________ |
| Frontend and backend changes | ________________ | ________________ | Location: ____________________ Accepted when: ____________________ |
| Regression, accessibility, and performance evidence | ________________ | ________________ | Location: ____________________ Accepted when: ____________________ |
| Release rehearsal, cutover, and rollback record | ________________ | ________________ | Location: ____________________ Accepted when: ____________________ |
| Documentation, access, IP, and support handover | ________________ | ________________ | Location: ____________________ Accepted when: ____________________ |
Combine roles carefully
A compact pod is normal. The risk appears when one person prepares, approves, tests, and releases the same high-risk change without independent review.
Substitution rule
- □ Minimum notice: __________________
- □ Buyer approval required before access: __________________
- □ Equal or better evidence rule: __________________
- □ Required overlap and knowledge transfer: __________________
- □ Cost and schedule effect owner: __________________
Final coverage check
- □ Every required function has a named owner.
- □ Each proposed person has inspectable evidence.
- □ Allocation covers the milestone plan.
- □ High-risk work has independent review.
- □ Every handoff has an artifact and acceptance owner.
- □ Replacement and offboarding are written.
Carry the named owners into compatibility and the SOW
The same role names should appear in the compatibility register, acceptance matrix, release plan, and final contract. Do not replace them with a generic word such as “team.”
Compatibility next
Use the extension and checkout compatibility checklist to assign each module, route, and decision to the technical and test owners named here.
Contract next
Use the Hyvä pod SOW worksheet to carry the names, allocation, substitution, acceptance, release, IP, documentation, and handover duties into contract language.
Source notes
The technical skill prompts use current official Hyvä documentation. The role and handoff structure is an editorial buyer framework, not a Hyvä staffing rule.
- Hyvä certification documentation
- Hyvä Professional Developer certification topics
- Hyvä compatibility module guidance
- Hyvä Enterprise installation and compatibility guidance
A certification belongs to an individual and has no expiration date, but it shows the pass year. Company-level partner status and case evidence do not prove who will be assigned, their current availability, or their personal responsibility on a past project.